Bacon and ham sold in the UK should carry cigarette-style labels warning that chemicals in them cause bowel cancer, scientists say.

Their demand comes as they criticise successive British governments for doing “virtually nothing” to reduce the risk from nitrites in the decade since they were found to definitely cause cancer.

Saturday marks a decade since the World Health Organization in October 2015 declared processed meat declared processed meat to be carcinogenic to humans, putting it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.

  • Redex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 days ago

    I’ll copy some of the answers from the WHO Q&A linked in the post:

    Processed meat was classified in the same category as tobacco and asbestos, does that mean they’re equally carcinogenic?

    No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.

    How many cancer cases per year?

    According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

    Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.

    These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

    How much is the risk of cancer increased?

    The consumption of processed meat was associated with small increases in the risk of cancer in the studies reviewed. In those studies, the risk generally increased with the amount of meat consumed. An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.

    The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.

    • buzzyburke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      278g a day equals 100% cancer im fked thats less than a pound ive eaten that much bacon or ham in a sitting so many times

  • shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Is the UK going to start putting cancer labels on Gin, Scotch Whisky, ale and cider? Because alcohol is not just a proven carcinogen but also toxic to a number of organs and a huge public health problem. It is a much, much larger health problem than bacon. The anti-meat lobby is extremely passionate about their cause. They have some strong arguments about the ethics of factory farming and the environmental impacts but it does make any proposal like this suspect because you just know that some of the proponents are more concerned about the ethics of meat eating than the health impacts.

  • spearz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 days ago

    In the UK (not sure about anywhere else) you can buy bacon without Nitrates. ‘Naked Bacon’ is in sainsburys, tesco, etc. Been buying it for years.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’ve gotten pizza with “uncured” bacon, ham, or sausage before. I’m not sure if the meat has no flavor or if it was the pizza tha had no flavor.

        However I expect the pizza itself was worse for me than those specific ingredients

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            At one point I looked into making jerky. It’s reasonable for people to do their own.

            The big question is whether to use curing salts. They’re necessary if you want to be shelf stable. If you don’t use them, you need to refrigerate your jerky and it has limited shelf life, like any other food. However in that scenario, you have the advantage of fresher ingredients with a quality of your selection that may make up for it.

            You don’t get that from store bought uncured meat

            • 1985MustangCobra@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              yeah my grandfather uses somthing else for curing his meats. he used to use curing salts but he stopped using that after the doctor told him to stop consuming so much nitrates and tbh it tastes the same to me but i know that it needs to be vaccumed packed so it doesnt spoil, and in the fridge, but thats a better trade off for nitrates.

  • CatsPajamas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    I mean … They cause cancer. We literally know they do. It should at least be fucking STATED. Like come the fuck on

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    7 days ago

    Who cares anymore, life is so depressing and the future so bleak that it doesn’t matter. By the time the average person will get cancer from bacon we’ll be dead from fascism.

  • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    WARNING: Bacon contains chemicals known to the UK Government to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

    So it’s fine if I just don’t eat the bacon in the UK? Then I am safe!

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      A bunch of the stuff I buy has CA cancer warnings on it. When you start putting the warnings on common things, it makes the warnings meaningless…

      Do any of the things I buy have a notable chance to cause caner? I have no fucking clue, because everything causes cancer in California.

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        That’s something I’ve noticed too. There’s not really any information about what parts of something to avoid or what the risk is or how you’d come into contact with it, but I remember seeing it everywhere when I lived there too, and I was like

        “Everything in California including California is known to the state of California to cause cancer and reproductive harm.”

        I’m not saying it shouldn’t be there at all, but at least wish it was a bit more like Material Safety Data Sheets that gives a bit more understanding to what you’re getting into by interacting with various things.

    • webp@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yeah but imagine having to explain to your daughter at breakfast, “Daddy, what’s that on the label? What’s cancer?”

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        “Don’t worry about it, honey. This is just more government bullshit, like with COVID and Brexit. The Muslims are trying to make eating pork illegal. Have an extra portion. Don’t let them tell you what to do.”

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          This is just more government bullshit

          Just like the California cancer label that is on everything, if you put this label on common shit like bacon, then yes, “it’s just more government bullshit” is exactly how the vast majority of people will treat it.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            I’ve seen the “California cancer label” line get tossed around. And its beginning to sound a lot like the “McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit” line, which was - itself - a dishonest mischaracterization of a severe injury caused by corporate neglect.

            I’d say it cuts both ways. If you label everything “hazardous”, you’re absolutely right. The term loses all meaning. But, at the same time, if we live in a marketplace where everything is hazardous then the theory “we’ll just put a label on it and let the consumer decide” of patriarchal libertarianism falls apart. What is supposed to be informative becomes little more than marketing material.

            The real problem is industrial. Mass production of stuff that delivers a short-term jolt of pleasure at a long term health cost, because the manufacturers consider it more profitable than releasing products with a shorter shelf life or a lower addictive quality or a more expensive production cost.

            Oops, now everything needs a label, because the folks producing this shit don’t care that all their products are horrible.

      • usagi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Makes sense, but I wonder if hiding it just makes people less aware overall Probably not a conversation for your child at breakfast though

      • 1985MustangCobra@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’m telling you now, if they do this, with the current political climate, people will goto farms that don’t use “woke” labeling (god I hate that word)

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s theoretically possible, some experts think no level of radiation is “safe”. Yet, it’s so improbable that the risk of developing cancer from a single banana is indistinguishable from background noise. You get a far higher dose of radiation just from living on earth.

      This fun infographic from xkcd shows a comparison of doses, and just how low a banana ranks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose#/media/File:Radiation_Dose_Chart_by_Xkcd.png

      It would have to be the “perfect shot” of a particle hitting a cell to cause DNA damage that wasn’t repairable. And you would need to be extremely immunocompromised.

      If you were in such a position to get cancer from eating a single banana, you would likely already get it from living life.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Well I just looked it up. Looks like nitrites are in salad. So its official, salad causes cancer. I fucking knew it. So we are going to put cigarrette style warnings on salad now, right?

    Foods High in Nitrates

    Nitrates are naturally occurring compounds found in various foods, particularly vegetables. They can also be added to certain processed foods. Here’s a breakdown of foods that contain nitrates:

    Natural Sources of Nitrates

    The majority of dietary nitrates come from vegetables. Here are some key examples:

    VEGETABLE NITRATE CONTENT (PER 100G)

    Spinach ~741 mg

    Lettuce Varies, generally high

    Beets Varies, generally high

    Celery Varies, generally high

    Carrots Varies, generally high

    Cabbage Varies, generally high

    Radishes Varies, generally high

    Processed Foods with Added Nitrates

    Certain processed meats have nitrates added for preservation and flavor. Common examples include:

    Bacon

    Hot dogs

    Salami

    Sausages

    Deli meats (e.g., ham, bologna)

    • Jokulhlaups@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Not really. Veggies do contain nitrates, but that’s not the same as the nitrites used in processed meat. In vegetables, nitrates come with antioxidants like vitamin C and polyphenols that prevent the formation of nitrosamines (the actual carcinogenic compounds). In bacon or cured meat, the combination of nitrites, proteins, and heat can create nitrosamines. Veggie nitrates are generally linked to better cardiovascular health, not cancer.

    • devnev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      First search result on Nitrates:

      Studies show that eating vegetables rich in natural nitrates can help reduce your risk of getting some chronic health conditions, whereas eating foods high in added nitrates can cause health risks. Why is that?

      Experts think that the antioxidants (such as vitamin C) in vegetables with high nitrates help prevent their breakdown into nitrosamines.

  • v_krishna@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    7 days ago

    It’s been working its way through California courts since the 2015 WHO guidelines said processed meats are carcinogenic. Under Prop 65 that should have triggered immediately labeling processed meats as “Known to the State of California to cause cancer” (like we already have on any charred food, parking garages, etc) but because reasons a decade later I think it is still being adjudicated.

    • turdcollector69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s pointless because California standards are so stringent that literally everything has a prop 65 warning on it.

      It’s completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        That’s not why. It’s because it’s cheaper for a manufacturer of your widget to just slap a Prop 65 label on anything and everything out of an overabundance of caution rather than go through all the testing and certification required to verify if there is or isn’t any such material in the product. There’s no penalty for false positives, so to remain “complaint” suddenly every manufactured good on Earth suddenly sprouted the warning.

        • Kirp123@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          7 days ago

          I mean that doesn’t really invalidate their point. If you can just slap it on anything you want then it’s not really serving any purpose, it’s not informing anyone.

          • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I would argue it is an important distinction, though.

            The original statement implies that there is a problem in how California classifies what constitutes a risk.

            That comment claims that it’s manufacturers being lazy.

            If it’s manufacturers being lazy, then the issue is the regulation is too relaxed, allowing them to just bypass the regulation by slapping pointless stickers on things (like websites try to do with cookie banners)

            If the actual requirements to not need the sticker are so stringent that everything with the label actually does need it, then there’s a problem with the level of danger listed and the regulation is too onerous.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        7 days ago

        It really needs to specify the carcinogens and what they’re used as. There’s a huge difference between “this product uses a 30% lead solder in internal components” and “adhesives used in this product may offgas formaldehyde”

        • sobchak@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yeah, that could also provide an incentive for companies to produce stuff in ways that reduce carcinogens, yet still have some amount. I think traditional bacon that doesn’t use synthetic curing salts contain less nitrates, for example.

          • turdcollector69@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            7 days ago

            Lmao a carcinogen tier list would unironically be fantastic because it would help me gauge the relative risk.

            I just feel like putting evering into one big bucket is lazy as fuck and doesn’t really help anyone.

            • piecat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Often times it’s cheaper to add the label than pay for the product testing in a lab.

        • turdcollector69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yes!! Thank you for getting it. I have no issues with labeling carcinogens but we really need to distinguish between agents that are harmful at the ppm and the ppb levels.

          There’s an entire axis that differs by orders of magnitude that is being ignored and it’s incredibly detrimental to the whole system.

          This list sucks because it lacks meaningful information and is just eventually going to be a list of every compound in the known universe.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 days ago

            There’s magnitude and that’s important but the big thing about what, where, how is that it tells me how to protect myself and others from it. If my metal shim is an alloy containing lead, I need to wash my hands after touching it, use breathing protection and air filtration if I grind it, and cover it in the final version of the product. If it’s made in a facility that also processes lead, I can just wash it and it’ll be fine. If it may contain trace lead from ore deposits I don’t have to care. Meanwhile internal components that don’t offgas just means I’m fine if I don’t open it up

            • turdcollector69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 days ago

              Exactly, just slapping a “warning cancer” label on literally everything does absolutely nothing to help me actually protect myself.

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.

        Agreed I bought a fender telecaster (black cherry starburst, so sexy) and it had a prop 65 sticker on it. Absolutely rediculous and meaningless

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Oh boy, can’t wait to see right wing screeches about Muslim takeover of UK.

    IMO every food should have cancer rating in the nutrition facts, cause it’s not black and white.

      • Aggravationstation@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        A lot of right wing nutters in the UK claim that Muslims are trying to take over the country and make everyone follow Sharia law, which doesn’t allow eating pork. Spouting off online that this move is part of that conspiracy would be very on brand for them. Much like Alex Jones’ “making the frogs gay” tirade.

  • Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    Look mate.

    In this cold, bleak and heartless blasted hell of an existence this is one of the few genuine pleasures I have guilt free.