WHO Declares Bacon a Carcinogen

To quote a famous TV chef:

"Pork fat rules!"

Bacon: Gimmee summa that second-hand smoke.

Why don't they just give us a list of stuff that's not carcinogenic? It'd probably be shorter.

It's a doctor's job to tell us how to live as long of a life as possible. It's up to us to decide how to live as happy a life as possible. There are plenty of things (even exercise) that can definitely kill someone. I'd rather eat in moderation, exercise and take the chance.

Because until now, everyone thought bacon was good for you...

“That sounds quite technical, but what it means is that IARC isn’t in the business of telling us how potent something is in causing cancer – only whether it does so or not”, he says.

Click to expand...

I can save them the trouble.

Everything causes cancer.

Being alive is the number one cause of death in the world.

kuwisdelu said:

I can save them the trouble.

Everything causes cancer.

Click to expand...

This is actually true, since the longer we're alive, the more likely we are to develop the requisite mutations in cells somewhere in our body. The normal wear and tear of living is a major risk factor. But that doesn't mean some things don't cause them to add up faster than others.

The studies about processed meats being linked to stomach, intestinal, and esophageal cancers etc. have been mounting for the past several years, so this is really just the WHO formalizing what the scientific community has been saying for quite some time.

I'm wondering if the culprit is nitrates and nitrites, which are in a lot of processed and "smoked" and salted meats as a preservative. I'm curious whether naturally salted, smoked and pickled foods (without the nitrates and nitrites) are as dangerous.

Of course, cooking food at all is carcinogenic too. Browning and toasting starchy foods like bread and potatoes creates acrylamide, which is nasty. So toast and french fries are carcinogenic too, and as far as red meat goes, well done is more carcinogenic than medium rare, because well-cooked/browned meat contains more heterocyclic amines.

Our distant ancestors didn't cook, didn't hang out around smokey campfires, didn't expose themselves to many of the mutagenic chemicals that we do, and they probably got a lot less cancer. However, they still died younger, because they got illnesses and infections from uncooked food, and they had to deal with lean years in terms of food (which they couldn't store against famine as effectively). And a huge thing for people eating all-raw and un-preserved foods (aside from more exposure to pathogens) was when their teeth wore out they couldn't eat at all.

Roxxsmom said:

Browning and toasting starchy foods like bread and potatoes creates acrylamide, which is nasty.

Click to expand...

That's true. It's absolutely vile. That's why I cover the malevolent crap with a nice dusting of salt and monosodium glutamate. Works every time.

Clearly, we need to go back to eating meat raw.

Rufus Coppertop said:

That's true. It's absolutely vile. That's why I cover the malevolent crap with a nice dusting of salt and monosodium glutamate. Works every time.

Click to expand...

Mmmm--toasted potato skins with cheddar cheese, chives, bacon, and sour cream (drool).

kuwisdelu said:

Clearly, we need to go back to eating meat raw.

Click to expand...

I'm almost there with regards to beef and lamb. Not so much with ground beef, chicken and pork. E-coli, salmonella and trichinosis squick me out. I've never cared for charred, though.

Roxxsmom said:

I'm wondering if the culprit is nitrates and nitrites, which are in a lot of processed and "smoked" and salted meats as a preservative. I'm curious whether naturally salted, smoked and pickled foods (without the nitrates and nitrites) are as dangerous.

Click to expand...

The leading suspected cause of the carcinogenic part of cured meats is the curing itself which generates aromatic cyclical hydrocarbons. That is, chemicals (think benzenes) which have a vague semblance to simple sugars.

Amadan said:

Because until now, everyone thought bacon was good for you...

Click to expand...

Yes, who knew?

Actually, this is sort of old news. Everyone assumed bacon and processed meats increase the risk of colon cancer among other things. This new study just says, "why yes, it really is true."

And yes, it's put in the same class as cigarette smoking, but it was made very clear that it is obviously not nearly as potent a carcinogenic factor.

But honestly, if you eat bacon every day of your life, you really are asking for trouble down the line.

Meh. What does Daltrey know, anyhoo?

rugcat said:

Yes, who knew?

Actually, this is sort of old news. Everyone assumed bacon and processed meats increase the risk of colon cancer among other things. This new study just says, "why yes, it really is true."

And yes, it's put in the same class as cigarette smoking, but it was made very clear that it is obviously not nearly as potent a carcinogenic factor.

But honestly, if you eat bacon every day of your life, you really are asking for trouble down the line.

Click to expand...

My Grandfather was born and raised in Appalachian mountains, worked in the coal mines for 20some years, smoked a cigar and ate a pound of bacon every day. He died at 103.
I herby declare the WHO blasphemers.

Tough. I say we'll die when we die and that's all there is to it. We have a fellow at work who's over 70, smokes two packs of cigarrettes a day and eats nothing but macaroni with hot dogs. And he's tying and fabbing rebar. Hackin' out half a lung every few seconds, to be sure. But damnit, if he ain't twice as fast as most of the younger guys.

Roxxsmom said:

I'm wondering if the culprit is nitrates and nitrites, which are in a lot of processed and "smoked" and salted meats as a preservative. I'm curious whether naturally salted, smoked and pickled foods (without the nitrates and nitrites) are as dangerous.

Click to expand...

I fall into the amateur foodie category, so my comments should be taken in that context. Hubby couldn't eat something that was "smoked" or preserved with nitrites and nitrates, until I started my own smoking. I researched quantities and pros and cons about smoking and preserving and guess what? Hubby can eat my chorizo, but not those from the shop. I put that down to the quantities of nitrite I used - I followed the recipes to the exact gram. For those curious, hot smoking is done at 80 deg C, the exact temperature where botulism grows, so you need nitrites to prevent that. That is only for sausages, but commercial manufacturers throw it into everything. So my little one-subject experiment told me that there is TOO MUCH in the products we buy over the counter and I think that is the biggest problem - TOO MUCH.

So let me get off my

Milenio said:

So my little one-subject experiment told me that there is TOO MUCH in the products we buy over the counter and I think that is the biggest problem - TOO MUCH.

So let me get off my

Click to expand...

I'm guessing they use more because they want the food to keep a lot longer and under less predictable conditions after it's smoked.

I'm assuming that they used other things besides nitrates to inhibit the growth of bad bacteria during smoking in the old days--other salts, sugar solutions and so on. Pickling, of course, encourages the growth of acid-producing bacteria that inhibit the growth of the ones that cause spoilage and food poisoning, but I don't think they're as reliable for mass production. So they use a lot more chemicals in processed food.

But there is a pick your poison thing going on, because as stated earlier, even cooking food makes it more carcinogenic. But raw food has plenty of risk factors too.

And as an aside, do you know they cooked lettuce in the olden days? Nice, crisp, green salads are actually kind of a modern thing.

If there's one thing that we can learn from this, it's that most of us just don't understand risk.

Roxxsmom said:

I'm guessing they use more because they want the food to keep a lot longer and under less predictable conditions after it's smoked.

Click to expand...

My guess is they can't be bothered with exact measurements, because more doesn't make it last longer. If you leave a piece of meat out in the sun, no matter how much preservatives you have in it, it will spoil.

Roxxsmom said:

I'm assuming that they used other things besides nitrates to inhibit the growth of bad bacteria during smoking in the old days--other salts, sugar solutions and so on. Pickling, of course, encourages the growth of acid-producing bacteria that inhibit the growth of the ones that cause spoilage and food poisoning, but I don't think they're as reliable for mass production. So they use a lot more chemicals in processed food.

Click to expand...

Yes, in the old days, there was natural fermentation. There is a big movement now to go back to those practices (I myself make naturally fermented vegetables, such as kim chi and sauerkraut. The natural bacteria is the good stuff we get in yoghurt. And you're right, it cannot be reliably produced (I don't think) with mass production methods.

Roxxsmom said:

But there is a pick your poison thing going on, because as stated earlier, even cooking food makes it more carcinogenic. But raw food has plenty of risk factors too.

And as an aside, do you know they cooked lettuce in the olden days? Nice, crisp, green salads are actually kind of a modern thing.

Click to expand...

Well, there are a few recipes for lettuce soup. I haven't tried it yet, but it does look intriguing.

Milenio said:

My guess is they can't be bothered with exact measurements, because more doesn't make it last longer. If you leave a piece of meat out in the sun, no matter how much preservatives you have in it, it will spoil.

Click to expand...

Don't they sun dry meat in some places?

Looked it up. Yes, they do. Not sure how they keep it from rotting. They did say there are some risks of contamination.

Well, there are a few recipes for lettuce soup. I haven't tried it yet, but it does look intriguing.

Click to expand...

I never had any taste for canned spinach, so I can't help thinking that cooked lettuce would be at least as slimy.

Irish Whiskey said:

Tough. I say we'll die when we die and that's all there is to it. We have a fellow at work who's over 70, smokes two packs of cigarrettes a day and eats nothing but macaroni with hot dogs. And he's tying and fabbing rebar. Hackin' out half a lung every few seconds, to be sure. But damnit, if he ain't twice as fast as most of the younger guys.

Click to expand...

I remember reading somewhere that there's actually a genetic variant where the person is unusually resistant to oxidative damage to their cells from many of the things we normally consider carcinogenic and otherwise harmful. These individuals tend to come from families where people living to 100 or longer is common.

Here's a link discussing this. For living to a reasonably ripe old age (say 90), genes have some influence, but it's fairly modest. But for people who live past 95 or so, genetics seem to play a much greater role in their longevity. There have been about 150 or so genes that appear to have an influence on people's chances of living to an extreme old age. So if you have several close relatives who made it past 95-100, then you might be better able than most to resist the cell damage caused by smoking etc.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/419637/genes-for-extreme-longevity/

One of my grandmas lived to 97, but the other grandparents died younger of various things that might have been preventable, and might not have killed them if they lived now. But they probably didn't have super age genes. Looking at my family tree, I don't see any reason to believe that I've inherited this particular genetic superpower. So not smoking, not working unprotected in hazardous environments, and limiting my intake of certain foods seems prudent if I want to maximize my odds of a long, healthy life.

There are also genes, of course, that do the opposite--predispose people to develop diseases like cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes at earlier-than-average ages. They're not destiny either, but a healthy lifestyle tends can help keep their effects at bay longer.

Helix said:

If there's one thing that we can learn from this, it's that most of us just don't understand risk.

Click to expand...

Risk is relatively easy to understand. It's just expected loss.

Hazard is fucking weird to understand. Instantaneous failure rate?

How the fuck do I think about that?

If you want to talk about something people don't understand, then what probably annoys me the most is how many people don't realize that odds and probability are different things.



And then there's all the conditional probability stuff...