Stop Adding Cancer-Causing Chemicals To Bacon, Experts Tell Meat Industry (theguardian.com) 302
The reputation of the meat industry will sink to that of big tobacco unless it removes cancer-causing chemicals from processed products such as bacon and ham, a coalition of experts and politicians in UK warn this week. From a report: Led by Professor Chris Elliott, the food scientist who ran the UK government's investigation into the horse-meat scandal, and Dr Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, the coalition claims there is a "consensus of scientific opinion" that the nitrites used to cure meats produce carcinogens called nitrosamines when ingested. It says there is evidence that consumption of processed meats containing these chemicals results in 6,600 bowel cancer cases every year in the UK -- four times the fatalities on British roads -- and is campaigning for the issue to be taken as seriously as sugar levels in food.
"Government action to remove nitrites from processed meats should not be far away," Malhotra said. "Nor can a day of reckoning for those who dispute the incontrovertible facts. The meat industry must act fast, act now -- or be condemned to a similar reputational blow to that dealt to tobacco." [...] In a statement issued today, the coalition warns "that not enough is being done to raise awareness of nitrites in our processed meat and their health risks, in stark contrast to warnings regularly issued regarding sugar and fattening foods."
"Government action to remove nitrites from processed meats should not be far away," Malhotra said. "Nor can a day of reckoning for those who dispute the incontrovertible facts. The meat industry must act fast, act now -- or be condemned to a similar reputational blow to that dealt to tobacco." [...] In a statement issued today, the coalition warns "that not enough is being done to raise awareness of nitrites in our processed meat and their health risks, in stark contrast to warnings regularly issued regarding sugar and fattening foods."
I think the study came out last April (Score:3)
Not sure if this is breaking news.
Re:I think the study came out last April (Score:5, Interesting)
I was taught this in second year Organic Chemistry...in 1978.
We were told you needed two things: beer and meat pizza.
The nitrites were in the meat in the pizza.
The beer provided the amines.
Combine the two and you get the nitrosamines.
Pretty unforgettable lesson.
BTW, it is not really surprising this is only coming out now. Chicken feed contained an arsenic compound...for forty years.
Come to think of it, 1978+40=2018.
Re:I think the study came out last April (Score:5, Informative)
You also learned that ascorbic acid will bind up most of it in the stomach too, then. Which is why most meat manufacturers add Vitamin C to their products.
But that makes for a boring headline in The DaIly Anecdote.
Re: (Score:3)
Horse shit, you're an idiot if you think they're adding shit for health reasons, as if food processors are Mother Teresa.
They add ascorbic acid as a preservative. They're required to add stuff to prevent spoilage. They use ascorbic acid because it is cheap and people don't complain.
Also, it is well established that Americans who eat processed meat have a higher rate of colon cancer. It isn't a theoretical harm that might not exist, because [some stupid theory that doesn't explain the increased cancer rate].
Sugar... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
When you read the words "new theory" and you're not an academic researching in the same field, you should ignore it, because that means it isn't yet well-established.
When you see words like "new theory" next to words that talk about the speaker's qualifications, you should understand that you're being sold something. If there was something newly considered proven, the appeal would be to a published study and the published studies that verified it, not to the letters next to a speaker's name.
Don't be credulo
Did something change? (Score:5, Interesting)
IS there any alternative to nitrates/ites? My understanding is the alternative to nitrates is botulism.
Either that or lying about nitrate content. I've NEVER seen "nitrate free" meat that wasn't lying with fine print: "..except that which naturally occurs in celery powder" is the same thing as "contains no salt, except that which naturally occurs in seawater."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did something change? (Score:5, Interesting)
Modern meat-processing is clean and cold enough that there is no longer any case for using sodium-nitrite to prevent botulism.
The real reason for using nitrite is that it makes the meat products red -- making meat look like how consumers are used to.
Meat without nitrite is more grey, which looks less appetising.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that this is a factor historically; Alton Brown talked about it on his corned beef episode. That said, I thought they were using carbon monoxide for redness these days.
Re:Did something change? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's for fresh meat, not cured. Bacon stays colored during cooking (as does ham)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not used to prevent botulism. It's used so that meat doesn't turn brownish-gray.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I was not aware of the color-angle.
Re: Did something change? (Score:2)
Re:Did something change? (Score:5, Informative)
IS there any alternative to nitrates/ites? My understanding is the alternative to nitrates is botulism.
From Wikipedia: "While meat-preservation processes like curing were mainly developed in order to prevent disease and to increase food security, the advent of modern preservation methods mean that in most developed countries today curing is instead mainly practised for its cultural value and desirable impact on the texture and taste of food. For lesser-developed countries, curing remains a key process in the production, transport and availability of meat."
Curing in the developed world is not needed for safe food. It is used purely for taste and aesthetics. Of course, this is obvious. The same cuts of meat are commonly eaten in non-cured forms (either with artificial nitrate of celery-based nitrate) with no fears of botulism or other illnesses.
The big question is whether people are willing to eat gray hot dogs. Maybe we can swap out the nitrates with red food coloring ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think virtually everything we do to make food taste good was originally used for preservation or to hide off flavors. Pickling, salting, smoking, drying, cooking, sweetening, fermenting, culturing? whatever yogurt/cheese making is, and spicing all have preservative benefits or control how the food ages. About the only common practices that hurt shelf life are those that reduce food to smaller pieces, e.g. milling.
As I said earlier, we can keep meat red with carbon monoxide, although I'm not well informed on how well it works.
I always understood that the spicing and all of that was more to cover up flavors in instances where the meat had started to turn but was still edible as opposed to preserving the meat itself. Except of course for salt, which does preserve the meat.
Re:Preservation (Score:2)
Thats true, but a core dilemma is that traditional curing is a drying process. Where the alternative is salt coating and air drying. Possibly less salt and heating to dry.
While a lot of meat contains nitrates for preservation or for food colouring.
There is a big difference between a cured ham thats dry by process, and a mixed dough of raw meat thats needs a lot of preservatives to be stored for 1-3 weeks of shelf life from production. There is a even bigger difference between half baked, baked and raw meat
Re: (Score:2)
You had me at bacon... (Score:2)
I'm a bit surprised this study didn't blow up social media when it came out. I mean, bacon, cats, and the Kardashians are 90% of the interwebs.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought porn was 90% of the interwebs. Unless there's some overlap with bacon, cats, and/or the Kardashians. I reject your reality and substitute my own!
Re: (Score:2)
Religion actually ties them together. You know, the story about the beast with two back bacons.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm...bacon porn.....
Re: (Score:2)
Leave the Kardashians and their large butts out of this...although personally I think they've bellied up to the bacon bar more often than is good for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, no up votes for this quippy thread on bacon. I guess we will all be looking at Slashdot ads this week.
No real evidence (Score:2, Interesting)
There's no real evidence that nitrate cause cancer, if anything it's useful to prevent foodborn illness like botulism.
Most studies that link nitrate to cancer have been disproved by other studies.
This isn't a clear open and shut case like cigarettes were.
To me, this is like people trying to convince us that GMOs are bad when there's hundreds of studies that prove they aren't but a handful that says "well maybe it could cause cancer in a very specific and unrealistic scenario on mice and human cells samples
Re:No real evidence (Score:5, Informative)
GMO activists aren't telling you that nitrites cause cancer, the scientists are.
Show me a scientific body that says nitrites are safe, not some health magazine or a "nutritionist".
The link isn't new and the concerns haven't abated at all.
There are always studies that go both ways in everything. An average Joe isn't equipped to weigh the evidence and understand the scientific consensus.
The industry also frequently tries to muddy the waters saying that the evidence is a wash.
Re:No real evidence (Score:5, Informative)
There's no real evidence that nitrate cause cancer, if anything it's useful to prevent foodborn illness like botulism.
Most studies that link nitrate to cancer have been disproved by other studies.
A number of consensus studies recently, such as those cited in the paper that the article is about, claim that there IS substantial evidence that nitrates cause cancer.
What is your evidence for your claim that "There's no real evidence that nitrate causes cancer."? Are you an expert in the field?
It appears to me that the experts claiming that there IS evidence have so far provided substantially more evidence for their point of view than you have.
Saying there's "no real evidence" sounds a lot like the No true scotsman [wikipedia.org] fallacy.
Disregarding the consensus view of experts in a scientific field is something that should be done with great caution, and preferably with strong evidence of some kind, not just skepticism.
Re: No real evidence (Score:2, Interesting)
Might want to read that article, because the studies were talking about processed meats, with only a suspicion that it was due to nitrates. The only study that was specifically looking at nitrates was looking at mental health issues. The studies are weak in that they largely rely on self-reporting consumption and exercise. High levels of salt and sugar are other possible issues, as is a correlation between high processed food in the diet and generally poor diet and exercise.
If we were to take their studies
Re:No real evidence (Score:4, Funny)
When you threaten the source of toxins, the neckbeard takes control of the host and releases chemicals into their brain that makes them feel as if the toxin is the mother they wished they had. They'll fight to the death for whatever cause their neckbeard tells them to support.
There is no reliable cure, even if there are anecdotal examples of somebody overcoming a neckbeard infection.
Come up with a way to make a ban work first (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.
The only way I can see this working is like how we recommend how much fish you should eat because of the different amounts of mercury they contain. Come up with a list of the maximum amount of a food you should eat in a week due to the nitrites they contain. Bacon, hot dogs, celery, cabbage, carrots, spinach, beets, etc. And publish those as health advisories.
Here's an explaination (Score:5, Insightful)
TL;DR; cooking a high protein food at high heat is what makes them cancerous.
I should add (Score:2)
To be fair I don't care much for meat (I've got a weak sense of taste and mostly pick up on texture in foods so meat's kinda bleah to me).
Re: (Score:3)
So let's make this clear, having read that study. Cows were being fed rancid herring, which not only has higher nitrate levels, but also a variety of toxins produced by the meat going rancid. But it's the nitrates that caused liver cancer, and not the liver processing the high levels of toxins that were also present and in turn killing the liver. Especially since it showed that the liver had no problems processing the levels and simply passing it directly into the kidney's and intestines.
Does this make a
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't heard of it either, but there is plenty of precedent for the initial observation that triggers an investigation being a bit off the wall.
It's not like the investigation stopped with cows and expired herring.
Re: Here's an explaination (Score:2)
That was interesting. So boiling a hot dog would be fine, carbonizing the outside over a campfire not so much. And the Christmas ham roasted at 325 F in a covered pan should be fine too.
A possible nitrosamine is still better than botulism though.
Aren't nitrates mostly to preserve color? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we tried to ban grilled/seared steak, New York would secede!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When you use celery juice in natural cured bacon, you are not adding any nitrates. However when celery juice interacts with the meat over time,. it breaks down into a concentration of nitrates that is 4 times the legal limit of just adding nitrates. However since this is "naturally occurring" as part of celery, it's not banned or regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point you have to accept that lots of naturally-occurring substances can kill you. And stop going on witch hunts against things just because they have a scary name that you don't recognize even though you've been eating, breathing, or rolling around in it all your life.
We should go back to putting radium in chocolate. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com] to give you an inner glow. After all it's naturally-occurring right?
The point is not a witch hunt. It's a continuously evolving understanding. It's an industry adapting. it's the present adapting to new information. Nitrites are NOT needed to process meat, celery extract or otherwise. Just because some people eat celery doesn't mean you shouldn't also ban this entirely preventable and nonsensical ingredient being put into me
Re:Come up with a way to make a ban work first (Score:4, Informative)
Agree with your general point, but this whole discussion seems to be a little confused about nitrates vs nitrites vs nitrosamines, so a quick chemistry overview for some clarity:
Nitrates (most oxidized form) -> nitrites (two-electron reduction of nitrate. Outside of industrial processes only occurs biologically by the bacterial enzyme nitrate reductase) -> Nitrosamines (reaction of nitrites with secondary amines. Requires heat and/or acidic conditions. These are generally stable compounds.) -> Hydroxylated nitrosamines (Unstable intermediate formed by enzymatic processes that mostly occur in the liver) -> Nitronium cation (spontaneous breakdown of the hydroxylated nitrosamine. Cation is an alkylating agent that can modify DNA.) -> DNA damage -> DNA repair or cancer
The basic gist here is to illustrate that there is clear mechanistic reasoning behind the notion that nitrates have a cancer risk associated with them. But it also illustrates that the transformation is complex and there are multiple ways for harm to be mitigated long before a cancer risk is ever truly a risk.
For example,
Sodium nitrite in food cooked at high temperature with high protein content -> skips step 1 and facilitates direct production of nitrosamines that get ingested and transformed in the liver
Sodium nitrate plus antioxidants -> hinders production of both nitrites and nitrosamines -> lower risk of being transformed in the liver
Nitrates in vegetables -> typically have low protein content and lots of antioxidants, so low risk of producing nitrites or nitrosamines
Celery juice -> naturally occurring nitrates -> no intrinsic risk of being converted to nitrites, especially if antioxidants are also present
Celery powder -> evaporated celery juice (same as above)
Cultured celery powder -> celery juice that is treated with bacteria and then evaporated -> this causes the nitrates to be converted to nitrites (by the bacteria) and presents a direct path to nitrosamine production if used to treat high protein content foods (aka meats)
Bacon -> depending on above may have varying levels of nitrites or nitrosamines present after cooking, but generally low levels overall -> likely a low cancer risk, but may present a higher risk depending on frequency of consumption and other dietary factors
Celery, arugula, beets -> high in nitrates, but no nitrites or nitrosamines present, even when cooked in the presence of meats (ex: stews) -> low, probably non-existent, cancer risk
Cigarette smoke -> high concentration of nitrosamines inhaled directly into the lungs -> the nitrosamines still have to make their way to the liver, but represents a moderately high risk of cancer, especially considering the often habitual and frequent nature of smoking
Frozen bacon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would likely be frozen pork belly without any nitrates or nitrates. What do you think curing is? You can use just salt but it takes a lot longer.
Re: (Score:2)
They already sell uncured bacon, and I've frozen it myself for later use. It keeps more than long enough that the only benefit to buying it already frozen is that you don't have to spend the energy to do so at home. It would cost more to ship frozen, though, so you'd pay anyway.
The bellies are smoked and then cured with only time, then sliced into "uncured" bacon.
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing as uncured bacon - that's just pork belly. It's a misnomer that the FDA forces on companies who sell meat cured with celery juice or other forms of nitrate that don't come directly from a mineral salt. One that's used to intentionally mislead consumers too, but since it's forced by law there is no recourse.
More FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Back when the UNs IARC labelled processed meats as carcinogenic the good Dr Carroll (professor at IU Medical School) pointed out that the actual risk of eating significantly more bacon than you used to is rather small. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Nitrites/nitrates not natural? Really? (Score:2)
Nitrates and nitrites have been used to cure meats since antiquity. Where did the nitrates and nitrites come from? Natural sources. Yes, that's right. It occurs in deposits in the ground and can be easily refined from nitrate-rich organic materials using technology thousands of years old.
Alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there an alternative to curing the meat with nitrites? Because if there isn't, this is just an academic conversation. We're not going to ban cured meats, and everyone already knows meat causes cancer. No one cares. Pigs are fucking delicious. Cows are fucking delicious. We've already decided it's worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there an alternative to curing the meat with nitrites?
Yeah, not curing them. I mean there's no reason to anymore. It was done in the past for food safety reasons that are not really relevant with today's processing methods. Just like they used to bury meat in salt before refrigeration was invented.
and everyone already knows meat causes cancer.
But does it? Or do the things we do to it make it cause cancer.
No one cares. Pigs are fucking delicious. Cows are fucking delicious. We've already decided it's worth it.
We've decided given the option of eating or not eating it's worth it. We have not had a discussion on the topic of eating meat which causes cancer vs that which does not. I think you'll find less people t
Re: Alternative? (Score:2)
But like you say, we don't cure meat for food safety reasons anymore. We cure meat because the curing process makes delicious animals even more delicious.
No one's going to ban smoked salmon, so what's the endgame here besides whining about health?
Better than Botulism (Score:2)
Gimme nitrites over botulism any day. What about nitrates? can they be used w/o cancer?
Nonsense Vegan Science (Score:2)
Celery, arugular (aka rocket) and a number of other plants have far higher amounts of nitrite than bacon. If nitrites caused cancer, then celery should be banned before bacon. The fact that celery hasn't been associated with cancer completely undermines the hypothesis that nitrites in bacon cause cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
That and there is a limit of how much celery humans are willing to eat.
Don't confuse the chemicals (Score:2)
Meanwhile, consumers say... (Score:2)
Stay the course, meat industry. Stay the course.
same with hot dogs (Score:2)
IARC Group 2A carcinogens (Score:5, Insightful)
Hot beverages
Earl Grey Tea (Bergapten)
Coffee (Acrylamide)
Red Meat (Which already includes bacon)
Charred Meat (2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline)
All cooked and smoked meat (N-Nitrosodimethylamine)
and last but not least
Shift work that disrupts the circadian rhythm
Yeah all we need now is wheat and beans and Everything in British and American breakfasts will be cancerous...
On a more serious note:
I would like to reach across all the demographics of Slashdot commenters and try to get a thread going here telling the Admins that we are more critical thinkers than most and really don't appreciate this kind of clickbait alarmist fad science being posted here.
Everyone here knows that applying the linear no threshold model to anything that causes genetic damage is bull shit
You want a statistic bigger than 6600 cases of bowel cancer here's a statistic for you
In the United States alone 10,000 people die a year due to stress and hysteria over Radiation and Nuclear Energy ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12... [nap.edu] )
Now Imagine how many cases of stomach and bowel cancer are caused by undereducated over read people getting their stomach in knots and their panties in a twist over bullshit overstated cancer headlines.
Right, Left, Others let's all say as one "Shut the fuck up!"
Re: (Score:3)
*slowly raises hand* (Score:5, Informative)
"What about making bacon in the microwave?"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Yeah, I went there. ;)
Smell (Score:2)
Are the carcinogens the things that make bacon taste good but smell really bad while being cooked?
Or is that simply a response I've developed from wanting to sleep while others were awake making noise while cooking bacon?
Stop eating cabbage! It's carcinogenic! (Score:2)
Illiterate Republican stops reading at the truth? (Score:5, Informative)
"Big tobacco" refers to a large cartel that pushed a dangerous carcinogenic product knowing it was super-addictive and cultivating that all while lying about it and putting out a campaign of disinformation for decades.
You're a coward hiding from a very common phrase, for whatever purpose of distracting bullshit you exist for these days Kohath. "Big Tobacco" exists, so dry your little eyes about it being referenced, snowflake.
Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be fine if the cancer risk of bacon was anywhere near as bad as tobacco. Media sensationalism tried to push that narrative for clicks, namely by equating the certainty of nitrate cured meats being a carcinogen with tobacco's potency as a carcinogen, and a bunch of tards (especially militant vegans) still think that is the case, even though the WHO long since clarified their position (and stated that they don't think it needs the same response that tobacco needs.)
Nitrates in meat greatly reduce the time needed to cure (hence reducing the cost by a lot), make them taste better than curing with just salt, and make them more red in appearance (cosmetic only, but people prefer that color as opposed to the greyish color that comes from salt curing.)
IMO if anybody needs any punishment over this, it should be the stupid organic variations that claim to be nitrate free because they use "natural organic" celery juice to cure them, even though celery juice is very high in nitrates (duh) and doesn't make any difference, at all, vs mineral nitrates like potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate (and yes, these are actually mined, just like halite, so they're every bit as "natural".)
Hell, punish the whole organic movement while you're at it, it's so full of the cow shit it's made of (hence the rate of food poisoning is 10 times higher for organic produce, with no nutritional or taste benefit at all, not to mention insanely wasteful of natural resources and bad on the environment.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought the purpose of organic produce is that it won't harm the environment like mass produce requires. Doesn't mass produce require synthesized fertilizers and pesticides to keep the costs as cheap as possible?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't that well thought out. What "organic" means is that the production methods follow the rules written by the Soil Association (in the UK ; I assume there is a comparable body in the USA). Nothing less, and nothing more. What "organic" is marketed as varies according to what you are selling. So, if you're selling grains, then you say that the purpose of "organic" is to promote the use of less (or
Re: (Score:2)
Why do "nitrate free" products taste worse? I've been sampling both uncured (and apparently without even celery extract) and "nitrate free" (celery juice cured) breakfast meats and find both of them equally worse tasting than nitrate cured products.
Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru (Score:5, Informative)
Uncured, by law (in the US), is cured meat with a natural source of nitrate or nitrite. Food producers are required to call it "uncured" even if they believe it's misleading and inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it may largely have to do with what type of food you are use too. This is quite literally a matter of taste. However I expect growing up you had nitrate added breakfast meats so that is what you connect to the taste of proper bacon.
Re: (Score:2)
Bacon without nitrates isn't bacon, it's just pork belly.
Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tru (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be fine if the cancer risk of bacon was anywhere near as bad as tobacco.
More people eat bacon than smoke tobacco... maybe.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Basically all food is trying to kill you in some way. Mainly because we eat other lifeforms who themselves don't want to be eaten.
We find toxins in nearly every food we eat, because nearly every animal, fungus and plant creates such toxins as a safety measure from being eaten. But those who eat these lifeforms have built in a tolerance to such toxins (Not I said a tolerance not an immunity) These toxins are still bad for us, but we can deal with small amounts, as the nutrition of eating it exceed the cost o
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of food phobias out there, many are very culturally sensitive. A lot of Asian foods use fermented food which would find disgusting if we knew what was happening. They let the food spoil to a point when kill off the rest.
Even a lot of our foods such as steak the meat hangs until it gets crusty, we shave that off and sell it as fresh steak.
Re: (Score:2)
Got a link for that "10 times higher for organic produce"? You made some good points like the celery juice bit, which I think most informed people were aware of, but you're sounding more like an industry shill than an informative contributor and posting AC doesn't help. Blowing off organic farming and even calling for "punishing" it is a bit extreme. It certainly is possible to focus on quality over quantity - ask anyone who grows there own tomatoes. Soil can become deficient in minerals and that transf
Re: (Score:2)
Media sensationalism tried to push that narrative for clicks
This just reminds me of that What the Health Netflix documentary where at one point the narrator says something along the lines of: "I even read a study somewhere that said eating 2 eggs is as dangerous as smoking a cigarette!" and he then doesn't show or tell any more information on the study.
Then again this same documentary also had some claim (I can't quite remember it, so I guess I'm doing about the same as the documentary man now) about how if you ate carbs and no fat, carbs wouldn't turn into fat in
Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Illiterate Republican stops reading at the tr (Score:2)
Re:Stopped reading (Score:5, Insightful)
The words "big tobacco" came from the newspaper article, not from the scientists quoted in the article.
The use of those words do not make thier words less valid.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Hysterical news media reporting (a.k.a. trolling) about a subject gives people a good reason to doubt any particular message regarding that subject.
If n scientists were quoted, why shouldn’t we wonder if 2n other scientists wouldn’t go along with the reporter's agenda? What would we be reading if the reporter intended to be factual? Something much different? Longer, more scientific quotes that mention uncertainties?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The analogy with "Big Tobacco" is apt. In both instances people are consuming something that is obvious bad for them, and then blaming their idiotic behavior on corporations because "they made me do it".
I remember hearing about nitrites+heat generating carcinogens 40 years ago. Nobody in their right mind believed that bacon was good for them.
Re: Stopped reading (Score:3)
Without added nitrites there is no bacon. It doesn't exist. Nitrites are what make it bacon.
And the additives are exactly what make it safer. Without erythorbic acid it forms a lot more nitrosamines.
Re: (Score:3)
The professors know this and are lying. Their real agenda is just to impose a blanket ban on the manufacture of all bacon, ham, pastrami, salami etc.
It's all a conspiracy by Big Mince.
Re: (Score:2)
Well played.
Re:As an Islamic country... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not surprised the UK would begin attacking pork products. It was only a matter of time.
Well this as insightful shows how incredibly partisan and riht wing idiocy dominated this site has become. This whole "UK is islamic" is a weird fantasy of some segments of the American right wing, and seems poplar on Fox.
It is simply, utterly flat-out false.
Naturally I will be modded down for pointing this out.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Indeed. It's only Birmingham, Bradford and about half of London.
Re:As an Islamic country... (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure if you're going for "flamebait" or "idiot" mod. points, but of all Western European and North American countries, England (but not the UK) is probably the worst example of a (potential) Islamic country, since it's the only one where Christianity is the state religion and the ruling head of state (monarch in the case of the England) is also the head of the church. Sometimes overlooked is the fact that the CofE is also head of the Anglican church worldwide, rather like the Pope for the Catholics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Contrast this to France, where the (republication) state expressly forbids alignment of state with religion, or even expressions / symbols of faith in public life, (a ban frequently flouted by all side, admittedly). Note that the % people declared practising Islam in both countries is a very scary.....5% In the USA of course, the danger is even more acute ;)
France : 51% Christians, 5.6% Islam
England : 59% Christians, 5% Islam
USA: 74% Christians, 0.8% Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There is also turkey bacon, which I actually prefer since it's leaner.
Re: (Score:2)
Yuck. Half the point of cooking up a 2 lb package of extra-thick bacon every so often is for filtering and saving the rendered fat for other cooking purposes.
Re:Got It Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
WHAT?? Notorious? For using a casing that's been used ever since sausage was invented? This is the kind of scare mongering that makes people ignore anything else attached.
Re:Got It Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that real intestines are significantly more expensive to obtain and fill than artificial casings, and only premium sausage products are packaged in them? (The same goes for condoms, BTW).
I don't really understand people who get squeamish about eating any animal organ other than muscle tissue. What makes intestines any more disgusting than muscles?
Re: (Score:2)
Lambskin condoms are more expensive in large part because they're considered a superior product (in terms of sensitivity, so long as you don't care about STI transmission). They're sold in lower volume due to the higher price (and the fact they're slimy/clammy), so there's less economy of scale to keep price down.
Intestines are normally discarded (or more likely, turned into grist for feedlots), as the market for (humans) eating intestines is way smaller than the amount produced by the meat industry. I coul
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect there's some instinctive disgust for organ meats, that can be suppressed via exposure. Thus, people not raised eating it tend to resist eating it. I know other animals are a-ok eating organs, so I'm unsure why humans would be.
Aren't organs the first to decompose once an animal died? Maybe at some point evolutionary when human ancestors were still primarily scavengers there was evolutionary pressure to stay away from the organs of scavenged animals. Once we moved to hunting if the organs were eaten they were most likely eaten first to avoid spoilage. Interestingly enough, in societies that do "regularly" eat organs (I say "regularly" because a lot of these societies tend to be traditional, agrarian, and poorer so eating meat i
Re: (Score:2)
Intestine-based casings are way LESS disgusting to me because you can actually chew them...
Re: (Score:2)
What makes intestines any more disgusting than muscles?
Um, the contents?
Re: (Score:2)
So? I wouldn't eat either without cooking it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, God forbid *people decide for themselves*.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, in this case, it certainly *is* socialistic/totalitarian to *tell people what they can and cannot eat*, particularly when the effects are highly dubious.
Re:Socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, in this case, it certainly *is* socialistic/totalitarian to *tell* people what they can and cannot eat*, particularly when the effects are highly dubious.
Now it's socialist for people to hear things that they might not like? Christ what a bunch of snowflakes. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here. All that's happening is some dude (with evidence) has written an open letter to an industry roup teling them he thinks they're causing trouble for themselves.
If you think private individuals writing open letters to trade organisations is socialist then you have a massively overdeveloped sense of persecution.
Re: (Score:3)
People die every year from eating contaminated or unwashed lettuce. Even organic food can be risky.
Best option is to eat nothing at all, or to keep stupid opinions to yourself.