Scientists are calling for a ban on supermarket bacon and ham after the chemicals used in their production were linked to more than 50,000 bowel cancer cases. The Mail has more.
A coalition of leading scientists says the refusal to ban nitrites – preservatives used to keep processed meats pink and long-lasting – has come at a devastating human and financial cost, with the NHS footing an estimated £3 billion bill to treat preventable cancers over the past decade.
Their analysis, based on figures from Cancer Research UK and the British Journal of Cancer, estimates that around 5,400 bowel cancer cases each year in the UK are caused by eating processed meats. Treatment costs for each patient average £59,000.
The warning comes exactly 10 years after the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen – placing it in the same risk category as tobacco and asbestos.
Despite this, ministers have done “virtually nothing” to reduce Britons’ exposure, according to Professor Chris Elliott OBE, founder of the Institute for Global Food Security and a former government adviser.
He said: “A decade on from the WHO report, the UK Government has done virtually nothing to reduce exposure to nitrites – the curing agents that make these products pink and long-lasting but also create nitrosamines, compounds known to trigger cancer.
“Every year of delay means more preventable cancers, more families affected and greater strain on the NHS.”
The scientists who worked on the original WHO report have now written to Health Secretary Wes Streeting urging him to ban nitrites in processed meats.
Their landmark report, published in 2015, analysed data from more than 800 studies and found that for every 50g of processed meat eaten a day, the risk of colorectal cancer increased by 18%.
Experts say it is specifically the combination of nitrates and processing methods used in meats such as bacon, ham and sausages that generates carcinogenic compounds when consumed.
Currently, up to 90% of bacon sold in the UK is thought to contain nitrites, which have been linked not only to bowel cancer but also breast and prostate cancers.
Worth reading in full.
First they came for sugar, then they came for bacon. Will life be worth living once all the simple ‘unhealthy’ pleasures are banned? I haven’t read the study, but a first thought is whether people who eat lots of bacon aren’t unhealthy in other ways that might explain a higher incidence of bowel, breast and prostate cancers. That’s often the problem with these studies – there are so many potential factors that could explain an 18% increase in various maladies. They’ll have statistical techniques to try to deal with that, for sure. But trying to work out why diseases like cancer develop as a result of eating certain foods is never an exact science.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So 5,400 deaths each year. Let’s assume the vast majority are between 55 and 85 that’s 180 per year from each age year. 600.000 people are born each year so that’s 180/600,000=3/10,000 folk for each age year. Or put another way, about 600,000 die each year that’s 5,400/600,000 =9/10,000 for all age groups, say 1/1000 deaths.. I’d rather continue with the bacon and worry about the other 999 deaths.
And, of course, anything related to climate change will also be banned.
It’s about control of you.
Of course you can get bacon without the nitrates if you look carefully. Usually available in the supermarket.
if we would just return to making bacon properly then this would not be a problem.
I’m not in favour of banning any type of food, but I am in favour of nutrition labelling. Put “Contains Nitrites” on the label, and let the consumer make up their own mind – simple. I’m sick of being infantalised by these people.
It’s a mistake to give any ground to these people because this just makes them demand more. In an ideal universe, disease marketing would be illegal except to voluntary subscribers. That’s all just nudging aka increase the perceived level of personal threat by hard hitting emotional messaging. The best way to deal with such people is to increase their perceived level of personal threat by hitting them hard until they shut up.
Ha-ha! Nice one. 🙂
I love bacon but the my concern with bacon is the nitrites/nitrates that are used to give it longer shelf life that are the problem, not the meat itself and these are a problem in other meat products too. But the simple answer is ban the use of nitrites/nitrates, not ban the meat product altogether. Another problem though is that food studies carry so many variables they are invariably not worth the paper they are written on, rather like the term “scientist”.
I agree with your thought about these studies having too many confounders. Perhaps the participants smoked or ate bananas (probably not smoked the bananas! ) or cooked with seed oils etc, etc.
Anything said by anyone connected to the “WHO” is bound to be a pack of lies, they will try anything to try to cover up the fact they are committing genocide with the jabs, but ooh we’ve said it for 10 years, sorry but thats lies as well, quit with the bullshitting.
And which ‘peaceful’ demographic group would be pushing for this I wonder?
There has been a huge surge in late stage colo-rectal cancers in the past few years, especially amongst young people. I bet they didn’t all suddenly start eating processed meat. Why don’t the ‘scientists’ do some serious research into that?
Perhaps they received some “safe & effective ” products. Just sayin’.
Of greater concern is the sinister, sly, reckless drugging of us with synthetic folic acid in non-wholemeal bread, pasta, cakes, buns, pizza bases, pie crusts etc etc as if the synthetic B9 is interchangeable with natural folate found in food which it most definitely is not. Key word here is synthetic.
They find an apparent problem with the nitrates used, but want to ban the bacon! Typical anti-meat propaganda it seems.
Everything in moderation.
While the report may be based on good science I am suspicious that it is just another weapon in the war on meat and if it originated from Imperial College then it is definitely BS!
Mark Twain gave this advice on “Moderation”:
“First, girls, don’t smoke—that is, don’t smoke to excess. I am seventy-three and one half years old, and have been smoking seventy-three of them. But I never smoke to excess—that is, I smoke in moderation, only one cigar at a time.
Second, don’t drink—that is, don’t drink to excess.
Third, don’t marry—I mean, to excess.”
This country injected with an unsafe and ineffective mRNA covid “vaccine”, that had NO safety nor Efficacy data. Where were these “scientists” when this catastrophe was released by Chris Whitty, Vallance and van dam? Has anyone ever looked at the recommended foods by agencies such as the American cancer society, the American Heart Association? Folks, everything in moderation is most people’s mantra. How dare a bunch of incompetent “scientists” continually destroy my health with their incompetent advice, pulled from the air. Enough is enough. It is your life, eat what you like!
Is this really about food safety or some people wanting to ban bacon on to appease a religious minority?
I’d far sooner take my chances with a bacon butty than the dangerous mRNA jabs they’re still pushing.
Their only wish is that you have to live forever in their dystopian socialist hell hole
Instead of banning bacon, why not ban sodium nitrite, used to preserve it? It is not necessary. I’m allergic to s. nitrite, so have looked at the options. There are several nitrite free bacons.
What an utterly childish response by whichever ‘scientists’ published this research.
we all lived in houses with lead piping and lead based paint. We found that it caused significant health problems, particularly in the development of young children, so we banned the use of lead in both areas. We didn’t ban plumbing or living in houses.
If nitrates are causing the cancer, then ban the nitrates in production.
What’s the betting there’s a bunch of thin, pale faced vegan lab techs with just enough bodily strength to type the data into the computer are behind this.
A call to ban bacon? Good luck with that. It took us several generations to ban smoking which is is way more toxic and not as tasty!
Good luck with that! Trying to stop the British from eating bacon sarnies, yea right! 😂😂😂
Statistical studies are used to support claims about everything under the sun.
Some hard cause-and-effect evidence is required.
Complete Cobblers!
1) A bacon ban will be followed by a total ban on pork, in order to please Muslims who have already banned pork from public school meals, as well as in the military.
2) A bacon ban is part of the Globalist/ Bill Gates plan to “Abolish Animal Agriculture” and force the world to be Vegans, who are more docile, physically weak and easily controlled. Meat will be reserved for the “Elites”, just like in the good old days of Lords & Serfs: “The New Feudalism”.
3) The surge in bowel cancer has been directly linked to CovidHoax Vaccines, and also to the recent fashion for anal sex being pushed upon young heterosexual couples in the West, especially females, because this is the norm in Africa, as well as in Islamic cultures, in order to allow little girls to be raped by relatives and still married off as “technical virgins”, often to their own cousins or uncles.
4) Eat as much bacon as you want, full of tasty fat, salt, and delicious nitrites! And be sure to fry it either in butter or lard! I always do…Can’t stand lean meat!
And thank the Good Lord for His Bounty… Read more »
Er, why not just ban the chemicals?
Because nitrites are necessary preservatives, inhibiting the growth of bacteria, and also add to the distinctive flavour of cured meats.
So was that a double blind placebo test, or some broader correlation with all sorts of other possible confounding factors. Co-op bacon is the best!
I think Smoked Streaky Bacon with lots of fat, from happy British outdoor-raised pigs, with all the frying fat poured over the bacon rashers before serving, is the best. Never mind draining off the fat— fat gives all meat its delicious flavour, and I think the modern practice of cutting off most, if not all, of the fat from cuts of meat borders on criminality. 🙂
An old colleague of mine died from stomach cancer at the ago of 29. He was a teetotaller, so that didn’t do him any good.
Some researchers have said, and I believe them, that cancer is caused by a FUNGUS, which thrives in ACIDIC conditions, and is best treated by Anti-Fungal medicine, as well as alkaline things like ordinary Baking Soda.
It would be interesting to know the full background and history of these scientists, be strange if they were all based in Islamic countries
It has long been my view that most of what is defined as cancer is just normal cell behaviour.
So 54,000 people were studied from birth to death. All bacon eaten was weighed and recorded from birth. A control group of another 54,000 was used for comparison. It was proven beyond all doubt, according to all of the scientific data, that is publicly available, that bacon killed 54,000 people?
No, I didn’t think so.
I’m just waiting for the study that vegetables feel pain.
The study was undertaken at the Bose Institute in Culcutta and is described in detail by Aldous Huxley in his book Jesting Pilate (India and Burma). 1926. “Sensitive souls, whom a visit to the slaughter-house has converted to vegetarianism, will be well advised, if they do not want to have their menu still further reduced, to keep clear of the Bose Institute.”
It is a fact that the world is an extremely dangerous place and this is borne out by the fact that so far no one has got out of it alive.
I firmly believe that bacon is exactly as carcinogen as cigarettes. Which, in this case, means that the lobby groups calling for a ban of either have exactly as much clue about what causes so-called cancer (a disease unknown to man until the 20th century) than everybody else which means none at all. If the cause was known, it could be treated. Since it’s unknown, every crank with his very own theory of the universe and every busybody who knows exactly what all other people should really be doing wields it to support his pet theory.
Just to recapitulate this once more: A causes B means A is both a necessary and a sufficient precondition for B. This means B cannot happen unless A occurred first and B will always occur after A did. Anything else is not a cause-and-effect relation.
If bacon causes ‘cancer’, all people eating bacon must get ‘cancer’ and people who don’t eat bacon must not get ‘cancer’.
Science is rooted in uncertainty, but these days it is presented as certainty, the final revelation.
“Obesity” causes diabetes, but many diabetics are not “obese”and most so-called obese are not diabetics, but thin people get it too, and obesity can be the result of having diabetes because it is a physiological disorder.
The primary risk factor for diabetes is age – true for most diseases.
Changes at cellular level in the respiratory tract do take place caused by chemicals in the smoke inhaled from burning tobacco leaf, paper, and combustion retardants – and these changes are demonstrable. These changes do not necessarily lead to cancers in all subjects.
Nicotine which is what smokers crave, is not carcinogenic but the ant-smoking brigade want to ban vaping because reasons, even though those who switch to vaping remove themselves from the risk of inhaling the by-products of tobacco smoking.
The problem is there are too many people who get paid to interfere in our lives – and many of them are paid out of our taxes.
It is time to stop all Government (taxpayer) funding of so-called scientific research. How can politicians and bureaucrats decide which research… Read more »
And yet there are still health “experts” in favour of legalising the smoking of cannabis.
My gut feel is that cannabis can be very bad for you. It’s not my thing but I would steer clear of it anyway. That said, booze can be very bad for you too, but I drink it every day. But that has little to do with whether either should be legal. I think it might have been Epping Blogger that made the argument that legalising certain drugs was problematic because more people would abuse them and become a burden on society – even if you don’t give them welfare, you may need to put them in prison when they commit crimes, which costs money, not to mention the disruptive effect on society. I think there’s a lot to be said for that argument, though my gut still tells me banning things that people do because of some potential (rather than actual) effect on others is hard to justify. In any case I don’t believe in banning anything on “health” grounds.
That’s the NHS argument: The NHS has to spend money on X. I claim that Y causes X. Hence, I demand that Y must be outlawed so that the NHS doesn’t have to spend money on X anymore.
In the more general form, that’s a pseudo-argument I’ve christened the “cost argument.” Someone who doesn’t particularly like Y points out that “Y has a cost” but doesn’t mention that anything else has a cost, too. As anything else has a cost as well, it’s an invalid argument.
Well not all costs are the same of course. The NHS “cost” is a avoidable one – simply get rid of the NHS and the “problem” goes away. The cost of having a bunch of drug-addled people causing huge problems and committing crimes is harder to avoid and difficult to pin on the people causing the problems. I’m not saying I am convinced by the argument, but I feel it’s something to consider. I agree it’s easy to fall into the trap of justifying ones prejudices with this kind of argument. I used to think illegal drugs should remain illegal but I have changed my mind on this as I have on many other things, in recent years.
It’s simply not an argument because absolutely everything has a cost. Eg, policemen chasing drug dealers don’t work for free and they don’t work for the niggardly UK welfare payments, either. And while they’re doing this, everybody and his dpg is taking whatever supposedly illegal drugs he wants to take because they’re easily available everywhere. But at least people with acute lumbago who are in serious pain can’t get drugs (benzodiazepines) which would help them as they’re so ultra-prohibited that they must only delivered in form of single pills with an escort of armed policemen. That’s certainly very valuable to society. I mean, what’s better than making people suffer perfectly avoidable pain? Don’t we all just love that?
Sorry for the sarcasm but I know this pain myself quite well and I don’t think society at a large has gained anything from me having to make the experience.
Indeed the “war on drugs” costs a lot of money.
As always, ‘experts’ are in favour of legalizing want they want to do (smoke cannabis products) and outlawing what they don’t want to do (smoke tobacco).
Changes at the cellular level take place in the lung all the time and not only during the very brief intervals someone happens to be looking at them. How else could components of an inhaled gas and particle mixture of unknown composition get into the blood stream?
All the great discoveries of the past, were made without Government involvement or funding.
Two counterexamples which come immediately to mind would be the Haber-Bosch process for obtaining nitrogen from the air (German government during WWI needed that for producing explosives and it was obviously also needed for German agriculture) and what we’re using to communicate here which grew out of a US government project called ARPANET.
Yes, but how much do you have to eat in order for it to be a significant risk? Most substances, including water, if consumed to excess will cause you harm. Most carry some sort of risk. But I think the very worst thing you can do is worry about it – enjoy life, and if your body craves a bacon butty, have one!
I’ve heeded your advice, and just had one! It was delicious
So mike r must now either live with this on his conscience or celebrate helping making you happier… I’d hazard a guess which of those.