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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 1 year ago (6 children)

They just want to keep the bacon for themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 40 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The classic A to F + S ranking. Nobody wants to come near an S ranked carcinogen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I mean processed meat sure.

    But you can pull bacon from my cold, dead, cancerous hands.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    You don't have to feel guilty about risking your own health! I never felt guilty about smoking (never smoked other than in smoking areas), I never feel guilty about eating processed bullshit that is probably no good for me.

    This world is too cold to feel guilty for something that only affects you! 🫡

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    might as well just slap cancer warnings on everything these days. Launch a massive banner to orbit so everywhere can see the cancer warning for the sun. Doctors need to hold a cancer warning sign when a baby is being birthed so it'll be the first thing they see because you can literally just get cancer for simply living.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We may as well flatten the whole planet to eliminate the risk of falling down stairs.

    I hate how far people go to safety pad the whole planet when an ounce of personality responsibility is all that's needed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 14 points 1 year ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    Putting nitrates in the same category as fucking asbestos is literally insane.

    It's like putting a Glock and a 10,000kg bomb in the same category, it's utterly disingenuous.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Not if the category is “causes cancer” — nor, in the case of your Glock and bomb, if the category is “can kill you”

    Context matters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The category just means that there is scientific proof of carcinogenicity. The WHO states (somewhere) that it’s not to be taken to mean that bacon is as dangerous as tobacco. Of course, that’s what everyone thinks they mean, so maybe they should work on their messaging

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    That's what I'm saying, putting nitrates next to hardcore carcinogens like asbestos makes the hardcore carcinogens look less harmful than they actually are.

    They need to differentiate the levels of harm or else it's just another warning that people will ignore because it's on literally everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • load more comments (30 replies)
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›