• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Beware the Bacon

Does anyone know the name/location of these studies, please?
 
We put an extra 1 kg packet of bacon on our order last week as we have visitors arriving during the week.

That makes 4 kg in a fortnight we will be going through.

My last bowel cancer check where you send a sample (on a testing stick) back by mail was clear according to my GP.
 
Boo1979 said:
I stopped eating bacon cured with nitites some time ago - looks like respected experts such as Aseem Malhotra are in agreement
https://www.theguardian.com/food/20...to-cancer-experts-warn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Click to expand...
Seems to be as a result of the following study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4690057/

On first read I picked up that this was a meta study type analysis, and was using the Relative Risk method of identifying significance. Many of the reports used in the analysis were pre 2012 so were subject to the known bias caused by the statistical methods used at that time, and the authors have apparently carried that through into their own analysis. The use of ranking and weighting is a method used to prevent weak studies from skewing the outcome so they get marked down in value and importance, and this was deemed to be a good point but in fact the weightings were chosen at whim by the authors and if not declared in the analysis so could be hidden. Thus several reports from this time period using this method of statistics were prone to being subjective in favour of a desired result simply by juggling the weighting factors. They certainly seem to have applied weightings to this report, and I can see no declaration of weighting factors or why they were being applied.

Secondly, the authors had to estimate the amount of nittrate/ nitrite. and NDMA that the historic study was measuring, and this was by analysing the food logs registered in the original study. This methodology is very dubious, but obviously it was all they had to go on, and a guess is better than none, eh?

Lastly in their conclusion section they openly admitted that there was one report that skewed the result significantly, but they still went ahead and declared the result as significant. I think if they had been using the new meta analysis statistical method then they could easily have had a different conclusion.

However, the Grauniad decided to do some scaremongering, and sexed up the findings in no uncertain terms. It is not the first time the correspondents writing their health articles have been guilty of this practice and will not be the last. I personally would apply my own weighting to this report and consign it to the bin. You get as many nitrates and nitriles from the veggies due to natural and intensive farming methods, so this problem exists in all foodstuffs.

The old fashioned way of preserving meats like ham and bacon by smoke curing also introduced some potential nasties and involved high salt use too, so I would not say we should go back to the old ways. And going vegan will not necessarily remove this particular problem either since these compounds are in all foods we consume.
 
Last edited:
There's always this great debunking of the red meat and cancer part...

 
Whenever this subject comes up I link to this talk by Edes on the subject.
Well worth the time. Puts things into perspective.

Re the linked study on mental health - very interesting.
I suspect that many mental health issues are heavily correlated with bad diets, convenience foods and malnutrition. That is correlated. They may or may not be caused by them.
Hopefully they will do similar studies on all the other foods that patients eat prior to admission on mental health grounds. Maybe starting with sugar, wheat flour, vegetable oils and starchy vegetables. And alcohol. And recreational drugs. And prescription drugs. I hope they also run comprehensive blood panels to identify any mineral and vitamin deficiencies in the patients as well, since some deficiencies have a well documented impact on mood.
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
There's always this great debunking of the red meat and cancer part...

Click to expand...
The experts arent talking about meat causing cancer - they are talking about the chemicals used to cure the meat causing cancer and other problems
 
Boo1979 said:
The experts arent talking about meat causing cancer - they are talking about the chemicals used to cure the meat causing cancer
Click to expand...

Yup.
Have a look at the video.
It addresses exactly that subject, along with a few extra chemicals used in the studies to try and enhance the findings.

Edited to add: don’t get me wrong - I have no huge love of eating huge quantities of cheap chemically processed meats. I think too much processed food is not a healthy way of eating. But I never understand why processed meats are always singled out for this kind of publicity. I mean, just look at how soy is processed... and as for quorn... I do think that processed drinks like fizzy pop get an appropriate amount of negative press time.
 
Last edited:
The first link is to a review of a John Hopkins Medical Centre report, but it is not in their archive. What I did find was their T2D diet recommendations which had a big warning that carb limiting is dangerous, and that the only things of interest on the food label is the sugars, fat, calorie count. nothing else matters. Whole grains and starches are best for T2D.n Exercise more No wonder ADA is convinced about Eatwell

The only thing in their Health Library that mentions nitrates is a report on cures for erectile dysfunction. but did not cover quaaludes (sodium nitrate) that well known hippie pick me up.

They had a single sheeter on mania,

This must be the wrong faculty. Not John Hopkins Medicine then.
 

Cheers. So he starts by saying we the public don't understand and goes on to attack detractors (Monsanto) and then a potted history. Speaks a lot, says nowt.
 
If you are at all concerned about the preservatives in bacon simmer it for a minute or so before frying.
I have been doing this for a long time now, as it is a family thing - we are all rather long lived, as a rule, but I make no claims about it.
The preservatives, salt, nitrates, nitrites - and any sugar, are all very soluble, so get tipped down the sink when the rashers are sieved out of the water.
 
Boo1979 said:
The experts arent talking about meat causing cancer - they are talking about the chemicals used to cure the meat causing cancer and other problems
Click to expand...
As said previous, why just discuss meat. Why ignore all the other sources of carcinogenic chemicals in all our food
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031942200944376
Isothiocyanide is very poisonous I believe, so stop eating broccoli, brussels, and cabbages. Food and water is also stuffed full of nitrates and nitrtiles from agricultural processes such as lightning fixation, muck spreading, fertiliser application, and car exhaust fumes, also airplane contrails. The very air we breathe is full of nitrogen products. I found a pot of brussels left over from Xmas day, and they were certainly generating isothiocyanates galore. Its what gives the pungent aroma, along with hydrogen sulphide which is also deadly and would kill quicker than any cancer if given the chance. But we live with it and avoid slurry pits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…