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

Beware the Bacon

bulkbiker said:
I can when he has been mislead by the extremely badly worked through IARC meta study of epidemiological "evidence" of vague association which is then used to promote an anti meat agenda...
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Ok. Previously he has struck me as the type not to be mislead by such things, so I’m going to look into it further. Thanks
 
Jim Lahey said:
Hmmm. Ok. Previously he has struck me as the type not to be mislead by such things, so I’m going to look into it further. Thanks
Click to expand...
I can but hope he was taken in by the "data" and the fact it came from the IARC pushed through by the WHO... but then again we all know what their agenda is.. WFPB dogma...
 
Did you ever get a reply from Aseem Malhotra? - I seem to recall that you were going to tweet him and question him as to whether or not he had said what the papers widely quoted him as saying.
and which he says again here while very clearly making the point that the issues are with the chemicals added to the meat, not with meat itself

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...3.7......0....1.........35i304i39.XmKmj8ho8xs
 
Last edited:
As I said in a previous thread the Real Food animal protein persons such as the majority of "us" (please excuse me plants persons on the site), need to have a central body, under which LCHF, KETO, PALEO and similar all sit under. The body needs to be financed and answer all the false claims, with world news bodies knowing to go to this source for agreed views that most of us are happy with. I would like to see education agendas, such as what is good fat, should cholesterol be lowered, the purpose or cholesterol, carbs are glucose, the truth about relative risk etc.

I do not want my choices curtailed.
 

Nope he declined to respond to me or the many others who tweeted him on the same matter..
I hope he has realised that he was mistaken but maybe isn't quite ready to admit it yet. I see he indeed mentions the IARC/WHO report as his evidence which is a lot less strong than he believed it to be then. Maybe he's gone back and actually read it this time...
 
Meat doesn't always equal good.
Let's be balanced, the less processed the better, the less contaminated the better.

I prefer not to eat factory farmed meats and prefer all my food unprocessed or minimally processed.
Sausage from our local butcher is completely differently to the horrid stuff full of chemicals from supermarkets.
D.
 
Interesting that he claims that 600 cases per year can be "directly attributed" to processed meat... no idea how you would go about that.. but according to bowel cancer UK
"Almost 42,000 people are diagnosed with bowel cancer every year in the UK." So how do all the others get it..?
Yes I know that's not realistic but neither is making stupid claims about 600 people developing it because they have a bacon sarnie...!
 
Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your post. The original discussion was about nitrites but you now seem to be talking about nitriles, a completely different chemical. You also mention almonds and brassicas being high in nitriles, do you have a source for this? I am aware that almonds and brassicas contain nitrates, but that is yet another different chemical (although it's worth noting that a small proportion of dietary nitrate is converted into nitrite in the body).
 

Yes, on further reading, that raised my eyebrows as well. Being a paleo-keto-primal-hybrid type of eater who tries to avoid anything processed or boiled-up in a factory-sized cauldron, I’m still not very comfortable with consuming chemicals in my diet, but it’s difficult to take it seriously when people make claims that are impossible to substantiate. “Directly attributed” is a nonsense claim that is impossible to prove, and I would have expected better from Aseem Malhotra. He should know better.
 
I believe the cancer scare is related to nitriles, not nitrates directly. As I point out there are many natural sources of nitriles that we get exposed to daily, so eliminating nitrates in bacon will not really protect us. There is a risk that during digestion we do reduce some nitrates ingested to nitriles but this is not yet proven to be scientific fact. Since the original science behind the cancer scare is an interpretation of a meta study of prospective cohort studies, there is a serious question mark over whether it is right to use the apparent results to prove causality as the report seems to do, or is it just demonstrating a weak association only.

The authors did state that the effect was small anyway, so basing a ban on these preservation tools completely may open us up to a can of worms. The preservation process is not a simple one, and the threat of botulism is real and very difficult to guarantee eradication by other means (as one of my other posts discussed) The alternative of banning processed meats completely is another topic being discussed by vegetarians and vegans around the world,but that is a different agenda.

My source for the natural sources of nitriles is of course wikkipedia among others if you care to search for it.
 
Last edited:
According to this, https://www.bowelcanceruk.org.uk/ne...s-to-rid-bacon-and-ham-of-processed-nitrites/ , the recent campaign is to remove nitrites (not nitriles) from bacon etc. due to increased bowel cancer risk. It is thought that the nitrites in processed meats react to produce nitrosamines when eaten and it is these that are carcinogenic. https://www.bowelcancerresearch.org/blog/stop-adding-the-nitrites
 

https://eurekamag.com/pdf/006/006042415.pdf
The source of this is not one I recognise, but seems to be the journal of agricultural chemistry. Nitriles have been found to bind to glutathione in the body, and this is understood to produce carcingenic metabolytes. The nitriles are derived from Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) that in turn can be produced from either the nitrites or nitrates, so may be the actual culprit doing the damage. It may be too simplistic to blame it solely on nitrile addition to a product that has been used by generations without any epidemics, although if it is found to be safe to replace it then we should of course review its use as a preservative.

Edit to add: The bowelcancer people are totally reliant on one scientific study published by WHO. There is growing opinion that this report has poor scientific evidence and has evidence of bias toward an anti animal agenda.
 
Last edited:
Does he say 600? It's a poor quality recording but I'm sure he says something like "six thousand six hundred". I can't be sure, it might be "five thousand six hundred" which would tie up with Cancer Research UK's statistics - they say that 13% of bowel cancers in the UK are as a result of eating processed meat. They also list some of the other causes of bowel cancer. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/he...tics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/risk-factors
 
so, 13% OF 7 or 8% of the population MAY be at extra risk. If they eat 50g every day. Perhaps. This figure includes all those processed meats with carb cereal fillers eg. sausages

the above statistics do not differentiate between red meant and processed meat when using them as a cause.
 
To be honest it will be drivel anyway as there is no causal proof that processed meat causes cancer at all so....to make any claims about percentages would be erroneous.. I was reading somewhere today that cases of colon cancer appear to be more prevalent in the vegetarian/vegan community ... so who knows?
 
I’ve just bought some nitrite-free Naked Bacon from Sainsbury’s just because, while I’m not normally one to be sucked in by epidemiological ‘evidence’, it seems to fit better with my way of living. If I remember then I’ll update this thread with how it tastes. If I survive the chemo that is...
 
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.…