
The risk of nitrites and nitrates in bacon - techman9
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages
======
zaroth
And in other news, "nitrate free" bacon sold in the US isn't actually nitrate
free;

"Ever since the “war on nitrates” of the 1970s, US consumers have been more
savvy about nitrates than those in Europe, and there is a lot of “nitrate-free
bacon” on the market. The trouble, as Jill Pell remarks, is that most of the
bacon labelled as nitrate-free in the US “isn’t nitrate-free”. It’s made with
nitrates taken from celery extract, which may be natural, but produces exactly
the same N-nitroso compounds in the meat. Under EU regulation, this bacon
would not be allowed to be labelled “nitrate-free”.

“It’s the worst con I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” says Denis Lynn, the
chair of Finnebrogue Artisan, a Northern Irish company that makes sausages for
many UK supermarkets, including Marks & Spencer."

~~~
jonahx
Is it possible to find legitimately nitrate-free bacon in the US? If so, under
what brand?

~~~
hammock
No. Bacon, salami and some other meats must be cured by FDA definition (either
nirites added and sold as "cured" or sold as "uncured" but with "celery juice"
which really means it's still cured)

Confusing I know

~~~
batbomb
That's not entirely true. It must be cured, but it doesn't necessarily need
nitrites to cure it.

You can buy salt cured bacon here:
[https://shop.bentonscountryham.com/ProductDetails.asp?Produc...](https://shop.bentonscountryham.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=hscb)

~~~
tptacek
Benton's is great bacon, but:

(1) You can look at that price tag and see why it's unlikely to be your go-to
bacon,

(2) Last I checked, Benton's used a nitrate cure, and

(3) Seriously, intensely smoked food (Benton's bacon qualifies) is probably
going to be more carcinogenic from the smoking compounds than from the cure.
Unlike nitrate->N-nitrosamine, we're pretty clear on how smoked food causes
gastric cancer.

------
jdietrich
The author fails to meaningfully contextualise the risk, giving what I think
is a completely misleading account.

According to the best available evidence, eating 50g per day of processed meat
increases the relative risk of developing colorectal cancer by 18%. Given the
prevalence and prognosis of colorectal cancer, this equates to about one
premature death per 200 people as a result of eating processed meat.

Is processed meat somewhat bad for your health? Almost certainly. Is your
daily bacon sandwich worth a 0.5% chance of a premature death? That's entirely
your decision. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but that level of risk
wouldn't faze me in the least if I really liked bacon. Factors like obesity,
inactivity, smoking and alcohol use dwarf the risks posed by processed meat.

Constant fretting over small risks posed by our diet may be distracting us
from clear messaging on big risks. I've heard countless people say "everything
gives you cancer, so why worry about it?" or "scientists can't make their mind
up about what you're supposed to eat, so I just ignore them". It isn't news
that smoking, being obese or drinking too much alcohol are incredibly bad for
your health, but it's a message that deserves repeating. I fear that those
messages are being drowned out by a constant trickle of stories about
"superfoods" and cancer risks.

The author of this article has previously made exactly this point in an
article criticising the "clean eating" fad:

 _" When mainstream diets start to sicken people, it is unsurprising that many
of us should seek other ways of eating to keep ourselves safe from harm. Our
collective anxiety around diet was exacerbated by a general impression that
mainstream scientific advice on diet – inflated by newspaper headlines – could
not be trusted. First these so-called experts tell us to avoid fat, then
sugar, and all the while people get less and less healthy. What will these
“experts” say next, and why should we believe them?"_

[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-
we-...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-fell-for-
clean-eating)

~~~
coldtea
> _According to the best available evidence, eating 50g per day of processed
> meat increases the relative risk of developing colorectal cancer by 18%.
> Given the prevalence and prognosis of colorectal cancer, this equates to
> about one premature death per 200 people as a result of eating processed
> meat._

That is a huge number.

~~~
jdietrich
_> That is a huge number._

Compared to what?

~~~
coldtea
Compared to the lifetime odds of almost all other mortality risks:
[https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-
mortalit...](https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-
risk)

Not to mention just in itself -- opposed to 0 people dying prematurely because
of that.

~~~
jjeaff
0 dying? Doesn't it just say it increases your chance by 18%?

So instead of 1 in 170, not eating nitrates makes it 1 in 200.

~~~
coldtea
I said "0 dying _prematurely_" because of nitrates. Those 170 would have had
it anyway.

------
deanCommie
I, as the author, am also surprised there haven't been more nitrate-free
versions of the same products appear on the market.

I realize it's a privileged position, but I'd gladly pay more for a
salami/bacon that doesn't last as long to get rid of the carcinogen.

~~~
tptacek
There is no such thing as "carcinogen-free" bacon. Bacon tastes the way it
does because of the carcinogen; further, the only reason it's safe to sell in
packages is that it's cured with that carcinogen, without which these products
are all ideal germinators for botulism.

Products that claim to be "nitrate-free" are lying. They're exploiting the
native nitrite/nitrate content of (extracts of) green vegetables rather than
adding nitrates directly. Your body does not care about this difference, but
your psychology does.

~~~
oxymoron
There’s some discussion of the Botulism claim in the article. Apparently
Italian ham producers dropped nitrates in 1993, and there hasn’t been a case
of Botulism since. The article also mentions that Danish organic bacon is
supposedly nitrate free.

~~~
tptacek
Could be. I read the 2015-2001 food-borne botulism surveillance reports, and
came to three conclusions:

* Botulism is incredibly rare.

* Don't eat seal blubber.

* Be careful with your pruno; one jailhouse batch took accounted for the majority of cases in 2012.

------
jimrandomh
This article drastically overstates the evidence, which comes not from
experiments but from epidemiology--that is, purely observational studies where
you ask people what they eat and follow them to see what happens. This type of
study has a horrible track record, and there's a solid theoretical basis for
expecting them to produce false results. That there are "more than 400" such
studies is irrelevant, because the problem with epidemiological studies isn't
a problem with sample size, and the same confounder can distort all 400
studies in the same way.

~~~
joejerryronnie
This is, perhaps, the biggest takeaway from this article.

------
tptacek
This is alarmist and misleading.

First: it is not true that the nitrates in green vegetables are entirely
benign. All sodium nitrite potentially metabolizes to sodium nitrate;
depending on what vegetables you consume and when you consume them, many have
nitrate content; all nitrate you consume potentially metabolizes to N-nitroso
compounds. People have claimed that other compounds in vegetables neutralize
the formation of nitrosamines in the digestive tract; researchers have refuted
that claim.

You knew you were in trouble when the article tried to make a clear dividing
line between vegetables and meats, because it's not even surprising that
vegetables can be carcinogenic. When cooked, potatoes, corn, flour, coffee,
and peanuts all create significant amounts of acrylamide, which is also a
known and potent carcinogen.

"Slow-cured, nitrate-free, artisan hams are one thing," says this article.
What, exactly, does that mean? "Nitrate" and "slow-cured" are practically
synonyms. Nitrates (the slow-acting form of curing salt) are what prevents the
germination of botulism. Whether the ham cure uses "Prague Powder" curing
salts or celery powder, the biological impact is the same --- but because
people have been so alarmed about nitrosamines for so long, virtually
everybody (falsely!) claims to sell "nitrate-free" product.

To a pretty good first approximation, everything delicious adds some
additional exogenous risk of carcinogenesis. It may very well be that cured
meats carry relatively more risk than other foods (it seems very unlikely that
switching from store-brand bacon to artisanal ham will help you here). But
this article, written by "British food writer" Bee Wilson, doesn't even
include the word "milligram" \--- but does think you should know that someone
once found a correlation between hot dogs and _brain cancer_.

This is junk.

~~~
kristianp
You seem to be ignoring the fact that meats can be cured with plain old Sodium
Chloride as mentioned in the article. Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong there,
as I read the article but haven't any other knowledge on this topic.

~~~
oldcynic
No, you're correct, the traditional approaches to curing are salt (NaCl),
sugar, and smoking. No need of saltpetre or nitrites. You can cure your own
truly nitrate-free bacon at home if you're so inclined.

Smoking, of course, introduces its own set of carcinogens.

~~~
tptacek
I don't believe anybody cures with saltpeter anymore, but if you want your
bacon to taste like bacon, you're going to use curing salt.

~~~
kybernetikos
I just came back from the shop in my village where they were selling bacon
made on the local farm. Having recently read this article I checked the
ingredients: Preservatives (E250, E252). A quick search told me that E250 is
Sodium nitrite, and 252 is potassium nitrate (saltpetre). Apparently the whole
range 240-259 is for nitrates.

~~~
tptacek
If they're using "natural" nitrates from e.g. celery extract they might be
accounting for the KNO3 in the vegetable.

------
reificator
Just moved out and started cooking bacon and eggs every morning.

After reading this article, I think I'm going to continue eating bacon and
eggs every morning.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _every morning_

Why not occasionally? I’m not going to stop eating bacon and ham. But I might
stop keeping it regularly stocked at home.

~~~
reificator
> _Why not occasionally?_

To be honest? Because I really like having a routine. It's something that in a
lot of ways I can't have, but I'm exactly the type of person who would benefit
a lot from one.

So if cooking breakfast the same way every morning is a way to gain a shred of
routine in my life, then I'm all in.

~~~
always_good
Aren't your posts in this thread just saying "I don't want to change my
lifestyle despite the evidence?"

That's _the_ human default. People never want to change their lifestyle. Just
like how most people don't exercise and are overweight.

It's just not really something to celebrate.

~~~
reificator
It's better than denying the evidence and claiming it's a global conspiracy.

Understanding the risks is important, but you literally can't live your life
avoiding everything that could cause harm to you. It's about picking your
battles.

In this article, it's the nitrates, not the bacon itself. Next time I go to
Costco I'll take a look and see if there are options with no or fewer
nitrates.

~~~
fjsolwmv
At Costco you'll see a lot of products lying about being nitrate-free because
they contain celery which contains citrates.

~~~
reificator
Thanks for the heads up!

------
allthenews
>Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from something like 5% to
something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put you off bacon
sandwiches for ever. But learning that consumption of processed meat causes an
additional 34,000 worldwide cancer deaths a year is much more chilling

No, it really isn't. This is pure sensationalism. I can't stand articles which
try so desperately to scare me. It makes me even less likely to follow
suggestions.

------
ryanmarsh
In my lifetime experts have been wrong about so much when it comes to food and
nutrition I just can’t take any of them seriously. So I try to imagine what
kept humans alive for 300k+ years. Then you realize humans live in incredibly
diverse environments and manage to survive on whatever they can find. So we
can pretty much survive eating almost anything. There are plenty of people who
live long enough to know their grandchildren while eating the most disgusting
toxic foods.

Thus the only guide I can trust is, how does this food make me feel when I eat
it? Coca cola makes me spike then feel like shit, eggs make me feel happy and
satiated, bacon and avocado too. Fried chicken makes me feel grimy and
sluggish as does pasta and beer. Leafy greens make me feel amazing and make my
stool less disgusting.

I can only imagine this is all that earlier humans had to go on and so I
choose to listen to my body.

~~~
21
This is one of the reason of the obesity epidemic. Our body loves sugar which
was very hard to come by, but which now is cheap and abundant.

Also keep in mind that up to 200 years ago average life span was ~35, so
cancer didn't really had time to develop.

~~~
quiq
Low average life span had a lot more to do with high infant mortality rate. It
wasn't that most people were dead by 40, just that a lot more were dead by 5.
If you made it through adolescence gray hair was totally within reach.

~~~
nielsbot
I'd like to read more about this.. Source? Is there a historical histogram,
over time, of lifespan somewhere?

~~~
Amezarak
Something that made it to HN recently was this paper.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/)

> _Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life
> expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the
> incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical
> activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had
> relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their
> correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and
> vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at
> approximately ten times the levels considered normal today._

That infant mortality was sky-high prior to the 20th century is pretty well
known - I can't think of a good, detailed source for that off the top of my
head. But what I can tell you, on the subject of longevity in general, is to
do the following:

\- Look back through the genealogical record, for you personally. "People old
enough to have kids" is a good sort-of proxy for life expectancy minus infant
mortality. I personally found that my ancestors regularly lived into their 70s
and 80s. Very few of my ancestors died younger than 70, going back to the
1600s.

\- Another good example is to look at history. Pick up Livy, for example, or
someone along those lines, and see how often someone dies of non-violent
causes before they've entered old age. It's pretty uncommon. When it did
happen, it was usually because of a horrific plague that killed people left
and right.

Basically, historically, people _generally_ (we're talking about a huge
expanse of time and different cultures here) lived pretty healthy lives. They
were much more active than we were, ate fewer processed foods, and often ate
very healthy foods. People didn't smoke and didn't eat much sugar. There also
wasn't a lot of industry spewing carcinogens and endocrine distributors
everywhere. If you lived in a peaceful area and time, in relatively sanitary
condition, your odds were very good that you'd live long into old age. Even if
you lived in a nasty city (and I'd call Victorian England pretty nasty) your
odds weren't bad. Where things fell apart was in war and plague. And as
discussed in the paper above, when people did die in old age, they tended to
pretty quickly of infection-related causes.

Life expectancy has probably risen and fallen over time, depending on
different historical and cultural factors. The popular model of "it's just
been getting better and better over time" is not at all correct - it's no
coincidence most charts begin in ~1900. The Victorian England paper is a good
basis for reflection because it's clear that the medical technology of that
time was not dramatically different than that available a few hundred years or
even two thousand years earlier, and neither was their diet or lifestyle
extraordinary, even if it was good.

------
wnevets
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say nitrite & nitrate are killing us?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Doesn’t appear to be unique to nitrites and nitrates. “Processed meat includes
hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats. It refers to meat that has
been treated in some way to preserve or flavor it,” with processes including
“salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking” [1].

[1] [https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-
organization...](https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-
says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html)

~~~
IBM
Does this include chicken and turkey that you get at the deli counter at the
grocery store?

------
pithic
In terms of harmful ingredients, phospates (used to increase water content)
might actualy be more dangerous than nitrates. Consumption of added phospates
is linked to renal failure, CVD, and yes, bowel cancer.

It's thought that disruption of biophoton communication is the mechanism by
which phosphates promote cell undifferentiation, proliferation, and,
eventually, cancer.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _The health risk of bacon is largely to do with two food additives:
> potassium nitrate (also known as saltpetre) and sodium nitrite. It is these
> that give salamis, bacons and cooked hams their alluring pink colour_

Is nitrate/nitrite [1] free prosciutto okay?

EDIT: Apparently not. “Processed meats, which are transformed by salting,
curing, or fermentation. This includes everything from hotdogs and bacon, to
lunch meats like salami and prosciutto“ [2].

[1] Is there a single word for these?

[2] [https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616524/processed-meat-
bacon-...](https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616524/processed-meat-bacon-who-
cancer-red-meat)

~~~
zaroth
TFA says that prosciutto di parma with it's 18 month aging process is truly
nitrate free.

------
GordonS
I'm colour-blind, and I've never given even a seconds thought to the _colour_
of bacon - the only things I look for is that it's smoked and has a nice
amount of fat.

Now that I do think about it, the colour of bacon (well, as far as my broken
eyes can tell!) is a bit... 'weird' for cured meat - I actually find the
colour of parma ham more pleasing.

I just checked online at the local supermarket (Tesco in the UK), and it seems
they don't even stock bacon made without nitrites, which is quite
disappointing.

------
emodendroket
> The WHO advised that consuming 50g of processed meat a day – equivalent to
> just a couple of rashers of bacon or one hotdog – would raise the risk of
> getting bowel cancer by 18% over a lifetime. (Eating larger amounts raises
> your risk more.) Learning that your own risk of cancer has increased from
> something like 5% to something like 6% may not be frightening enough to put
> you off bacon sandwiches for ever.

Uh, no, it isn't. Does anybody even eat "a couple of rashers" of bacon _per
day_?

~~~
IntronExon
Probably some people do, but then they probably have many more pressing health
concerns than a fractional impact of nitrosamines.

------
lobotryas
I'm willing to pay a premium for my processed meat products (and thus,
indirectly, reduce my consumption of them). Does anyone have any experience
buying nitrite-free bacon/salami/etc in the US? I think I can still find a
butcher locally (and I mean an actual stand-alone butcher store, not the
meat/deli counter at a grocer), but what do I ask them for? Just "locally
made" or are there brands who eschew adding pure nitrites to their products?

~~~
BugsJustFindMe
> _Does anyone have any experience buying nitrite-free bacon /salami/etc in
> the US?_

Yes. It's everywhere and costs about the same. But that may not be sufficient.

~~~
qubex
But as the top post indicates, in the US celery-derived chemicals earn the
“nitrate-free” label but are chemically indistinguishable from the “real deal”
(and thus have the same health concerns).

------
beebmam
All processed meat is classified by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) as carcinogenic.

Here is a list of all substances absolutely known to cause cancer:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinoge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens)

------
nitwit005
Are the nitrites particularly risky versus the alternatives? I recall the
world health organization warning about basically all forms of red meat and
cured meat: [http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-
meat/en/](http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)

------
GordonS
If the evidence is so damning, and alternatives are available, I don't see why
at least the EU can't legislate - surely it's not party to the same kind of
lobbying that allows big business to rule the roost in the US?

~~~
maxerickson
The evidence isn't particularly damning. Sure, there is some increase in
cancer risk, but it is a small increase.

A lot of times when something is in the news for contributing to cancer, you
can look at the statistics and still conclude that very few people that do the
thing will get cancer.

------
stickfigure
The nitrites and nitrates are essential to making bacon (and other cured
meats) taste good. The article is clickbait; the risk of bowel cancer in the
study was increased 18% - that is, from a low number to an 18% larger low
number. This isn't a public health crisis, this is a perfectly rational
individual choice.

Also, "uncured" bacon is a lie; one of the main ingredients is celery powder,
which contains - you guessed it - naturally occurring nitrites.

~~~
woolvalley
Bowel cancer is the 3rd most common cancer in the USA, and cancer is one of
the largest human causes of death that is fairly hard to avoid otherwise:

[https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-most-common-cancer-
in-t...](https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-most-common-cancer-in-the-
us-2249408)

So it's not a small chance.

~~~
stickfigure
Let's use real numbers shall we?

[https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html](https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html)

 _Approximately 4.3 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with colorectal
cancer at some point during their lifetime, based on 2012-2014 data._

Your chance (roughly) goes from 4.3% to 5% if you eat bacon (and salumi,
prosciutto, etc) regularly. Whether or not you personally consider this small
or large, it seems like a pretty straightforward cost/benefit analysis.

------
woolvalley
I'm guessing this applies to most jerky sold in stores too?

------
originalsimba
This just in, corporations are self-interested and corrupt.

If you've reached middle age without realizing that literally everyone in the
world is lying and cheating to get ahead then you are not paying attention.

"How did it get this way?" Because Bacon didn't always cause cancer, Bacon
doesn't cause cancer. Industrial processes cause cancer. The headline is
misleading. The article even states that there are non-cancer-causing methods
of manufacture. So whatever, keep eating bacon.

This is a great opportunity for safe meat producers to label their bacon "Non-
Carcinogenic!" when they use the proper methods.

------
saas_co_de
But it is killing us so deliciously ...

------
CryptoPunk
Well the FDA, USDA, etc have all but destroyed small farm independent food
processing so we'll all have to wait until our central planners decide to
change their definition of cured meats to include those not treated with
nitrates.

------
zenogais
Pure click-bait headline. It's not bacon that's killing us it's the nitrates
used to process it. You can buy uncured, nitrate free bacon.

~~~
vfc1
Its still "probably carcinogenic" according to the WHO -
[http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-
meat/en/](http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)

~~~
dawnerd
I mean so is the entire state of California...

------
vfc1
Nothing new here, according to the World Health Organization:

\- red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans

\- processed red meat is classified as carcinogenic to humans (" there is
convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer")

source - [http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-
meat/en/](http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)

~~~
supermatt
Which was mentioned in the article...

------
ChristianBundy
Animal agriculture is a large contributor to climate change, intrinsically
inefficient (i.e calories eaten << calories "harvested"), and an ethical
nightmare.

See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism)

~~~
PunchTornado
what does this have to do with the subject discussed here? Can't vegans just
take a break?

~~~
dashundchen
I would say it's relevant - not only is reducing consumption of bacon and
meats good for your personal health, it's good for our climate and overall
environmental health. Raising pigs industrially is a huge environmental
problem that affects a lot of people, especially in the American south.

------
acd
There is an agent added to pork meat to make it look pink. The pink making
substance is called natrium nitrate E250 look for it the next time you shop
meat in the super market. Natrium nitrate has a skull symbol marking it as a
poisonous substance on Wikipedia. Food industry labels natrium nitrate not as
a make pork look pink but as a preservative.

To avoid natrium nitrate you can by some ecological food.

The German version of Wikipedia has a skull symbol marking it as posinous on
natrium nitrate
[https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natriumnitrit](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natriumnitrit)

~~~
nielsbot
"sodium nitrate"?

------
taeric
Don't the studies show that, by and large, no it isn't? Even the conclusion of
this article dives in to how little this study is showing directionally.
"Processed meat may be another factor to consider when thinking about your
overall risk of breast cancer." is far from a definitive "yes it is really
killing us" opening title. :(

I mean, yes, it increases your risk. And when we have solved many of the other
high causes, it will have an obvious benefit for getting rid of it. So, very
glad we know this. But right now? You are far more likely to be killed from
other things than from exposure to bacon. Such that, statistically, it isn't
where most people should worry about starting.

~~~
DanBC
> Don't the studies show that, by and large, no it isn't?

No, the studies are very clear. They were widely misreported.

There are two things: how good the evidence is, and how strong the effect is.

The evidence that processed red meat causes cancer is now as strong as the
evidence that smoking causes cancer. We know that both do cause cancer.

But processed red meat doesn't cause much cancer. Smoking causes a lot of
cancer.

~~~
taeric
I was explicitly attacking the strength of the effect. Poorly, I grant.

That is, yes it increases the risk. It is such a weak source, though, that you
are still better starting elsewhere, and are here unlikely to die from cancer
if you eat these. Contrasted with smoking, where it is a strong influence.

