Nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines.

[Boustrophedon]

I has been known for decades that nitrosamines are carcinogenic.
Curing pork and other meats, to stop it going off, is traditionally done with salt and sodium or potassium nitrate. Or using smoke, another source of nitrosamines.
Bacterial action in the meat reduces the nitrates to nitrites and coincidentally gives rise to the pink colour.
Cooking and digestion in the stomach, then produces nitrosamines from the nitrites.
So the wisdom is using nitrates should be phased out.

Article in The Graun Where else?

So are these fears the overhyped application of the precautionary principle? Or is it a real concern?

But the real question is: What do we use instead? Preserving meat stops things like botulism, are we simply exchanging one risk for another? Are we going to lose more (poor) people from food poisoning?

[Woodchopper]

As for whether or not it’s overhyped:

out of every 1000 people in the UK, about 61 will develop bowel cancer at some point in their lives. Those who eat the lowest amount of processed meat are likely to have a lower lifetime risk than the rest of the population (about 56 cases per 1000 low meat-eaters).

If this is correct, the WCRF’s analysis suggests that, among 1000 people who eat the most processed meat, you’d expect 66 to develop bowel cancer at some point in their lives – 10 more than the group who eat the least processed meat.

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/ ... d-to-know/

The difference is real. But people will differ over the importance of reducing 66/1000 to 56/1000.

Those numbers are from 2015, perhaps some more recent ones are available.

[Bird on a Fire]

But the real question is: What do we use instead?

Plants.

Not because of this, though, but because of meat's disproportionate impacts on the climate, water use and land conversion.

Somebody could still be in the 56/1000 group and enjoy the occasional slice of bacon. But doctors and environment experts agree Westerners eat too much meat anyway.

[discovolante]

But the real question is: What do we use instead?

Plants.

Not because of this, though, but because of meat's disproportionate impacts on the climate, water use and land conversion.

Somebody could still be in the 56/1000 group and enjoy the occasional slice of bacon. But doctors and environment experts agree Westerners eat too much meat anyway.

What a radical thing to suggest.

I might add that it could be helpful to eliminate prejudice against tinned and frozen fruit and veg (including beans etc for teh protein) so poor people are screwed over a bit less with 'fresh vegetables' snobbery and expensive fake meat alternatives.

[Bird on a Fire]

Totes.

Another nice thing with plants is that you almost certainly won't die if you undercook them, whereas meat needs to be done properly. Plants are therefore clearly better for those with limited time/energy/resources.

[science_fox]

Totes.

Another nice thing with plants is that you almost certainly won't die if you undercook them, whereas meat needs to be done properly. Plants are therefore clearly better for those with limited time/energy/resources.

This is somewhat of a simplification. Many cultures quite happily eat raw meat from all animals. Meat that hasn't been raised/stored and processed in suitably hygenic conditions can much more? easily (cf salmonella in bean sprouts?) lead to complications that are often avoided by thorough cooking.

It's perhaps better to say that the cross contamination of meat products by the products of undesirable organisms can be avoided by thorough cooking unlike in plants where the (admittedly rarer) contamination can produce lasting toxicity.

[Pishwish]

How vegans get food poisoning. And there must be lots of plant-based foods that are safer to eat when cooked (like kidney beans), although your average consumer is unlikely to encounter this risk.

[Millennie Al]

Somebody could still be in the 56/1000 group and enjoy the occasional slice of bacon.

It's the 10/1000 group - not 56. Out of 1000 people the finding was that 934 will not get bowel cancer, 56 will, and 10 may or may not depending on whether they eat "the most processed meat" compared to "the least processed meat". If processed meat is harmful, then the harm will be related to the dose, so merely switching to a modest amount would likely affect the 10.

And, as always, correlation is not causation.