I think this country could be in danger of becoming under-nourished..... .....

I knew someone who claimed to be vegetarian but ate fish and chicken. A bit like the Catholic Church on the 1600s.

My veggie daughter doesn't eat anything that can move of it's own volition.

Such a sweet idea, orca . My point was that an epidemiological survey is not scientifically robust enough to establish more than a correlation, which is not proof of anything, and that the problems associated with 'life-style' choices, especially with regard to food, are complex. I do not know how such a 'link' as has been mooted could be scientifically established, but I do know it hasn't been established yet.

Are you saying that dogs were forced to smoke tobacco in order to establish the lung cancer link? If so, I'm sorry to hear it.

nightowl, I suppose perceptions of PC-ness are always going to be rather subjective from whatever angle one looks at the subject in question. For me the important thing is that we have choices.

With regard to food choices and other life style choices we make, I sometimes think we try too hard to eliminate all risk, or what is seen as risk. It's a luxury to be able to do that.

Do you really think it's PC to be a bit anti meat Bags? I thought we had gone full circle on that, and the rise of the celebrity chef had made meat fashionable (for want of a better term); particularly meat that is organic and preferably reared at home, with a name. OK I'm being facetious but coming to this as a non-meat eater I feel it is now less PC to be vegetarian than it was in say the 70's.

Bags I'm not going to shoot you down. Yes, such an experiment is possible. Perhaps all the redundant chain-smoking beagles can now be force fed bacon, sausages and processed ham?

It's just common sense really. No need for science.

When I was a kid, most people were 'normal' size. I had one friend who was chubby and one who was a bit thinner than the rest of us. Size and weight were never thought about, or discussed.

Nowadays we are going towards 2 sizes, far too fat, and far too thin. 'Normal' is getting rarer and rarer.

I agree that you can't experiment on human beings, but experiments can be devised to obtain, or try to obtain, actual scientific links rather than correlations. And they should be obtained before we can be categorical. I think one of the problems, apart from the fact that media reporting of things scientific is not good, is that there's also a modern, 'politically correct' attitude to meat at stake here – it's PC to be a bit anti-meat. This is for reasons quite apart from meat's effect on people's health, and I do think it plays a part in this kind of reporting, possibly subconsciously.

#expectingtobeshotdownforthat

I'm agreeing with you in the main bags - I think. But as orca says, there are some population studies that have been much more thoroughly done than others and should be given their due. This may (she said, using qualified language) be one of them.

Bags you cannot experiment on human beings. A population study is scientifically valid given certain controls and safeguards. It was population studies which first highlighted the correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Those results were met with the same initial scepticism.

And that good rule of thumb is basically all the article was saying. So, not science.

And you know as well as I do, jess, that a population study is not a scientific experiment and so nothing has been proved. An epidemiological survey may find correlations, which may be useful for highlighting where further actual research experiments may be needed for greater understanding, but it does not provide "links", only correlations which, as you know, are not good enough.

You also know as well as I do that the mainstream media is not good at reporting science.

I'm sure we both agree, as well, that moderation in all things is a good rule of thumb.

Well said Gracesmum

My DH's grandfather born in 1898 used to maintain that Marie Lloyd was the only nutritionist anybody needed when she sang "A little of what you fancy does you good"!
The key word is little - we are, or have bred, a generation of binge-drinkers, binge-eaters, binge-exercisers, binge-snackers, binge-health fanatics and binge- self-appointed gullible experts.

It certainly happened to one of my ex neighbours in the UK who was obsessed with her weight and ate carrots from morn to night. It actually can be quite dangerous.

Imo it is better to eat everything in as near to its natural state as we can, within reason. Surely the more food is interefered with the worse it probably is for us? Then once in a while have some of the stuff which is more processed and not so good for us as no one wants to be a martyr. We much prefer meals where we have done any processing so we know what is in them.

It was funny this morning though when DH got on the scales and had put on weight when he thought he should have lost some. He said it must have been the bacon sandwiches. Then he heard on the radio that bacon was bad for him and felt it was a triple whammy, the third being that I had been telling him for years why he couldn't lose weight! He still won't believe I am always right

well the main hunch is how I'd put it. I think at one time some alternative cancer therapy types were telling people to consume that amount of carrots/carrot juice. rubbish of course. turning orange from too much beta carotene does not cure cancer.

It is the nitrates and nitrites which are the main cause for concern in this study. But I don't think most people eat enough to cause harm.

Like I say, not a bad idea to keep quantities and frequency down.

Who on earth is going to et so many carrots that they turn orange?!

Yes! I know it has happened. But a very rare event.

Of course I'm not! I didn't say I was. I do talk with their mum though. And amicably.

I have got some stake in them - they're my grandsons FGS!

Nothing jo8 cos you are not officer in charge of what they eat (I assume)
So true absent. If you eat too many carrots you turn orange. Nice.
Bags you know as well as I do that scientists always talk like that. it is how they are trained and quite rightly so.
They did do a lot of statistical corrections. This is about as confident as they ever get with a population study. Apart from the memorable study of doctors in the 1950s which pretty much proved that smoking was bad for you. The results were that dramatic with the smokers dropping like flies. And a nice group to work with - male UK doctors. very easy to keep track of.
They do not know it is the sodium nitrate or nitrite. This kind of study does not prove a causal link - only experiments do that. (apart from that smoking one!) And on the subject of nitrates and nitrites there will be oodles more in preserved meat than there will be in vegetables.

I agree absent. I guess it doesn't hurt to cut back a bit.

I worry a bit about my grandsons. They love their cheese and ham sandwiches. It's a daily thing with them. And the older one has just taken to bacon big time. What can you do really?

I have spent an enormous amount of my adult life researching and writing about food and developing recipes. I am very interested in nutrition. My instinct says that bacon, sausages, other preserved foods once in a while are fine. Every meal, every day – no. Carrots, once in a while fine. Every meal every day, no. In other words, a mixed diet with as much variety as possible is likely to be the healthiest.

In short, it really isn't simple at all.

And go down the the comment by Tracey ?Parker near the wee video thingy. What she says is what I'm saying. People who eat a lot of processed food (meat included) tend to make (or have made for them by lack of money, perhaps?) other 'unhealthy' lifestyle choices as well.

Yep, thought so. Just checked the Beeb article and the words "appear to increase..." jump out at the top. And if you read it all there's an awful lot of padding that is not scientific, and no link to actual study and the actual study data, and the actual experiment that was undertaken, nor by whom it was undertaken, and so on. These things are important and real scientists know that.

Just read this. "a naturally occurring mineral, sodium nitrate is present in all kinds of vegetables (root veggies like carrots as well as leafy greens like celery and spinach) along with all sorts of fruits and grains. Basically, anything that grows from the ground draws sodium nitrate out of the soil."

And. "One of the things that happens when sodium nitrate is used as a curing agent is that the sodium nitrate is converted to sodium nitrite. It's sodium nitrite that actually possesses the antimicrobial properties that make it a good preservative. Interestingly, the sodium nitrate that we consume through fruits, vegetables and grains is also converted to sodium nitrite by our digestive process. In other words, when we eat fruits, vegetables or grains, our bodies produce sodium nitrite."