Gransnet forums

Health

Bacon

(38 Posts)
grannylyn65 Tue 24-Nov-15 12:12:15

Am I going stop eating it due to latest health scare?
No !

shysal Thu 26-Nov-15 09:12:42

Here you are biker, read it then ignore!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11950018/Bacon-ham-and-sausages-as-big-a-cancer-threat-as-smoking-WHO-to-warn.html
The first time I went food shopping after the latest warning, I found my contrary streak coming out and bought more than usual, including a bacon joint which lasts for days.

rosesarered Thu 26-Nov-15 10:28:06

Nothing better than a lean well cooked bacon sarnie, mmmmmmn.

MaizieD Thu 26-Nov-15 10:52:47

The trick is not to read the newspaper sensationalised stories but to read the original research, or a reliable (i.e not a newspaper story) review of it.

As everyone has said, moderation is the key. don't eat large quantities of processed meats every day.

I'm glad that butter has been rehabilitated; I've always eaten it as I can't bear margarine grin

bikergran Thu 26-Nov-15 10:59:04

ahh well by time we have finished our working lives with the pension reforms, it will prob be hard graft that kills us! not the bacon! in fact I have just thought what I am going to have for tea tonight grinyumm

Marty Thu 26-Nov-15 11:24:59

I just love a toasted avocado and bacon sandwich. Also, as I am in South Africa, a toasted bacon and banana. Yummy. I will not give up bacon or sausages or anything else. Everything in moderation is right. How can you have bacon and eggs for breakfast without the bacon!

NathalieMartin Thu 26-Nov-15 12:00:22

I'd rather have some sausages, which are just as bad. Can't win can we?

Dara Sat 28-Nov-15 13:21:29

Not going to stop eating delicious bacon!

grannylyn65 Sat 28-Nov-15 13:27:08

It is just the broughaha ( spelling? ) regarding the carcinogens in any form of processed meat, in particular bacon!'

Elegran Sat 28-Nov-15 14:02:35

Don't panic. Back to basics - www.sciencealert.com/so-processed-meat-has-been-classified-as-carcinogenic-here-s-what-you-need-to-know

"First off, when we talk about processed meats, we’re talking anything that has been salted, cured, fermented, or smoked, which means hot dogs, sausages, bacon, ham, corned beef, dried meat such as beef jerky, and canned meat or meat-based sauces. Red meat, on the other hand, is classified as any mammalian muscle meat, so beef, veal, venison, and pork. "

and
"Next, we need to understand the classification system used by the IARC, which is the cancer-focussed arm of the WHO. Their job is to classify everything according to five possible categories: Group 1 is established carcinogens, Group 2A is "probably carcinogenic", Group 2B is "possibly carcinogenic", Group 3 is for things that cannot be classified, due to a lack of data, and Group 4 is "probably not carcinogenic". Group 4 includes just one entry: caprolactam, a substance used to make synthetic fibres such as the nylon in your yoga pants and brush bristles.

Two things about these groups. As Ed Yong points out at The Atlantic, the language used here, e.g. "probably" and "possibly", is fairly ambiguous, and not particularly helpful. But most importantly, while it’s easy to interpret the things in these categories as equal, they in no way impart the same risk of cancer as each other. For example, smoking tobacco and eating processed meat are both Group 1 carcinogens, but they do not give you the same risk of cancer. Not even close.

As this Cancer Research UK infographic illustrates, the risk of getting lung cancer if you smoke is extremely high. Studies have found that out of the 44,488 new cases of lung cancer in the UK in 2012, 86 percent of them were caused by tobacco. On top of that, research has shown that 19 percent of all types of cancers are caused by smoking. Add all that up, and if you got rid of smoking, you’d have 64,500 fewer cases of cancer in the UK every year.

By that same logic, if we got rid of processed meat, just 8,800 cases of cancer would be prevented in the UK every year. Both smoking and processed meat have been directly linked to cancer, but that doesn’t mean the level of risk is equal. "The classifications reflect how strong the base of evidence is," David Wallinga, senior health officer for the US Natural Resources Defense Council, told Kaleigh Rogers at Motherboard. "It doesn’t say anything about how strong of a carcinogen that particular thing is. It’s not saying eating hot dogs is as potent at causing cancer as being exposed to asbestos."

"As Joshua A. Krisch explains at Vocativ, right now, your lifetime risk of colorectal cancer is about *five percent. This means that if you eat 50 grams of processed meat (two rashers of bacon) every day, your risk for colorectal cancer increases by 18 percent of five percent - so your total risk is 5.9 percent.

"So don’t believe the headlines that try to get you to make that kind of connection in your head, such as this one from The Guardian earlier today: "Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes - WHO."

"A sausage sandwich or bacon and egg roll here and there isn't going to cause you much dramas, but you shouldn't be eating them more often than that anyway."

hulahoop Sat 28-Nov-15 21:06:28

Has someone who had mastectomy last year and going through chemo and all its "joys" these kind of headlines don't help I was told while having chemo eat whatever you fancy now don't eat this and that cos it will give you cancer and if I go by all I can't eat life won't be worth living anyway !

Elegran Sat 28-Nov-15 22:13:22

hulahoop What you eat now will have no effect on the cancer that resulted in the mastectomy - that existed "then" and is being treated. Your chances of a new cancer starting - whether as a result of what you eat or of anything else - are just the same as anyone else's.

Take the advice you have been given, and don't become too precious about this or that proclamation from those whose career it is to sift out the tiniest statistic of risk, or (and in particular) by those whose career it is to sell newspapers by stirring up readers to buy their publication for its sensationalising of a comparatively mild piece of research. Most journalists don't really understand research or statistics, only hot news and scoops.

hulahoop Sun 29-Nov-15 10:53:39

I know that elegran I just meant "experts are always blaming something " and I know lots of people who have had cancer when first diagnosed think was it something they ate .also we are encouraged to put it behind us and forget about cancer it makes it very difficult when there all these headlines I eat what I want within reason and encourage others to do the same thanks for rely .