Bacon and ham sold in the UK should carry cigarette-style labels warning that chemicals in them cause bowel cancer, scientists say.
Their demand comes as they criticise successive British governments for doing “virtually nothing” to reduce the risk from nitrites in the decade since they were found to definitely cause cancer.
Saturday marks a decade since the World Health Organization in October 2015 declared processed meat declared processed meat to be carcinogenic to humans, putting it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.
Putting nitrates in the same category as fucking asbestos is literally insane.
It’s like putting a Glock and a 10,000kg bomb in the same category, it’s utterly disingenuous.
Not if the category is “causes cancer” — nor, in the case of your Glock and bomb, if the category is “can kill you”
Context matters
And fittingly, both of those categories are pretty much a perfectly overlapping venn diagram because they are so overarchingly vague.
Drinking water can kill you, and if it’s too hot, it causes cancer.
Therefore “drinking water” is something that can be found it both lists. And so is “not drinking water”.
Well, I’m glad somebody noticed 😉
I never said they weren’t in the same category. To act like implying the risks of nitrates are identical to asbestos is insane and just makes people ignore these warnings.
There is a need to differentiate the level of risk because if you don’t people are going to think the 10,000kg bomb is the same danger as a Glock when in reality they abso-fucking-lutely not.
It’s disingenuous, you’re right that context matters because displaying the two as if they’re the same strips the risk assessment of its context.
No, the fact that they are in the same category is the entire reason for your comment. Making such a claim is disingenuous… Which, if I recall, is your accusation.
I agree. Most people here do. That’s why nobody has made such a claim.
How can you not see how putting in the same category implies the same level of harm.
I hate these fuckin reddit brained Lemmy users who intentionally misread comments just to argue some adjacent point.
Whatever if you all want pointless warning labels go for it, just know you’re not doing anything useful.
Because I can read
Clearly not well, reading comprehension is important
I’m not the one who has misused several words, clearly not understanding their definition.
I’m also not the one making an absurdly obvious strawman argument.
How’s that for context? lol
this comment chain sucks
The category just means that there is scientific proof of carcinogenicity. The WHO states (somewhere) that it’s not to be taken to mean that bacon is as dangerous as tobacco. Of course, that’s what everyone thinks they mean, so maybe they should work on their messaging
That’s what I’m saying, putting nitrates next to hardcore carcinogens like asbestos makes the hardcore carcinogens look less harmful than they actually are.
They need to differentiate the levels of harm or else it’s just another warning that people will ignore because it’s on literally everything.
But everyone knows not to and therefore doesn’t go near asbestos. Almost anyone who eats meat eats bacon.
Maybe stop putting things in stuff that mean that they require this warning?
But what do I know…
Everyone knows bacon isn’t good for you, nitrates aside the un*saturated fats are horrendous for you.
If you’re eating bacon you’re already doing it knowing it’s bad for you.
We should save the prop65 warnings for things that actually need it. They’re already way oversaturated and have lost all meaning to the vast, vast majority of consumers.
Still not as bad as sugar, most essential fatty acids are saturated, while there is no such thing as an essential sugar, because we can make all the sugar we need from other types of food.
Bacon and eggs are not nearly as unhealthy as some have made them out to be, and it turns out sugar is a way more dangerous source for the most damaging form of cholesterol there is.
The reason bacon is bad and cancerous is mostly because it’s smoked, and people like to fry it hard. It has very little to do with saturated fat.
I’ve never understood this, it tastes far better nice and soft.
Yes it does, but many prefer crispy bacon.
Seatbelts have been a legal requirement for longer than I’ve been alive, and people can see why, but people get pulled over daily for not wearing one.
Why are saturated fats bad for you?
I actually had it backwards, unsaturated fats are horrendously bad.
Their molecular shape makes them more grabby than saturated fats.
This grabbyness makes them clog your arteries faster than saturated fats.
It has to do with the availability of hydrogen binding spots, unsaturated fats have room for more hydrogen bonds, saturated fats don’t.
Trans unsaturated fats are perhaps worse, but saturated fats are associated with arterial plaque and heart disease. Poly and mono unsaturated fats are healthier than saturated fats.