It's bad for your sense of morality because the animals you eat almost always suffered a miserable life with a cruel ending, all so you could needlessly eat meat. Eating meat is also bad for the environment because it requires many more resources to produce an animal than to produce non-animal food. Of course, meat is also bad for your health. Try an Impossible Burger or Beyond Meat Burger as an alternative. They taste good.
11
It's now 10:29 a.m. and I still haven't had breakfast. I usually have Cheerios, with milk and slices of banana; but -- curiously ya might say ... after reading this I have decided to have a couple or 3 eggs, over easy, with toast. I just wish I had some organic bacon -- and someone to cook it for me.
See ya later!
12
What was so refreshing about spending 4 months in the Sydney, Australia area was how few people were obese. I mean morbidly obese. Coming back to the states I really noticed how many fat Americans there are. I can just imagine a foreigner visiting the US and landing in the mid west or south. It seems the percentage of morbidly obese people is higher there.
By the way, in 4 months in Australia, I never saw anyone using a electric cart provided by a grocery store I don’t think they are even available. The only people I saw in wheelchairs were the truly disabled.
Nothing like seeing a 30 year old morbidly obese person in Walmart riding a electric cart with the basket full of junk food. Here in Florida they tend to favor shorts and tee shirts so that you may observe the splendor of their poor eating habits.
33
@Paulie dude, I get your point, but it's kinda mean. People are ignorant about how to eat because they get lied to by the government telling them carbs were great for years. I know people shouldn't eat so much junk food, but try to have some more kindness okay? You didn't need to bring up their physical appearance, even though it's sorta "funny" it's really not, considering someone that heavy at age "30" as you said, is really in danger of having an early death. Have some more empathy. Much love to all.
16
@Paulie
In America, it’s really cultural by region. Not every state, especially California, is fat. I’ve found that the more conservative and religious the state, the fatter. I felt like I landed on an alien planet the first time I went grocery shopping in Missouri after a lifetime in California and four years in Massachusetts with annual visits back for the last 30. Never had I seen so many obese adults AND children so regularly in my seven years living in Missouri. Sometimes, I’d look at the shopping carts of these obese people and they were packed to overflowing with processed garbage. I just about cried when I moved back to LA, walked into my local Vons, and saw not one fat person in the store, and the store was in the Valley and packed with normal, everyday people with carts full of produce, whole grains, and other non-processsed junk. So, it’s not like I was on the wealthy Westside. I was among just normal everyday people who obviously accept the science of healthy eating and don’t see it as a blue state liberal conspiracy theory.
10
@left coast finch
While the rates of overweight and obesity are higher in many Southern and Midwestern states, there are plenty of overweight and obese people in California, myself included, who as I type this, are roaming the aisles of grocery stores in the most nutritionally conscious precincts of our state with shopping carts packed with fresh produce, as well as organic and natural products of all sorts. In my field of medicine, where I regular treat those who are dying from serious illnesses, I frequently hear "But, doctor, why did this happen to me? I only ate natural foods for the past 25 years!". My point in reporting this is not to disparage the research on the relationship between diet and health, nor to encourage poor eating habits, but rather to point out that these relationships are complex and remain incompletely understood.
10
Timely article. Have bought canned goods lately.
I don't eat processed meat every day but do enjoy them from time to time. Moderation is the key!
It’s a carcinogen.
4
If you take ground meat, beef or lamb, add salt, pepper, garlic, onions, parsley, cumin, etc., and then cook it -stove top, grill, oven- is it considered "processed" and unhealthy?
As with added sugar and salt, homemade foods are usually fine.
So the next question is what is the risk of celery (juice) or beetroot (juice)? I'm guessing these are concentrates and not just the regular amount you would get by eating some.
2
What are the cancer rates for people living in Italy eating processed meats versus those living in the US eating meat processed differently? The chemicals allowed into the US food supply are not allowed in the food in the EU. It is shameful.
2
Does smoked fish have the harmful nitrates? (please, please, no.)
Poor Americans! The worst food in the world and now this!
3
What the heck am I supposed to eat for lunch now?
4
I now poach chicken and use that for sandwiches, or make a small roast beef, pork roast or roast a chicken on the weekend and use that instead. Not quite as convenient, but now I find deli meats taste very salty and ‘processed’ in comparison. If you have an instant pot, poaching chicken is fast / convenient (no watching the stove).
1
Today, for the first time in “forever,” I got some smoked turkey slices from Trader Joe’s, because I had a craving.
Ha! Do I go and really look at the label?
No no no no no! I’m sorry I opened this article, I’m just going to enjoy my meal.
I’m terrible at math, but it doesn’t look like the statistics are alarming, unless you’re eating like this every single day, in very large quantities.
And of course, they’ll be a million people with a million stories of long lived humans who ate whatever they wanted; even smoked & drank.
COVID was an alarm; this is nothing!
3
If you could live forever if you only ate rocks, would you do it?
4
It is for the animals.
1
The war on the Reuben continues. Let my people go. To the Jewish deli to have a Reuben.
3
I will continue to eat both bacon and sausage, thank you, but in small quantities. We get ours from a butcher who works with local farmers, not some mega-meat corporation.
Food does evoke strong emotions. You think that getting folks to stop smoking is hard? Try to keep Southerners from bacon and sausage.
Just about anything us poor humans can turn to for solace as we wander this vale of sorrows called 'life', anything, is programmed to bring us harm and a slow painful death.
Who is to blame for this evil practical joke?
I'm off to have a hotdog with all the extras, a smoke, a drink of Coca Cola, a bar of chocolate, and dump my sun screen in the bin then lay in the sun for the afternoon. I will keep you posted, friends.
1
What about herring from Murray's? You can live on it.
1
As much cured meats as they eat in France, Germany and Italy according to these people they should have a huge number of cases of colo-rectal cancer. Which they do not, and they have been eating cured meats for centuries. Frequently every single day.
1
I’m spending the rest of my life under my bed.
2
There is a case to be made for moderation in the ingestion of any food, natural or processed. Regarding nitrosamines and their precursors, they are not only found in processed meats, but also in fresh produces, sometimes in larger amounts. Beets, celery, lettuce, spinach, radishes and rhubarbs all contain about 200 mg of nitrate per 100 g portion. Of course nitrates are only dangerous after being converted by bacteria in human saliva and in the intestine into nitrite and nitrites can react with other chemicals (i.e., amines) to produce nitrosamines. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 72% of the nitrite exposure to the mouth and esophagus results from the conversion of the nitrates contained in vegetables, and only 9% results from the ingestion of cured meats, primary bacon. (I'm a retired Food Technology Scientist, not affiliated to the Meat Industry).
7
Pastrami on a bagel/smooth liverworst galore/There's so much to fulfill me/at any deli store/They make good herring salad/that swims in fatal brine/Good health is not an option/when on such stuff you dine/Who wants to live forever/if it means lacking lox/I'd rather take my chances/and doctors all flummox.
20
I would love to see some data on people who live in Italy and eat cured meats as a good portion of their daily diet…
17
Question: If I give up hot dogs, ham, bacon, corned beef, pepperoni, salami, deli meats, sausages, and corned beef, will I live longer or will it just seem longer?
Asking for a friend.
32
@The Constant Gardener It will DEFINITELY seem longer!
A friend.
1
These statistics are based on a daily serving. What about just enjoying them occasionally as a treat? That information would be more helpful than the data given here that comes to the conclusion that a slice of ham s day raised your risk. Who eats a slice of ham every day?
10
@Night Sparrow It's probably like walking around in a high crime area at night. Your chances of getting mugged are 18% higher, but you may go 20 years without getting mugged. Or, you may go into the crime district just one time and get knifed and left to bleed in the gutter. Better not to eat what is essentially junk food.
Where are the raw numbers? An increase of 18 percent is meaningless. Is it 2 out of 1000 vs 6 out of 1000? Could even be out of 100,000.
5
This warning does seem to be definitive and explicit so I will be extra careful about deli type meats. They are hardly addictive and it should be easy to avoid them in favor of less risky products. But let's face it, "if the right one don't get you then the left one will" to quote Johnny Cash in the song "16 Tons."
3
My grandpa was 95 when he died. The one thing I remember over the years is that he ate bacon almost every day (the cast iron skillet and can of bacon grease always on the stove). He stayed active though and worked into his 90’s, stayed relatively thin, always got out to exercise or at least get fresh air, read all the time and had a daily drink. No colon cancer, but bout of prostrate cancer in his 80’s. As with everything moderation is the key. He never took any meds for cholesterol or high blood pressure either.
That said, I’m getting older, and realized nitrates cause my migraines. I also think how animals are treated and processed on a commercial level has changed dramatically over the years (not for the better)!
I think we have to work harder than previous generations to stay healthy and be more concerned about the state of goods entering our bodies. That includes not taking all the drugs prescribed by doctors for every little thing, and not limiting food you may enjoy. Moderation is the key to being happy and healthy.
16
Anecdotes are not science
1
Given the way animals are raised and treated in the US, on those disgusting feed lots, I wonder if that has something to do with what seems to be more of a US problem with this type of cancer. Some European countries have banned our meat products for that reason alone. Maybe we need to look at Smithfield, Tyson, and other feedlots, and compare them to the way beef, pork, and poultry are raised in Europe. As mentioned by others in this thread, things seem to be much better in countries like Spain and Italy where those products are consumed regularly.
9
Well, the other comments show that when you do science about something that really touches people in their hearts (or guts), you get very emotional reactions. That’s not you thinking, folks, it’s just your hypothalamic reaction to imminent loss of a very satisfying pleasure and habit, leading to your brain creating superficial arguments to support what you’d like to be true, i.e. confirmation bias! That aside, of course one has to consider more than just the science on cured meat to create a thorough recommendation for nutrition, this is just one piece of the puzzle. Speaking as a physician: I love sausages, too (you kinda have to when you live in Germany), but it’s by now quite well explored that nitrites like in cured meat do actually significantly raise case numbers of colorectal carcinoma, and you can quite easily break that down into case numbers per country and year that could be avoided. Quite sad when you’re one of those, quite annoying when you aren’t (yet?) and just want to eat your sandwich. Anecdotal proof of guys getting 100 with their daily pastrami won’t help either-who doesn’t know the story of the 100-year-old grandma that smokes every day and who would then still argue that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer? Of course, life is deadly in general, but at least we should keep pushing the industry in the less-convenient-for-them-and-better-for-the-consumer direction, which is not using nitrites at all as a first step.
22
Claiming that any statistic identifies a "relative risk" is not Science.
Eating processed meat also increases the "risk" that you will own a certain model of automobile.
2
I wonder if Smoked salmon and smoked oysters also fall under the category of processed meats, with the same cancer risks as the deli meats.
11
There was no mention in the article about processed fish. Does that mean it is safe to consume smoked salmon, pickled herring, etc.? I do not know the answer to that question but I think it is important to know.
27
@Dave Friedlander Processed means that risky agents have been used, whether it is to cure fish or meat seems the same to me.
4
@Dave Friedlander Easy enough to Google.
@AJ True, but if you are not an expert in the field in which you are using Google, Google is about as likely to find the wrong answer or even the crazy answer as the right one. You can use Google to find sites that tell you that they have a cure for Alzheimer's Disease. As the husband of a wife with Alzheimer's, I have had to learn that the cure is yet to be discovered and that anyone who says they have such a cure is a quack.
No one in my Italian family has ever had, let alone died from, colon cancer and it’s possible my people invented some version of cold cuts. My grandmothers and aunts made their own salamis, hung them up to dry in the basement right over the pool and ping pong tables their American grandkids installed, and most lived to be in their 90s. Some of them were surely smoking and drinking their own high-octane vino while they stuffed the casings and rolled them in salt. Sure, I might live to be 120 on a parsimonious diet of organic water and dried bitter leaves, but I’ll wish I’d died at 70. Relax, enjoy and mangia!
39
The risk increase is a relative risk; 4 percent relative risk is not that large (we make daily decisions that affect our relative risk even more without thinking). 20% is getting into the realm where you start to ask if it's worth it to give up that incredibly yummy pastrami sandwich.
11
@David Konerding what we need is the absolute risk.
1
This advice has been circulating in US society since the 1970s. Way back then, it was made clear, all you had to do was eat acidic foods with your processed meat, to stop the supposed chemical reaction that creates the supposed cancerous compound. Orange juice with your bacon anyone? Mustard on your ham sandwich?
And yay to all commenters who pointed out the ignorance of the writer, to not distinguish between relative risk and absolute risk and be clear about which one the "researchers" were highlighting.
(Not to mention the question about what other diet and health practices people engaged in, and whether the study was based on self reporting of food consumption (notoriously unreliable).)
22
As my beloved grandmother always said, “everything in moderation.” I believe it was Oscar Wilde who added “…including moderation.”
I’ve never really been a sandwich person but I do love a nice sopressata or French saucisson sec on a cheese board occasionally. Key word, occasionally.
14
I grew up in Alsace-Lorraine, a region of Europe with an abundance of cured meats. My parents ate these their whole life and both lived to their late 90s. Most of US food supply is adulterated, starting with the feed given to animals up to all sorts of chemicals because the US consumer cannot bear variations or imperfections that occur in natural food. Just blaming cured meats is a shortcut.
51
Does the consumption of celery, spinach, lettuces, etc increase the risk due to their naturally occurring nitrate?
13
@EmK no, it does not.
1
“The average person goes to the store and sees claims like ‘organic, ‘natural,’ or ‘no added nitrates or nitrites,’ and they assume those meats are safer, and they’re not,” said Bonnie Liebman.
Does Liebman in fact have studies showing her statement to be true? If nitrates and nitrites in vegetables are not causing an increase in cancer, she really doesn't know if it's the source of the nitrates and nitrites or the meat interacting with them that is causing disease.
Liebman clearly has an agenda she's selling. Can she back it up with science?
13
What about smoked meats?
Sausages.
European style ground fresh in real intestine casing.
Does smoked fresh pork with salt and pepper and garlic act anything like processed with nitrates?
This is a real treat. Smoked Slovenian is considered the best tasting in Europe and is sold on the streets of Vienna.
5
So, now my Bolognas first name is Cancer? Right.
11
Life is fatal.
30
I'll get my annual smear during my wellness exam and my cologuard every three years.
Sounds like no celery either? Puhleeze.
5
The World Health Organization has officially declared processed meat to be carcinogenic. Why is this being presented as a question? Do we do stories entitled: Is Smoking Really That Bad? Is Heroin Really That Bad? We need warning labels on all processed meat immediately. Let's stop going into contortions in an attempt to do a bad thing in a slightly better way. Let's end this industry now for human health, climate, world hunger mitigation, animal welfare and many other reasons.
19
@Jane Velez-Mitchell Health warnings on packages do zero good.
While I am not recommending people eat processed red meats, colorectal cancer is easily detected in colonoscopies every five years.
Whatever you eat, everyone should have these tests.
A new test, done at home, using a small fecal smear, can detect colorectal cancer also.
6
Why would you want to increase the risk of detecting it at all? Once it's been detected, that means you've had it brewing for up to 10 years but it's just become detectable, and it's gotten worse during that time. Wouldn't it be better to try to keep it in check by not letting the cancer get going in the first place? A member of my family has colon cancer. Yes, please get those colonoscopies as directed, but don't count on them as any kind of life saver. A colonoscopy is not preventing anything - at worst it tells you that you have something that is quite likely to kill you eventually if you don't change your lifestyle and diet drastically. Why not make those changes before the polyp or cancer is found in the first place?
14
This reply is technically accurate, but also misleading in that it does not explain that these are relative risks, not absolute. If a baseline risk is 1,000 cases per million population, then an 18% increase gives 1,180 cases per million, not 180,100 cases per million, no? So while the relative risk went up by 18% in my example, the absolute risk went from 0.00100% to .00118%. For a baseline risk of 0.050% (this is higher than annual colorectal cancer numbers in the US), an 18% increase would go to 0.059%, an increase in absolute risk of less than 1% of 1%.
31
@Rosemary Macedo
Excellent reply and I completely agree .
Meat is an excellent source of nutrients, and ruminant animals are a sustainable resource when farmed properly.
Something "fishy" drives the anti-meat agenda.
6
@Rosemary Macedo oops - typo: 181,000 not 180,100.
1
@Rosemary Macedo I am glad to see I am not the only statistically literate person here!
4
What I don't see here and would like to know is the effect of blood-based cold cuts like French boudin noir, German blutwurst, Polish kishka etc. Is it the same as that of nitrite cured cold cuts?
2
Wow what a horrible misrepresentation of the science. Correlation studies tell you very little. Please hire reporters that have some knowledge of science and ability to think critically.
24
What about smoked fish? I eat naturally smoked herring on toast. Does this carry the same cancer risk as deli meat?
6
This association of colorectal cancer and processed meat should be corrected by fruit and vegetable intake. It may be that people who eat a lot of processed meats do not eat much plant food, missing fiber and antioxidants. That may be the reason why nitrates in plants are not harmful but even recommended for improved circulation and lower blood pressure. Eating moderate amounts of processed meat with recommended intake of fruits and vegetables should not increase risk of cancer (real Mediterranean pattern of eating).
8
So what. Enjoy life. Does a difference of a few years in length really matter? Colorectal cancer is not that common. People have been eating these foods for centuries.
9
@Ponk I l believe colorectal cancer is more common than we think...One can enjoy life ( and feel better) without eating processed meats. ...I know "old habits die hard" but decreasing the amount of meat we ingest is much healthier for us and for our planet.
Just because people have been eating these food for centuries does not make it right...knowledge is power.
16
@Ponk
People in previous centuries were eating nowhere near the amount of processed food that the current population eats. Deli meat is among the worst of the processed foods.
17
@Ponk
Toward the end I did the shopping for my 95 and 96 yr old parents. They had a Mediterranean diet but always sent me to get Bologna, Liverwurst and Salami. I told them I couldn't believe they were still eating this stuff. They lived a long healthy balanced life and never stress about their diet.
13
People who eat any kind of food have a higher risk of cancer than people who avoid all foods.
It would be more useful to have articles about what kinds of food are the least toxic, and how they are labeled.
6
@RM People who don't eat any foods have the highest risk of death. Everything is toxic in excessive quantities. As the Romans knew, moderation in everything is the key to living.
2
I don't like bacon and other processed meats, and have hardly eaten any for most of my life. I eats loads of fruits and vegetables, don't smoke, drink the occasional glass of wine, exercise regularly and yet, aged 76 I was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. There's no formula to predict the occurrence of cancer so one might as well trust the moderation principle and enjoy whatever you enjoy.
57
Great to see small but important intro definitions, and what falls in that category
1
So many "testimonials" about "uncles" who lived to "103" while eating processed meats daily. So many posts seeming to attack the scientific validity of the studies cited, while never citing any real studies that support claims of scientific lapses.
Corporate America has long used trolls to push astroturf attacks on science and regulation. Monsanto did it with Roundup. https://www.grubstreet.com/2017/05/lawsuit-alleges-monsanto-hired-trolls-to-attack-critics.html.
Ditto for corporate trolling on the FCC's net neutrality proposal. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/technology/internet-providers-fake-comments-net-neutrality-new-york.html.
And they are out in force here.
The Times should weed out these corporate trolls or shut down comments. They are for comments, not corporate trolling.
17
@Gaius Thank you. After reading some of these comments they're either corp trolls or extremely defensive about their own eating habits.
6
I’m suspicious of everybody’s Italian grandparents here in the comments as well.
My real German Grandfather ate meat at every meal, smoked cigarettes till the end and had five heart attacks before he died of the last one at age 73. I never met him, maybe I could have if health recommendations were better in the past. (My other German Grandfather also died of a heart attack, but in his fifties).
5
@Gaius "So many "testimonials" about "uncles" who lived to "103" while eating processed meats daily."
Those uncles who lived to 103 also lived in a time when life was vastly different, not least in the moving your body around department.
3
Just observational, but I figured there was a link between the popularity of bacon *in everything* and a rise in colorectal cancer in people in their 40s.
12
So salt and potato starch cause cancer but eating a salted potato does not? And beets cause cancer? I’m not understanding this guidance.
12
@David
Beets AND Red Meat together cause the production of nitrites which may cause cancer.
2
moderation of course! think of all the traditional people in italy and greece with their smoked meats, prosciutto, loukaniko and mortadella...this is more snowflake hysteria!
9
The article mentions sea salt as a culprit. Stop the insane sea salt craze. Look at the labels of organic products and learn that it is hard to avoid sea salt. People get your minerals elsewhere. Don't look to the polluted oceans. Is sea salt tested for concentrations of mercury and other heavy metals and pollutants?
8
The Italians eat massive quantities of these foods although I think most of them are simple salted products with little smoking. How does it affect them? Shouldn't we all be dead eating the Italian diet and yet we're not. Interesting.
11
@Kimberly Breeze
I believe some people are genetically better suited to eat the diets of their native lands. This is due to the natural selection process over generations.
But in today's world, where people have access to foods that their ancestors never ate, a food may have a bad health reaction.
4
@RM There is an excellent book that explains the genetic basis for food choices and why some people are programmed to process certain foods.
Title: Why Some Like It Hot
1
@Kimberly Breeze
No, most Italians do not eat "massive" quantities of deli meat.
7
Articles like this raise more questions than they answer. So like...have there actually been studies linking nitrites and nitrates specifically or just "processed" meats in general? Have there been any studies specifically investigating, sea salt, evaporative cane juice, potato starch, and any of the other "vegetables that contain nitrites and nitrates"...shouldn't we avoid all these things too? Obviously there are big missing pieces to this puzzle...is it really the case that modern medicine has not made any progress in solving this puzzle? This is a three year old article but people have been saying this for decades. Have scientists just stayed pat, clapped their hands and said "cold-cuts bad, ends of story"????? Why reprint this if there are no new insights?
11
@Frank
The article states that vegetable nitrites are different and do Not cause cancer.
2
My best guess from the article and comments is that nitrites are most dangerous when combined with fossil fuels, as in "I never walk. I only drive." This appears to be a dangerous combination, for the individual(s) and the planet.
2
@Kenneth Brady
I'd rather drive. Walking leaves my carbon footprint.
2
4-18% more than what? There's a 100% chance of death.
7
This article is really confusing. The author suggests that its the nitrites that supply the added risk, but its too hard to find preserved meats that don't actually have them. What If you are able to find meats that really do not contain added nitrites?
Does the increase in risk remain? Is it diminished? Eliminated?
I guess I'll finish my prosciutto sandwich and wait for an answer.
6
The Spain's jamon has been eaten for centuries. C'mon. This story is from 2018 for crissakes! Don't we have enough to worry about?
10
As some wag commented in a previous iteration of this article: "If this is true, then everyone in Spain is dead."
5
This is all you need to know. The World Health Organization classified processed meats (that is essentially all deli meat) as a Group 1 carcinogen. Consumption of processed meats is directly correlated with increased incidence of cancer
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat
Also, while the author states, "Meat and poultry are excellent sources of protein, B vitamins and certain minerals, ...", they are also excellent sources of salmonella, e. coli, saturated fat, accumulated environmental toxins, and heme iron (known to be inflammatory and contribute to arterial damage). Probably why unprocessed meats are classified as Group 2 carcinogens by the WHO.
8
@arusso Heme iron is the best remedy for anemia, a common problem in women (heavy menstruation, pregnancy).
3
The parenthetical aside (Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but eating them is not associated with an increased risk of cancer.) explains exactly nothing. If one is going to include information on the dangers of nitrates and nitrites in food and include such a statement, it is the author's or editor's job to explain this seemingly contradictory information.
25
@Tom Hughes Exactly. This article leaves the reader less informed and more confused. The article seems to insinuate that it is something else about the processed meats, since some vegetables also contain nitrites/nitrates but don't have the same cancer risk. Or perhaps it is the nitrites/nitrates *in combination with* something else in the processed meats. But the article doesn't explain this at all.
15
@Kelly
Exactly not. The writer gave us scientifically valid data. If you want to challenge it, provide us with scientifically valid data of your own.
4
What about smoked fish, like salmon? Out as well?
8
@EJD Your question inspires me to ask one also, not quite related to processed foods per se. At one time in the past, it was trendy to snack on sashimi (raw fish, usually tuna, sliced thin) with a side of soy dipping sauce. I don't know if that is still popular in this sushi era, but I'm curious to know where these raw fish dishes fall on the good for you/bad for you scale. Today, I can't even bring myself to eat tuna salad, much less sashimi or sushi. I hated fish as a kid, never got into seafood, and today I never touch it. Mediterranean diet, anyone?
1
When you think about it and read about it, most food is just plain disgusting.
6
@H. Clark Odd since when I think about it, it all seems so delicious and I'm amazed at the variety and availability of food today. We are so lucky, and our food is great. Being fit or worrying about risk factors like this shows you how much food there is, how safe our lives are, and how little risk we actually face. We are lucky indeed!
11
@David
I think H Clark has his tongue firmly in cheek (which, when you think about it, is a disgusting figure of speech). If you fixate enough, you'd want to spit anything out of your mouth. Fruits, for example, are the sex organs of plants engorged after some inter-kingdom bestiality with bees, bats, and "pollinators." Eww!
4
To succinctly summarize the article, “If it tastes good, spit out.”
11
Quite the binary thinking, I'd say, even if your comment is in jest. Eating less and shifting to healthier options IS possible.
I'll continue to do as my Italian relatives who have all lived into their 90s and 100s have done: eat salami, pancetta, and guanciale whenever I feel like it.
29
@Suri Well, I guess it's your life so you can decide. Not sure why the rest of us need to know about it though.
1
My, father, who died at age 102, ate processed meats every day. He also ate cheesecake and drank coffee with half and half constantly. Go figure.
23
@Madrugada Mistral I'm with you, but only if they come from Italy. EU standards are much different from U.S. America feeds us chemicals and food dyes. Italia feeds us the real thing. Cured and smoked the way our mamas used to.
7
What if you're not eating them daily? I have bacon maybe once a week and a smoked turkey sandwich once a week—is there an increased risk with that sort of frequency?
8
@Cameron Going outside increases your risks. Don't fall for the "increased risk" nonsense of foolish people. Live your life and enjoy it. Don't fall for the grumpy people who fear life, fear risk, fear pleasure, fear food.
5
Why a 2+ year old article suddenly? As for the desire to eat bacon, it tastes good so people eat it. Some of us may substitute broccoli for Sunday morning's sausage, but regardless of the 18% increase in cancer most of us won't. Still it is good to know that this stuff is not the healthiest item in the supermarket.
10
It's interesting to see that the response to this article is virtually 100% opposed to the author's conclusion that we shouldn't eat processed meats because it causes an unacceptably high risk of colo-rectal cancer. I agree with the comments. And I wonder, as I have before when this particular story and other demon-food stories crop up (as in a front-page story in the Boston Globe a couple of years back: "40% Increase in colon cancer from processed meats"), whether the reporter is expressing a personal bias in the slant of the story. And further, whether the research scientists are pursuing confirmation bias by creating their studies to confirm and justify their own dietary preferences.
14
I have not eaten any processed meats for the past 15 years. I don't miss it either. Better safe than sorry.
8
@Suzanne Wheat Is it? I doubt it unless you never liked it before. Enjoying life daily is far more important than living in fear of small risks that keeps you from fully living during a lifetime you'll never get back. If you don't like that food, fine, but your choice may have no beneficial impact to your life.
2
And my darling sister, who was very health-conscious, exercised and kept trim, died at the age of 64 from pancreatic cancer. People, stop obsessing. Just be reasonable. Everything in moderation.
47
@Vivian Same with my husband. We ate "well" for years. We should have enjoyed more of the food we liked, as you say, in moderation.
16
I would like to know if Germany, with the huge consumption of different wursts have comparable studies. Too many occasions of "don't eat this " which later turns out to be a false alarm.
47
Folic acid supplementation also increases the risk of colorectal cancer. That is why Europe does not fortify its bread and flour with folic acid as does the U.S. The incidence of colon cancer in young adults in the U.S. has increased since mandatory supplementation with folic acid in bread has been implemented. It is done to prevent spina bifida, but folate supplementation is effective only during the first trimester of pregnancy. Thereafter it may be harmful.
14
A few times a month I have a turkey sandwich with chips. Sorry but I'm not going to bring tempeh to a picnic. If I'm still allowed to say picnic, that is.
20
@Roberta Do you mean “pique-nique”?
5
Surely eating a quick deli sandwich for lunch everyday is better than going to McDonalds?
10
@Liz Apparently not.
5
@Liz I mean isn't that comparing processed meat to processed meat?
7
The preservatives are used because processed meats provide an excellent environment for the bacteria which cause botulism. The preservatives might be hazardous in the long term, but can't possibly be as bad as a condition that will kill you. Today.
11
@pkelly2505 In Italy they don't add preservatives such as nitrites or nitrates in their dried sausages or salamis. They have been preservative free for 2,000 years. I haven't noticed Italians being felled with botulism. They know how to preserve meat safely without chemicals. Yes mold grows on the outside of the meat while it is hung, but it is safely washed off. Mold on the outside means no mold on the inside. I would not trust U.S. producers to get it right, as there is no tradition of processing meat without chemicals. Some years ago the US passed a law forcing Italy to add nitrates to salami and sausage shipped to the US.
5
Eat free range chicken....veggies and avoid bread and other carbs. You'll increase your life expectancy but miss out on all the flavors. Enjoy life...
9
@Harley Leiber
> avoid bread and other carbs.
why ? other than weight control
3
THANK you for this important article. To all the skeptics brushing off the data because "correlation does not imply causation" - the same methods were used to demonstrate the link between tobacco and cancer. The level of cancer risk of processed meats is an equivalent level to that of tobacco according to the World Health Organization. As a physician who trained at MD Anderson, the #1 Cancer institute in the world, I dearly wish more people who adopt a whole foods, plant based diet. This is the ONLY diet proven to help prevent cancer and cancer recurrence.
14
@MedicalDocTX. I'll assume you mean it's similar to the tobacco studies because they were observational studies and not RCT or quasi-experimental designs? Lets be real many of the nutritional studies used in this epidemiological research were not propensity matched or high quality epidemiological studies. You do not need causality to have meaning but observational studies are incredibly diverse. The evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer was much more convincing. The World Health Organization estimated an effect estimate of 16% increase in those that consumed >50 g of cured meat. There effect estimate had wide confidence intervals and the studies had tremendous variance in this estimate. The increase risk they estimated would change somebody's lifetime risk from a baseline of 5% to 5.5-6% (a change in 0.5-1%). But once again the effect estimate is based on many low quality studies, which is often times the best we have, but getting overly dogmatic with such data seems rash. Furthermore, most people that eat red meat do not have >50g/day. Lastly, there is no diet proven to prevent cancer and only weak data to support an association with it. Certainly when talking nutrition, I'd ease up on the "proven" statements, especially as a clinician who presumably was better trained then this. Just some suggestions coming from a Mayo doc, the #1 hospital in the world ;)
24
@TK,
I agree with your caution about statements that use the word "proven." But if I were your patient and I told you that since I began eating only plants and my blood pressure and sugar had gone steadily down, would you just wave me away as anecdotal, or would you spend any time listening to me at all?
13
@Barbara Conway "...since I began eating only plants and my blood pressure and sugar had gone steadily down.."
I just had comprehensive bloodwork done after 10 years on a vegan diet - my cholesterol levels are outstandingly good! The first thing out of my doctor's mouth when I told him I wanted a blood test due to my 10 year anniversary had been "But you don't get enough PROTEIN!!" He had to eat his words when he saw the test results and everything except B12 tested great. The B12 is an easy fix with a tiny daily supplement pill.
2
The article seems to combine meats like salami with sliced cooked meat, like roast beef. Or am I missing something?
3
@Jaime311 Exactly… when is a cold cut a cold cut?
If you bought it fresh, then cooked it at home, and then sliced it for a sandwich, that's is not considered a "cured" or "processed" meat. However, if you bought it pre-sliced and packaged, or you chose the meat from a deli case and someone sliced it for you, it is processed. Also all bacon, sausage, and such meats are processed. Ham is cured.
1
Say it with me: Correlation does not equal causation. Stop using population studies and questionnaires to determine risk.
4
Another article to fearmonger the soccer moms into reading.
"Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is: about 1 in 22 (4.49%) for men and 1 in 24 (4.15%) for women"
An 18% increase would change those number to 5.29% for men and 4.90% in women whoopdedoo.
And even if those number bother you, keep this in mind, colon cancer is a very slow growing cancer and can be identified early via a colonoscopy and even removed before it becomes a cancer.
Eating deli meat should be one of the least of our worries.
18
@Matt And of course people who are regularly screened for colorectal cancer, for example by having a colonoscopy every five years after age 50, have even lower rates of developing cancer. By all means, eat a healthy diet, don't smoke, and exercise. But a ham sandwich now and then is not likely to make a significant difference in longevity.
9
@Matt A family member had surgery to remove colon cancer and it returned in his lungs. It is a fatal illness. This isn't about not having a deli sandwich now and then, but a regular diet of processed meats. Many people eat deli meats each day. Our family member ate a lot of corned beef, deli roast beef and turkey and salami (not baked and sliced at home which is not processed) and we wondered if it was a risk factor.
8
@Matt A family member had surgery to remove colon cancer that was found on his first colonoscopy at age 50. 3 years later, it returned in his lungs. It is a fatal illness. This isn't about not having a deli sandwich now and then, but a regular diet of processed meats. Many people eat deli meats each day. Our family member ate a lot of corned beef, deli roast beef and turkey and salami (not baked and sliced at home which is not processed) and we wondered if it was a risk factor.
2
Does anyone know whether these cautions can be applied to cured fish, e.g. lox, smoked yellowtail, anchovies etc?
15
Thanks for sharing informations...
< a href=”https://insightscare.com/”>Insights Care
What happens with the Argentina And the Spanish?
They eat so much processed meat every day..
23
@Ricardo Anglada
lol you forgot the Italians and Germans
1
So the baseline risk of getting colorectal cancer is about 4.25%. A 4% increase in that means your risk would be 4.42% instead. This is within the margin of error. This is a very silly finding. Eat your deli turkey sandwiches and ignore people who don’t understand statistics.
13
@Ian it's 4% at a single slice a day, 18% at 50 grams a day(typical serving).
6
@Karrie Baseline risk is 4.25%; an 18% RR raises that to 5.02%.
However, the rise in *absolute* risk, which would count the actual number affected per a given group, is only 0.0765%. That would amount to an increased incidence of 7-8 per 1000 individuals eating 50 grams of processed meat per day.
And that does not account for the fact that these are epidemiological studies, which may not fully account for confounding facts (people who eat processed meats may have more unhealthful lifestyles; those who do not may have more healthful ones). Additionally, most rely on food frequency questionnaires, whose accuracy alone could account for statistical deviations greater than the risk, however presented.
9
@Karrie Most studies are based on patient recall. There are many methodological flaws.Don't just listen to newspapers, go see the studies for yourself, and read rebuttals by other scientists about why sad study might not be what it's cracked up to be.
2
There are many critiques of these studies available online. Bottom line is that observational epidemiological studies cannot be used to establish cause and effect. Period. Of course, that’s never stopped “scientists” from doing that...
6
@steve
" Observational studies provide critical descriptive data and information on long-term efficacy and safety that clinical trials cannot provide, at generally much less expense.
Observational studies include case reports and case series, ecological studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies and cohort studies. New and ongoing developments in data and analytical technology, such as data linkage and propensity score matching, offer a promising future for observational studies.
Compared to randomised controlled trials, observational studies are relatively quick, inexpensive and easy to undertake. Observational studies can be much larger than randomised controlled trials so they can explore a rare outcome. They can be undertaken when a randomised controlled trial would be unethical."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003013/
1
Sometimes I think the stress caused by trying to figure out which foods are good for us and which aren't will lead to chronic disease more often than the foods themselves.
29
Baloney. That's all. Just baloney.
23
Association is not causation
5
Correction: association MIGHT be causation.
Saying that it’s not implies a zero chance.
4
I find statements such as "Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but eating them is not associated with an increased risk of cancer" to be highly disingenuous. In fact the article did not even bother to refer to the fact that sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite are produced and employed by the human body itself, most likely developed as a natural form of defense against pathogens in our evolution. Nitrites are delivered constantly as part of saliva to all human oral cavities.
Are we to believe that our bodies respond to political exigencies and only direct the nitrites in deli meats to cause cancer, but are protected against chemically identical compounds found in vegetables or produced by our own bodies?
I strongly suspect the fault lies primarily in the manipulation of statistics. Reminds me of the usefulness of the "on average all humans have one testicle" saying.
13
@Zalman Sandon The bad news: human saliva causes cancer. The good news: Only if consumed in small doses over a long period of time.
No offense, but at last check the United States was still not on the metric system. Your use of grams, as in “100 grams”, is both a disservice to your readers and a little lazy. Why not say a quarter pound. And if you must be precise, .22 pounds (100 grams), so you don’t drive readers to look it up (and most likely not return to your story) and be compelled to write annoying letters like this one.
Thank you.
18
@Geoffrey Gevalt, Readers should not be lazy either. It's trivial to google the conversion of 15 grams to ounces (it's 0.53 oz.). The US ought to go metric as the SI metric system is far more rational and useful than our version of Imperial measurements. As a scientist I use SI units at work all the time, and I have my kitchen scale set to grams too.
10
@Steve Keirstead I goole every number, but why should I have to? This is an American paper that is serving a country who never went Metric. It would be like spelling colour 'color' in a Canadian paper.
4
@Steve Keirstead
Good for you; however, most Americans who read this paper want to be able to process what they read based on the system of measurement that the United States has thus far chosen to operate with and with which they compute weights.
The issue of the non-metric system being irrational vs the metric system being rational is another issue entirely. Preaching rarely goes over very well.
Not many American purchase a cook book using weights of liquid and solid edibles that uses a measuring system they can not readily apply.
I'm fine with being told to use: 1 oz butter.
I'm also fine with getting on the scale and seeing that I weigh 120 lbs - not 8.57 stones.
6
Alas, it appears that there may be a misunderstanding of absolute vs. relative risk. Let me explain...
In 2010, there were about 100,000,000 adults over the age of 50. During that time, there were an estimated 150,000 people diagnosed with colorectal cancer. This means that the likelihood of having colorectal cancer, on average (of course), was about 0.15%. This, in other words, is the average 50-plus-year-old’s absolute risk.
Let’s safely assume that this rate of colorectal cancer hasn’t changed too much. Thus, increasing your relative risk by 4-18%, via deli meat consumption, means that your new likelihood for developing colorectal cancer, on or after the age of 50, is 0.156%-0.177% (again, absolute risk). This doesn’t seem too terrifying, to me.
Curing meats with nitrites/nitrates/celery powder virtually eliminates the risk of botulism — I’ll take on that extra 0.027% risk-increase of colorectal cancer to avoid it. Thank you.
24
Note: These data are for the US. Apologies for not being specific in the OP. Thank you.
4
@Deli Meat 150,000 deaths from a disease annually is not a small number. Reducing that number by 20% through the dissemination of knowledge leading to healthier consumption behavior is meaningful. Don’t muddy the waters with incomplete statistical implications. Maybe by your estimation 11,315 deaths from Ebola is a triviality and the outbreak should have been ignored?
4
@Deli Meat
I think you would enjoy this comic strip:
https://xkcd.com/1252/
3
Happy people live longer. Chew on that.
5
Excellent sources of protein? Why do you say that. First, it assumes there is a continuum of protein excellence and somehow meat is at the top of the continuum. I'd like some info as to how you can say that. Second, it predisposes that getting a lot of protein in one's diet is actually a good thing. You fail to point out that most Americans get way too much protein in their diets and that consumption of animal protein is associated with negative outcomes (death and morbidity).
1. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/07/27/when-it-comes-to-protein-quality-is-more-important-than-quantity
2. https://foodrevolution.org/blog/plant-protein-vs-animal-protein-heart-health/
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4642426/
6
First, meat, eggs, and dairy provide complete proteins, which is to say they furnish each of the nine essential amino acids. Some plant-based foods do as well - soybeans and quinoa, e.g - but otherwise those foods do require combining to fulfill nutritional requirements. Animal protein also furnishes notable nutrients not found in plant-based foods (B-12, DHA, creatine, carnosine, taurine, heme-iron).
Protein requirements vary buy individual, but those who participate in athletics, and those over the age of 50, may require increased levels of protein. Most Americans do not get way too much protein in their diet: there is a surfeit of refined sugars and other refined carbohydrates, as well as pro-inflammatory seed oils, that lead to negative health outcomes.
Speaking of negative health outcomes, the "associations" found in epidemiological and observational studies are weak and controversial. Randomized control studies undermine these findings, and more recent analyses of EOSs and metanalyses derived from them actually find no conclusive evidence that animal protein is causal in negative outcomes.
Also worth noting are the lower protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS) for plant-based protein, meaning intake and absorption are not equal.
4
Fat and salt are not necessarily harmful, except in combination with carbohydrates.
2
@Adriana
Why? What would cause carbs to interact with lipids or salts in a harmful way?
2
Read Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes. He has an explanation of how it works.
3
What's wrong with homemade sausage? Salt, to be sure, and spices and herbs, fennel seeds, garlic and red wine, but no preservatives and no chemicals.
My gran used to hang them to dry, but I have a bigger freezer. She lived to be 90 and ate better than anyone I know.
1
@Occupy Government
My grandparents as well, but the meat that they ate was not polluted with the chemicals and antibiotics that they put into our meats today. It is very sad -because I love bacon, sausages and Italian heroes.
2
@Arlene Yet people are living much longer than their grandparents. It's almost like we've done something right?
2
Well, wouldn't population groups known for their exquisite deli meats have disproportionate, i.e., high death rates from cancer? I haven't heard that in regard to Jewish, German and or Italian processed meats choices. They taste so divine they ought to be sinful. I walked into an Italian deli back in the home country one hot, summer day years ago. It was cool, inviting and the most magnificent aromas coming from within. What a cruel fate that should be deadly.
10
@jaxcat, I would like to see the consumption amounts for those populations versus the U.S. population. I know that in Italy, at least, the per capita meat consumption is about a three-quarters of American meat consumption. The make-up is different, too. Italians eat more fish, and, despite the fact that they have delicious cured meats, those meats are not eaten as frequently, especially in the southern regions of Italy.
Southern Italy is the area of Italy noted for its longevity and lack of disease. In those areas, cured meats are treated as more of a condiment--to be eaten in tiny amounts to enhance other things. They are not a main course, and they are saved for special events.
1
@jaxcat Jewish people tend to have a much higher rate of some cancers actually, especially breast cancer, but that could be from genetics not meat. Also it clearly isn't healthy -- look at men who eat deli meat every day they are often really overweight.
2
Until they can pinpoint the real issue, this type of advice is relatively useless--nitrates are in food that is highly recommended to eat too.
From livestrong.com
"fruit with the highest nitrate content is strawberries, followed by currents, gooseberries, raspberries and cherries."
"Many vegetables, especially root vegetables, grow within the soil and collect high concentrations of nitrates. According to the book “Nutritional Sciences,” vegetables high in nitrates include lettuce, beets, carrots, green beans, spinach, parsley, cabbage, radishes, celery and collard greens."
5
Not accepting this without further study of populations that eat lots of processed meats. I have traveled to nations with much higher rates of eating these meats. What is happening there?
Until then I will consume moderately and grin at the latest demonized food in American pop culture.
13
@Peak Oiler The WHO study was a massive study that comprised of 22 scientists from ten countries and evaluated over 800 studies...
But you'd rather listen to your gut.
2
@Ian fair enough! I'll read the actual study now. Thank you.
2
@Ian, how many of those studies were randomized control studies?
2
The article also created questions that simply were not addressed. if vegetables have nitrates and are not associated with increased risk of cancer, why? why then would the nitrate added from beet root ( or another natural source) be as bad as nitrate added from any other source (, like that occurring in vegetables) that have not been liked to increased cancer rates? Is the curing process a problem? I would ask the NYT for a follow up article to address such issues and concern.
24
@Tony
Excellent comment! I agree with you 100%!
1
@Tony That is a good point. Folks saying risk *only* goes up a few parts of a percent is not good argument but you did raise a valid rebuttal to the notion that even the newer uncured meats are as bad.
1
Are there, perhaps, other foods that mitigate or possibly eliminate the negative effects of processed meat?
Would some clue be in countries with high consumption of processed meats, but lower rates of colorectal cancer?
Could the problem be the overall consumption of sodium, rather than just the ingredients found in processed meats?
If someone with nutritional expertise could reply, many of the readers of this article would appreciate it.
3
@SomeGuy the problem with the nutritional sciences is that the whole discipline is based on studies that are difficult to conduct. Epidemiological studies rely on people recalling what they ate over a long period of time. I can’t even recall what I ate last week, let alone over a 30 plus year time period. Thus there are major issues in these nutritional studies of exposure assessment. Not to mention there are other issues of confounding, some of which can be controlled for if known but many of which cannot be controlled for. In the end I don’t think we really know why processed meats are bad for you or even if they are bad for you. This whole discipline is very hand wavy and this is why there is still this debate about saturated fat and salt and carbs. In fact now many are saying a low fat diet is what causes obesity.
6
Every German should have died by age 30 of colon cancer as processed meats seem to constitute 80% of their diet, included their beloved "curry wurst," if this article is true.
It would be helpful if author could have compared colon cancer rates from America, where processed meat is mostly lunch fare, to Germany, where cured meats are eaten for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacking as well.
24
@Frederick Kiel "In international comparisons, Germany is among the countries with high incidence of bowel cancer: The estimated total numbers of new cases and deaths in 2010 were about 62 000 and 26 000, respectively". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791563/
6
@Frederick Kiel
Annually 40 cases of colorectal cancer per 100,000 in the US. In Germany 57 cases per 100,000 reported in 2012 down from 66 cases per 100,000 a few years earlier (due to increased use of colonoscopy). I just looked this info up - it was fairly easy to find. So German rate is 42.5 percent higher than US, which supports the claims in the article and your assessment that German diet is more risky than American diet.
5
@Robin White, actually 42.5% represents relative risk, which has been well discussed in this comment thread. If 4 people per 100,000 had a specific form of cancer in one cohort and a high consumption of gummy bears in a second cohort led to 6 people per 100,000, that would be a 50% rise in relative risk. But the absolute risk would be only an increase of 2 per 100,000, or 0.002%, well within statistical margins of error.
Likewise, with the German-US comparison, 42.5% sound like an alarming increase. But the absolute risk rises only 17 per 100,000, or 0.017%, again, well within statistical margins of error.
1
Readers need to know whether this is relative risk or absolute risk. The Times has science editors who should ensure this is clarified in every article involving risk.
9
@James Kling
A thousand times yes!
These kinds of articles frequently use language that seems to imply we'll all drop dead from eating a hot dog a week. More often than not, they are talking about relative risk, and not absolute risk.
A more honest article would say something like "the risk of an average person contracting X disease is Y%. If that person eats a hot dog a week, the risk goes up by N%, raising that risk to Z%". However, that does not make for exciting copy.
Add that to the other problems other commenters have pointed out (example -- why is celery juice a problem when used to process lunch meat, but not when consumed as part of celery?), and we begin to see the problem with these kinds of studies and articles.
I'm old enough to remember the hoopla about oat bran. It was supposed to be a panacea, but (of course) it was not. Cereal companies made out like bandits, but no one got any healthier from shaking oat bran bits onto their salad.
3
Its sad. I work at a college in the food service industry. And we serve a lot of cold cuts. High in sodium,fat, nitrates.The food selection and quality is poor. You see a disproportionately large amount of overweight students. But as a leading company in the food service industry. We do nothing to offer healthier options And the small amount of healthy options pales in comparison to the regular menu choices. In the end it's all about the almighty dollar.We serve garbage because it sells and the students eat it up.We are dooming future generations to a host of diseases.
16
@Charles
The "almighty dollar" cliche is just that. If the students wanted fruits and salads only, you would provide them. Why? To earn a profit and stay in business. The "almighty dollar" is in reality freedom of choice. Freedom is frightening for some people who would happily take it away if they had the power.
1
@Charles It’s the carbs not the meat.
1
I agree. We also have a pasta bar and sell a huge amount of pasta. But, it is also the soft drinks we sell loaded with sugar. The fried foods loaded with fat,salt.We have a salad bar. But, all the dressings and toppings are fat and sugar and salt laden.Its all processed foods that are very unhealthy. It starts with the food vendors that sell the foods to us. Sysco which services most institutions prisons, hospitals,schools. They sell 99 percent of the processed food.
2
Eat "right," exercise, die anyway.
18
With few exceptions, deli meat is gross. Most of it is a slimy salty mess. Who could like it? I confess to buying the premium no/low salt roast beef on occasion. But I usually cook my own. Roast a chicken breast or eye of round roast or pork loin, slice it paper-thin, good to go.
7
@KathyGail Then you have not been eating good deli meat. Go to a German or Italian deli and look at all the different types of deli meat. The aroma in the shop itself is delicious. There is no substitute for this and you can't make it at home.
1
Agreed. If you return to deli meat after a long time away from it, it’s rather gross, especially the cheap stuff in the plastic pouches.
I'm confused about the value of this report, because percentage changes are meaningless without the actual incidence of the cancers, which I don't see in the study.
If one person out of a million develops colon cancer and processed meat increases that to 1 1/2 persons, that's a 50% increase but still a very low increase in actual cancers.
21
@Chris NYC
You are absolutely correct. Health scare specialists, however, understand very well that most people don't really understand probability and risk. They know that telling people that one in a million people will die from disease X, but if they eat a ham sandwich once a week that it will increase to 3 in 2 million, they would not be impressed. They'd probably go and fix a ham sandwich for themselves. If you tell people that the risk increases 50%, then HORRORS!!!! People will get the impression that if they touch a ham sandwich they'll die because it sounds like they'll have a 1 in 2 chance of contracting whatever disease is being discussed.
Risk is misrepresented, intentionally, in all such articles. Ostensibly, the purpose is to impress on people the importance of eating "right" (whatever that might mean for the particular set of researchers). What it manages to do is scare people, and create an economic opportunity for food companies to exploit that fear in some way.
6
'Evaporated Cane Juice' is just plain sugar. Which comes from sugar cane juice, right?
5
When I was in middle school and some of high school in NY, I ate deli ham or turkey sandwiches, or tuna sandwiches, every single day. Usually with just mayo on a kaiser roll, wheat bread or for a treat potato bread. I don’t think my classmates’ lunches were much different. Pretty sure my mother who packed my sandwiches didn’t know anything about cancer or mercury poisoning from tuna. That was the eighties, not sure if much has changed for kids today.
6
@E Which then invites the question, "Is it the meat, or the mayo, or the bun?" Most epidemiological studies do a poor job of teasing that out.
2
@James Kling The bun!
1
It is astounding people still eat that junk. As a cook I am around it all the time but I would not eat it if you paid me. Btw my generic Losartan at CVS changed from white to a green dyed version which I refused. Avoidable chemicals are a risk no one should take if you want to stay healthy.
1
All chemicals have an inherent cancer risk since they have all been inundated with electro magnetic radiation. Especially be aware of dihydrogen monoxide since it has been shown that it will eventually cause death.
14
Yup, watch out for protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, antioxidants . . . All those chemicals are dangerous.
3
@john
Perfect!!! I was thinking of dihydrogen monoxide myself!
3
Industrial seed oils and sugar are far more ubiquitous and hazardous to our health. The poison is in the dose, and everything we consume is part of the dose. I prefer eating good quality meats and produce with plenty of intermittent fasting. If we are basically healthy our bodies are quite good at healing from the occasional less than ideal consumption.
5
100 years. All new people. You. Me. Them. Gone.
22
@Dan
That is a pertinent yet hilarious observation.
12
Hovadina. Next week, the House will set up a committee to look into this. In 2025, it will issue a report declaring all food as dangerous to one's health.
6
This is old news. Like 1970s. When I learned about nitrates, I was a young man, a teenager. I stopped ingesting them. Perhaps it is easier to change habits at that age, but I had no problem leaving processed meat behind. I saw, and see, no point in eating suspect foods when there is such an abundance of food choices in the market. I eat fresh meat from time to time, a half-dozen times a year, but I avoid dairy products and fish. So far so good.
Cultural pressure? Peer pressure? Expedience? Poor reasons to eat poison. On the one hand, health; on the other, fleeting sense and emotional gratification. Easy decision.
6
We are what we eat, and the majority of us are Carnivores. Put fresh BBQ in front of anyone and it is hard to resist.
9
I live in Paris, home of the ubiquitous "jambon y fromage" sandwich. It seems that most people eat deli sandwiches for lunch during the work week if they are not eating at a restaurant. Children here consume a steady diet of deli sandwiches (and second-hand and third-hand smoke). I am curious how the colon cancer rates in France compare to the U.S. On the other hand, a deli sandwich in France has only one or two slices of meat, whereas a New York deli sandwich has...a lot.
8
@KMP The French out-eat us, out-drink us and out smoke us. They also live longer. Go figure? Maybe much better food, better wine, much less stress regarding healthcare and a lot of walking could answer the question.
1
So is smoked salmon on the list? I buy the "natural" brands without nitrite, but even those are salt or smoke cured.
It's hard to find fresh salmon (at an affordable price) that's not farmed and/or bland, and canned salmon, while good to use occasionally in some recipes, isn't my top choice.
8
This deli meat stuff is useful to know. We never hear about the hazards of canned tuna fish. Being eaten by millions regularly. Wonder what problems canned tuna fish has?
2
@stuart itter Just mercury, PCB's, and organochlorine pesticides.
2
Risk must be put in context. I brown bagged my turkey sandwich daily for 35 years, but am a non smoker, low BMI, daily exerciser. No diabetes, hypertension- no meds at all.
We must stop scaring the public and focus on positive interventions and healthy lifestyle with room for some pleasure eating.
Making everything a risk makes people throw up their hands to any choices.
A turkey sandwich on whole grain bread is better than a burger or other take out or full restaurant meal for most workers during the week.
22
@RB but but how will society be controlled w/ fear?
6
@niel
Good point.
Many believe that if they put the fear of something into us, we won't do whatever it is they don't want us to do (or we will do what they want us to do). Fear is a good motivator, certainly, but I think it would be better if we all understood probability and risk.
3
My brother-in-law ate deli meats every day, including hot dogs. He was diagnosed with stomach cancer and even after all the surgery, chemo etc. he would go out and eat a hot dog. Of course he couldn't hold it down. It appeared he was addicted to them. He died 3 years after the diagnosis.
2
@Julia...
I can't stand Hot Dogs but I also can't stand this dietary dilemma any longer.
There is nothing that I can eat anymore which is not unhealthy for me one way or another.
I am also not affluent which is another limitation on what I can eat.
Perhaps I should simply stop eating and die.
Maybe this would solve my dietary problems.
11
@TOBY
Don't despair, Toby! There are plenty of delicious foods that are healthful and inexpensive. The largest hurdle to healthful eating is time spent in the kitchen. Daily cooking is grounding and empowering, but seems to be dreaded by most. Don't dread it. It has benefits far beyond the plate.
Carrying containers of food from your kitchen to work or when traveling is another seeming hurdle, but not always necessary if fresh fruit will get you through the day. It will for most people. And remember, most nutritional issues in the USA relate to OVER consumption. You really don't need to pack much food for an 8-hour shift, and none for a 3-hour drive.
In my opinion, transitioning to a healthy diet is a slow and difficult path fraught with pitfalls. Pivoting to a healthy diet, committing to it with all the self-love you can muster, will get you over the difficult hump and into the benefits quickly.
6
@Julia My grandmother is 82, was 350 lbs most of her life and was the tv dinner/ cold cut queen. She also has a sister who is 10 years OLDER than her, who also lived on hardcore cold cuts like sopressata and anti pasta salads.
We used to joke that she would die years before my fit grandfather, guess what?
Know one knows who will live, who will get cancer or when they will die.
1
I saw a bumper sticker once: "I love animals! They're delicious"
I personally am a pescatarian. I eat the following animal products: eggs, cheese, yogurt, fish, scallops, calamari, and fried clams.
6
@Dev. Fish are members of the animal world (everything being animal, vegetable or mineral). I've never understood why their flesh is sometimes excluded from the meat category.
7
@Dev What did those poor fish ever do to you?
5
So do I read this right? The RR is 1.04 meaning that the one slice of meat eating group has a 4% higher chance of getting colorectal cancer. The base line chance of getting colorectal cancer is 5%. That means that the chance of one slice meat eater is meat eaters to get colorectal cancer is 5.2%... In the highest risk increase is 1.14 which increases your risk of colorectal cancer to 5.7% compared to the base line.
27
You read it right. Nothing to worry about. Have that pastrami. I hate that they don’t explain what the real difference in likelihood is. 18% increase sounds scary. 4% baseline chance increasing to 5% chance, not so much.
22
@Theng. I noticed the lack of context to the math too, which happens way too often in these articles. It is amazing that, after decades of study, consumers are still presented with so much foggy information on a healthy human diet.
5
@Theng This is why we need decent science and math education in the US. Climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers are just the tip of the iceberg of ignorance. Few Americans have critical thinking skills, explaining both the current right and left.
4
Articles like this are very very misleading.
When we talk about "increased rates" it is important to know what the base rate is. If the base rate is very low, say 1 in a billion, then a 4 percent increase in risk amounts to going up to 1.04 in a billion. Yikes! Scary! ...Not.
Consider the rate of death from processed meats:
"according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake."
(Harvard Nutrition Report "WHO report says eating processed meat is carcinogenic: Understanding the findings")
That's worldwide. World population is 7.53 billion.
Do the math. The risk is real. But not especially high, rate-wise.
It is also important to note that the increase risk isn't from just "eating" processed meats. The relevant studies calculate the increase risk based on people who eat processed meats daily. ("Even a little" refers to "just" eating processed meat as one's daily lunchmeat)
Finally, the bulk of the studies referred to are based on data and analysis that is not terribly reliable. That is, they are based on tallying cancer deaths and diet reports, seeing correlations, and using a few statistical controls to kinda sorta rule out a few potential confounders. Controlled experiments these are not.
Let's sum up: Low base rates of cancer increases by comparatively low rates, based on data and analysis that is prone to lots of confounders. Take with a grain of salt (or nitrate).
22
This, One slice of Ham will kill you, is certifiably the cherry on the icing. It is GREAT being old. I have so enjoyed, lighting huge fires drinking vast amounts of Beer and cooking steak on lonely islands, listening to the mournful cries of the loons. Please take me, right after i finish my salami sandwich.
Sweet Sweet Life Thank you
32
Reminds of the doc, In Defense of Food, if I recall correctly. Eat what you want but make it yourself so if you feel like eating some french fries make them yoursef don't go to McD. If you feel like deli meat toss a ham in the oven and make it yourself. I think what kills you faster, nowadays, is all the garbage they add to foods.
2
Have egocentric human animals ever thought to ask if eating deli meat is bad for the non-human animals?
5
@richiscool That is not the point of this article. Vegetarian theory is food for thought.
@richiscool But what about the living plants that animals eat? That's not cool.
The chemicals and processes used to make supermarket deli meats and prepackaged Oscars Meyer type meats are terrible for your health. No sugar coating it. You can argue about older methods of preserving meats but 99% of deli meats and cold cuts are made by the modern chemical and processes methods.
2
my father-in-law ate salami every day, and died of colon cancer at 72.
2
This might be a stupid question - but is store bought bacon technically a deli meat?
@workerbee It's not considered a deli meat but it is considered a cured meat which this article states to avoid due to increase risk of colorectal cancer.
Don't eat anything; it might kill you.
16
This is a very misleading article. How long must we see this sensational filler? Life is hazardous to our health.
13
No alcohol, no saucisson, no smoked salmon, no fromage, no gelato, no cream, no beet juice (!!) ....
Do we live in the most uncivilized country in the world, or am I mistaken?
Isn't it enough that we have a death-wish in our politics? Must it extend to removing pleasure in food?
The Italians and the French have very low rates of colon cancer--and these foods appear at most meals.
I think, perhaps, the culprit lies elsewhere.
And, the science is amazingly shoddy, or at least the report. One slice of ham? What are the actual statistics per, let's say, 100,000 people? How many of them have died from one slice of ham?
30
The answer? LUTEFISK. Fish preserved “naturally” with lye! Tasty with a cream sauce or just butter.
2
@Carol
In Minnesota lutefisk is traditionally served on a wooden board. You discard the fish and eat the board.
1
I love smoked meats, I must be a dead man walking!
5
I suppose deli meat is bad for me. My vestibular migraine specialists told me not to eat them because they are migraine triggers.
3
I fear that this is territory we have been over a thousand times. These claims come from epidemiological studies, right?
If so, they are worthless to individuals making choices. You cannot know what the cancer rates are caused by, just that people who did things that presumably caused cancer also consumed cured meats.
Do we really have to say that correlation does not imply causation, again, again?
19
@Ricardo Court Yes, that is true of any one study, but in evaluating whether an epidemiological finding is more likely to be causation than simple correlation, we can use Hill's criteria of causality:
Strength of the association
Consistency
Specificity
Temporality
Biological gradient
Plausibility/Coherence
Experiment
Analogy
Processed meats meet all of these, save perhaps strength. So, the takeaway? It doesn't increase risk a lot, but it DOES increase risk. Does that mean everyone should never eat bacon again? Of course not. It just means if you care about your health, take it under consideration. Then do what works for you.
4
I didn't have to read the article. The subtitle about small amounts of processed meat and colorectal cancer told me the upshot.
1
"Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but eating them is not associated with an increased risk of cancer."
"food manufacturers may still add vegetable juices such as celery juice or beetroot juice that contain naturally occurring nitrates, which are converted to nitrites either in the food itself or when they interact with bacteria in our bodies."
how is eating nitrites in vegetables different from eating nitrites in vegetable juices? nutrition science at its best.
19
Yes, the question of whether the naturally occurring nitrates in celery juice implies that eating celery also leads to high levels of nitrates in one’s system, and is therefore unhealthy, needs to be addressed by this author. Without that information I’m liable to stare at the people gathering around Whole Food’s juice bar and think they’re killing themselves with overpriced nitrates.
2
Anyone know if pomegranate juice is one of the juices that are added because they contain naturally occurring nitrates? I see it added to one of the "natural" bacons where you might otherwise see celery powder etc.
I would be interested to see an article about how to avoid the use of nitrates altogether in deli meats. An article in the Guardian said that with refrigeration, we don't need to use this kind of preservative. It's mostly used now because it keeps the meat pink.
1
There is ZERO value in specifying a percent increased risk without first saying what the general risk is.
That is, if you have 1 cent, and I triple your money (a 300% increase), you'll have two cents to brag about.
29
Moderation. Everything is moderation.
17
@Mary
"Sounds good. Doesn't work"-Donald Trump
2
@Mary, a friend of mine always liked to say, "a little moderation goes a long way" as he cracked open his next beer.
1
@Mary
"Everything in moderation, including moderation."
Oscar Wilde
3
I would greatly appreciate a followup driven by the comments here. I am especially interested in the data for European nations.
7
Italians eat a lot of processed meats, and Italy doesn't even appear in the top 20 nations for colorectal cancer. Can someone make sense of that for me?
46
@CAL All cultures preserve their foods like this, including fish and vegetables (think kimchi) and fruits.
4
I love people who remove the bread from their deli sandwiches & hamburgers. Yeah, cause bread is the thing making them fat/unhealthy. (sarcasm)
People want to eat what they want & so they pretend that bread is the enemy & all meat is good. "Gotta have my protein" - such a misused phrase in our meat-centric culture.
And let's not discuss the impact meat is having on our air & drinking water. Who needs clean air & water, right? And animals suffering... who cares, right?
6
@BeTheChange In the end, it's their life, and all lives end. Added risk doesn't mean you'll suffer AT ALL. There's a risk of dying in a car crash, but if you've not died, then the added risk for you was zero.
3
@BeTheChange
Not everyone's system digests in the same way.
@BeTheChange Or maybe they don't like bread?
I have salt-cured my own meat with kosher salt. No nitrates either natural or added. This article didn't clarify how taking, say, a duck breast, packing it in salt for a few days and then hanging it up in cheesecloth for 2 weeks to create duck prosciutto could possibly yield a meat with enough nitrite to increase cancer risk.
6
@Marsden Whinney Don't conflate increased risk with any idea you'll die any sooner. These are statistical, just as bike riders and skiers increase their risks. It's far more likely you'll not die from eating such meat.
6
@Marsden Whinney, I am looking forward to an invitation to dinner from you.
3
We are on this mortal coil . It has a beginning and will have a end for all. Either you live and enjoy with moderation or fret everyday over every little morsel consumed. I love Prosciutto, I also love jamón serrano. Do I eat them everyday? Of course not. But I do enjoy both. The first on pizza or with some cheese and bread and the second as part of a dish of manchego with gambas on the side. Enjoy life it’s not a rehearsal.
28
@Bill Lombard And don't conflate statistical risk increases that overall remain small with your actual demise. You have the right attitude, and it's more likely that not fretting over your food all your life will give you better chance of living happier and healthier for longer than being anxious about what's coming for all of us sooner or later.
4
So, it stands to reason that someone who is eating processed meats daily is not following a healthy diet as measured by any standard. Might these same individuals also be consuming many other unhealthy and processed foods that would also increase one's risk of cancers? What about individuals who eat a moderate amount of these processed meats in addition to an otherwise mostly healthy diet of fruits, vegetables nuts and high fiber grains?
That processed foods are less healthy than fresh and unprocessed ones is understood by many people but certainly not all. It is difficult and often much more expensive for most Americans to avoid processed foods altogether. Articles like this one about the links between eating processed meats and developing colorectal cancer are educational but they might be taken to heart by more readers if they were a little more thorough and offered some recommendations beyond terrifying consumers from ever letting a piece of processed meat touch their lips. Moderation & in some cases, more extreme moderation seems to be a reasonable approach for most diets. It is highly unfortunate the usage and interpretation of natural, organic & nitrite/nitrate-free, among so many other descriptors granted by our Federal government to be used by manufacturers on their labels, are so broad and imprecise as to be rendered ultimately worthless with respect to nutrition & health. What's the point of federal agencies if they are subservient to industries they police?
8
@Jeff They never even specified the risk of such a cancer if you don't eat such meat, so a small increase in risk is unlikely a problem.
I mean, have a ZERO percent chance of winning the Lottery if I don't buy a ticket. If I buy just one ticket, my odds are infinitely higher than if I buy none. And if I buy two tickets instead, I've doubled the "risk" of winning, but only a fool thinks that doubling is meaningful to your life.
1
"They assume those meats are safer, but they're not".
Where is the USDA in all this? Or has it been sold to the highest bidder by the GOP? Just like the EPA.
12
@Chicago Guy The USDA is not the problem because processed food falls under the FDA's jurisdiction, I believe. But your point raises a larger question about regulation of food safety. It is poorly regulated because it is a very fragmented regulatory landscape. If reason prevailed, the FDA would be split into 2: drug safety and food safety. The food safety component would be merged into USDA, which would be renamed the Food Safety Agency. The commercial aspects of USDA would be merged into the Dept. Commerce. But reason will not prevail because this is America.
6
A BLT on toast with fresh tomatoes right off the vine, plus a generous spread of mayo---a summer treat I will never give up! And I agree with many other commentators, this article is poorly researched and presented.
25
@SB Delicious BLT!
I also question conclusions from epidemiological studies. And what are the credentials of the Center for Science in the Public Interest? Their track record with low fat and skim milk recommendations makes me wonder why I should listen to them.
All things in moderation - including moderation.
Binge occasionally.
28
This is a pretty hysteria-inducing way of presenting these figures. Holy cow, an 18% increase in cancer risk from a slice of ham! But you're not telling people the initial cancer risk that's being elevated.
Of course, things are never simple (certainly not as simple as you're portraying them). But generally speaking, according the government report it took me 15 seconds to Google, the lifetime chance of a male American being diagnosed with colo-rectal cancer is 4.5%. An 18% increase then means that your actual chance of getting this cancer rises by 0.8%.
Would this merit a sternly worded article in the health section.
Editors: please, please vet this stuff. The Times needs higher standards for health reporting.
65
I believe that a lot depends on your family history. That being said, lots of American have cancer in their family history. If colorectal cancer is there, it would seem smart to avoid processed meats.
What causes problems for everyone is that the U.S. is a slave to the needs of capitalism. We must not do anything to criticize what is being marketed (and that includes the cancer treatment industry).
2
@Rose Anne What? This is the NYTimes publishing this article, based on government funded research no doubt. You are free to speak and share wisdom, which this article lacks with its focus on hysteria, fear and anxiety which are far more likely to kill you off early.
Remember, capitalism or not, death awaits us all, from death in utero to 125.
2
The choice is easy for me--I have gout, so I can't eat processed meats without suffering for days afterwards with a swollen and painful hand or wrist. I'm thankful for this, at 56 it's a slap upside my head to eat better! Far better that I had some gout than a heart attack.
4
@KellyCox Allopurinol, Kelly. Your doctor should already have suggested this to you. I have gout and my days of suffering attacks are behind me.
This article made me so hungry I had to have an Italian hoagie - ham, bologna, Genoa salami, provolone, heirloom tomato, spicy peppers. I now have happy endorphins pulsing through my veins, which I understand lowers cancer risk. So I’m all even, and I enjoyed my life more.
32
Not quite...don't forget to measure the impact your meat choices had on the environment & the animals that were butchered. Truth sure is uglier when you add up the total impact....not just how it impacted you.
3
@BeTheChange So if he gets cancer and dies earlier than he'd otherwise have died, then he'll help with your concerns about the environment by alleviating potentially many years of harm.
4
@BeTheChange I am sorry to say that my 71 year old brain cannot think about "total impact" of every bite of food. My son raises about 25 pigs every summer, we can have as much bacon as we want. But I still eat if only about once a month-moderation in all things.
"Eating a more typical serving of 50 grams of processed meat a day would increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent, a 2011 review of studies found."
According to the data, 140,000 people are diagnosed with colon cancer in the US every year. Out of a population of 350,000,000 that means your chances of being diagnosed are 0.04%. So if you eat 50 grams of processed meat a day, according to this article, your chance of being diagnosed with colon cancer goes up by 18% to 0.047%. I think I'll go ahead and eat the bacon.
20
@Dave In trying to make a point, you misused the statistics. .04% is the probability you will get colorectal cancer in any given year. Since we live for much longer than a year, the risk is compounded for each year we live. Lifetime risk versus annual incidence rate are very different things.
13
@Robert Danley True, but they gave no general risk factor, so any "percentage increase" is meaningless. I'll take 1% returns on a billion dollars over 1000% returns on a penny.
2
.047 x 85 years = 3.995% risk.
You decide!
1
Can we please talk about the sentient individual you’re eating? Factory farming is certainly not good for the upwards of 10 billion land animals that are raised and slaughtered annually in the US with virtually zero regulations on their welfare. The Guardian has endorsed veganism as an ethical matter. Why doesn’t the Times?
21
@N
And zero regulations on environmental protection.
6
@N Why doesn't the Times? Just follow the money.
3
Because meat is delicious.
13
What is often left out is the baseline for comparison. The article states a 4% increase in the risk of cancer from a single slice of ham. What does that translate to? How do the odds change, do they go from 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 96,000?
14
As several comments allude to, the difference between what I was taught to call relative and absolute risks is often enormous. It's bad enough when those with something to gain use statistics to deliberately mislead. For journalists to do so, whether intentionally or even unintentionally , is inexcusable (fake news?). The NYT needs to adopt a policy that statistics must be understand by those using them and be used in ways that are not misleading.
28
This is like USA Today level journalism. They need to do away with Ask Well. NY tImes readers do no need Pop science. Plenty of this on the internet and People magazine. Maybe hire an MD/PhD editor from Mayo Clinic Proceedings and reboot this column with more academic rigor.
65
@Michael
Thank you, you said it all!
1
Raw, organic, vegan. Period.
8
Does this include smoked fish, such as lox?
6
@Michelle Why wouldn't it? Do you think there's a "smoked fish because I like it" exemption? (That's how most people run their dietary habits.)
5
The whole subject of cancer and certain types of food is simply a rabbit's nest. Spaghetti and banana nut muffins don't have nitrates in them but they WILL make you fat, and being fat is, along with cigarette smoking, the biggest risk factor for colorectal cancer.
But it's even more complicated than that. Right now 40% of American adults are obese and headed for diabetes. That means they will die of diabetes complications and heart failure in their 50s and 60s, and that will cause the occurrence of colorectal cancer to go DOWN.
Cancer is largely a disease of old age; because of the obesity epidemic, so many people won't live long enough to die of cancer. In Spain, where obesity is rare (and where people enjoy their cured ham and sausage), the life expectancy is MUCH longer than the US but, because people live longer, old-age cancers are a much more significant cause of death.
I think the underlying point is that people should be more concerned with whatever diet helps them lose weight and keep weight off. The enemy probably isn't bacon; the enemy is sugar and corn syrup and refined grains that make you fat.
15
@Tom Carbs are not the enemy; animal protein is.
Humans are "starchivores;" we evolved to have a long digestive tract and molars to grind plant material; meat and animal products travel through the long digestive tract and putrefy in the intestine, which accounts for the high rates of cancer in western countries, as well as degenerative diseases such as osteoporosis and arthritis.
I agree that processed foods are unhealthy, but the gold standard is a whole-foods plant-based diet. The enemy *is* bacon—and fish, and beef, and eggs and cheese, which coincidentally are concentrated sources of calories.
3
@Fallopia Tuba
We have a typical omnivore digestive system, otherwise people wouldn't be able to survive on meat in arctic regions! There are large expanses of this planet that make a plant based diet impossible. Do we want people to disappear from them? Humans like house flies survive nearly everywhere, because of their opportunistic feeding habits. As a consequence there should be adaptations of the digestive system to the general ecosystem. Some people thrive on vegetarian diets, others don't. There is more and more prove for large differences in digestion of starches in people. (See the mention of the Israeli study in last Sunday's week in review)
And what does it mean, that animal products 'putrefy' the intestines? Sounds like gobbledygook from vegan websites.
Couldn't we accept, that people are different, and one way of eating for all makes no sense?
13
@ dm, No. Biology is science. Sorry to inform you, you are not built like a tiger, lion or cougar. Those puny human incisors and sorry looking claws, er, nails, will never enable you to take down a gazelle. It's that simple.
I don't know why the Times always leaves this part out, but correlation is NOT causation. That is always the problem when you survey people about diet.
It is highly likely that the cancer incidence comes from not from the deli meats themselves, but outside factors that the surveys are unable to control for. The most likely one is obesity -- we know obesity is associated with a sharply higher incidence of colorectal cancer. Maybe people who eat cured meats are more likely to be obese.
Or, maybe deli meat eating is more common among certain ethnicities -- say, northern Europeans, and it is the ethnicity/genetics that is the source of the cancer. These kinds of factors are extremely hard to eliminate from the data.
The problem is that no one has identified a causal link here. There is only a hypothetical link between nitrates and cancer-causing nitrosamines -- no one has ever been able to prove that mechanism has a significant impact inside the human digestive system.
Meanwhile, as the article notes, there are very high levels of nitrates in green leafy vegetables -- but green leafy vegetables are not correlated with colorectal cancer.
This article basically just repeats the old trope about deli meat causing cancer, a charge which has been around since the early 80s but never proven. I wish instead the Times would try to shed new light instead of repeating old unproven charges
18
@Tom you're right, it is a combination of what is added to the diet and what is taken out, and even the article mentions it's hard to do randomized, placebo-controlled studies of meat consumption. We really need a longitudinal study. I've been interested in studies in India since there is such a large population of generational vegetarians https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/05/05/why-are-cancer-rates-so-low-in-india/.
1
@Michael And obese vegetarians at that.
Departing from the title and running its postulate backward, it's a no-brainer that imagining billions of individual eating deli meat on a daily basis is actually bad for the animal kingdom.
In either case, "processed" or "natural" only makes little difference compared to a broader issue at hand since the farmed animals who sit on the wrong end of the stick and with little exception are being tortured through every step of a mechanized industry whose sole aim is to make a profit while turning them into a source of food...
So, it's preferable at least on the ethical viewpoint to take a moderate approach by imposing to oneself limitations regarding deli meat consumption.
6
@jeanfrancois Tortured is a little strong. I have killed farm animals. Death, when I do it, is instantaneous. There is a right way and a wrong way to harvest meat. But think about this. If it were not for animal husbandry, many species of animal would be very rare if not extinct. We protect and feed animals like sheep that might be as rare as the Oryx if not extinct were it not for human agriculture. The chicken, probably the world's most abundant animal. would be a rare jungle fowl threatened by palm oil plantations were it not for us.
2
@ Marsden, you miss the point. Billions of industrial 'farmed' livestock is not a pretty sight any way you look at it. Let's just face it, the animals are tortured. If the animals you slaughtered were asked about their fate, what do you think they would have chosen? Their verbalizations are dismissed. When they cry out in pain, you don't care.
There are many things that we don't really know about the cancer such as why some heavy smokers do not develop lung cancer. However, with all things considered and other things "controlled", the evidence is fairly strong, in my opinion, that the processed meats are not good for ya. Many of my relatives died from stomach cancer and all my brothers have liver ailments. Why is it that every time I eat hot dogs (and that doesn't happen often, like once in two years or so), my liver flares up.
I am not a vegan and it doesn't take much to cook unprocessed meats. Don't be lazy, folks. Just take a few more min of your entire life to cook. And it's fun.
6
Soon a headline: Vegans who eat too many veggies risk getting too many nitrites and nitrates. Having taken care of several close relatives who grew up eating processed meats, and lived well into their 80's and 90's, I can tell you that your last few years of life at that age can be very difficult even without cancer. Aches and pains, vision problems, joint problems, hearing problems and dementia, the list goes on. News flash, our bodies wear out. Vegans who quietly eat their particular diets are great, and I have no problem with them. This study may be contradicted by another similarly designed study in coming months. Whoever is designing these studies should take the years and years it takes to do it right, and control for all of the other factors that could play a part. Moderation should be the rule for non-vegan types.
9
But what does an 18% rise in risk of colorectal cancer really mean? If the risk level without eating deli meats is, say, 1%, then the risk level with eating deli meat is only slightly over 1%. I’ll take those odds.
13
@Jake lol
1
How can eating the processed meat of tortured factory farmed animal be good fo you. Do we eat them only because it taste good?
8
@Mike That's a very specious argument.
Loretta, my stomach hurts.
1
Whenever I see such things, I always look to see what type of study(s) were done and if it had sufficient controls to be valid. The probability for processed meats to be bad is likely to be reasonably valid. However, were there controls for weight, smoking, exercise...etc. the devil is still in the details.
I am not going to give up Red beans and rice or Jambalaya just yet...
4
What is your absolute risk of colorectal cancer? 18% sounds a lot but if your absolute risk is low then 18% is not going to make a huge difference. if your absolute risk is 1 in a hundred, even increasing by 100% is only going to make it 2 in a hundred.
12
@hectoria
cancer.net says average American's risk of colorectal cancer is 5% - 5 chances out of 100. So increasing this risk by 18% brings you to about 6 in a hundred. But the average American's diet is pretty bad. Why accept this risk at all? Go vegan!
8
I don't understand why there is such an uproar over an article that educates us on our health, and shows the increased risk to eating deli meats, cured or uncured. The fact that some uncured or organic meats have hidden nitrates was a danger I wasn't aware of until I read this article. I blindly bought Applegate but I always wondered, hmm. Now I don't have to wonder thanks to this reporter's research.
People can get irate over statistics, risk assessments and decry the reporter's use of scare tactics, but this article reveals some inconvenient truths about deli meats. It's a red flag and it should be used to consume more consciously.
24
@janeausten I think people are highly prone to get excitable when their eating habits are challenged--whatever those eating habits are. We hold our food dear; we argue over it; we desperately miss it if we travel abroad; we get offended if someone suggests that it isn't wonderful. Articles about nutrition get everyone all riled up. We appear to not be natural statisticians...more's the pity.
4
My read of these comments reveals why the US healthcare system has such high inflation, which is the driver of the Federal government debt. Once one is insured, there is no incentive to ask the price of treatment, since it is paid for by the insurance company. So there is a moral hazard to ignore health advice in the service of pleasure and appearing to be "normal". While cancer death rates have precipitously declined over the years, incidence rates continue to increase. So to all of you who so cockily express triumph in your poor eating and exercise habits, you are more likely to get cancer than not in your lifetimes. You may live relatively longer, but certainly in a more infirm state. I doubt you will find comfort that you lived a life of excess when dealing with the stress of a cancer diagnosis, the brutal treatment regime and the impossibility of being truly cured.
8
This is a terrible article.
18% risk of colon cancer is simply a poorly defined shock statistic. Over what time period? For what population? 'Getting' or 'dying' from colon cancer?
My 10 year colon cancer mortality risk, according to the Risk Charts posted on the National Cancer Institute website, is 0.6 per 100 men.
Increasing this by 18% becomes 0.7.
And that's not including risk mitigating factors like my socio-economic status (moderately high) and loneliness (very low).
Just for fun (fun?), I looked up other reports from the American Institute for Cancer Research, the organization quoted in this article. Eating romaine lettuce, they claim, reduces my risk of stomach cancer.
So if I put romaine lettuce on my ham sandwich...
Nonsense! The Times editors should never have let this be published.
23
@Gary Fradin Yes, eating greens with your processed meats is going to reduce your risk. The information presented in the article never says it wont.
@Gary Fradin
You make some good points. Dr. Michael Greger's work (mentioned in other comments) explains the "gee Whiz" nature of these sporadic, semi-sensational little news bits offered with little or no context. The cumulative effect is to induce total cynicism about any medical research on diet, when in fact Dr. Greger shows that a plant-based diet dramatically reduces the risk of the standard American diseases - heart attack, stroke, cancer and diabesity. I don't contribute to those "cure for cancer" charities anymore because we have a cure for cancer - prevention!
3
"may end up with just as high a nitrite content as "
"May" and then again "may not."
Hate to point this out, but if you are writing about research and data, none of it comes with the word "may."
11
The science pretty clear about all this. Read "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger. The last third of the book is all the research cited to back up his claims and conclusions. Go to nutritionfacts.org. Watch Food Choices, and terrific documentary that asks all the same questions everyone asks, but he interviews all the top nutritionists in the US, who back all their claims on real science, and then backed up again with their patients.
No, it isn't like you eat some meat and drop dead. But the fact remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer in the US by far. The US is also very high in chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes. All of these have been proven that you can avoid them or even reverse them if you have them, all through diet -- what you eat.
All those who say "I'll eat what I want and if I die a few days earlier, so what?" miss the point. Typically, people with poor diets first get obese, then develop hypertension, and then diabetes, and all the while their arteries are hardening and clogging up. Any physical activity becomes problematic, you are spending a fortune on pills (all which come with side effects), and you feel miserable because you are basically housebound. At that point, eating your steak is probably the only joy you have left
And all these nutritionists and the evidence proves that you can actually reverse all these problems if you simply limit meat and dairy, and eat more plant-based foods.
24
I want to hear more from people who ate lots of processed meat and died.
15
YOU can eat bland white porridge made out of recycled paper, with some thin white liquid made of a quarter tsp. 1% milk and purified water...heated to a safe 100 degrees, and only use a calibrated 1/2 teaspoon utensil so you don't choke.
I may have a pastrami sandwich, bacon and eggs WITH the yolks fried in butter, with two or three beers to wash it down.
Or a nice thick rib eye steak with asparagus and butter.
I will NOT die with the crumbs of an organic carrot on my lips!!!!!!!
PS: You will get plenty of gruel on your deathbed. Everybody dies. I'd rather die at 80 choking on a piece of rare rib eye than live to 100 because I ate this year's "safe" foods!!!!
12
@Ignatz but do you want to live for years with a colostomy bag and the side effects from colon cancer treatment? That’s really what this warning is about. There is always the argument that epicurians have quality if not quantity of life. Good health provides quality of life too.
11
@Jennifer C. Or you could eat a very vegan diet and 'live' for years with steadily worsening dementia. Heart attack at 75? Dementia for 15 years until 95?
It is well known that we have extended the life expectancy. What we have not done very well is improving the quality of life at advanced ages. I have spent a lifetime watching great great, great and now just aunts fad into nothingness. Some were strict vegetarians (old term for vegans). The men in my family tended to just die - heart problems.
3
What's missing from this article is the actual cancer risk. Increasing risk by 18% sounds scary. But if the risk goes from 1 in 1000 to 1.18 in 1000 -- that doesn't sound too scary.
11
Everybody dies. Not everybody gets to enjoy delicious fatty processed deli meats
10
Life without the Deli would not be worth living. Oh, blessed Pastrami, I sing your praises!
10
I am on the downward slope of life close enough to the end of the line to say with some certainty salami is not going to be what kills or killed me. As with so many things consumed in very moderate frequency by the ounce rather than the pound I'm not going to sweat it nor do I think my body is any the worse for enjoying it.
15
The first sentence is wrong: "Meat and poultry are excellent sources of protein, B vitamins and certain minerals." They are terrible sources of nutrients- loaded with fat, cholesterol and hormones, plus environmentally destructive, contribute significantly to global warming, and most of all are inordinately inhumane. They lack many other nutrients such as fiber. All these nutrients can be readily consumed through healthy, environmentally sustainable plant foods.
19
@ JCX yes you're right. Those B vitamins are available in delicious nutritional yeast. No animal by products. Period.
The FDA should get their act together and Republicans and Democrats should stop being allowed to take campaign contributions from agricultural lobbyists.
14
I won't argue with the numbers presented in this article, as I have seen similar results in metaanalyses of colorectal cancer risk. I think that it should be remembered, however, that when you talk about an 18% increased risk of colorectal cancer that the baseline lifetime risk, according to the American Cancer Society, is 4.49% for men and 4.15% for women. Applying the 18% increase to those numbers would give an adjusted lifetime risk of 5.29% for men (an increase of 0.80%) and of 4.90% for women (an increase of 0.75%). Once you are clear on the numbers, it is easier to make informed decisions! Remember that 18% means an 18% increase from a baseline of 4.49% for men and 4.15% for women.
28
@Jose Pieste I have seen well done meta-analyses (both in terms of numbers and statistical analysis) that have similar results, so I don't think that the results can be completely dismissed. My point was that that lifetime increase in risk from eating processed meats is less than 1% (with a confidence interval which can be found if you look at the original meta-analyses). This is a very small risk compared to, for example, the risk of smoking. How one behaves after knowledge of this small risk is a function of a personal cost/benefit analysis. I personally love red meat and continue to enjoy it. I suggest that you look at "Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat", Véronique Bouvard et al., The Lancet Oncology, December 2015, Volume, 16(16), p.1599-1600
2
Everyone who read this article should calm down and should be used to the fact that The NYT simply loves to publish these wishy washy articles on health and food, while the author casually sites, in a few paragraphs, random statistics from lengthy scientific studies that take years and reach no absolute conclusion.
So this week's article is on processed meat leads to cancer. Next week it will be eggs lead to cardiovascular failure ... or are eggs good now? The following week we'll be back to reading about how coffee is harmful, or maybe it's good for the liver? However, what the coffee article will fail to note is how the coffee is prepared; drip, espresso, latte, with or without sugar, how much sugar? Where do we currently stand on dairy? And everyone's favorite food demon; GLUTEN!!!
The point is that if you take these sloppy articles seriously, you will not only drive yourself crazy, but you'll think that any heathen who dares to eat bacon, gluten and "cows" milk should be watching Fox News and not reading The NYT.
As the alcohol ads are required to say, just eat responsibly, meaning grown ups eat steel cut oats not Fruity Pebbles. Capisce!
16
@Phillip J.If you really want to know the truth, watch the documentary Food Choices. It's an eye-opener. The filmmaker spent three years asking your very same questions, and interviewed the top nutritionists and also reviewed the scientific literature.
Turns out the answers are pretty clear and have been known for a long time. There is no debate on the matter any longer.
2
Wait! Cured meats cause cancer because they contain nitrates and nitrites. Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but do not cause cancer. So what is REALLY going on here?
12
@Pat
And what's more, the article says that adding celery juice or beet juice in processing can result in cancer-causing nitrates/nitrites. Why is that? Why is drinking a cup of celery juice OK, but using it to cure meat not OK? And why is sea salt implicated? Not enough answers in this article.
1
We can't have any fun!!
4
At the present moment I have sausage , cured salmon and a cornucopia of deli meats in my fridge. While my hedonistic self could gorge on these treats on a daily basis , my self preserving instinct kicks in and states the obvious ....these foods are indulgences not daily staples . What if frequency of consumption is a bigger issue then simply bad nitrate deli meats ?
6
In NY and beyond, there's a monopoly of deli meats held for decades by Boar's Head, which I find so suspicious. Why only one supplier for a city of 8 million people? Seems that there's no room for small suppliers that could distribute something of better quality. Added to that that many delis are run by people who may have no interest in looking for something different they just go along with whatever sells. I wonder how restocking happens. A friend told me that there are two Rolls Royces parked in the parking lot of the company headquarters in Bushwick.
3
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die.
14
All this research based on only epidemiological data is inherently flawed. This article making such firm conclusions is, in my opinion, very misleading.
5
Without all this information I already knew that processed meats are poison. I won't eat them.
4
Does anyone know what the deal is with Smoked Salmon?
13
@Allen Roth Smoked salmon is cured with smoke and salt, and, as with other cured meats and fishes, contains nitrites and nitrates that offer similar health risks. There is no getting out of life alive!
1
I'll never eat celery again!
16
I have stage four colon cancer. I ate a lot of processed meat. Is this how I got my cancer? No, more likely, it was the TOTALITY of my unhealthy life style: being 100lbs. overweight, consuming too much everything added to a sedentary high stress life. I produced a body over the course of decades that invited cancer to take and then ignored all of my body's red flags, allowing it to spread EVERYWHERE.
My initial prognosis was six months. I have held the disease at bay for four years now, and surpise!, I weigh 145lbs., have a BMI of 20, 9% body fat. I don't eat processed meat, fried foods, dairy or anything with added sugar. I don't drink at all. I exercise 2hrs. every day vigorously and religiously. Does everyone need to follow this prescription to avoid cancer? I don't think so, but you do need to honestly look at yourself and assess your relative state of overall health. If it's not good make some changes.
When I look around the chemo ward the room isn't populated by healthy people with bad genetics - statistically 20% of cancers. It's people who are like I was, morbidly unhealthy.
Hope this will help some healthy folks feel OK about their occasional hot dog or slice of pepperoni pizza or Manhattan and maybe help spur some with 30+ BMI who are out of breath after walking a couple flights of stairs to start thinking about how inviting their bodies look to disease. It's not too late! Stop making excuses! Don't end up like I did. CANCER IS SERIOUSLY NOT A FUN RIDE.
86
Thank you for this important testimonial.
6
@Paul Deeb I lived a rather healthy lifestyle, but still wound up with colon cancer, stage 1, which was eliminated with a simple operation. I was never one of the lunch meat crowd, exercised somewhat regularly since a youth (played sports through college, but not on varsity) and pretty much ate an average amount of red meat (cooked). I think it pure dumb luck if you get cancer.
5
NYTimes, please be clear about how relative risk works. The way that this article talks about risk is extremely misleading. It would be much more informative for the average reader to be told the actual absolute risks of the groups in the study. What percent of the no processed meat groups got colorectal cancer? What percent of the equivalent 1 slice of ham a day groups? What percent of the highest intake groups?
Trying shock people by throwing around numbers like 18% is disingenuous and frankly unethical.
38
WOW! No bacon, no prosciutto? Why live? Oh my God!
7
You won’t be thinking the zippy one liners when you’re in for radiation, trust me.
16
@Alan Burnham: If it was a choice between bacon/prosciutto vs. chemo/radiation and wearing a colostomy bag, most of us would give up the bacon.
In fact, there are many variables with regard to colorectal cancer risk, including genetics, gender, age, and modifiable risk factors (smoking, alcohol use, diet, sedentary lifestyle). You can't change your genes (not yet, anyway), so take responsibility for what you can change.
8
@JE:
The lifetime risk for colorectal cancer is about 4.32%. Apparently eating bacon everyday increases that to 5.10% meaning for every 100 people that do it less than 1 of them will be the magic person that got cancer because of the bacon and not because they were going to anyways. To some people, this is a worthwhile risk. After all of these studies I have cut back on the nitrates myself, though I do not intend to eliminate them altogether.
There's always the next thing to eliminate that will also cause a very slight increase in cancer risk based on the latest study until eventually were all eating rocks and farmed algae.
Something has got to get you, genetically for me apparently it will be brain cancer in my late-80s to early 90s (4 of my one-over-one generational relatives have gone that way), so I'll think of you as I drink my 3rd beer and have my turkey and bacon sandwhiches in moderation :-)
6
So are celery and beets also dangerous because they either contain nitrites or are converted into nitrites in the body?
Hungary has the highest incidence of Colorectal Cancer in the world. As you'd expect, the diet is heavy on dairy, cheese and meats.
6
@David
all European countries have dairy cheese and meats on the menu
12
@David Germany and Spain have extremely meat-heavy diets, does anyone know what the rates are in those countries?
If this is so, are the rates of colorectal cancer high in Germany, Austria and other European countries where ‘wursts ‘ are consumed daily? How do they compare to other counties where processed meats are not part of the daily diet?
22
The author should address the obvious questions: Why are the harmless nitrites/nitrates in vegetables converted into a cancer danger when used with organic meat? What other factors might be involved? The meat itself, for example, can vary in nutritional value depending on how it is grown. It is good to explore individual players in our food supply, but always when considering them within an interdependent system, and kept in perspective. Breathing city air as you walk home from the deli may be equally as dangerous as a good salami.
14
The only difference between the nitrites in vegetables and in cured meets is the amount. Presumably, the amounts in processed meats is substantially higher than in vegetables, therefore it is more of a cancer risk.
7
@Robert Thanks
While I agree completely with the findings, the fact that the makeup of the person consuming the food must be taken into account. And, it's way to hard to factor that into the equation. I will continue to take my chances with occasional meals containing those items, and continue to get exercise when I can. By the way, I'll have a Manhattan or two, or a glass of wine.
6
A good delicatessen is paradise. If someone wants to subsist on sprouts, tofu, or ramen, so be it.
14
So okay you don't eat this wonderful stuff every day, or even every week. Instead only once in a while. For me, it's a once a year binge when I eat various dried and smoked meats I buy at a food fair in northern Italy. This stuff is just too good to pass up. The binge lasts for about a week, sometimes 10 days, then I'm happily sated until next year.
14
Correlation does not equal causation. I'm not surprised that the public doesn't understand that, but I'm very critical of scientists that are ignorant of it or refuse to acknowledge it. There are thousands of interactive variables that cause our health to be better or worse. A ham sandwich won't kill you, but eating ham sandwiches every day might mean that you are socially isolated, or compulsive, or not eating vegetables or fiber. This should be obvious to nutrition scientists and journalists that write about nutrition science.
27
@Scott Bodenheimer: Right. Besides, the correlation in this case seems rather weak, unless I have missed the warnings for avoiding all the other sources of the same chemical. How come celery juice, potato starch, sea salt, etc. are the source of trouble for uncured meats, but there are no warnings about consuming those in anything else?
Potato starch is particularly troubling because it is found in many other products, as I found out when I became allergic to potatoes. For example, about half of the varieties of shredded cheese contain potato starch, ever since some groups started the campaign against the use of cellulose as anti-caking agent.
4
Certainly correlation does not equal causation, but the perfect experiment of controlling what people eat for decades is impossible. Therfore, scientists make the best judgement they can make, which is generally Occam's razor.
But go right ahead and assume that other people who eat what you eat have higher risks of bad outcomes because of unseen issues they don't share with you.
I have a friend who got colon cancer. It's certainly motivating me to reduce any possible risk.
7
@Juan Arango I also wonder about the safety of celery juice, beets, sea salt etc. How many stalks of celery go into the one slice of "uncured" "organic" bacon?
"There is some evidence suggesting an association between processed meat and stomach cancer. "
Some evidence? Why is the writer answering these questions soft pedaling the risk of processed meats?
"The World Health Organization has classified processed meats including ham, bacon, salami and frankfurts as a Group 1 carcinogen (known to cause cancer) which means that there’s strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Eating processed meat increases your risk of bowel and stomach cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork, has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer."
Read more at https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/1in3cancers/lifestyle-choices-and-cancer/red-meat-processed-meat-and-cancer/#2KQmyJThbVxUFGAC.99
Do you know what else is classified as Group 1 carcinogens? Plutonium, tobacco smoke, cadmium, beryllium, benzene, PCBs, asbestos, and other nasty things. Hot dogs, pastrimi, salami are all in the same carcinogen group. Saying there is "some evidence" is irresponsible. I wonder how scares of the meat and dairy industry the NYT is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens
22
@arusso
I'd have you tell my ham and bacon loving grandfather these things. But you can't tell him anything. He's dead. Died about 15 or 20 years ago. He was only 95.
6
@Glen
You can't beat good genes. But my dad was 72 when he died of stomach cancer. Loved his bacon, cured and processed meats and red meats. I am wondering if I got his genes or my 94 year old mother's genes. She ate what he ate. He was the cook.
4
People need to distinguish absolute from relative risk. Cured meats may increase the risk of colorectal by a percentage that seems large at first, but because the baseline absolute risk is <5% the absolute risk of eating cured meats is quite small.
18
As in all diet related things, it's area under the curve and moderation.
4
@Jack DO you just say things reflexively, without reading or processing what you read? Because even the second sentence of this article contradicts what you just said. Are you saying its wrong? Will you explain why?
4
None of us are getting out of here alive. With the conflicting, ever-evolving advice on the health merits of certain foods and beverages, everything in moderation may be the best rule. When I complained to my doctor that one day it's a glass of wine with dinner is healthy and the next day no amount of alcohol is healthy, she said, "Have your glass of wine. Happiness is important, too."
37
@Barbara Not all of us need to drink wine -- or eat processed meat -- to be happy
5
@MadManMark Yes, but those of us who do are almost certainly happier!
15
@MadManMark While I didn't NEED to have a chopped chorizo on my baked potato tonight, washed down with a glass of Merlot, it did bring a smile to my face. Cheers!
10
I suppose smoked salmon, lox, &
other kinds of fish like kipper snacks, are involved too?
For some reason I don’t agree with this article.
I’m not giving up bagels, lox & cream cheese.
22
There are countries in which the inhabitants consume lots of processed meats (I'm thinking of Germany and Italy, but there are probably others). Has anyone done a study to see whether their cancer rates are higher/lower/same as other countries where processed meat consumption is lower?
I would also guess that consumption per capita of processed meats is lower than it was 60 years ago, yet I would guess that cancer rates are higher. What's the explanation?
Has anyone done a study to see if cancer rates are higher in regions which consume large amounts of smoked barbecue?
Anecdotally, I'm beginning to think that the primary indicator of potential future cancer may be genetics more than almost anything else. It certainly seems true that certain people seem protected in spite of their diets and other consumptions.
27
@Martin Brooks The point of the article is not to say that eating processed meats is the ONLY cause of cancer... higher cancer rates could be attributed to a variety of causes (including genetics, like you wrote), and not solely correlated with lower processed meat consumption per capita. Regions like Germany and Italy which have increased consumption may also move their bodies more than us Americans, drink less sugary drinks and soda, and have other habits associated with lower cancer rates that lower their risks despite higher meat consumption. I believe the author is trying to inform readers of one potential cancer risk that is relatively avoidable rather than chalk all cancer statistics up to processed meat consumption alone.
11
@Martin Brooks
None of us knows why you guess that. Shouldn't you be explaining it to us, not us to you?
Yes, people have done a study to see if cancer rates are higher in regions which consume large amounts of smoked barbecue. You could maybe Google it up and let us know what it says.
There may even be more than one.
5
@Martin Brooks Yes, genetics seems to be the primary factor in cancer. If we were to shun all food that supposedly cause cancer, our diet would be very boring.
3
Whatever issues with the article or study there may be, anecdotes with a sample size of one ("My aunt ate 10 hot dogs a day and lived to 100!") do nothing to disprove either.
12
This makes me rethink my Keto diet.
4
@Jordan314
I'm already rethinking my Cheeto diet.
26
@Diogenes Stick with it! Don't let these naysayers get you down. (Though, personally, I skipping Flamin' Hot Day for a while. That was murder.)
6
There's a 4-18% increase in the risk, but what was the risk before? I mean if it was a 1% risk, I'm happy to accept a 1.18% risk.
30
Exactly. I worked at a research institute, and the scientists there scoffed at reports that dealt only with the increased risk factor. Far more important, they always said, was to look at the absolute risk.
19
@James Pedley
Yes, this is why the failure to teach statistics in our schools is a gross failure for democracy (or the Republic, if you want to be pedantic). Whenever a study like this comes up, the first question to ask is, "What is the base rate?" After that comes, "And what is that in real numbers?" If eating bacon with my eggs raises my chance of colorectal cancer from 8% (the base rate) to 9%, it's a risk I'm willing to take. Besides, colorectal cancer is one of the easiest cancers to detect and cure so I am totally unimpressed with this 'finding'.
22
@James Pedley Yeah, that article's statistic is so misleading.
5
one reason people live longer today than the50's -60's is bc of beta blockers. Afib and hypertension incidence r lowered with these. When my heart races I take some blocker and boom back to a sinus rhythm. I used to fix my father heavy rye sandwhiches with sliced polish sausage he ate for years. He died atv 82. He biked for an hour a day bc we could not afford a car. His brother had a stroke at 62 and died at 71. He was well off and had a car.
2
@Pheasantfriend Actually, the life expectancy rate in the US is falling, not rising, and one of the main reasons is the ongoing opiod epidemic.
6
So "(Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but eating them is not associated with an increased risk of cancer)", but adding celery or beetroot juice to meats makes those vegetables (at least in their juice forms) have an increased risk of cancer? Hmmmm
18
@Kevin K +1 I was thinking the same thing.
6
Epidemiological biostatisticians in England and the Netherlands generated the principal study, “Red and Processed Meat and Colorectal Cancer Incidence: Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.” (2011).
I could not penetrate any of the authors’ argot, even after university-level biology and statistics. The authors conclude what most of us have heard for decades, that excessive consumption of red and processed meat increases risk for colorectal cancer.
Ms. Rabin has difficulty interpreting the data, while most readers struggle with Ms. Rabin’s representation of the data. Engaging with the review study is daunting, partly because the material is so poorly presented.
The panoply of quantitative analysis does not yield meaningful statistical inferences. I cannot ascertain whether the “meta-analysis” accounts for the possibility of unforeseen bias and error in the prospective studies or merely exacerbates them. Scientific method? Hardly.
Detailed case studies or qualitative analysis of discrete populations over long intervals—ten to fifty years—may prove more illuminating.
The authors append a generic disclaimer—"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist”—and identify the World Cancer Research Fund International as the source of funding. I do not know what entities fund this organization, which identifies itself as a non-profit.
If results are conclusive, the USDA should ban the appropriate products.
Eggs anyone?
How about coffee?
Or is the jury still out?
11
@Chance Yeah, and how is there a statistically meaningful sample of people who ate 1 piece of ham a day and then went on to develop colorectal cancer? It's a joke.
2
While the article discusses colorectal health issues, it is important to Keep a larger perspective.
According to the World Health Organization report of
September 12, 2018:
The most common annual cancer deaths are:
Lung (1.76 million deaths)
Colorectal (862 000 deaths)
Stomach (783 000 deaths)
Liver (782 000 deaths)
Breast (627 000 deaths)
However, the WHO also notes that ischemic heart disease and stroke are the world’s biggest killers, accounting for a combined 15.2 million deaths annually.
Those diseases have remained the leading causes of death globally for the last 15 years.
The next most common deadly health conditions worldwide, according to WHO:
—Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claimed 3.0 million lives in 2016.
—Lung cancer (along with trachea and bronchus cancers) caused 1.7 million deaths.
—Diabetes killed 1.6 million people in 2016, up from less than 1 million in 2000.
Lower respiratory infections remainthe most deadly communicable disease, causing 3.0 million deaths in 2016.
There were 1.4 million people worldwide who died from severe diarrhea.
10
Bacon is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
28
@Sunny. Amen to that, so are beer and wine.
9
At 69.9 years old, my very recent colonoscopy was a total pass. I've been eating cured meats as a regular part of my "diet" all my life. Ain't gonna change now.
13
@jim caldwellI
I'm with you Jim. I've been eating processed meats 3 or 4 times a week for lunch for more years than I can remember. My colonoscopy was also "clean and green." So, like you and a lot of others I "Ain't gonna change." Recently passed my 82nd birthday.
3
Grandmother's family business overseas was a wurstgeschaft. She was tall for her era which I suppose was from eating lotsa meat. *sigh* She died young, in her 50's, from stroke. No anti-hypertensive medicines in her era.
3
709 comments on an article saying maybe don't eat so much meat. Maybe we have a food addiction??? If someone took away your steak and cheese for life and you got UPSET, maybe you should re-evaluate your life. It's just food people. Why are we getting so upset over it?
8
@meatandcheeseaddiction
And YOU are one of the 776 commenters...
4
@meatandcheeseaddiction
You can have my meat. I will fight anyone who tries to take my parmesan, cheddar, and mozzarella.
3
So if I understand the article correctly, we should aim to consume only tofu salami. Well, for me, I'd rather die by bacon and pastrami!
11
What is the difference between the nitrates/nitrites in a hot dog versus a bunch of spinach?
4
I know researchers have more credibility than I do, but my family ate bacon, ham, salami, baloney and who knows what else and all lived into their 80's and 90's. Some also drank whiskey, smoked cigars, hunted with black powder and lead shot, and fought in wars and still survived. I think its probably all good to be a purists, but that just doesn't cut it sometimes. What I suggest is just do things in moderation.
11
Do people actually know the difference between 50 grams and 100 grams? I have no clue. Which means, once again, I have to resort to Mr. Google providing me with a conversion to ounces: 1.7 versus 3.5.
Which gives rise to the question (but does not beg it) what does 3.5 ounces of deli meat look like? I still have no clue.
Why can't people writing articles about deli meat use the most obvious unit of measure? The slice. Two slices of ham I understand. Thirty-five grams might as well be rendered in Greek, of which I know very little indeed.
13
@Rocky L. R. 4 ounces of deli meat is a quarter pound, so 3.5 ounces is a typical sandwich except in the places that are particularly generous.
2
@Rocky L. R. Go to the deli and ask for a 1/4 pound of meat or cheese. That's 4 ounces. That should help you eyeball amounts. I love rare roast beef, sliced thin from the deli. I can make 4 ounces into two lunches. That seems a reasonable amount to me.
5
@Meighan Corbett
So you have rare roast beef on rye in Rye?
Looking at EU statistics over colorectal cancer the striking thing is that Italy, the land of charcuterie, has a very low rate of the
cancer, half of that of Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Norway.Sweden is pretty high as well.
The latter, all big on their salamis and cured meats.
But what is it in South Korean food that makes the people sick in this cancer?
2
@Petras Italian prepared meats are clearly much less processed, you can tell simply from looking at them. Also the Italian method of slaughter method is likewise different and involves taking apart the animal, not sawing it in straight lines. My opinion and experience as an American working in Italy is that the resulting product is much healthier than what I get in Germany, and a lot of the german stuff is vastly different than what we get in the USA. To be honest after 15 years abroad I am shocked at how processed the US lunchmeat is. Speaking of the eastern block countries you mentioned, often their "wurst" is heavily processed to the point of not even being edible.
5
@Petras
Italian eat less smoked and more air cured meats.
Although the article may be accurate as far as it goes, it would be much less likely to generate misunderstanding if it mentioned the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer (estimated to be about 4.2 percent) and related the evidence about increased risk to this base rate. Even though I am well aware of the importance of base rate, I misread the statement about increased risk due to easting processed meat. The article reports: "“We see a 4 percent increase in the risk of cancer even at 15 grams a day. . . . Eating a more typical serving of 50 grams of processed meat a day would increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent. . . ." I read it to say if you increase your intake from 15 to 50 grams of processed meat a day your risk of contracting colorectal cancer increases from 4 percent to 18 percent--almost one chance out of six of contracting this dread disease! I expect many readers drew the same conclusion. But if, for simplicity, we round the estimated lifetime risk up to 5 percent, then a 4 percent increase in risk raises it to 5.002 percent and an 18 percent increase raises it only to 5.009 percent. Such small increases may be worth paying attention to, but they are hardly a cause for panic or drastic changes in lifestyle. I think science writers and editors should be aware that risk statistics are very likely to be misinterpreted and should take pains to make things clear to readers.
15
@Carl Bereiter
You should have misread it as an increase from 4% to 22% (22 = 4 + 18). That was my first impression. Note that I'm agreeing with your objection.
It's typical of health risk articles to omit the baseline. When something is associated with a 20% increase in cancer, from .01% risk to .012% risk, we can safely ignore the difference even though 20% seems big, because it's still a very small risk, even ignoring the likelihood that it's a statistical fluke.
6
@Carl Bereiter
a 4% increase on 5% = 5.2 not 5.002
therefore an 18% increase on 4.2% = 4.96%.
Put another way, it would take about 132 people eating 50g of processed meats per day to generate one additional case of colorectal cancer among them, in their lifetimes. Sorry to the guy who gets it, but very much worth the bacon to the rest of us.
9
@Dan Sorry, but your arithmetic is wrong. 4 percent of 5 percent is .0002, not .2
1
First you say "Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but eating them is not associated with an increased risk of cancer."
Then you say that products seasoned with celery juice powder are no safer than those cured with added nitrates or nitrites.
Isn't celery a vegetable? Then why isn't celery powder safe? Is it because when you eat meat seasoned with celery powder you get so much more at once than when you eat celery stalks? Is it just a matter of the quantity you ingest? If that's the reason for the difference, you should say so.
11
@Charley Darwin My thoughts exactly. But perhaps it's because the nitrates in celery also come with the fiber in celery, and thus the net effect is not negative, while celery juice powder would not have fiber, nor does the meat, and so the net effect is negative.
4
@Charley Darwin
Agreed. Why not explain in the first place:
1) why nitrates and nitrates are bad (“may cause colon cancer” explains nothing as to why).
2) why they are not bad in vegetables
3) why they are still bad in meats using vegatables sources for nitrates and nitrites.
A simplified explanation of the science behind all of this would go a long way. This article confuses more than educates.
10
@Charley Darwin Celery is not a vegetable. It is a member of the plywood family and should be ranked for flavor somewhere in between hemlock and battery acid. Personally, I believe it is genetically linked to the giant Hogwart weed, which, at a touch, can inflict third degree burns.
11
There is evidence that eating slowly, savoring flavors and experiencing pleasure changes the metabolic activity that underlies digestion, altering insulin, glucagon & other digestive activities. Gobbling a protein bar on the run or chugging a smoothie does not facilitate this physiologic rhythm.
Apart from Gene x Environment governing much cancer risk-
there are clearly significant variables that add up to reduce risk of cancer.
Journalists unknowingly overreach when reporting the opinions of researchers who must- to stay motivated- express certainty that their findings are important. True clinical wisdom requires more than a reporter's curiosity.
8
That these medical researchers believe they can detect a 4% increase in the risk of ANYTHING in the human physiology makes me weep for both the educational system and the field of statistics.
29
Historically, these meats were NOT preserved with nitrites/nitrates. Only undue concern for food-borne illness and the hyperbolic fear of the incredibly deadly (but exceptionally uncommon) botulism toxin have caused food regulators to REQUIRE these toxic chemicals in cured products. For whole muscle cured products (prosciuttos/hams, coppas,bacon/pancetta) there is absolutely no need to add nitrates/nitrites to prevent botulism. The botulinum bacteria and it's deadly toxin do not live in muscle tissue; even in sausage making where there is a potential for botulinum inoculation during the grinding of meat and it's proliferation in an anoxic environment (in casings) - if proper conditions are maintained (cool temperatures for salting, achieving a low pH from fermentation, etc.) botulism is completely preventable.
The real story should be: Don't eat Hot Dogs.
17
So sea salt contributes to colon cancer and is ubiquitous in just about every organic processed food requiring salt from cereals to cooked beans and prepared frozen food. It should be easy to replace sea salt in these products with regular salt. The consumer has been lead to believe sea salt is beneficial to health, after all it is touted on all the labels of organic products, so it must be good for you. I always wondered about the levels of mercury in sea salt, since mercury is found in fish, and the bigger the fish the higher the mercury content.
11
@an observer The bigger the fish the higher the mercury content is generally due to the concentration of heavy metals as you go up the food chain. Predators will have higher concentrations than prey and bigger predators will have higher concentrations than smaller predators.
2
The problem is not processed meats, it is LOW QUALITY processed meats.
9
@American Patriot I suspect the real problem is that everything causes cancer.
5
These meats were created in the times before refrigeration when sources of protein, also including fish, were preserved to protein could be a steady part of the diet. Cheese did the same thing with milk. The meats were indispensable to good health. But we don't need them any more for that purpose.
7
@annabellina It used to be that sugar and salt were
the basic preservative of any food. Now there are all
sorts of chemicals used. (the cheaper the better)!
So watch out.
5
@annabellina
Yes, refrigeration drastically changed the need for such methods of preservation.
5
The lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer for a 50 year old man is 1.8%. The increase in risk of 18% cited in the article raises that risk to 2.1%. Is this really something to worry unduly about? On the other hand, a male smoker raises his risk of developing lung cancer by a whopping 2200% (i.e., he is 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer). Risk statistics can sound very alarming if one doesn't take into account the baseline absolute risk. From a public health perspective, it would be great if everyone stopped eating deli meat. It would result in many thousands fewer cancer diagnoses. But from the perspective of the individual, who has many more serious risks to worry about, it's not worth changing behaviours, especially if you really enjoy your deli meat. I've heard the rule of thumb that people would be wise to ignore any relative risks under 50%.
58
The rule of thumb is useless. A 50% relative risk increase of an absolute risks of 1.0% is 0.5% whereas a 50% relative risk increase of an absolute risk of 50% is 25%. It certainly seems that articles in the lay press should always use or at least include absolute risks if their goal is to be informative.
Probably not a bad idea to restrict the intake of these meats, but enough with the personal anecdotes of what you have eaten throughout your life and that you’re 75 and fine...
12
@DavePo If you didn't make it to 75 you won't be posting comments. So those who did make it do not provide any evidence other than the mortality rate is not 100%.
This cites evidence based on eating it every day, which I don't feel qualifies as "small amounts." Eating cured meats occasionally, in moderation, isn't going to hurt you.
7
Studies of colorectal cancer incidence in Japan found:
Incidence was highest in people who ate more meat AND who did not frequently include green leafy vegetables in their weekly diets.
17
Sorry, I don't get it. If these products cause cancer why aren't they banned or at least labeled as such? Now!
8
@Taoshum I suppose the danger is not so great as tobacco usage. Big Tobacco fought mightily to keep their business profitable. Slowly, very slowly usage diminished.
Big Food knows how to hook people on all the most delicious combinations of sugar, fat and salt. It tastes good. How can it be bad for ya? Big Food fights regulation as well.
6
@Taoshum
Italy seems to be able to produce their charcuterie wares without causing an epidemic. We should learn from them and then we can eat the cake and have it.
Banning cold cuts would cause a revolution.
2
@Taoshum
In the current political environment, this would be cast as "government overreach" and "anti business". With an agenda driven by a push to rollback regulations - unfortunately population health takes a backseat
2
Relevant to eating habits, here are the nations with the highest colorectal cancer rates.
1 Hungary
2 South Korea
3 Slovakia
4 Norway
5 Slovenia
6 Denmark
6 Portugal
8
@Jean
Spain and Croatia are also in there on the same level.
I base this on EU stats.
Italy on the other hand has half of those rates. How do they treat their amazing charcuterie? Is it all dried hanging out in the air? I wish to know.
13
@Petras
Italians eat plentiful amounts of fresh produce, plus consume red wine in moderation.
7
@Petras
Much of Italy's salamis and died sausage is cured without nitrates, they are air dried. The U.S. government forced Italy to put nitrates in their cured meats imported to the U.S. for "health reasons." Nobody in Italy was getting sick from nitrate free meats.
6
Hmmm. I think I'll take my chances eating jerky or ham every once in a while. I'm more worried about having all my food drenched and impregnated with Monsanto juice.
24
But my Reuben sandwich tastes so good.
19
@Foregone Conclusion agreed! What availeth a person to no pastrami and, henceforth, is grumpy and melancholic.
1
@Michael Shirk
"What availeth a person to no pastrami and, henceforth, is grumpy and melancholic."
---My favorite bit so far. Did you coin it? May I use this as a template for any an appropriate aphorism. Just fill in the 'pastrami' blank. Thanks mucho.
1
“We see a 4 percent increase in the risk of cancer even at 15 grams a day"
Sorry, but this isn't as rigorous as its presented. A lot of that is based on epidemiological studies and based on "recall". Its probably not good to eat processed meat all the time, but the idea it "causes" cancer is exaggerated. So is the idea eating red meat. The evidence is actually scant.
14
@DaveI
I tend to agree. I grew up in Sweden where cold cuts are
what we put on sandwiches, of which we eat a lot.
Besides cold cuts, all sorts of processed sausages and meats and fish are big on the menu.
When I read the article I was wondering why no one I have ever known in that country has died of the disease. Of other kinds of cancers yes, but not of this one.
16
I am from the land of bar-be-que, venison sausage, breakfast sausage, state fair corn dogs-you name it. I am almost 70 and have had 2 very reassuring colonoscopies-not a thing was seen.
I do think out higher incidence of these diseases in America does relate to portion size, obesity, possibly sugar overload as well.
I don't overdo the deli sandwiches and try to buy the better brands. But I eat steak pretty often also. I refuse to worry about it at this point.
I do worry that young people eat too many chicken nuggets-from toddlerhood-now those are very processed. Please study that dynamic.
10
It's all very well to say 'avoid processed meats; fresh red meat is healthier.'
Humans have used these processes to extend the life of meat since after fire and before language, roughly, a very long time.
What, exactly are the non-wealthy to do; what is available that is not preserved in some way?
In fact, it seems as if this is a choice; eliminate all but the relatively rare fresh meat protein from the diet, or be alert to the risks of colon cancer.
It is not an idle question, both the mother and father of our four children are colon cancer survivors.
17
@Four Oaks move on to dried beans! Cook them with water and later add spices if you like. They puree easily in a food processor and are delicious when added to home made soups, used on home made pizza (to make taco pizza), eaten with corn chips, and your kids will love them in quesadillas!
13
@Four Oaks
Eat fish more often! You live in Michigan, with 40,000 lakes. People even go ice fishing there.
2
When, as a physician, I see the articles in the popular press saying this or that increases cancer (or heart disease, or whatever) by some percent, it is NEVER mentioned whether this increase percentage is in absolute risk or relative risk percentages. It makes a difference. A HUGE difference. Here is a simplified example. In absolute terms, if 1 of 100 people at large normally would expect to get a disease, and their risk increased by 10 percent by using a product, then you'd see 11 out of 100 people using that product to get that disease. But if it is relative risk, then in that same population of 100 people, you'd see 1.1 people get the disease. This is a large difference and frankly, I'm sick of people having the bejezuz scared out of them by people making reports who, if not educated about what they're writing, certainly should be. It makes my job harder and keeps people confused and skeptical about science. It's these people doing sensationalizing reporting who lead regular people like you and me to think, "eh, what difference does it make. One day say they this and another day they say just the opposite". It is of no service to confuse people when trying to enlighten and educate them.
276
@Dennis Thank you. Sensationalizing this type of study confuses people who don't know how to interpret the results. Just a few days ago, there were articles about how diet sodas are "linked" to the increase risk of stroke and heart disease. Buried in these reports, or not reported at all, is that there is no direct evidence of this, no actual clinical studies carried out.
15
@Dennis I totally agree. I wonder often do these people who write these articles, even scientists, understand statistics and the science/math behind them. It is a complicated field and is hard to wrap your head around all the information to understand the real true meaning of the article, of the science being presented. I will also go the their web site to see if they have an axe to grind so to speak. I wonder who funds some of these outfits!! If they will not talk about it, I will not believe them.
7
@Dennis
Scientists understand that a 10% increase in percentage x means the new percentage is 1.1x. There is no ambiguity if you read carefully.
The problem is that we don't all read carefully (that's the understatement of the week) and it's easy to misinterpret such statements. A second problem is that if you read a popular article you can't be sure the writer knows how to write this correctly.
5
I think its the pink slime cleaning solution they use on the equipment used to process the meat and clean commercial kitchens all across America that is to blame.
7
What about lutefisk? Should I be avoiding lutefisk?
11
@DJ McConnell
Most definitely. It tastes horrible and smells worse! On the other hand, if you are a Norwegian bachelor farmer out on the prairie, go for it.
3
@DJ McConnell Do you eat it every day?
This story is deeply misleading. The science is right, but the reporting is garbled
http://www.samefacts.com/2019/02/health-medicine/percentages-and-the-pastrami-panic/
7
Yeah, yeah, yeah!!!
First they said no fats...sugar is better.
Next they said no red meats, now it’s ok
Then they said no coffee, now it’s good for you.
Then they said no wine....now red wine is antioxidant
The only thing the doctors missed years ago was smoking was bad for you!
Science can be good or bad...statistics can be interpreted one way or the other.
The only good thing for sure is bad news and headlines sell.
20
@Saul RP … not to mention that for every 10 research papers that are actually published (let alone get any attention beyond that), there are another 40 that never have their results published. Why? Because they don't show anything! Unless a result has been replicated by other, independent scientists (the more the better), it is probably a wise idea to take any "flash in the pan" pronouncements with a grain of salt. Just Sayin'.
3
@Mark Yep, coffee and pancreatic cancer association NEVER was duplicated.
1
@Saul RP
The best advice these days boils down to 'Eat your vegetables'. That's something I can stick with.
2
Statistics can be quite helpful, but they can also be quite misleading; that is, statistics don't lie, but their interpretation or application can be most tricky.
7
@Glenn Thomas
In my salad days, a mentor shared this with the class:
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
2
Try going through Germany and avoiding sausages if you aren't a vegetarian. Ditto the French alps. Yet, I have met many, many quite active people in their 80s who are skiing and scampering all over the place and partaking of a diet of cured meats, local cheeses, wine - lots of wine - fruits and vegetables.
They eat grains and yogurt for breakfast. Olives. Fish. Smoked fish. Poultry. Sweets.
There is one thing about this seemingly odd paradox: the size of the portions. They are moderate. And the food is not mass produced.
Exercise is daily and committed.
One more thing - the air in the places I travel with the highest number of healthy people over age 60 is clean.
There is much to be learnt by understanding our surrounding environment and how it slowly kills - or sustains - us.
51
Our earthly bodies are made of clay; only our heavenly bodies will endure forever. Enjoy this life in moderation, and that includes enjoying processed meat.
7
I was first given this advice way back in 1976. As a grad student at UCLA I visited student health for a problem. The MD instructed me to avoid processed meats (I forgot what her rationale was at the time). I never forgot her advice although I've enjoyed many a hot dog, brat, ham sandwich since then.
7
Studies like this need some factor analysis. Increased rates of disease for the whole group may be outliers, such as those who are obese or who smoke or drink heavily. In addition, there may be habits associated with eating processed meat, such as using mustard, etc. ALSO, many brands of uncured deli meat contain no celery juice and that sort of thing.
5
@westernman
Good points. Also, I am confused by the fact that if intake of nitrite-containing vegetables is not associated with increased colorectal cancer risk, then why would meats cured with vegetable-derived nitrates be as dangerous as sodium nitrate cured meats?
18
This article is a little alarmist. First of all 2 oz of deli meat is not one slice. It is 4-6 slices as printed on most deli meat packages.
Secondly, if you read the paper she refers to there is very little difference between eating processed meat and red meat if you factor in that red meat servings are generally twice the size ( 4 oz vs 2 oz) for normal portions.
3
@Jim
I was concerned about his diet heavy in these processed meats, so I gently pressured (and nagged a bit) for my husband to have a colonoscopy. They removed fields of premalignant polyps during the procedure. Sure, eat it. At your own risk, if it's that important to you.
7
@Daisy22 I eat processed meats at least a couple times per week and steak at least once per week and my colonoscopy was clear.
Go figure.
11
@Daisy22 But was it really the bacon? Does your husband have other risk factors? Does he avoid ever eating fresh fruit and vegetables along with his ham? What about fiber? There are so many variables, and while I'm sure we all should eat a lot less processed meats, I don't know that we can point to any one thing as a cause of any number of diseases.......aside from that we are certain about tobacco.
10
There goes my liverwurst - out the window, blowin' in the wind.
7
Eat less processed meat and be healthier. Actually, eat less of *everything* and be healthier. American portion sizes are out of control. The sheer quantity of food consumed by Americans undoubtedly accounts for far more of their dietary-related health problems than any other single factor.
30
@Abraham I do agree. We eat too much of everything, except for produce (which is self-limiting because how many apples can a person eat at once???lol) Bacon now and then is likely fine......but we eat it, and the like, in large portions, almost daily.
7
One must assume that this includes smoked fish but there is not one mention of it. It would be helpful to know.
8
@Seattle
The salt level of smoked fish is very high.
Hot smoked salmon is high in protein with around 22g per 85g portion, but it's also high in salt, containing 1.8g per serving.
Cold smoked salmon typically has a higher salt content of 2.5g per serving,
Adults should eat no more than 6g of salt a day (2.4g sodium) – that's around 1 teaspoon.
The maximum amount of salt children should have depends on their age:
1 to 3 years – 2g salt a day (0.8g sodium)
4 to 6 years – 3g salt a day (1.2g sodium)
7 to 10 years – 5g salt a day (2g sodium)
11 years and over – 6g salt a day (2.4g sodium)
1
So were these studies done with Parma Prosciutto or $2.99 a pound ham from the supermarket ,just wondering.
4
Smoked salmon included?
@Alexander Jackson
Watch out for the salt content in smoked salmon.
Because of the high amount of salt, it is recommended in the British health journals that smoked salmon only be eaten once a week, and in controlled individual portions of 85 grams. For children, even less.
1
@Jean
And only on Sunday with bagels and cream cheese!
1
I wonder if home made, air dried sausage (beef) that contains salt, spices like pepper, cumin, allspice, etc. and fresh garlic safe to eat...no celery or beetroot juice.
1
@SDR
The quantity of salt is one of the key issues.
1
@Jean If anyone knows of a safe recipe with the safe amounts of salt, please share.
1
People, it's like this: LIFE is carcinogenic. The Elixirs?
Everything in moderation.
Maintain weight.
Exercise.
Sleep.
Exile needless stress.
NO smoking, cannabis included.
Strive for Happiness.
Get a dog. Walk.
Carp the dime.
Still half of us will not make it to 85.
Good luck.
11
@capnbilly
Eschew all deep-fried foods.
Yes, this includes fried chicken and turkey, fish, anddoughnuts
And always fasten your seat belt.
4
All in but for the cannabis. Medical for me and others i’m sure!
2
@capnbilly Good list but you forgot:
- eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables
- find a wonderful spouse!
8
Combining “red and processed meat” seems inappropriate because processed meat may be eaten frequently, but in small quantities and not alone. Not alone? Another name for processed meat is “sandwich meat” which usually implies a small quantity of meat eaten with a large quantity of bread - bad glycemic index, bad glycemic load - tough times for the pancreas.
Would “processed meats” be eaten with more carbs (bread, of course) than unprocessed meats?
Would “sandwich meat” be eaten in sandwiches? Hot dogs in hot dog buns?
When these studies adjusted for other risk factors did they adjust for dietary carbs and fructose?
Did the processed meat cause heart disease and diabetes - or was it the bread?
Did anti-fat preconceptions held by their peer group blind these researchers to the obvious?
Life Without Bread - How a Low-Carbohydrate Diet Can Save Your Life Christian B. Allan, Wolfgang Lutz
Chapter 10 - Cancer: Another Disease of Sugar Metabolism?
2
@Charlierf
Excuse me, but you are so much salami.
1
@Charlierf Good point. Ham or bologna is likely on a two-slice bread sandwich, maybe with cheese and mayo. Or for breakfast with butter-fried eggs and buttered toast. A small steak is more likely eaten with some veg or salad, maybe a medium potato (which is a different carb than flour-bread).
Also, we do not burn calories the way we used to, through work and walking........and our flour today is not the same flour we had 40 years ago.
2
This is as confusing as taxes.
13
What about prosciutto?
1
@Michele
A two-ounce serving of prosciutto contains more than 10 grams of fat; 4 grams of that fat is
In addition prosciutto is salted, —some stats claim the sodium is whopping 973 mg per serving.
World Health Organization classified the cured ham as a “likely carcinogen” in late 2015.
So eat it in small portions.
2
18% increase translates from a 38/100,000 incidence of colorectal cancer to 45/100,000. Too bad they rarely report this kind of risk- not as terrifying or sexy I guess.
10
Will you people PLEASE stop trying to scare the wits out of everybody with these stories?
I am so sick of hearing everything we all do is going to kill us tomorrow. Just STOP for goodness sake. I know for a fact these stories are definitely making me ill.
8
@Tom
Reality bites. Many men die way too young of CV disease. What causes it?
2
@John
genetics, BMI, not enough exercise, smoking, too much alcohol, etc.
This article is misleading, either because the author doesn't understand statistics or the NYT fashions headlines for increased readership (or, likely, both). Humans lack an inherent statistical intuition and this causes an inability to assess personal risk accurately. Tversky and Kahneman studied this and Kahneman wrote about it in his book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow."
1
How does this apply to canned sardines? They are "canned meat" but the ingredients are sardines and water (I eat them without salt).
3
@Allan
No because they’re canned, it eliminates the need for any preservatives.
They are so much better in olive oil IMO.
4
Statistics are confusing things but, although they should not be ignored, there is one major element missing here: heredity! Sometimes it's really all in the genes.
5
@Dot I agree. My sister in law avoided deli meats for as long as I knew her. She died or colorectal cancer in her sixties.
2
@Dot
True, but 2nd risk factor is processed meats, assuming that folks have checkups.
I know a lot of women that limit alcohol due to cancer risk when heredity totally owns alcohol regarding breast cancer risk.
1
@Dot
Agree. I always thing of Jake LaMotta (da "Raging Bull") who grew fat after retiring from prof. boxing.
He lived to be 95 !
2
Providing only relative statistical information is misleading and should be avoided. Let me illustrate my point (I'm making up the following numbers for the sake of the argument). If I were to tell you that terror related deaths in Germany have tripled from 2017 to 2018, you might be worried for the safety of the German citizens. That's an increase of 200%! If on the other hand I tell you that there were two terror related deaths in 2017 and six in 2018, you might not worry too much after all, as there are roughly 80 million Germans. The key information missing from the article is the absolute incidence rate. In their lifetime, about 43 out of 1000 Americans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer. With the occasional slice of ham that number goes up to 44.72. This information certainly provides a much more precise picture of the risks of eating processed meats.
27
@TM I totally agree. Statistics that cite % change, should always include the base number. Otherwise it's hard to judge how meaningful the change is.
6
How much is a “small amount”?
4
I LOVE a good deli sandwich! And so did my Dad--but he gave up eating them in his early 30s when he, a distinguished physician, assesed his diet and made major changes including elimination of processed meats as well as many other processed foods. HIS Dad died of colon cancer at 49. My Dad lived until a very healthy 88 when he died in an accident. Make of that what you will. Oh, and over the years many times when he was asked how he could give up delicious unhealthy foods and didn't he miss them? His reply, beaming: "I'd rather have extra years with my family and the joys of many a beautiful day!"
20
@Sam the Eagle
Your dad sounded like a great guy. If only more of us had such men as your dad in our lives--sensible, caring and happy--we'd live happy lives too.
5
The money quote here is “We see a 4 percent increase in the risk of cancer even at 15 grams a day, which is a single slice of ham on a sandwich,” But this is so ambiguous as to be totally unhelpful.
First: Does this mean if the base rate is n% for people who don't eat any deli meat then then the rate for people who eat 15 grams a day is (n+4)% or (1.04*n)%
Second it makes a big difference what n is.
And finally is this number based on RCT or observational studies. (This a complicated subject but it should really be an important consideration for anyone thinking about modifying their eating habits) I think a reporter has an obligation to have the "expert" be clear about these questions. before using a quote like this.
24
@Jerry Schwarz
Jerry, while you questions are technically correct, a dose of common sense will help you with the answers. Colon cancer is not rare, your clue to this is the need for screening the entire population starting at age 50. So 104% of not rare is a real increase in absolute cases. There are no RCTs, but if the observation population is large enough, the association is significant. The RCT normally comes after the association study, but followup might be decades, so I'm not waiting to modify my diet....
5
Well the only thing I can say is that if the Italians, the French, the Germans, the Spaniards and the Czechs were dropping like flys from colorectal cancer, I would have heard about it by now. Somehow I don’t find the assertions in the article evidence based.
34
@Patrick do you know the rates in these countries and how they compare to rates here and to those who do not each much or any processed foods?
1
The US has much lower food quality standards than the countries you mentioned so it's not a fair comparison.
19
@Mons
Your comment doesn't make sense according to the article. After all, organic, no nitrites added, uncured make no difference. What can these countries do that a high end American cookery cannot (we are not talking about mass produce cheap stuff here)? Magical powder? French-ness? European branding? They do have the last one. I just don't see how it helps.
It's so sad to think of all those people who missed this article and their continued joy of eating processed meats without knowledge of their fate.
12
What you seem to be saying is you care about your fellow man, in your estimation.
No sorrow needed.
And that's why the US has the world's highest consumption of disease care!
1
I once had a vinyl siding salesman visit my home. He pointed out that vinyl siding has a 300% greater insulating ability compared with aluminum siding. 300 x zero is still a very small number.
Percentages are tricky.
16
@Someone: Statistics don't lie but liars use statistics.
2
@Someone
the insulating "ability " of aluminum siding is not zero.
1
@Someone And 300% is 3x not 300x too.
1
Really bad for the cow. If you don't care about the impact on your body, go to the source. Slaughtered for you to get cancer so the body politic can pay for your chemo? Not to mention we all pay the price for climate change which is impacted more by animal farming than cars or anything else. and remember the price we all pay for chemo:
"In September 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) released a dangerous-drug alert with the title Preventing Occupational Exposures to Antineoplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in Health Care Settings. The alert warned that working with chemotherapy drugs and other common pharmaceuticals can be a serious danger to your health."
11
I have enjoyed reading all the rationalizations for why some will just not cut down on eating meat that has been processed. They reject the implications of such delights on their health and their life expectancy. They go to great lengths and lots of arithmetic to figure out why eating those delicious nitrites will not impact them in the least. They are certain the studies are flawed and perhaps kind of criminal. (The scientists who do them must own stock in the veggie market and Bocca Burgers!)
Reminds me of people who didn’t want to quit smoking (Doctors lie!) or don’t buy that climate change is something that might effect their lives. (Those climate scientists make a lot of money scaring us!)
Anybody ever think about the ethics of eating meat, or are they somehow magically exempt from all that the subject implies? (Factory-farmed animals just love their cramped, bereft, abused, miserable lives!)
I’d like to see some NYT reporters do an investigative series on the lives and deaths of meat animals, with comments, so I can read all the howls of rage and rationalizations about how if God didn’t want us to eat meat, he wouldn’t have given us teeth!
24
@Bluebeliever An NYT investigative series on factory-farmed animals is a great idea. Factory-farmed animals contribute a significant amount to greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, it's a horrible way to treat them and stems from pure greed.
https://www.ecowatch.com/how-factory-farming-contributes-to-global-warming-1881690535.html
https://www.peta.org/features/meat-climate-change/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/
14
@Bluebeliever
I believe if god didn't want us to eat meat, especially lamb, he/she wouldn't have made it so delicious.
2
@lh: Heard that one, too. I used to raise sheep. Lamb tastes like rancid beef, hence the recipes full of spices to mask the taste. I gave up all meat 18 yrs ago, and now when I see a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation, i. e., meat factory) I can at least say, “Not because of me.” But of course, it wouldn’t affect people without a conscience the same way.
6
What about the vaunted Mediterranean diet? Italians certainly eat plenty of prosciutto and salume.
24
@JKF in NYC
They also eat lots of leafy vegetables and red wine in moderation.
1
I don't want to live a day past 90.
9
@Madeline Conant
Well.I just turned 90. And I eat ham, and sausages and other contaminated stuff.
I also eat some vegetables and drink "reasonably", at least I think so.
And for the forseable future I do not intend to change anything, not even dying tomorrow.
A little excesses making life more pleasant go a long way to avoiding dangerous stress...
17
@Madeline Conant Well, at a healthy 91, I would just have to disagree with you. And I still eat every type of food that appeals to me daily except for soy and sweets and those 2 never held any interest and seem to just be cheap fillers for industrial fodder foodstuffs. I read and criticize all of the ridiculous ads for the non-foods from those business interests, but that helps pass the time that falls hard on those of us who just live on beyond all expectations.
2
I raise my glass to you!
Red or white, whatever!
4
An elderly gentleman is sitting in his wheelchair in a long term car facility. Looking around him at all the other old people in their wheelchairs, he thinks, "I gave up (insert smoking, or bacon here) for this?
34
@Abruptly Biff
I sort of agree. I don't want to go too early but I certainly don't want to go too late! Too bad there is no certainty in life. And life without tasty food is a lousy life. I know, I know vegetables can be delicious but there is nothing as delicious as a great steak or veal or salami or bacon or lamb. Sorry vegans, but that is the truth. It's sort of like being kosher. Fine if you want it but you are missing out on lots of deliciousness and life is short. Some people eat to live and the rest of us live to eat.
12
@lh
That stake is the best and that’s the truth might be the truth for you, but certainly not for me. Can’t stomach steak.
1
Well said!@Abruptly Biff
1
I wonder what the percentage is of people in Italy and Germany and few other places in Europe, where "deli meats" were more or less invented. Mortadella, liverwurst, soprassata and others are age old recipes passed down from generations. Do the deli meats in Europe have nitrates also? Is it only America that's being warned not to eat too much of deli meats during their lifetime?
29
@ShirleyW
Age old recipes but not old age recipes.
7
The article leaves no doubt that eating deli meats is bad for you. But how bad, really? The article provides cites an 18% increase, but 18% of what?? The American Cancer Society website gives a lifetime risk of 4.5% for men (obviously varying with family history and many other factors). An 18% increase boosts this to 5.3%, lifetime. But that's the calculation for daily consumption of a ham sandwich (or whatever). If I only have a ham sandwich once per week, does the added risk then become 18%/7 = 2.5%. If that's correct, then lifetime risk goes from 4.5% to 4.6%. I’m not sure that's worth swearing off the ham sandwich altogether! Moral of the story: everything in moderation...?
70
@Bruce Bolnick, if you read the source article, it states that the risk of cancer increased proportionately to the amount of processed meat ingested, but it levels off above 140g.
We might compare notes with examples from the animal kingdom, which exhibits extraordinary variation in diet and longevity, far beyond the human.
Among mammals, herbivores, omnivores, and pescetarians, live far longer than carnivores: bowhead whales, blue whales, and elephants endure; big cats and wild canines rarely survive past their fifteenth birthday. Carnivores in captivity live significantly longer than their wild counterparts.
If we examine species beyond the mammalian, jellyfish, urchins, Greenland sharks, large reptiles (giant tortoises, crocodiles), and macaws live the longest. Among insects, the mayfly survives for only one day. Salamanders and hydras regenerate body parts; other animals regulate hormones depending on activity.
Large aquatic mammals enjoy long lifespans; land animals with explosive power and muscularity do not live as long.
Biologists the world over are studying this phenomenon. Draw your own conclusions.
Frankly, I do not know how carnivores survive. I once sampled a grilled moose steak and it was incredibly tough and gamy. To be fair, this was after two pounds of kalbi and half-a-dozen beers. Moose steak does not go down well as dessert. Needless to say, this was during my brash youth.
3
@Chance I've had moose steaks like that, but I've also had moose steaks that were tender and delicious. It really depends a lot on the moose, the cut of meat, and how long it's been aged.
5
@Chance
That moose wasn’t properly butchered or cooked. It’s excellent meat as is caribou or venison. A lot of hunters do a bad job with it though.
1
@Chance
I am terribly sorry, but what's your point? (Beside bragging about eating moose, that is) We should all go to sea and live like whales? Hey, turtles live long lives! We should all wear big housing in our backs!
6
Traditionally these meats are served with cabbage of some type. The protective qualities of cabbage on the digestive system go a long way toward balancing and mitigating the 4% dangers of the sausage or corned beef. Not to mention pickles, garnish, mustard and other more wholesome toppings.
17
@Edwin Truly, one of the great rationalizations of our time. Cabbage? Does anyone eat that stuff? Pickles, wholesome? Seriously?
1
You speak very well. I love cabbage, pickles and mustard as well as hot dogs, salami, ham, turkey and bologna.@Edwin
1
@Edwin
Sorry. But Hungarians eat lots of cabbage, and have the very highest colorectal rates.
South Koreans also eat lots of cabbage, and they have one of the highest rates of colorectal cancer.
2
The problem here is with how these studies are conducted and reported by the media in a vacuum. Eating processed meats probably does indeed increase risks of colon cancer, and maybe stomach cancer. Yet, if Americans ate only processed meats mortality would decrease dramatically. Why? Because fresh meat and vegetables kill more people, probably on many orders of magnitude, than die by cancer because of eating processed meats.
Bacterial infections from improperly cooked fresh meats (and intentionally eaten raw seafood, meat, and vegetables) are one of the most prevalent causes of death in America. This was the very reason that meats were first preserved with salt, smoke and nitrates thousands of years ago.
So a really healthy omnivorous diet (if are going to eat meat at all) would totally replace fresh meat with processed meat, because it's illusory to assume that fresh meat will always be safely. Yet sometimes science can't see the forest for the trees.
4
@Chuck French
No, sometimes people only want to believe what's convenient. Cite some documented example where "science can't see the forest for the trees."
4
@Chuck French What a bizarre comment. Colorectal cancer kills more than 50,000 Americans per year. The number who die from foodborne illnesses is about 3,000, not "many orders of magnitude" more. Granted, it's impossible to separate out how many cancer deaths are directly attributable to preserved meat, but there's no evidence -- or much in the way of common sense -- to suggest that replacing cured meats with fresh ones would result in a higher mortality rate. To think otherwise is to be unduly influenced by the mass hysteria that accompanies every food recall, without giving proper consideration to the dangers that tend not to grab headlines.
9
@scsmits Here is one--this article. Why in the world would "science" recommend not eating preserved meats when they are, holistically, far safer to eat than fresh meats? As proven by 10,000 years of human history.
2
There is an alternative. Granted, not as good as the real thing (nitrated meat) but definitely decent -- and that is veggie franks, sausage etc.
3
@arnmos: Veggie franks and sausages would be a good choice if they actually tasted good. I had to suffer eating them several times a week when my wife was catering to the needs of the two of our children who were vegetarians.
5
@arnmos
Wrong. Veggie franks and patties also cause cancer because they contain Hexane, a cancerigenous compound produced during the processing of soy. Good luck with that processed soy protein.
4
@arnmos
I'll have a salad, please.
1
Well, 15 grams a day is not exactly a 'small amount'.
What if you eat 15 grams a week?
Or 15 grams a month?
How about 15 grams a year?
2
@Jonathan 15 grams is about 1/2 ounce. Really is a small amount.
1
Clear as mud. Some vegetables contain nitrates same is processed meats but they do not have the same effect? Why?
9
@texsun- bio-availability. The cell wall in most plants is indigestible, and so a good deal of the contents of the cell cannot be made available for either digestion or absorption, and pass right through the digestive tract.
8
I do not pay attention to these studies any more. They are too closely linked to corporate interests and also do not adequately control factors that may influence susceptibility to disease and shortened lifespan.
Caloric uptake, however, seems irrefutably connected to greater vulnerability to disease and reduced longevity. Metabolizing more food means more toxins and greater stress on bodily systems.
The French diet is relatively high in fat but the French exhibit proportionally lower rates of cardiovascular disease. Conclusion—it must be the arteriosclerosis-reducing effect of red wine. Nope. The French simply eat less. The same can be said for most European countries, including Italy and Spain. It is indubitable that Americans evince higher rates of obesity.
The latest fad—the voracious consumption of Omega-3—was triggered by a 1970s study that linked the absence of cardiovascular disease among Greenlanders to their high fish diet—sardines, mackerel, anchovies, from which pharmaceutical Omega-3 is derived. But this is correlation, not causation. There are too many other factors that can come into play, including the relative absence of meat and produce in Greenlanders’ diet, the climate, and lifestyle.
Specific populations—for example, many Asian women—live well into their nineties. And I know plenty of Jewish women who thrive on deli meat and salmon salad sandwiches and also live well into their nineties.
They do not necessarily exercise more.
They simply eat less.
23
@Chance, While I fully agree that at least part of the issue with studies like this is corporate money, another issue is the fact that people lie about what they eat. These types of studies revolve around taking a group of people who currently have a particular disease and asking them what they eat on a regular basis. Then you take another group of similar people who currently do not have the disease and asking them what their normal eating habits are. At this point, the eating habits of the two groups are compared, and there is your answer, except there is no way to actually show causality.
How many people can accurately tell you what they ate yesterday, much less how many servings of cruciferous vegetables they normally eat in a week (do they even know what an actual serving size is?).
For questionnaires in studies like this, people will generally clean up their eating habits, or simply outright lie about what they actually eat.
I have yet to come across an IRB that would let a researcher lock people in a room for a long period of time and completely control what they eat and how much they exercise, even if they could get the volunteers.
7
@Chance
And whose making money from a study that tell us that processed meats are unhealthy?
6
@Chance- genetic propensities, like your example of the Japanese women, are not controlled by anything other than heredity.
As far as the French eating less, that is entirely untrue. They eat just as much as we do, having seen it myself. What is different is the constituent parts of the diet are different. As their diets have come to resemble ours over the last 3 decades, in particular the increasing consumption of fast food in France, their problems with obesity are beginning to match ours, just like they are in every other 1st world country or emerging economy where American-style fast food is taking hold.
3
Thanks for the information. It doesn't settle everything but there is enough here to make an informed decision, which is "Just say NO to deli meats."
There's nothing wrong, though, in making your own roast beef sandwich from a left over roast, which is free from everything except that it tastes good, too. Same thing for a nice chicken salad or a salmon salad, on and on. But we are in too much of a rush to kill ourselves to take the time to live a good life.
11
@Reuben Well, that whole work thing kind of gets in the way. Now that I have retired, I am eating better and enjoying it more. The 30 minute lunch I got as a teacher which was actually 15 minutes as I worked with students for half my lunch for make up tests/assignments, meant that I put together a lunch meat sandwich. Ate too fast and then bam, back to work.
8
@Reuben
No reuben sandwiches for Reuben, huh?
3
"Some products that claim to be “natural” or “organic” may say they are processed without nitrites or nitrates, and the label may say the item has “no artificial preservatives” or is “uncured.” But nutritionists warn that food manufacturers may still add vegetable powders or juices such as celery juice or beetroot juice that contain naturally occurring nitrates."
And yet, according to the article, nitrates from vegetable sources are benign. So why does this merit a warning?
20
@David
Likely bc anything in concentrated, not-occurring-in-nature amounts is bad, so when you create celery powder, its like the naturally occurring nitrates in vegetables on steroids
1
What about lox?
11
@Annie: The Law of the Perversity of the Universe says, yup, lox ('cause it's salted). I don't know whether there are any reliable data, but we can reasonably assume that we're doomed.
9
@Verisimilitude Boswick
We are doomed no matter what. We're all going to die, some of us early and some of us late. Nobody gets out alive. You might as well eat good food (not fast food) and drink lovely wine. Perhaps if more people cooked at home and ate out less but this is increasingly difficult in our modern world. Too bad, because it's a nicer way to live although I have to admit that after cooking so so many meals for husband and children for over forty years I'm a little tired of it. I want someone to cook for me!
8
@Annie
What about it? It's delicious. Don't eat it every day, perhaps like the rest of us just have it on Sunday mid-morning.
3
If there *is* an effect it's probably due to the sugar or other additives no used in many other countries mentioned elsewhere.
At these incident levels it just impossible to eliminate confounders. And quoting CSPI (vegan front) reduces the believability of the article.
8
This is typical trick of advertisement and marketing- they call it innovation ! The sole purpose of the food industry is to sell a highly processed food at highest profit while giving the buyer an illusion of a healthier food choice. Words are used in the narrowest of sense to get consumers to spend money. Labels are created to entice. Most of us easily fall prey to such marketing- we are too busy and cannot bother or be expected to read the fine print.
Aside the meat, another example is juice marketed as " Not from Concentrate"- as if it was just squeezed fresh. It is actually highly processed with flavors added. And" Natural Flavors " are anybody's guess.
The whole purpose of commercial food industry is to maximize profits by increasing shelf life( add sugar, salt and "natural" flavors), creative labeling and astute marketing. It is not about helping make people healthier food choices.Restaurant industry is probably even worse.
Big Tobacco, Fast food industry, Corn industry, Milk industry, Restaurant industry, Beverage industry, Big Pharma and now upcoming Pot industry - they all operate on more or less same principal to Maximize Profits by trying to make people feel good with deceptive marketing and fine print legalese.
Tobacco Smoking was known and declared injurious to health in Nazi Germany in 1930's with street posters. It took USA many decades to acknowledge this fact and go after Big Tobacco- meanwhile millions died from COPD and Lung cancer in USA.
12
The real bottom line is don't trust business to protect your health unless business is subject to punishing penalties for trying to make a profit by killing you.
23
There is a cure for that. Yes I am a Kook. Call me names, but there is a cure.
It is fasting. It would take fasting 3 days and four nights to prevent most life style diseases for at least 2 months, maybe for a year. Research is slowly moving into clinical trials in humans. It has already been proved in animals of many types.
Money for research is hard to come by. There is nothing to sell, no expensive drugs, no expensive surgical procedures, no medical devices to sell. Just don't eat for 3 days and 4 nights. Testing to satisfy FDA requirements cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for testing just one aspect of the possibilities.
Alternate less sever high calorie restrictions are also possible. We don't know because we can't come up with the money to test.
UCLA already completed a 5 year study using it to cure colon cancer. Cure rate was double the chemo only patients.
New Castle University already completed 3 high quality controlled studies showing total reversal of type 2 diabetes. This includes a large number of overweight type 2 diabetics. The cure rate was over 80% for those who stuck with the plan.
Sick people should be clambering for a cure, not slowly but surely going blind, loosing, limbs, and becoming total invalids.
Ok, you read this far, you are now entitled to honorably call me a Kook!!
18
@Paul Bristol
I've been hearing the rumblings of fastings benefits for years and now there is tonnes of information out there for any & all to access. Only downside is, there's no easy fun way to do it. Have been doing intermittent fasting for months now and it feels amazing.
Worst thing to happen to health was the 6 small meals a day fad which followed up the low fat nonsense before it.
2
Oh, salami--I miss you most of all!
22
I will take the risk and keep enjoying my deli meats (within reason)
These studies can only tell you so much. What do we know about the focus groups and their lifestyles? I also wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years or less, advanced studies will prove the benefits of a daily slice of ham, or even better, a whole salami.
Then there is the choice of chewing celery sticks for the rest of your miserable existence, or actually enjoying life, be it a few years shorter.
30
@sf: ...but celery contains naturally-occurring nitrites. And I _like_ celery. But...we're doomed.
I'm not a statistician but I think this article cited below shows that while there may be a diminished risk of colon cancer with a vegetarian diet-- it really isn't that much of a decrease. I'm not so sure it makes a practical difference.
Claiming a danger from a single slice of ham on a sandwich just doesn't seem sensible .
Are you sure American institute for Cancer Research is the best authority you can find? it is a private charity-- not the NIH or the CDC.
Vegetarian Dietary Patterns and the Risk of Colorectal Cancers
Michael J. Orlich, MD, PhD
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420687/
20
@Mom
Thanks a million, Mom! The article you cite seems to be an enlightening research report in the argument over how much it matters. It's a large, medium-term study that examined several different kinds of vegetarian eating choices and that corrected for several factors such as age, gender, and exercise level.
The bottom line: they provide a magnifying glass function so you can see the difference on the graph between vegetarians and meat-eaters. Statistically, yes, there is a difference. But when the risk is so small to start with, does it matter if you can cut it in half? The confidence intervals are large, suggesting that something else (genetics, anyone?) is an important factor.
But if you want to control what you *can* control, it looks as if being a pesco-vegetarian (eat fish but no other kinds of meat, red or white) is the best choice. Getting plenty of exercise also appears to be a good choice.
Those are habits I can work at. Thanks, again, Mom.
1
@Mom- Yup. There's almost nothing you can do to overcome genetic propensities for disease.
Thank you for strip mining the oceans and rivers. Fish is unnecessary for human health and it's so called health benefits are based on on weak, indirect science that's even weaker than the study cited in this article.
I wonder if any studies have been done on the risk and incidence of colon cancer for those who consume koshered meats, which often contain more salt to drain blood, supposedly for health reasons.
3
@Alan J. Shaw
No, kashering is for ritual purposes, not health. The logic of the article is that smoked meat and the like raise risks, regardless of the meat. Non -smoked or -processed kosher meat would follow the same pattern. Most of the salt is external and washed off anyway, meaning one uses less salt in cooking. A final thought: if one eat "kosher," ham is never a problem.
2
The article mentions "pork, poultry, lamb, goat or others, that have been salted, smoked, cured, fermented or otherwise processed..."
I wonder if there are similar risks associated with smoked fish?
14
@Michael
Smoked Salmon is SO good - that would be hard to give up. Garbage meats like hot dogs, salami, etc. not so much.
1
Geez! I'm increasing my *risk* of colorectal cancer by almost 20% by just having a slice of processed ham? I'm out of here. Never going to the deli again.
I glanced at the headline, read the article, and then ran an online assessment of my *risk* of colorectal cancer. It stated that for my age and lifestyle, my *risk* of colorectal cancer in the next five years is .2%, meaning two chances in a thousand that I will get colorectal cancer in the next five years. The average *risk* of my age/lifestyle group is .3%, meaning three chances in a thousand that I will get colorectal cancer in the next five years.
So if I have that piece of processed ham, I’m boosting my *risk* all the way up to .24%, meaning 2.4 chances in a thousand that I will get colorectal cancer in the next five years. For those poor souls in my age/lifestyle group who are average, their *risk* has gone all the way up to 2.6 chances in a thousand.
My point? Just talking about *increased risk* without establishing the *base risk* is, is inherently misleading. It would be more responsible, if more boring, to describe the base, or unadjusted, risk of an event and then identify the change-causing event with resulting change in *risk*.
As a society, we are statistic-phobic and/or statistic ignorant. I have the hope that the Times, and specifically you, Ms Rabin, can help us overcome that phobia and ignorance rather than feeding it. An added benefit would be enhancing the Times and your own credibility.
306
@Kurt E. Walberg
You wrote what I was thinking. The article does not tell the base risk. Thanks for looking it up and telling us.
34
@Kurt E. Walberg
This sort of nebulous non-statistical sensationalism seems to be the trend in health reporting. Thanks for pointing out the important facts.
14
@Kurt E. Walberg Regarding the risks it is important to know what exactly is being talked about. There's an
1. Absolute risk ( incidence of a disease in population)
2. Relative risk ( association of the risk of disease in exposed individuals to the risk of disease in non-exposed individuals) and
3. Attributable risk ( defined as the mount of proportion of disease incidence or risk that can be attributed to a specific exposure). For example how much of lung cancer risk experienced by smokers can be attributed to smoking.
Whereas the relative risk is important in establishing etiologic/causal relationships, the attributable risk is more important in clinical practice and public health because it addresses the question:How much of the risk ( incidence of disease) can we hope to prevent if we were to eliminate exposure to the agent in question ?
My simple advice is try not to confuse different measures of risks.
As an individual it is safer best bet is to learn what is the attributable risk of disease to any exposure. What one does with such knowledge is entirely up to and individual- whether one wants to risk such an exposure or not.
As an example about 10.6 cases of heart disease of 28.0/1000 heart disease incident cases in smokers are attributable to the fact that they smoke. In proportionality terms that's (28- 17.4 divided by 28 )37.9 % cases of morbidity from heart disease among smokers may be attributable to smoking and could be eliminated by eliminating smoking.
8
More misleading information. "Processed" merely means partially prepared, pre-cooked, chopped or other preparation. Be more specific if you want to be meaningful. Chemical additives may be the concern, only. And the much-maligned nitrates and nitrites are naturally occurring. Do Germans have a much higher cancer rate? Is it that terrible? Let people live. There are worse things that can happen. Diseases that affect you every day for the rest of your life are worse, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia. They're the ones that need much more research and training of specialists. Cancer may kill you. So can living.
10
@Grittenhouse
And what is your expertise?
All things in moderation and bounce the last check.
23
yikes. does this warning include smoked turkey wings/necks/backs simmered in broth to amp up the flavor and then discarded? i gave up fatback for flavoring years ago. now this.
3
@Andie: Most bean dishes are inedible unless they are cooked with a nice chunk of processed pork (salt pork, ham, bacon, etc.). If The Powers That Be want me to eat beans, they are gonna have to let me go on using it.
5
@Bystander Seriously.
1
I would presume that the elevated risk cited in this article is based on a daily consumption for 365 days per year, otherwise I am doomed.
4
When did we become so frighteningly impressionable?
8
@PDT We became much more impressionable as we became much more knowledgeable and amenable to accepting science. Love Canal and Agent Orange and
coal silicosis and nitrates and cigarettes added to our anxiety. But hey, ignorance is bliss.
10
After looking at varying online sources, it appears to me that Italy and Spain have higher rates of colon cancer than the US.
6
@Hanah Incidentally, Spain has a life expectancy of 82.8 years and Italy 82.7. The US? 79.3
Long live the ham, chorizo, lomo, mortadella et al!
15
The go-to list omitted the singling out of pastrami, hardly an obscure product.
1
Hate innumerate articles like this. If I eat cured meats, do I have a 1/25 chance of THAT giving me cancer (4%)? Or does my small chance of getting cancer from any source get multiplied by 1.04 (+4%), as from 5% to 5.2%?
Big difference.
22
@Fat Rat
Exactly.
@Fat Rat
How could that be answered without knowing your genetic suceptibility?
People get so defensive about their food. Eat processed meat and get colon cancer if you want to. The author can’t change what is. It doesn’t impact me other than my insurance company will be helping to pay for your chemotherapy. Munch away folks!
7
https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/cancer-trends/colorectal-cancer-statistics
According to these data, it is goulash, kimchi and pickled herring that are going to do you in. The Spanish eat ham and sausage in vast quantities, and look at their stats.
3
@Frank Knarf
The biggest anomaly in that table is that the colorectal cancer rate for men in Slovakia is 60.7 per 100,000 while in the Czech Republic it is 42.5 per 100,000. I doubt that difference is explained by diet. Maybe men in the Czech Republic have colonoscopies more often than men in Slovakia. That would result in benign growths in their colons being removed before they become malign.
3
Check out the incidence of colorectal cancer in Italy and Spain. People over there consume industrial quantities of salami, mortadella, chorizo, and similar products. If their incidence of cancer is or is not higher than in other countries, that would be strong clue regarding whether such meats are the cause.
10
@Michael G Maybe all the red wine and sunshine protect them.
4
While over in the food section, there is a recipe for making your own corned beef. It was delicious.
8
Awesome information really we must be cautious about it. And prevent ourselves from more consumption of processed meats.
4
Could someone please tell me why all the health talk omits one food. It is bread, not white paste like Wonder Bread but real bread from home ground wheat flour made for wheat berries from a field.
But don't believe me. Look at thousands of yers of writings from various civilizations that praise bread. Piny the Elder, The Greeks, Europeans, The Romans that built a mill complex that could grind 4000 pounds of flour a day.
Civilization was built on bread. Then in 1914 our Supreme Court decided it was OK to poison flour and we have never looked back.
Well now it is time to look back.
14
We are obsessed with some kinds of "healthy eating". I eat bacon maybe once a month. I'm not giving it up. I love ham - but don't eat it daily. I eat a lot of fruits and veggies. Many of my relatives grew up on farms and ate high amounts of whole milk, home smokes meats, fried red meat, etc. etc. Many of them lived healthy lives into their late 80s and 90s. While it is great to be mindful of what we eat, and avoid processed foods to a large extent, you can also died young if you are genetically inclined toward color cancer, for example. Moderation in all things, a balanced diet and moderate exercise do wonders. I personally get really tired of the "article of the day" telling me the sky will fall and I will drop dead tomorrow if I eat X -or if I DON'T eat X. (Remember the oat bran craze?). A baseline should have been provided for this article - for the average person your changes of getting colon cancer are roughly 1 in ...what. I you eat high amounts of process meats, your chances increase to what...and what is a "high amount". Six pieces of bacon a day or half a pig??
40
@dairyfarmersdaughter
Where are the articles saying that the "sky will fall" and that you "will drop dead tomorrow." There are no such articles. The article just relays the result of research. But everybody should know that a person's genetics determine what happens to any particular individual.
The article discussed meats and poultry. What about smokes or cured fish, such as nova or lox, or hot smoked salmon?
Would eating fish processed in these manners cause the same healh risks?
48
Without an understanding of absolute risk these articles are almost impossible to interpret. I’d like the NYT to be more diligent in reporting absolute risk in 2019 and beyond. A small incremental change in relative risk on top of a small absolute risk may be statistically significant but essentially meaningless in the context of other risk. Communicating this concept clearly would go a long way to increasing the public’s ability to interpret studies like this.
In this case, assuming an absolute lifetime risk of 1.8% for colon cancer, the 14% increase in relative risk associated with processed red meat consumption changes the absolute risk to about 2%. Not nearly as impressive.
110
@Maarten Agree - the lifetime risk for men is 4.49% for men from a quick Google search - answer from cancer.org. A 14% risk increase makes that 5.02% lifetime risk. So many other factors go into your personal risk.
16
@Maarten
I agree with you.
The NYT probably worries that fewer people would read an article with a headline like "Risk from eating X is small but real".
It would be interesting to see a study on whether readers ignore all "risk from eating X" articles after they develop risk fatigue, or whether they would be more likely to read articles that present the base risk and show the increased risk from eating X.
@Maarten
Totally agree!
I also wish these sort of articles came with a mention of other risks we face. Chance of dying in a car wreck in the US. Or for New Yorkers, chance of pedestrian vs vehicle death. Risk of fatal falls, etc. Risk of fatal heart attack. Something to give us a better perspective, on where to center our worries or actions to avoid risks.
If you don't want to put this in the article, just come up with a list of usual risks and put a link to that NYT article at the bottom of the page, as you do for related stories.
1
Everyone should read the link to the actual 2011 study the author provided. There's ambiguous results in it that the author of this piece omitted.
27
What seems to have been proven is that while processed foods are not as healthy as whole, organic food, the degree to which processing food effects our health varies significantly between individuals. To be sure, the healthier the diet the healthier the person but at what point does being insufferably obsessive about it make one no less healthy but significantly less pleasant?
As I have personally steered away from processed food as a generally good idea I've noticed that my tastebuds have become a first line of defense against what might not be good for the old engine room. As much as I lovingly consumed baloney slathered in yellow mustard on Wonder Bread as a typical 60's kid, that and the Oreos that went with it simply don't taste good anymore. And I feel a whole lot better. Yes, in spite of all common sense to the contrary, when the pie hole sends negative feedback even Oreos are off the safe list. And since I feel a bunch healthier and more energetic I'm going with the hunch. (But don't worry Mom, I'm not a commie and I still love god).
Lighten up people! There is little else in life as important as diet and exercise but does obsessively timing and measuring every run make one any healthier than simply getting out for a walk in the sun? Wasn't there a king in the bible who took a little poison every day and just ended up boosting his immune system? Sometimes you ought to eat a weenie!
34
There are all kinds of processed meats. Why are they worse than unprocessed? Some have Nitrates some don't I assume unless its a byproduct? I find articles like this of little use if they don't know the actual cause. So if I eat more nuts which have shown to decrease risk of colon cancer can I still keep eating deli ham? Does the risk balance?
8
Maybe you should take a few minutes and research processed foods in general and meat specifically. I would suggest Forks Over Knives, NutritionFacts.Org and The China Study. Evidence based nutrition without the spin of the meat and dairy industry.
11
@George Manaras But *with* the spin of the vegetarian lobby!
7
@George Manaras , thank you! NYT never gives these sources as information and they are THE MOST CREDIBLE Watch Diet Fiction new movie by James Cameron
3
Increase of 4% or 12% This an increase on a baseline chance. What is the baseline chance?
11
The thought that nitrates contribute to cancer is a fallacy. Vegetables and greens contain plenty of nitrates and no one is suggesting restricting these. Why not discuss the true culprit in many health problems. Grains and sugars.
9
Nitrates in vegetables was mentioned in the article and explained the process of natural production is different. My late father’s oncologist would refute your opinion.
11
Sodium nitrate is sodium nitrate, whether it's from plants or otherwise. Sodium nitrite is sodium nitrite no matter the source.
Epidemiological studies are terrible and are very often proven wrong with clinical trials. Maybe the people who ate nitrates or nitrites also generally did something different than the ones who did not. All these studies show is a correlation, not a cause.
Never forget what happened with estrogen replacement therapy!!!
7
@CF
"Epidemiological studies are terrible and are very often proven wrong with clinical trials." Provide citations please.
2
Does buying from your local, well known farmer friend where the animals are free range and mostly grass fed make any difference? My neighbor butcher smokes the meat. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t use celery or beet juice.
8
In my opinion we are becoming much to stressed with food and causes of cancer.
I think that now is time to remember and remind the two Delphic maxims: know yourself and nothing too much.
12
Sodium nitrate is a NASTY thing to put in our bodies. I’ve never been able to have it because it gives me an instant migraine. It expands blood vessels everywhere in your body. Every wonder why your entire body blows up after a corned beef sandwich? That’s tons of sodium nitrate. People have been eating it for decades and dying because of it. Thank God our Mother never allowed processed meat of any kind in the house. And this was in the early 60’s. Smart woman.
15
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. Generalizations from reading are no evidence. The only true evidence comes from clinical trials.
So find a clinical trial that says that eating corned beef has some effect on life span, then I will believe this.
8
In the 35 years since my father died of colon cancer, there has been scant improvement in the prevention and treatment of this disease. I eat a healthy diet, but with every study, I have more questions. Did they ever do studies with organically fed animals that have not been given antibiotics or steroids? Why are there countless individuals who eat a an unhealthy diet and never have a single colon polyp?
It's very frustrating that after so many years, there is hardly anything new to offer families with a colorectal cancer history. Doctors and researchers are not highly innovative, and are slow to change their opinions. Their suggestion for riskier patients is to get genetically tested, and to get more frequent colonoscopies. They need more human lab rats to make this slow progress, I guess.
It's no fun to think that if I survive for a while, I may reach my 80s and regular barbaric procedures will still be all they have to offer. That is to say, if the Republicans don't overturn legislation that protects patients with pre-existing conditions. None of these circumstances or studies makes me hopeful.
14
@Just Live Well, get the colonoscopies your doctor recommends. For most people, that will prevent colon cancer. Preventing the non-cancerous polyps that precede colon cancer is more challenging - but you actually can prevent most colon cancers through colonoscopy.
9
@Just Live Well
A whole foods, plant-based diet affords protection from colorectal cancer. There are many studies which show that meat, dairy and a Western-style diet causes this disease. Just check out PCRM, Forks Over Knives, The China Study and all the plant-based websites. You will be a lot more hopeful if you investigate this area.
5
@Ariana- I don't mean to quibble but colonoscopies don't prevent cancer, they are meant to detect it. Prevention comes through the food you eat and the lifestyle you lead. If you're genetically predisposed, it may not matter. Just to re-iterate, you CANNOT prevent cancer by getting colonoscopies.
6
Smoked turkey? What if I smoke it myself? What is the actual agent that causes elevated risk of cancer?
3
@Chris
the carcinogen is the smoke itself.
3
You didn’t read the article? It names the cause over and over and over again. You can’t miss it. SODIUM NITRATE. Don’t post such inane things.
2
@Chris As far as I know it is, among others, acrolein.
This is lazy reporting with no attention to the study methods (epidemiology studies) that suggest correlation and not causal relationships.
Epidemiology studies are great for assessing certain behaviors such as smoking with cancer risk which can show a huge relative risk but an incremental colorectal cancer risk is nothing compared to the risk from smoking.
Please tone down the headlines NYT and perhaps hire a real statistician to review articles like these before publishing them.
34
This is not necessarily true. 1) People who have non-smoking lung cancer which metastasizes much quicker than smoking causes cancer also has a higher rate of accelerated death. 2) Residents of New Zealand who consume mostly a diet of meat, (including processed & the so-called “naturally kind, as well) more than anywhere in the world, have the highest rate of stomach cancer in the world.
8
Also Japan, where consumption of pickled foods is common. That said, I must agree with those who have pointed out that a modest increase in relative risk does not translate into a similar increase in absolute risk, when the baseline risk is low.
1
There have always been cases of lung cancer in non-smokers, because there are other causes, including genetic ones. However, in developed nations, the proportion of non-smoker cancers relative to the total number is rising, primarily because smoking is declining in the population as a whole.
1
This info ruin my day...I thought I was being careful in what I was eating.
1
Processed meat? Careful? Our Mother never, ever let us eat it. And that was in the 60’s.
5
@Mindy Wellington Likewise.
1
Complete nonsense. Impossible to prove.
Approximately 3% of Americans will get colon cancer, or 30 out of 1,000.
A 4% increase caused by eating processed meat even at 15 grams results in 31 out of 1,000 (30 x 1.04 = 31).
And you want to rely on people providing their 30-year history of eating?
Sorry. This is an agenda, not a study.
55
Huh?
“ (Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but eating them is not associated with an increased risk of cancer.)
Some products that claim to be “natural” or “organic” may say they are processed without nitrites or nitrates, and the label may say the item has “no artificial preservatives” or is “uncured.” But nutritionists warn that food manufacturers may still add vegetable powders or juices such as celery juice or beetroot juice that contain naturally occurring nitrates, which are converted to nitrites either in the food itself or when they interact with bacteria in our bodies.”
9
@norman.levy
Does this mean we should view celery and beetroot (and perhaps all other vegetables) with suspicion? Who know what they convert to once ingested. This article has the fingerprints of the Center for Science in the Public Interest all over it, an alarmist organization that not so many years ago gave us warning labels on table wine after an hysterical campaign
9
Please.....
This kind of answer is useless in practical application without considering the base line probability. It doesn't matter if the increase is 1000% if the baseline probability is 0.001%.
Is that 4% and 18% increase from 10% baseline probability?
Or is that from 1%?
Why would a regular person care a difference of 1.18% and 1% in real life?
This kind of info noise is what's causing so much confusion in health. Try to teach people to see the forest, not the tree. Try to give practical simple info excluding all the TMI.
28
For those of you that eat Prosciutto di Parma or Prosciutto San Daniele, both produced in Italy, you can rest easy. The only ingredients are Italian pork and salt. And that is all! And these two types of Italian prosciutto are created with less salt than other inferior brands. The process is a controlled drying for at least 12 months, no smoking nor freezing involved. And the pigs are raised and slaughtered in Italy.
PS: Did everyone forget? After the Japanese, Italians are the longest lived.
PSS: I agree with many other commenters, the numbers and percentages here are very confusing. I just started to zone out!
16
Anne, thank you for adding your comment. We only have Prosciutto de Parma at home, and extremely small portions at that. A quarter pound will last 2 of us for an entire week, so we just use extremely small amounts to enhance the flavor in sandwiches. And we use it exactly for the reasons you stated. It's the best we can do.
6
math is hard...
1
I noticed prosciutto and speck were not mentioned. Are they bad too?
1
No. It’s just the gross American processed meat my mother, a nurse, never, ever allowed in our house starting in the early ‘60’s. So, we never ate it. Ever.
2
@Sutter
You do not have to worry about Italian prosciutto, such as Parma or San Daniele, only Italian pork, salt and air dried for at least a year, no smoking or freezing involved. It is different for speck. Speck Alto Adige IGP (from a geographically protected area) does have salt and smoking involved, but less than other brands, so I would go with that.
2
@Mindy Wellington Hey Mindy, did your mom ever allow processed meat in the house?!?! I think stating it once is sufficient.
13
In response to those pro-big city dwellers who don't eat processed meat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/18/americans-say-theres-not-much-appeal-big-city-living-why-do-so-many-us-live-there/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5d540661d24; https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/noise-pollution along with: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/climate/air-pollution-deaths.html Many more articles and studies done, yet.... people can't stand being shown the mirror.
Whatever makes you feel relevant. I don’t live in the big city anymore. I grew up in a farm town and my mother, a nurse who grew up on a farm, never, ever allowed processed meat in our home. Ever. Why would she? That’s not what fresh turkeys & cows look like. Our meat came from her Dad, other family farmers or local butcher.
1
Thank you for this interesting expose of potentially toxic additives or naturally occurring ingredients. I noticed that Fish was not included in your list. You do state that smoking is included in "processed" meats. Does that mean smoked fish have the same deleterious effects?
13
@AHR
This is my question too! Smoked salmon from wild salmon, not farmed salmon, good for you in small amounts or not??
1
@AHR I've read that it does. :(
1
This is another example of how medical journalism fails to give actionable advice. It looks as if the purpose is to invite clicks based on anxiety without putting that anxiety in context.
For me to decide whether to forego or curtail processed meats, I would have to know something more than that eating them increases my chance of colorectal cancer by 18%. 18% of what? Two people in a million? Five hundred? Five thousand? What are my overall chances that increase by this 18%. Is that lifetime risk or risk of incidence this year? Does the pattern of consumption matter (is it worse to eat 500 grams in one day and nothing for another nine than to eat a steady 50 grams a day)? How does the risk of colorectal cancer for processed meats compare to the risks for other foods I might substitute for them?
Really, what am I supposed to do with the kind of information provided in this article except fret?
69
@William Wescott
You must use common sense to decide .. personally,
I do not and would not give processed meats to my family. There are many alternatives. The salt used alone would be a reason to avoid them .. this article alone did not convince me .. I have felt this way for years.
3
@Nelly Byrne And on Monday, this just in on salt: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/upshot/salt-diet-heart-failure-little-evidence.html
Other reports also say that salt isn't really a problem
6
For many people like me, salt is a potential and sodium nitrate is one of the worst, with MSG topping the category. Hasn’t anyone noticed how their hands & fingers swell immediately after eating bacon? Even that which says “no nitrates”? I have hereditary migraine spectrum disease as well as a severe Vestibular disease. Regarding the second, I had to limit my daily salt intake to 800mg a day for years. I eat a bit but it’s the first thing I look for on a nutritional label. Sadly, I put most things back on the shelf b/c too much salt w/my Vestibular disease makes me dizzy or fall. And processed foods don’t have regular salt. They have nitrates that are bad for everyone. Thank God for my late Mom & Stepfather. Processed meat was never allowed in the house. Meat, chicken, real homemade soup from that chicken w/very little salt (real stuff like that) was always what we ate. As grown children, we still do.
2
What about processed fake meats, such as veggie bacon? I believe they have nitrates to make them bacon like.
10
mother’s milk, your saliva, and drinking water all have far more nitrate/nitrate loading than deli meat. a sober, scientific review here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236278904_The_Role_of_Nitrate_in_Human_Health
7
@Randy Hauer - That's the meat industry's line. Who do you work for? Just kidding. From what I understand, nitrates/nitrites get converted to a carcinogen during processing, whether added alone or when contained within natural additives like beat or celery juice.
1
Y’all are trying to depend processed meat to the enth degree. It’s hysterical!!! You’ll do anything to eat sodium nitrates!! I guess you like when your hands and face swell up like a clown after eating a bunch of bacon & corn beef. Your post should read, “You’re gonna have to pry this gluttonous piece of sodium nitrate passing for turkey, ham, or whatever from huge swollen hands while I die.” So, swell away.
1
Mindy, lets take the long look at food preservation over the course of human history. Using salt to preserve meats allowed humans to store a food supply. That helped in two ways: abundance of food now could be preserved for use during lean times and it reduced the number of sometime deadly food borne illnesses we contracted from unsalted/unpreserved meats. Preserving therefore solved some significant short and medium term problems. In exchange humans got a higher risk of colon cancer over the long term. Humans face many risks. I think that eating preserved meats is less dangerous than being in an automobile in motion on a street/highway, yet most of us choose to be in that situation. I am truly sorry that you experience serious acute deleterious affects when consuming salt, sodium nitrates and MSG. I do not, nor do most people I know. Please don’t judge me because I continue to enjoy deli meats after reading this article.
17
This article is not going to work. You're going to have to pry that Reuben sandwich from my cold dead hands.
37
@Patricia...Please, you had to mention a Reuben Sandwich...you really brought my day down.
7
Meat, poultry and other animal product-eaters are hopeless. No matter the evidence of how harmful it is for them and the environment to eat animals, they do not wanna hear it. Just. like religion and politics.
14
I know! It drives me crazy. Thank God for my late Mother, a nurse. She never, ever let anything processed in our house. And this was in the early ‘60’s. Even single Mom and we had to start dinner, everything had to real, fresh and not one processed thing on the table. It didn’t stick with my older brother but my middle brother and I still live that way.
@Mindy Wellington
We get it Mindy. Please stop commenting on the same thing over and over. It's driving me to eat processed anything!!
24
@Mindy Wellington Hey Mindy , my mother was a nurse too . My family consumed tons of deli meats during the 60's . No swelling , Mom died in her late 80's Dad late 90's . Relax and have a pastrami on rye with spicy brown mustard .
26
Last year I buried a 50 year old "can't have enough meat or poultry, deli sandwich three times a week, nah, those studies are baloney" who died of colon cancer. So yeah, I will believe this study.
15
@Rosie
My neighbor died of colon cancer at 43. She was a vegetarian. So what? Anecdotal evidence is not science.
3
As Billy Joel says, “Only the good die young.”
Sometimes nothing can replace that corned beef on rye. With a pickle on the side, please!
13
@Steve Kazan
Pastrami on Russian black bread, strong mustard - and make that a half sour, please. Oy vey!
1
As always it is about moderation. If you eat a deli sandwich every single day for 30 years, it will probably kill you
9
If one looks to the underlying study for this article, one finds the following:
“Conclusions
High intake of red and processed meat is associated with significant increased risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancers. The overall evidence of prospective studies supports limiting red and processed meat consumption as one of the dietary recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer.”
Note the use of the words “High” and “limiting” - - rather than “occasional” or “avoiding” respectively.
I find the NYT failure to include/explain the difference between relative and absolute risk factors - or to include the qualifying language relating to their chosen headlines - to be (intentionally?) alarmist.
The risk reduction obtained by NOT eating a ham sandwich or piece of salami every once in a while would appear to be about the same as would be obtained by reducing one’s chances of being killed by a meteor through daily wearing of a helmet
43
Nobody's getting out of life alive.
40
@KCF...Yes!...but I would like to be the last person out the door.
3
What about countries where the stomach cancer rate is higher but they don’t eat these meats?
5
If you don't eat any meat at all, as is increasingly common, you don't need to worry about any "confusion" over adverse health impacts, and you will be taking a step lauded by the U.N.and many environmental groups as the single best thing you as an individual can do to protect the planet.
12
@Paul from Long Island. . No Paul, having no or fewer children is the only thing humans can do to "protect the planet".
14
That’s my contribution - never had an inkling of an urge to have children, so never indulged. And it is an indulgence. The planet can only sustain so much.
5
Nitrite has long been known to cause cancer. Like global warming, ignoring nitrite won't cause it to go away.
7
It's never too late for The Times to assign another reporter to these issues -- the article here doesn't even define what "deli meats" are -- and do a followup report that offers accurate information and proper definitions.
"Deli meats" likely include items like "baloney," which is a product that typically include parts of the cow no one who isn't starving would eat if they knew those parts were ground into the baloney. I refer to cows' lips (not kidding), various internal organs and and other parts of the cow or pig or whatever rodent ends up in the mix that are never found in such other deli meats as corned beef or brisket -- both of which are large, solid cuts of beef that are then pickled/processed. (Well, in most cases; I've seen fake corned beef made out of ground-meat-products and shaped so as to look like a large chunk of pickled whole-beef.)
The article is so lacking in definitions, in an understanding of statistics, in common sense and knowledge that it behooves The Times to redo it. What harm would there be in getting it reported properly and cohesively?
35
@Make America Sane...You had to mention fake corn beef?
@Make America Sane This article appeared in the NYT, not JAMA.
1
What about USDA organic chicken sausage from Applegate Farms? My clinical nutritionist recommended I add this to my breakfast along with potatoes and veggies because I need to gain weight. Ingredients: Organic chicken and less than 2% of the following: sea salt, organic vinegar, baking soda, organic spices, organic fennel, organic garlic.
8
@Linda Friedman Schmidt did you read the whole article? Jump to the middle -- the paragraph starting with the words "Some products that claim to be natural or organic . . ." That was the most informative part for me! What sounds so healthy may not be.
In a nytimes article in recent days, it was written that there was scant evidence that high amounts of salt in food products could lead to heart illness, or worsen existing heart failure. In spite of concrete evidence, physicians and dieticians have been promulgating salt’s major worsening of our health. Furthermore these trusted medical advisors, have been advising us, up until even today, that fats, not sugar, have been the cause of obesity and heart disease and diabetes. They seem to be the source of some major disinformation as to what’s harmful to us instead of being the respected physicians we have learned to trust.
Simply stated, we should all re-examine everything we read about what’s good or bad for us, according to the scientific method.
Are nitrites an actual cause of disease or simply accompanying evidence?
Who can we believe these days?
We fell for false information about the cause of obesity and that tobacco wasn’t injurious to us....
Even the AMA, A-Diabetes Association were mis-advising us.
22
I understand this article discusses dairy meats, but yesterday, I tried to find unprocessed regular chicken in my local grocery because they stopped selling organic whole chickens. I discovered that all poultry sold now has something added, be it salt, water, flavors. I didn't see any such labels on red meats. Is this what people are forced to eat now? And how do those additives affect our health? I myself am allergic to chicken and have to buy organic to avoid added salts in my dogs' food. Trust me, it's more money than I want to spend.
5
Vegetarian diet.
2
@Debbie I understand your frustration, it is nearly impossible to buy a dairy product without a thickening agent and preservatives. Can I, please , get real heavy cream that has only one ingredient! Just today I learned that all the apples and pears at Whole Foods are waxed. My local Guintas sells organic apples without wax and with all the blemishes looking like the unprocessed, whole food that it is.
3
@Debbie The 'added water' in processed poultry is from running the carcasses through water baths to chill them.
1
Does "processed meat" include pre-cooked and pre-packaged grilled chicken breast strips? Or not, since it's been grilled and not cured, smoked, or fermented?
1
@K Please refer to the 5th paragraph: The category includes hot dogs, ham, bacon and turkey bacon, corned beef, pepperoni, salami, smoked turkey, bologna and other luncheon and deli meats, sausages, corned beef, biltong or beef jerky, canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces, among others.
Grilling is not curing, but read the ingredients for nitrates or celery.
1
They didn't say prosciutto is bad. I'm going to keep eating it. Ha!
14
The “percentage increase” findings are meaningless without the baselines. To wit, if the baseline risk is 1 in 10 million and eating a ham sandwich increases that to 1.18 in 10 million do we care? On the other hand if the baseline risk is 5 in 100 . . . Well, you get the point.
26
@JJ The concept you are trying to articulate is the concept of "relative risk". The absolute risk is most certainly increased by 4X. But the relative risk is still smaller than the risk incurred by, say, playing baseball.
4
The lifetime risk for colorectal cancer in an average risk individual is approximately 6%. That’s your baseline risk. 50,000 Americans die from colorectal cancer each year. So yes colorectal Cancer is common.
Jatin Roper MD
Gastroenterologist
9
@Jatin Roper Thank you
2
I eat locally hot smoked Alaska Chinook salmon (not lox) twice a week. It contains no added nitrates. Does this apply to me?
(I don't eat mammal or bird meat but I do regularly eat unprocessed salmon, and lake trout or steelhead)
2
@vacciniumovatum Yes! It's smoked.
1
We are fortunate enough to live near a vendor of artisanal charcuterie that offers a broad selection of smoked and cured meats prepared in-house in a traditional manner. Some of their products contain trace amounts of nitrites, but they also offer a "Green Line" array of nitrite-free meats. They have become the go-to retailer for charcuterie in this city and have enjoyed considerable success. Their pates, terrines, hams and especially their sausages-- whether dried and cured or fresh-- are extraordinary. I don't buy from them more than once every couple of weeks. I'd happily shop there more often, if I could afford to; their products are not inexpensive. Their Iberico de Bellota, for instance, retails for the equivalent of $250/lb, ensuring that I will never taste it.
Unfortunately, not everyone is fortunate enough to live near an artisanal meat store, and instead many consume the kind of mass-market, nitrite-soaked, processed meats that gives all charcuterie a bad name. As a two-time cancer survivor I shun any meat that comes wrapped in plastic and is sold in a supermarket, and that includes bacon. Anyone looking to preserve their health should do the same. At least take time to read the package labels. It's wise to limit one's consumption of red meat in general, but especially meat, especially processed and preserved meat, that comes from sources of which the buyer knows nothing and for whose quality the vendor is not prepared to vouch.
5
@gmgwat
I suggest you dig deep and ask your charcuterie if they use celery juice, beetroot juice, or the other additives that are not literally "nitrites" but DO have the same effect on our bodies when ingested with meat. This was one of the eye-openers in the article.
And how do you determine which products have "trace amounts" of nitrites?
1
Yes, well, here in PDX we eat what we please..with gusto and appreciation of the whole farm to table movement. Leave us alone in our pleasurable misery, please! And pass the sammy!
7
The Times published a column YESTERDAY about the dangers of fake medical news (and a call for reporters to write about well-designed controlled clinical trials, not click-baity observational studies). I think this qualifies as fake.
35
Your food intake is also linked to a lifestyle.... If you are active vs sedentary. Humans need some fat intake f but danger lurks when you don’t pump it up and oil the engine!
Common sense. Moderation with fats and carbs: the food triangle AND consistent, regular movement.
4
@Marie Walsh While everything you say makes good sense, none of it really applies to the dangers of nitrites in food. I will assume the studies on nitrites controlled for other lifestyle factors.
1
@Marie Walsh
There is absolutely no need for carbohydrates in the human diet! No evil grains, no potatoes, no fruits and no added sugars! That is MY definition of a balanced diet! The “experts” have been proven to wrong due to corruption, conformation bias, and plain bad science ! They have lost all credibility!
Meats heal! Eat butter and bacon and watch your pants fall off!
@ScottBerman
That's a bad assumption!
Say what you must about deli meats, but BACON? Bacon is everywhere these days, including in ice cream.
-- By the way:
The number is 7. Seven more cases per 100,000 in the population. Incidence of Colorectal cancer is 39.4 per 100,000. 46 if this article and the associated research is correct.
18
@John Sullivan Thanks for providing the baseline. The Times really ought to stop publishing this kind of report without the baseline. I couldn't fin it even in the link to the meta-study. [are you listening, Editor?]
20
@John Sullivan
Your math is completely wrong. Depending on different medical sources, the colon cancer rate in the USA is between 4.5 and 6 percent. Incidence of colorectal cancer in the USA is , therefore, between 4,500 to 6,000 per 100,000. It's the 3rd most common cancer -and on the rise.
SO....in a group of 100,000 people, there'd be about 450 to 600 additional cases.
3
@ScottBerman
As you can guess the change in incidence of colon cancer is a complicated subject. There's a paper published in 2017, Colorectal Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 1974–2013, by Siegel, et. al, in Journal of the National Cancer Institute that addresses that question. (It's a free paper you can access online.)
Turns out US colon cancer rates are declining in older adults but increasing in the younger population. They speculate that it is due to the increase in obesity, though that is only a hypothesis at this point.
How can we make an informed judgement on whether to eat deli meats when the article doesn't address the overall incidence of colorectal cancer? The lower the overall incidence the less concerning even an 18% increase is. Scare stories like this are counterproductive
26
@Kevin Dee A later comment reports that the average overall risk for colorectal cancer is 6%.
1
"Death, where is thy sting?"
4
All Spanish people must be dead by now... the amount of jamon they consumed over their lives... :))
34
No, we don't. Maybe Spaniards do but Central and South American diets are heavy on beans, one of the best things you can eat. If anything, our diets are more vegetarian-like than many caucasian diets.
4
Hello? He said Spanish people. Speaking a form of Spanish doesn't make you Spanish, just as speaking a form of English, as most people in the US do, doesn't make you English (Heaven forfend!).
12
Meat, the cause of America’s obesity problem. And cancer? No, that’s the synthetic chemicals in our environment.
3
@PC
And what is your evidence of that?
Life is 100% fatal. Choose your poison and enjoy! There is no nobility in living a few years longer. None. Zero.
76
Sure. Tell that to every child, including.mine, who lost a young parent because of attitudes like yours. He "knew" better all 50 years dying of a highly curable cancer if only he realized that scientists might be smarter than he is.
5
Perhaps not, but when I heard the words “cancer” I had no such frivolous thoughts. May you never hear them. I live a life that demands one not be easily frightened. The words “you have breast cancer” terrified me. Having life force you to the abyss and glance over the edge is quite unpleasant.
1
This article makes me hungry, I think I’ll go make a turkey&bacon sandwich!
20
It can't be global warming, it is cold today.
9
Go Vegan! Just think what you are doing: Grinding up sentient animals and adding chemicals to the mixture. The World Health Organization says that processed meat causes cancer: https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html
No matter what excuses you make up, it is both bad for you and bad for the animals.
18
@JEM
Problem is, there's so much hype over bacon, BBQ, etc these days. I think the trend is hot because saturated fat was over-portrayed as a villain and earlier studies have been refuted. But what's neglected is exactly what you said about chemicals and additives being added to dead meat.
3
so fish smoked with fire is processed?
3
Solve for me this contradiction:
Paragraph 7: (Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but eating them is not associated with an increased risk of cancer.)
Paragraph 7: Some products that claim to be “natural” or “organic” may say they are processed without nitrites or nitrates, and the label may say the item has “no artificial preservatives” or is “uncured.” But nutritionists warn that food manufacturers may still add vegetable powders or juices such as celery juice or beetroot juice that contain naturally occurring nitrates, which are converted to nitrites either in the food itself or when they interact with bacteria in our bodies.
So are celery or beetroot juice not a vegetable? This article would imply this were so...(it does give itself an out, but works very hard to be unclear about this: If you’re trying to avoid processed meats in order to reduce your risk of cancer, it may be hard to know whether products labeled “natural,” “organic,” “uncured,” or “nitrate and nitrite free” fall into this category or not.)
Hmmmm....
21
Linda McCartney, a lifetime vegetarian, died of cancer.
Genes, anyone?
10
Exactly! Our ‘respected’ scientists tend to NOT include non-corroborating evidence when they most probably know about it. They certainly check the literature before publishing, don’t they?
If something goes against their current theory, and it can be proven, there goes their funding!
1
Let's assume for the moment the cancer risk is significant and important. The conclusion and tone of these articles and reports are all wrong! Instead, the emergency should be to get our top engineers on the case to fix the problem asap! e.g. Asbestos causing cancer? no problem, we invent new fire retardants. Now we must invent cancer proof prosciutto! Giving up cold cuts and hot dogs is like giving up on fire proofing and letting the building burn!
6
All of which makes me wonder about the fate of competitive eaters who participate in the Nathan's annual 4th of July Hot Dog Eating Contest. Joey Chestnut and his fellow competetive eaters should be prime subjects of study.
5
OK, here’s my recipe for a healthier life style.
Get yourself a 3lb flank steak and a 1lb bag of Morton’s “Quick Tender, Home Curing Salt” (.05% nitrate). Sprinkle 3TBS curing salt over the raw steak along with a ½ cup fresh ground black pepper and ½ cup ground coriander. Put the meat in a 1-gallon plastic freezer bag with all the pepper and coriander. Shake and evenly distribute the spices and let “cure” for 24 hours. Then rinse it off with lots of water and put it in your Instapot with a bottle of dark beer, cook on high temp setting for 45 minutes. Et puis voilà, lean and tender pastrami-style flank steak. Slice your pastrami thin, serve with sauerkraut that you braised with a couple of smoky ham hocks and riesling, along with steamed new potatoes finished with butter, garlic and parsley.
If you have this dinner for New Years, I promise that you will be healthier and happier.
24
@RM You are my new hero.
1
Reporting on nutrition in the U.S. is dismal. First, good studies about the effects of what we eat are rare, reporters don't tell us what "increased risk" means in a practical sense, and studies that contradict each other are not vetted for the public so that one day it seems bad to eat bacon and the following week another study says it's perfectly fine. This leads to mass confusion among the public. Something must be done to improve nutrition reporting because the way it is now it's driving people nuts!
27
My father ate a healthy diet and died of colon cancer when he was 49. That was 35 years ago, and hardly any advances have been made with regard to colon cancer except screening recommendations.
Our fat president eats mostly a diet of garbage meat and is still wreaking havoc all over the world at 72.
Make your salami sandwich with some high-fiber bread, and follow it with some antioxidant fruit and some plain Greek yogurt.
Get a colonoscopy at recommended intervals.
Doctors also say you can't overcome genetics with diet, and lucky folks with the right genetics will never get cancer no matter what they eat.
Nobody knows anything for sure. Stop fretting over it.
162
@Just Live Well,
Sad but true.
12
Incorrect—we have incredible power over our genes. Please consult the works of T Colin Campbell, MD, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, Drs. Ayesha & Dean Sherzai, and Dr. Michael Greger, to name a few. Read “The Blue Zones,” too, while you are at it. Empowering.
1
Life expectancy is decreasing in the U.S. Would be interested to read more about that.
1
it's mostly due to drug overdoses.
11
@Mopar And thank pharma for a 1000% increase in the number of vaccines which correlates with an order of magnitude increase in auto-immune disorders. Don' t worry about it though, they've got plenty of drugs which work as immune suppressors to treat your asthma, eczema, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, celiac, etc. Trust them on this, their vaccines are so good that Congress passed a law in the 80s dictating that they can't be sued by you.
1
I am reminded of a friend who, around 1980, declared he had discovered what causes cancer in lab rats. Stainless steel needles.
10
Does this include all cold cuts? In the list of descriptors for "processed" it includes "smoked", but what about non-smoked turkey, chicken, and roast beef? What am I supposed to do if I want a sandwich - buy a hunk of meat from a butcher and slice it up myself?
8
@Charles Well, you could. Roasting a turkey breast is no big deal and you could freeze slices. It would last you a couple of weeks assuming you didn't have the same sandwich every day. The same with a whole chicken or beef. But who eats cold cuts every day of the week? It's hard to believe that a cured meat sandwich once or twice a week is going to wreak havoc with the body. True, more vegetables and high fiber fruit is a good idea and an apple or a good pear after dinner often will allay the craving for something sweet. The food police are becoming tiresome.
9
@Golem18...Who can afford a corn beef sandwich every day at $14.?
1
@william munoz
$14? Katz's charges $22!
How about meat full of antibiotics and vegetables full of fertilizers?
7
The risks claimed in this article are based on amounts of deli meats consumed daily. The risks are stated very specifically eg. "4 percent risk of cancer at 15 grams ... which is a single slice of ham..." Yet nowhere in this article is it stated how long a period of time this rate of consumption based on. I read the multi-page abstract of the 2011 review of studies (dozens of studies) that was linked to and the only reference to the length of a study was one that was based on 40 years of consumption. Thankfully, there appears to be no information in this article that is relevant to anyone who occasionally eats a corned beef sandwich. None for anyone planning Spaghetti alla Carbonara for dinner tonight (and not every night.) Too bad that wasn't made as explicitly clear in the article as the junk statistics.
15
Yet another story about risk that doesn't tell your the risk. 4% increase in chance of cancer. 18 % risk. What is the base line. How many more cases of cancer can we expect from a population. A 4% increase from 1 in a hundred thousand chance is 0.04 more cases of cancer. These articles need to show the real risk. Never is it mentioned what the risk of the cancer is without the processed meat.
47
Nor is it clear whether a 4% increase on a 5% risk leads to a 9% risk or 5.2%. (4% of 5 is 0.2.)
6
@speede 4% increase on a 5% risk would be 1.04 * 5% = 5.2%
Forget obsessing over diet. There are many other causes of colon cancer in addition to dietary causes. Family history is more important than diet. It is by far more effective to prevent colon cancer by having colonoscopy after age 40 or 50, depending on family history. During colonoscopy, the doctor looks for polyps which if left un treated can develop into cancer. If the doctor sees a polyp, the doctor removes the polyp during colonoscopy thus eliminating its risk of developing into a cancer. If the doctor sees an early cancer, the patient has surgery that if early enough cures the cancer.
8
Please note that processed deli meats very often contain carrageenan, the common food additive that is used in the laboratory because it predictably causes inflammation. Colonic inflammation, as in inflammatory bowel disease, increases risk of colorectal cancer.
16
Yawn. To Be Clear: That's an increase in *Risk*, not an increased incidence: If I recall the findings correctly, there was about a 4% lifetime chance of colorectal cancer without processed meats, eating even enormous quantities daily increased that risk to something like 5%.
And you're going to avoid the occasional BLT or hot dog on the weight of those numbers?
29
@Clotario
Specifically, a 4% increased risk on a baseline 4% risk in the general population would give a risk of 4.16%.
12
People make this sound very scary and don't bother to explain the math. A 4% rise doesn't really mean that much. It corresponds to maybe half a dozen additional cases per million people when you do the math.
15
@Bill smith- regular colonoscopies would reduce the rates , so this study is worthless.
2
What about canned fish, including smoked sardines?
7
Being alive increases your risk of cancer. Obsessing over your diet probably does too.
27
This is absolutely true that being alive increases our risk for cancer. However, certain diets exacerbates chances of getting cancer. Cancer use to be a disease of old age, now people are being diagnosed much younger. This sort of correlates with the changes in dietary composition over the past century.
14
@Lenny- it doesn't explain skin cancer, especially for farmers, loggers, field workers. Occupations that have existed for millenia. Also, no sunscreen was available prior to 1985.
Indeed. And the younger one is the more it seems like bad luck than too many bad Reubens. When we figure out what causes the baseline 4.5% risk then we have a real conversation. Cancer is everywhere, we all know more than one someone. Almost insignificant numbers like this - showing correlation not causation - just scare people.
3
In France, you go to 'The Charcuterie' where you find not only sliced cuts of various sausage, but ham and roast beef. Pastrami may not have reached the country's shore, or liverwurst, the latter, my parent on a visit from Paris enjoyed in moderation.
At boarding-school we were served blood pudding, much to my delight and the disdain of my peers. Thursday was beefsteak lunch with fries, which in hindsight, I suspect was horse meat; just after a riding lesson, too, the irony of it all.
How well does 'Plastic' ally with nitrates in processed foods, not only meat but cheese and other edibles?
7
I have always thought that sausage is the perfect food.
19
@Max Brockmeier
Was it Bismark who said "It is best not to watch sausages and laws being made."
I have the same question as several others who have commented. In Europe esp in Spain and Italy eating cured meats is common and has been for a thousand years. Is this increase in colorectal cancer an American phenomenon? Does American curing process or ingredients contaminate the meats with compounds that are the cause? Why is this not seen increased risk not observed in other countries?
51
@RA
The US age-standardized rate for colorectal cancer is 25.6 compared to 29.9 for Italy and 33.4 for Spain. In fact, colorectal cancer rates are almost universally higher in Europe than in America with Europe having some of the highest rates in the world. See http://gco.iarc.fr/
5
25.6 per 100000?
You can have my liverwurst, my Braunschweiger and my bulging shrinkwrapped tray of marked-down "Manager's Special" scrap-ends of salami, pepperoni and olive loaf when you scrape what's left of them from my greasy, salty, smoke-reeking claws.
Speaking of olive-related material that now comes with health warnings, let us recall the cartoon short "Pop-Pie a la Mode" (1945),
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5z8zqg
long since pulled from television due to its racialist stereotypes, at whose close a tribe of cannibals, having just crowned Popeye their new king in the aftermath of defeat, forms a semi-circle about his throne, bows before him and chants, "Salami ... Salami ... BALONEY."
11
@Scott Lahti I remember that cartoon!
2
I read articles like this one with a grain of salt, (pun intended) always.
Whoever is backing the writer with funding, you can be assured the article will be slanted in the direction of the funder.
Pass the salami please!
16
I can't imagine all of Italy dying early or of cancer but then stepping back I realized much of the salami and prosciutto is cured in age old processes. Yes salt is the key preservative ingredient and thereafter it goes to the smokehouse for many months - that's in Italy and many other countries that have a tradition of eating cured meats. In the US I suspect the the imported specialty coldcuts as well as the domestically produced products are manufactured by the largest producers and this is a highly processed product, with loads of additives and labeled as organic or organic ingredients. There is zero standards on what the term organic is - buyer beware however. I love all coldcuts and look to buy more fresher types of low salt and onsite cooked hams, turkey and chicken coldcuts at the point of sale.
14
Realist: Italian prosciutto, ie Parma or San Daniele, are never smoked. The only ingredients are Italian pork and salt, cured by drying for at least a year. And the lesser brands of prosciutto have more salt than Parma or San Daniele.
1
Those awful nitrates are touted by other scientists as health promoting compounds in beets!
"Beet juice may boost stamina to help you exercise longer, improve blood flow, and help lower blood pressure, some research shows. Why? Beets are rich in natural chemicals called nitrates. Your body changes nitrates into nitric oxide, which helps with blood flow and blood pressure."
8
Beet juice does have nitrates which lower blood pressure. But they also have lots of sugar, and may help cause kidney stones.
@Scott Cole and beet juice tastes awful.
If this fear of cold cuts were as dire as claimed, then most of Germany would be dying of colorectal cancer, as the majority of them eat cold cuts on a daily basis. As far as I know, they are pretty healthy nation.
19
@Patricia Ropers
Germany, Spain, France and Italy
I was going out for a rare treat of head cheese and a loaf of fresh seeded rye bread when I read this distressing article.
Shamed, I ate a bowl of healthy veggie pasta instead. Knowing well that my first cold press extra virgin olive oil probably wasn't any of the above and my grated Parmesan cheese was likely wood pulpy.
Later, I found this snippet of "How to Grow Old" advice from philosopher Bertrand Russell: "I eat and drink whatever I like, and sleep when I cannot keep awake.” Russell wrote that at age 81 on his way to 97.
I am going out for my sandwich fixins today.
Just my opinion.
33
@SpartacusNJ,
Happy stoic as you may be, it is doubtful that Bertrand Russell stockpiled his diet and appetite with American 'processed meats', but only America can make a good sandwich. Enjoy and have your bacon too!
1
Warren Zevon, in his final days, in response to a Q about what he might do differently if he could do it all over again and his response was "eat more sandwiches." I couldn't agree more.
14
I was at the taping of Late Show when David Letterman interviewed Zevon. What he actually said was, “Enjoy every sandwich.” I think there’s a crucial distinction between enjoying quantity or quality.
10
@Kathryn when I'm having a bad day, I always think of that quote from a dying man, "enjoy every sandwich." Of course, it has nothing to do with actual sandwiches. But it is a great reminder to enjoy the little moments.
9
@Kathryn
Ok, I stand corrected - yet I still stand by my thought/interpretation. Delight in every one for sure, and make sure there are plenty.
2
thank you very much for raising awareness about the negative effects of eating processed meat!
5
Read this eagerly, hoping for ammo against my partner's campaign against my consumption of sausages. Foiled again.
4
Does this include smoked salmon?
11
I wondered that too. Hope someone with expertise answers!
How long must the meat be salted before it’s considered “processed”? Ten minutes? Ten hours? Ten days?
4
30 years ago "they" said don't eat bacon on because it causes cancer. my brother didn't eat bacon for something like 15 years because of that. then "they" said, oops, we had that wrong--really no proof that bacon causes cancer. so he decided to eat it again. wonder if this article, as flawed as all the statistics in it are, will make him stop again.
as far as I'm concerned, "these people" have no long term definitive knowledge. the analysis and statistics are clearly flawed and why this is in the grey lady as it is a sign that she is no longer to be trusted as a source of information unless you independently confirm it.
meanwhile, "where's the beef"? katz's here I come.
9
If this were true then the rates of colon cancer in Parma Italy would approach 100% which obviously is not true.
20
No one here seems to think the FDA is remiss for taking two years on this topic and still not making a decision.
Why does any food for any reason have to contain ingredients that are even just possibly carcinogenic? What is the purpose of the FDA? Oh yes, to protect Agri-Business...and the people who make those nasty chemicals in the first place.
Most of what we eat probably has something in it that isn't "good for us". Most people here don't seem to care. A salami sandwich with mustard, on wheat bread made from wheat sprayed with insecticide, with tomatoes that have the same chemicals, washed down with anything except pure water is probably not good for you but it doesn't seem like most people care.
And we read articles saying, "Why are we still obese?" in these pages....
Organic veggies anyone? Steamed with organic fresh squeezed lemon juice, washed down with spring water from a non-polluted source.....; )
How about a bacon cheeseburger with fries and a coke? :[
5
@Jeanie LoVetri I, like many, am an aspirational healthy eater. Being married to my wife helps but I slip often.
So, what does that 4% increase mean? A 4% increase per event? A 4% increase relative to what?
If your chance of cancer is 1%, does that mean eating deli meat drives your cancer risk to 1.04%?
21
‘“We see a 4 percent increase in the risk of cancer even at 15 grams a day, which is a single slice of ham on a sandwich,” .... Eating a more typical serving of 50 grams of processed meat a day would increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent’.
These percentages are added to your ‘normal’ risk of getting colorectal cancer, whatever that may be.
4
@Mannyv Normal chance of getting colon or stomach cancer is something like 4%.
Eating it increases your chances of getting cancer by 4%.
So eating processed meats increases it from 4% to 4.16%.
@L in NL bafflegab
@scott in Barcelona—We recently moved to southern France near the Spanish/Andorran border. Same here: Lots and lots of saucisson (cured sausage) and Saronno ham (from Spain, of course) at every corner deli. And, yes, it’s delectable—along with the approximately 1200 different cheeses you can find across France.
Rather than just looking at the statistical correlation between processed meats and colorectal cancer, how about we zoom out and look at average life expectancies in France, Spain, and the US. Here’s their ranking by country compared world-wide:
17. France 81.9 years
22. Spain 81.8 years
42. USA 80.0 years
(NB: Andorra is #8 on the list as well)
Source:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
The fact that health care costs twice as much per person in the US compared to Spain or France (or anywhere else in the developed world) doesn’t seem to be helping either, does it?
Since moving here, I’ve stopped worrying about nitrates, nitrites, and saturated fats and started wholeheartedly enjoying a healthy Mediterranean diet—and promptly lost five pounds in two months. Seems to be working...
30
@ Terry
In contrast to all those responded to Scott in Barcelona, who say all those cured meats can’t be bad for you because otherwise ‘the entire population would have been wiped out a long time ago’:
The relative health of the residents of Spain, France and, I would add, the Netherlands also has to do with daily exercise. Something Americans in their cars and drive-up service everywhere don’t get enough of.
So a balanced diet of plenty of vegetables, some fruits, proteins in different forms, as well as daily exercise would go a long way toward living a long life.
13
@Terry Malouf, It's 82.54 years in Italy and I can tell you from personal experience, they eat a lot of cured meats in Italy.
4
@L in NL
Yes, absolutely. And full disclosure, we ride bicycles almost every day.
3
I'm really puzzled. People in Spain, France and Italy, where average food is awfully healthier and much more varied than in the US have been eating cured meat for not even hundreds but thousands years and yet we still have much less colorectal cancer than across the pond... How come?
36
@Margherita
Perhaps 'cured meat' in America is processed differently and we eat far more, although Europe apparently is beginning to pick up our lack of moderation.
1
@Margherita other responses to this post indicate that you don't have lower rates of colorectal cancer.
1
I live in Barcelona where people eat ¨embutits¨ or cured meats,
including jamon (one of life´s great pleasures) everyday. If this habit is as dangerous and carcinogenic as your article implies, there would be no living inhabitants in Spain.
50
@scott Exactly what I was going to say. In spain and Portugal.
9
@scott
Likewise in Alsace or Corsica (France) or Emilia-Romagna (Italy), and many other places I'm sure, people there would have been wiped out a long time ago
7
And France and Italy and Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc...
How is it possible that these types of meats are such a part of Europe’s national heritage without increasing their risk of cancer beyond Americans’???
10
Avoiding or severely limiting processed food of all kinds seem to be a promising strategy.
Much of the food processed foods are created using methods developed in the late 19th and early 20th century when chemists discovered new chemicals/preservatives and food preservation was essential to feed a world with limited refrigeration and unreliable transportation. It is time to rethink those methods and foods.
8
The reason meats are cured is to preserve them. Even when refrigerated, uncured meat can spoil, and, if eaten, can cause serious health problems. Older people are particularly susceptible for a number of reasons, notably because they frequently suffer from loss of smell, the key defense against spoiled meat. From a public health perspective, it is important to also understand the benefits of curing and the risks of eating uncured food.
10
The first article quoted studies red and processed meat as one group, not processed meats in isolation as reported here. The conclusion of that article is to limit both. It's like studying lemons and cigarettes as one group and conclude with a recommendation to limit both.
12
Increased risk of 18%? What is the original risk level? If it's 1% or less, then you have a .18% chance. That seems really insignificant and misleading. Even if your original risk of colon cancer was 50% (wow that would be insane) 18% increase is less than 60% overall. The math doesn't add up here.
23
@AG
And our fearless leader eats highly processed fast food all the time. His doctor says “he’s the healthiest president, like, forever!”
This science stuff just has to stop!
2
@AG it's an increase of 18%, so the calculation for your example is 1.18*1% = 1.18%
An even more powerful method to load the meat with carcinogens is to put the (unprocessed) meat onto a charcoal grill/BBQ, letting the benzpyrenes flare up and coat the meat. Yummy.
11
Why are articles like this always isolating some type of food and not looking at the bigger picture? In America, I’d worry about how much people work and the much stress that, along with other realities of life in the U.S. contribute. Stress of course is the source of all kinds of health problems. Instead, we get an implied recommendation to avoid something that makes people happy and can and mostly is eaten in moderation—without any talk of a lifestyle that is the source of many people’s misery.
46
does this include smoked fish?
17
you mean fish cigarettes?
@leah wondering the same thing...
Avoiding everything bad makes life seem longer.
192
@Juultje...Yes!...Oh Yes!
In some places, it seems that real turkey has been forgotten. If you order a fresh turkey sandwich, you get processed meat turkey. Many people don't know the difference anymore.
22
I frequently fault Fox for allowing bogus and illogical assertions to go unchallenged, and generally for not correcting what it ought to know are misimpressions its viewers have.
So in all fairness, I cannot let the NYT off the hook here. This is a misleading, uncritical piece. As Janes Talaga previously pointed out, the main reported effect is marginal. I would also point out that lumping all "processed meat" together is not very helpful -- the reported statistic does not help at all in telling which kinds of processing are harmful, a fact which the pice does not make at all clear -- in fact, the piece tends to suggest, without any evidence, that all processing is seriously problematic. (Maybe it is, but the piece contains no evidence for that.)
More seriously still, the piece does not distinguish between correlation and causation. It is written as if we *know* that eating more processed meat is problematic, whereas it gives no evidence that this is really the case.
I am sure these stories with (what is, frankly) bogus logic about health sell lots of papers, but maybe it would be better to let people know how marginal many of the effects are and in how few cases causation is really established.
140
@SC
A writer was interviewing Julia Child, and mentioned that she must be happy to be living in a time where there were so many low fat foods to help with her diet.
She looked at him incredulously and responded that she never ate such garbage. She ate butter, and meat and olive oil, and other high fat foods, but only ate them in moderation.
What's good enough for Julia is good enough for me.
27
@SC
Your assertion that the reporter 'lumped' all processed meat together is false. Go back and read the article. It is very specific about the types of meat, those that are cured from uncured, corned beef from sausages, beef jerky, etc. Did you just gloss over the article as you do your food labels?
More 'seriously still', where have you been for the last decade, at least, that you can claim you didn't know eating red meat was bad for you?
How many days of eating 15 or 50 grams of processed meat is required for an increased cancer risk? Are we talking about just one sandwich or many servings per week over many years? Knowing this would be helpful.
58
The article - or, perhaps, it was the study - refers to DAILY consumption of the suspect meats.
1
The subject of this article is long overdue. However the takeaways are very confusjng. So, t GB bvb he NYT should publish a follow-up article that clarifies the known health risk associated with lunch meat and bacon processed with and without chemicals, with more references to the specific language found on popular manufacturers.
7
What about Soylent Green?
35
Fine, as long as it’s Made out of Organic People.
4
@From Where I Sit- tastes like chicken
4
@From Where I Sit,
And let us not forgot those popular pork pies made by Sweeney Todd barber's shop on Fleet street.
I'm willing to contribute an entire dollar to help pay for Ms. Rabin to go back to school and study the science of statistics. A four-percent increase in the cancer-risk per-slice of a particulalr "deli meat" is only significant if the underlying risk is itself of major significance, which, in this case, it isn't. A truly massive intake of "deli meats" statistically will likely shorten your life, but that's not what was reported in this Times article. Understanding statistics should be a requirement for all reporters. It helps explain that which needs explaining.
576
Thank you for the clarification, I was already skeptical of the numbers. It was looking more and more like a pro-vegetarian ad and less than a study.
28
yes you're right it was looking like a pro-vegan ad. because vegan is more politically correct as well as better for climate change. all those cows, letting loose all that methane, clearly no good for climate change. but wait, if we didn't have almost 8 billion ppl on the planet, wouldn't that help climate change?
13
@Make America Sane colorectal cancer is a major cause of death. If that's not of major significance to you, probably life isn't either.
16
Here is my equally unscientific advice: try the EWYLBOTOI diet. Eat what you like but one third of it.
28
Take those "deli meats" and, to paraphrase the Emperor Trump, "Lock-them-up." We need protection from the attraction of the taste and aroma of these products. They could be more dangerous than Republican politicians.
11
Processed meat sounds more fun than extra years in the geriatric ward.
41
@Bun Mam
One of those amazing, Italian grinders found only in certain Italian supermarkets.
It's worth the risk.
3
Is there anyone that can resist bacon?? And I know it's bad, but oh so good. A little moderation rather than going cold turkey-no pun intended - should help to alleviate any problems. And don't even get me started on Pork Tessa!
9
I hate the taste of bacon.
As well meaning as these articles on what is ok to eat or not, if the health care community not to mention our elected officials were so concerned with our health there would be an immediate ban on all tobacco products which cause so many deaths as well as deaths from secondary smoke, the deaths from smoking, not only cancer but heart and respiratory deaths are enormous and make the ‘battle on prescription painkillers”, which actually benefit many people, seem even more disingenuous and self serving for the drug makers wish to substitute more experience means of pain control for the current generic, effective medicines used by an older generation of physicians with the good care of the patients in mind rather than profit and political correctness. Let’s not even touch on the subject of death and misery heaped on those who don’t play nice with our allies, currently Yemenis are an excellent example.
19
What's really bad for you aren't eating processed or unprocessed meats but a person living in big cities like New York, where the Times is located. Dying from unnatural deaths such as homicide, automobile accidents along with cancer -related deaths from automotive exhaust are much more of a concern than losing sleep over whether or not i had one too many slices of ham on my sandwich(I don't eat processed meats 95% of time btw). From ham sandwichs to BBQ'd meats(charred and cancer). Eating raw veggies and fruits are more dangerous(E-Coli, Salmonella, rotavirus, norovirus(stomach flu). No one has talked about the world's second favorite beverage- coffee. Several reliable studies(one done in Brazil) link drinking filtered or unfiltered coffee such as French Press, espresso or plain old filtered drip coffee to high cholesterol levels. How about a story on that NY Times? As for me, i'll continue on eating meat, cheese, bread, potato chips, and drink my coffee and a very occassional sip of wine or shot of cognac at holiday time. I won't lose sleep over it. Enjoy life, don't become neurotic or manic over these trivial things.
12
@lou andrews . Actually, New Yorkers have a higher life expectancy than any other area in the US. And the murder and suicide rates are at their lowest. Life expectancy in NYC beats that in rural areas by several years, likely due to excellent medical care, better public health education, higher education level of the populace, a more active lifestyle (including walking, public transport, less driving) and constant intellectual and cultural stimulation and high quality foods. This is shared with most other dense urban areas. It is a myth that city life is more dangerous and unhealthy than rural life.
494
@lou andrews
You should try taking your own advice and stop obsessing about people in big cities. You'll live a happier life if not a longer life.
BTW, there are lots of articles about coffee out there--plenty of studies have been done and the jury is still out. Some studies say it's fine, other's not so fine, there's no consensus as far as I can tell. I'll do a search for those "reliable" Brazilian studies, though.
11
@CF- you should stop obsessing about my obsessing. Btw, I'm not obsessing. You're projecting your own obsessions. Commenting about about truths an untruths isn't being obsessive. Born raised, lived in NYC 30 plus years, lived for many years in rural Oregon and Hawaii, now living way outside of Portland Oregon.
2
There's about a 4.3% chance of getting colorectal cancer. A 4% increase in this risk makes it about 4.5%. Yes, that is an increase, but not quite as scary as going from 4% to 20%.
The article didn't tell what the baseline chance was, and so made the increase look much more frightening than it is.
52
Thank you, this isnso important. I skimmed the original paper in PMC and it didn't seem to give the absolute risk (apart from giving the incidence: "Colorectal cancer is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for more than one million cases and 600 000 deaths every year").
Th other thing I wish it had given is how processed meat consumption compares to other modifiable risks (ie alcohol, physical activity, vegetable consumption). The paper does cite the overall relative risk of these modifiable factors taken together with processed meat, but didn't explicitly say how processed meat compares tonthe others.
5
Truth be told, everybody dies sometime.
33
True...such fear of the inevitable...have a little more confidence that our purpose extends beyond this life, and apply some common sense.
5
@Dan Holton
True. Sooner or later, but that’s the issue.
I want to live long. Problem is I love a good Italian sub and am willing to give up a few weeks at the end.
5
@Dan Holton: I don't think you do not want to die of colorectal cancer.
1
I 100% agree as a recent colon cancer patient who loved processed meat..That salty corned beef...I could eat 1 lb at one time.
now, i am so messed up I can not eat even the most innocent food...
So, stop immediately if you want to enjoy life and enjoy all other beautiful and delicious foods.
29
I'm presuming that all of this refers to commercially processed foods.
2
The study seems to implicate uncured red meat and red meat cured with nitrates (which I think they found to be wirse than uncured red meat). It didn't seem to separate out whether the meat was processed commercially or not.
My point is that it *could be something specific to industrial food processing* but the assumption in the paper is that it it nitrates themselves. Adding nitrates at home might not be any better for you.
This article is one reason it's really difficult to avoid nutrition advice beyond not eating too much food and not eating too much of one food.
In the 7th paragraph of the answer, we're told that nitrites are bad because of a link to cancer, but then at the end, told that nitrites in vegetables are not associated with cancer.
The following two paragraphs warn us that some meat products have added vegetable-based nitrites, as if the vegetable-based nitrites suddenly turn evil.
Which is it? Are nitrites in any form bad and eating processed meat just a risky way to have too much? Or do nitrites from any source, when stuck into meat, become the risk?
57
@b fagan
I was about to post the same comment when I saw your's. The article makes no attempt to address this salient dissonance. Empty and useless, like so many of this kind. The Ask Well section needs higher-quality writers.
18
Good question. I don't understand it fully but the original paper seems to say that it's not nitrates and nitrites themselves, but nitroso compounds (whcih is the product when a nitrate or nitrite gets chemically added to an organic compound). Red meat (but not white) can create nitroso compounds on its own. However, adding nitrates or nitrites to any meat (including white meat) will increase the nitroso compounds exposed to the colon.
So nitrates from vegetables by themselves do not make cancer causing nitroso compounds. I don't understand the chemistry, but the conversion from nitrate to nitroso requires the right chemical/acidic conditions -- which does happen in curing meat. I don't know if eating nitrate-containing veggies and meat at the same time can or can't create nitroso compounds.
Original: "A second mechanism involves endogenous formation in the gastrointestinal tract of N-nitroso compounds, many of which are carcinogenic. Red meat but not white meat intake shows a dose–response relation with the endogenous formation of nitroso compounds in humans [11]. This has been explained by the abundant presence of heme in red meat that can readily become nitrosylated and act as a nitrosating agent [12], [13]. Nitrites or nitrates added to meat for preservation could increase exogenous exposure to nitrosamines, N-nitroso compounds, and their precursors; meats cured with nitrite have the same effect as fresh red meat on endogenous nitrosation [14]."
15
@Hope Thank you so much for the clarification! That explains this very well.
2
What's not really clear to me is.... are deli meats purchased over the counter from a local Italian or Eastern European deli (and where there are no labels) 'better' than when you go to a standard market and all the deli meats are from standard brands such as Boar's Head, Applegate, etc? Do the latter typically have more preservatives and additives?
5
Much research has been done on the role of gamma tocopherol (one of the components of Vitamin E) in reducing the formation of nitrosamines and related n-nitroso compounds in the gut, which are the etiologic agents in this case.
Additionally, the largest side-effect of daily aspirin (apart from gastric distress and reduced risk of heart attack) was seen in the reduction of colorectal cancers.
Nitrates are used in long-cured meats to prevent botulism - nitrate breaks down into nitrites. Nitrites are more commonly used in meat that will be refrigerated, like bacon. But they also occur naturally in foods (as mentioned in the article), or are formed by fermentation in the gut.
All things in moderation.
3
Salt salt salt! In addition to all the other unhealthy things in processed meat, the high salt content is immediately noticeable! But so much food is highly salty these days. And it's not good for anybody.
5
@jsutton
Salt & sugar.
Many products are low sat fat, but high in sugar grams.
2
Meats of any kind are the products of extreme animal cruelty. Go meatless!
17
If you could live forever if you only ate rocks, would you do it?
17
@Beppo: Are they chocolate rocks?
15
@Rage Baby:
If it's dark chocolate, sign me up!
Beppo
7
Are they dusted with Cheetos?
3
Regarding health risks, beware also of bologna in pseudo- science articles, on food, diet, exercise, lifestyles, etc.
25
Maybe it's all the pesticides in the meats that cause the cancer not the processing.
5
@Jacquie You have a point, since meat is the most concentrated way we can consume pesticides: first they're on the plants the animals eat, then the animals eat them and the pesticides are concentrated in their body fat.
I tend to think eating the meat to begin with is bound to cause health problems, even if it's compassionately raised and lovingly killed. Pesticides and smoking the meat only compounds the problem.
2
It's long past time the NYT and other media learn that correlation or association is not causation.
People who attempt to adopt healthy lifestyles tend to believe they shouldn't eat meat so, along with not eating meat, they get more sleep, exercise, quit (never start) smoking, drink alcohol seldom or never, and cut sugar intake.
People not attempting a healthy lifestyle not only eat meat (including preserved meat) but also have poor sleep habits, don't exercise, smoke, drink regularly and/or in large amounts, and do not mind their sugar intake.
As a publication which routinely endorses alcohol and sugar intake, bear in mind that while you're pointing one finger at bacon, three fingers are pointing back at you. I'll believe bacon and ham cause cancer when someone actually directly proves it, and in living human beings, not a petri dish. Meanwhile, we know sugar contributes to cancer, so when were you going to stop publishing dessert recipes?
16
A very interesting article which is completely unscientific, biased by a perception and the long-standing belief that deli and (un)processed meat is dangerous for us. I know of no one that eats only red meat and the ability to identify other foods as possible causes has been completely left out. Diabetes ( and pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome ) seems to be one of the leading causes of human I’ll health, which is a disease of sugar and a plant-based, low fat diet. The real risks of meat and cancer are likely significantly lower than that of a high carbohydrate, lean meat diet, which increases inflammation, leading to all diseases we humans suffer including cancer . That said I love reading the New York Times.
3
The second part of this comment correctly points out that the article does not compare the risk of eating cured meat to other modifiable causes of disease.
The first part of the comment is debatable. The paper cited does do some hand-waving (randomized control trials of meat eating and cancer are considered "unfeasible" [prob true, but that doesn't help prove causality] , and finding a dose-response correlational relationship is considered by the paper to be more indicative of causation [why, though?] ). The paper does cite some chemical evidence of a possible mechanism of nitrates/nitrites and nitrosos, which helps.
The paper also hand-waves in saying that modifyable lifestyle factors are linked, and that focusing on meat consumption is likely to help other factors as well. "Dietary and lifestyle factors are usually interrelated and it is likely that a change in a habit that is considered detrimental, such as high intake of red meat, will be accompanied by other healthful changes."
I'm not familiar with the rest of the literature. Without knowing that, this particular paper seems to be one line of evidence, but not conclusive. OTOH, if the biochemical models are well understood I wouldn't discount the paper either.
It may be unscientific to take the paper, by itself, as strong evidence of causality. But the paper itself is not unscientific.
1
..actually my math was not quite correct....4% of 4.49 is 0.18, so the new total risk is 4.67%....a trivial increase
6
Eating cooked steak restored my digestion to a proper state. I haven't eaten the processed meats but I think cooking meat creates the same oncogene triggering chemicals that are contained in the processed meats. Smoking meat, or just the plain ole smoking flavoring is carcinogenic.
With the last ten days while considering going on the KETO diet, nearly all protein and fat diet, I tested eating meat for the first time in decades; to see if I could eat meat and what would happen. ( Truthfully, I have eaten the occasional hamburger once a year sometimes, not in a decade. But I never purchased meat to eat. _
I was shocked that by eating red-meat my digestion improved.
So, while I support omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans, and I have migrated on and off eating vegetables and legumes only, I now have a new religion.
But I am amazed at how much fat is in the actual meat itself.
It does not seem safe to eat any beef for that reason.
Thank you for reminding me about the adverse effects of eating the fast food - processed meats.
There is no mention of other animal products, like smoked, dried, or salted seafood: fish, clams, or other shellfish. And how about other smoked animal protein like Gouda?
Here in Maine we have numerous local producers of smoked seafood. We can get them at farmers markets, fish markets, etc.
9
Scientific research is not definitive
on food. There are so many factors affecting health and longevity--genes,
smoking, drinking, exercising,calories
consumption, diet.etc. It is almost
impossible to control for many of
these factors and determine co-relation
of health to a single factor like diet. Not
only that, but research findings keep
changing, sometime it is eggs, butter,
other times they are o.k. it is sugar, one
drink a day particulalry of red wine is good for heart and then any alcohol
is bad for health. What to do? Use
common sense, don't over indulge,
keep calories consumption to a
reasonable level,exercise and
more importantly relax. I have been
to Spain, they are relaxed and seem to take life easy and enjoy. Americans
are under constant stress to produce
and move up to get the title of V.P.
and earn compensation in 6 figures.
There is a price to pay. The facts show
that. Despite spending more on health
care than other advanced countries, we
don't enjoy either great health or
longevity.
6
It would be helpful if the Times’ science reporters spent some time with the source material, and then translate what such findings actually mean for us common folk. Here the author simply does not explain relative risk, nor the fact that the meta-analysis cited does not account for a myriad of uncontrolled behavioral factors. There’s a reassign why large scale epidemiological studies have continually yielded inconsistent safety findings for coffee, wine, etc. With respect to risk, you could increase my relative risk for being struck by lightning by 1000%, and I would still rest easily. Finally, as other commentators noted as well, the asbestos piece was also incomplete, failing to mention that not all asbsestos fibers are carcinogenic, so that discussions of assay sensitity and specificity would have lent more balance to the piece.
11
Don't see much good coming from these meats. Sure, they'll taste good in a sandwich with cheese and mayo but the whole concoction will be full of fat and salt and have no fiber. Not so great if you want good digestion.
The WHO did declare processed meats a known carcinogenic not long ago.
7
Do they really know this for a fact? What about the effect of preservatives? Wouldn't they preserve our insides and result in living longer? Does it really matter? No. Eat what you want.
8
This type of popular science article hurts public health as much as it helps. Without explaining relative cancer risks, it encourages laypersons to change their diets in ways that won’t significantly improve health or longevity for individuals.
As a few other commenters point out: for rough example, if one’s relative risk for a cancer is say, 5%, and eating a particular food raises one’s risk 20%, that means multiplying the existing risk (.05) by the increased risk (.20) for a total new risk of 6%. In the case of deli meats, that means one has upped or reduced one’s risk by 1% for just a one or two particular forms of cancer. Individuals should make decisions, especially ones involving sacrifice, based on clear a understanding of the science and math.
If we all applied science and math properly, we would see that avoiding a particular food has minimal effect.
Instead, the best things that we can do for ourselves are an aggregate of the following practices, in approximately the following order of importance:
Socialize and maintain robust friendships and community ties, avoid smoking and heavy alcohol use, avoid becoming overweight or obese, exercise moderately, eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, get regular check ups, vaccinate, live as far from particulate and other air pollution as is practical, do not keep a gun in the house, do not drive while under the influence of alcohol, do not text while driving, and try to keep your commute to under an hour per day.
89
@voltairesmistress
Millennials are coming down with two types of cancer:
"Americans in their early 50s and younger -- Gen Xers and millennials -- are experiencing significant increases in colon and rectal cancer, a new study reports."
If you are a recipient of a Federally funded medical care, then you know that the participating Counties in the State of California means they will almost force you to take a colon cancer test.
It could be that the generations who are NOT the "babyboomers", are consuming more processed foods, prepared foods with carcinogens.
I suspect that the many plastics used in the making of microwaveable prepared frozen foods contributes to this high rate of cancer.
2
@voltairesmistress
Nice. Thanks for that percentage explanation.
So, how much increase in life expectancy does one accrue by socializing and having robust friendships?
I ask because I'm living nearly a hermit existences now; and I am seeking to further remove myself by moving away from the suburbs and closer to nature. Seriously.
There may be an increased risk of colorectal cancer but if you eat no meat at all you will still die from something. In some American cities if the air pollution doesn't give you lung cancer the water will give you lead poisoning. If you move to northern Alaska you will have clean water and air but the bears might get you. Just the way it is. Worried about colorectal cancer? See your gastroenterologist at least annually and go for a colonoscopy when the doctor tells you it's time.
12
Standard Times science reporting; always partial, like the same author’s piece on “What is Talc...” yesterday that never said what it actually is, why asbestos, nearly the same stuff, in the nearly the same structure, isn’t even really banned in the US. Or more to the point, why we’re surrounded by asbestos in significant amounts everywhere. Deli meats and cancer risks, again, flipping the awful Times habit of never using metric measures where they are clearly useful, and using them where they have limited relevance to the consumer, as in food amounts. And, of course, making relative risk increases look like absolute increases, as pointed out by others. True, a lot of medical studies, even large, careful ones, need to be taken with ... at least one grain of salt, and are certainly much less cogent than, for example testing theory with experiment in other fields, but it is still possible to avoid making popularization look less like tabloid exaggeration. The reading public, even for the Times, isn’t particularly scientifically literate, but we should still expect reporting to be more useful.
21
I agree . We should be talking about the increase in cancer risk due Trump's attack on THE CLEAN WATER ACT instead of attack baloney sandwiches .
28
Just had my annual servings of bacon. Good until next December
3
You obviously possess the willpower of ten men.
2
Think of the millions of Americans, over multiple generations, who eat a ham sandwich every day, or the millions of kids raised on Oscar Mayer, and ask yourself if the results of this “study” makes any logical sense.
26
As I eat my delicious ham sandwich with Italian ham on a piece of levain bread smeared with butter, I am reading this article and waiting for another study that says, processed meats are good for you.
118
Amen
5
@Pups that sounds so good
Again. A “prospective” study of prospective studies designed to look for other things. A 4% increase in the RISK of developing cancer? You can’t even calculate a standard error on that kind of stuff. These sort of reports do far more harm than good and have destroyed the credibility of nutritionists and nutritional studies. The article is basically the author’s personal observations and while valuable, should be clearly identified as such at the beginning of the article.
37
I will never get back all of the years I avoided eggs . I will not make the same mistake and deny myself a JerseyMike's Italian Mike's way .
6
I am German and I eat processed meat, have all my life. I don't buy bologna or other cheap stuff that has garbage meat ground up in it but I buy double cured Bacon and good ham and fresh bratwurst from my favorite Polish butcher in Austell, Georgia.
I bake my own bread to avoid those additives and I never eat in Restaurants or Fast Food Joints. I make my own divine grapefruit jam. It keeps me busy, it makes me happy and what more could you want at age 77 living in beautiful North West Georgia among Trump fans who hate you because you are a vocal Democrat.
1239
@Karin Byars
Karin: You might have mentioned that the GERMANS living in Germany proper, eat processed meats all of the time. I encountered the LACK of any deli diversity in Germany. If you don't eat pork, you are going to be out of luck when traveling or working in Germany.
17
@RR It seems that you only travelled in southern Germany.
I don't eat pork, but there are plenty of other choices in northern Germany, particularly fish, but of course lamb, beef and poultry, as well.
As a person living in Hamburg, I can't fathom how you ancountered a lack if deli diversity. Perhaps you only looked in big grocery stores instead of in the "Delikatessen".
28
@Karin Byars - at your convenience, please share your receipt for grapefruit jam. Anything I can do to use my ruby reds!
64
Woody Allen, in "Bananas," made what I think will stand as the most definitive comment ever made about health foods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yCeFmn_e2c
8
Correction: The movie is "Sleeper."
7
Wait a second.
"Vegetables also contain nitrates and nitrites, but eating them is not associated with an increased risk of cancer."
Why do we think it's the nitrates, then? This seems like the most important part of the article. Is there any more information?
50
@CS
Perhaps there is a protective effect from the fiber these foods contain, combined with the very low levels.
2
@CS
It's the nitrosamines and some related compounds, formed by a reaction between the nitrites and proteins. If I remember correctly from days in a botany lab, when we wanted to get mutant bacteria, we'd use one part per billion nitrosamine. That would kill many of the bacteria and leave many mutations in the survivors.
A couple of things. First, people who eat a lot of pickled and cured meats outside of America (Italy, Japan, China, S Korea) do not have exceptional rates of colon cancer, indeed those are typically lower than in America (albeit there's an association between loads of Asian pickled foods and stomach cancer, but that's confounded by heavy smoking rates in Asia). Second, the risk reported here is a relative risk which tells you nothing about the absolute risk associated with eating these foods, which, to fill in the picture, hovers right around zero. So, the take home is (a) there are many moving parts and disease incidence has to do with social, economic and cultural background, how a person was developed as a foetus and young child, infections, exercise levels, alcohol and tobacco use, environmental exposures and much else; and (b) the meaningful risk associated with bogy men such as sugar, fat, cured meats, salt, red meat, etc. is so close to zero that no one should lose much sleep over it.
26
@Cephalus. S Korea and Japan actually have high rates of colon cancer (along with Scandinavian countries and Eastern Europe) - I see different lists out there, but Korea is typically #1 or #2 in the world, and Japan often in the top 10. Not so for Italy and China as far as I see. There are of course issues with these rankings due to availability/type of information from different countries and of course, as you mention, the fact that there are multiple factors and smoking rates are one of them.
5
@Cephalus
Tibetans die of stomach cancer and other digestive diseases who eat the Japanese diet of pickled foods. The Japanese die of brain hemorrhaging and liver disease (broadly) probably due to their diet of high levels of salt and raw parasitic fish. And most fermented and pickled foods have some kind of dangerous chemicals produced by the type of pickling.
Tibetans are a good sample to study as a population because processed foods are completely alien in their traditional diet.
I surmise that Tibetans suffer cancer because of their lack of exposure to the bi-product chemicals of fermentation processes (not all are alike) while living in Tibet.
2
It would be helpful - as it almost always is - if the author would place the fun-with-numbers stats in some context that makes sense to most folks. Here is my take.
The ASIR rate for stomach cancer is about 9.0 - so a 4% increase boosts it all the way up to 9.36 - that is per 100,000 - so an increase of .36 per 100,00.
My calculator won't even allow me to do a percentage on that increase
28
Perhaps the standard schedule for over-50 colonoscopies should be calibrated to individual diet. That way vegans and vegetarians could feel comfortable having fewer colonoscopies (or opting for less invasive colon cancer screenings altogether), saving money, hassle, time off work, and stress.
8
I see a lot of old men eating pastrami on rye (or corned beef) at Katz's Deli. They love it and keep coming back for more of those overstuffed sandwiches. Live your life!
233
@Carl LaFong I've always wondered about that. Every time I go to a deli for a delicious pastrami on rye with mustard, why are there so many old people? And on my occasional visits to Costco, I can't resist their hot dogs.
Pretty soon, some study will be published that the only way to survive with your health intact will be on wild grass and kale!
25
@Nicole
No, the study will show the only diet to follow is the Katz's diet: salami, pastrami, etc. See "Sleeper".
18
@Carl LaFong
Indeed! Katz's is one of the best reasons to be alive!
18
Vegetables also contain Nitrites but are not associated with cancer. I suspect the reason is; it would be difficult to find a control group who never eat vegetables.
5
@GUANNA
Tibetans living at 3 to 5 miles above sea level and some of the People of the Andes are good populations to sample. Nothing grows at 3 miles above sea level accept short grass. Tibetans have to travel down the mountainous areas to obtain most of their vegetables so in the Winter time, most of their diet is Yak meat, Yak butter, and roasted barley - that's it. And it is a long winter in Tibet.
They do eat rice, potatoes, carrots, cabbage, onions, peas, garlic, and if they could buy it soy products - tofu. Those veges and starches are not easily available.
The same is true of the peoples who live at higher levels of altitude in South American Countries.
1
Anecdotal, but: my very spry in-laws (83 and 82) eat a cold-cut sandwich every. single. day. They also eat a lot of fruit. Sometimes potato chips. High-fiber cereal and Metamucil. A daily piece of chocolate. A well-balanced dinner (meat, starch, veg). And a nightly salad, followed by ice cream and a cookie.
Maybe, as with all other things, moderation is the key. Or maybe they're just lucky? Perhaps we should all just try to balance the unhealthy with the healthy and live the best life we can.
254
@Eliza And I I'll bet they're pretty friendly, happy people to be around.
9
Ah science is a wonderful thing, but ...
I intend to stick with the advice proffered to me by the Old Testament rabbis who counseled that kosher hot dogs, wrapped in bologna, topped with sauerkraut and deli-mustard served on an old fashioned Kaiser roll along with big kosher dill pickles and extra-thick, hand-cut onion rings are good for everything that ails me.
21
How about vegan deli "meat"? Is the problem that the nitrates interact with the fat in the meat, or will nitrates form in soy and gluten products as well?
12
@Niko
The problem for me with all the vegan substitute items is they are all processed. That is the real killer-processed food. If you stay away from anything in a box, can, or frozen (except vegetables and fruit) that's premade, go ahead and eat a pastrami on rye. And hope your stomach doesn't freak out, like mine does. ;)
2
@Niko Yes, I would love it if in one of the many articles about processed meat, someone would at least address the question of processed vegan or vegetarian meat. Better yet, run an article on the topic of vegan and vegetarian meat. That would be something new.
1
I’m not buying it.....
6
Enjoy yourself and live to 75, or take on the habits of an austere, grim monk and live to 80? I'll take the former and enjoy a baloney sandwich now and then.
94
@Ed L.- nice comment. i agree. Please my comments above and the responses. Many people are just too "monkish" and get defensive when the truth is told. They don't want to be awaken from their dreams.
1
@Ed L. Suit yourself, but I enjoy my plant-based diet very much. And I look around me at my middle-aged peers, most of whom are overweight and obvioulsy struggling with their health, and I feel very fortunate to have found one of the great secrets to good health. You may think I will only live until 80, but I have every expectation of living well beyond 100. If you die at 75, or even 80, you may well be missing out on a lifetime's worth of fun that could be yet to come.
4
@Dan Frazier
"...you may well be missing out on a lifetime's worth of fun that could be yet to come. "
Hopefully not under a Trumpian regime!
So … I'm nearing 70 … but this article has me wondering: How come I'm not dead?
47
Well you could be like me and get cancer at age 72 (when you still feel pretty young)
4
@Melissa Mayernik
With my best wishes to you ... "I could be" -- but I hope not (and if Dad's experience serves as a predictor for moi … "I 'won't be").
4
Before I die, I will continue to really, really enjoy jerky, wine, and sex. All at once when possible.
25
@Brad Steele Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Georges eats a pastrami sandwich during sex and goes for the "trifecta" and adds television as well. Enjoy, my friend.
6
How often? Daily for a year? Once-in-a-blue-moon?
4
What a bunch of killjoys.
Some cured meats eaten in moderation is worth it as a small and simple life pleasure. Our daily lives are stressed enough already without us needing to feel guilty and sad everytime we eat.
So I ask these scientists to stop guilting those of us with moderate and normal diets.
17
My Father in law ate almost nothing but processed meat. Buried him in 2012 ravaged by colon cancer @67 his first colonoscopy was his last.
They looked and said “make your plans”
11
@John- if he got regular colonoscopies from age 50 onward every 5 years, i bet he'd still be alive today. get colonoscopies regulasrly from age 50 on. no reason not to.
2
50 grams of processed meat a day for how many days raises your risk?
3
The death rate for humanity is 100% to date. We all pick our risks in life, and living on filtered water and tofu will not keep you from your earthly demise.
Had an American Club sandwich the other day. It had ham, beef, turkey, bacon, black olives, pickled bell peppers, smoked cheddar cheese, black olives, onion, tomato and spicy brown mustard on a nice crispy roll of whole wheat bread. I am sure that violates all the healthy eating commandments from the nanny state, but it sure tasted good.
If you want to live to be 100, be my guest.
45
Consider carefully before embarking on a low carb high protein diet,eh?
5
Is all luncheon meat bad? I generally eat a plain turkey sandwich for lunch. I was looking on the list in the article which says "smoked turkey" is bad, but doesn't say anything specific about the much more commonly used plain turkey. But then it adds "other deli meats," whatever that means.
3
Read the ingredients on the deli turkey. Most of the “plain” ones have added sugar and preservatives now. Even the deli staff at Whole Foods are surprised when I ask them to read me the ingredients.
1
This article is a good start in telling the truth that the meat and dairy industry wants to keep out of the light of day. It's padded, however, to shield us from the *real* truth. It's not just 'processed' meat that is highly correlated to various cancers, it's ALL meat.
The advice to limit red meat is a gimme to the meat industry. Limit consumption to 100 grams a day. Hmmmm. . . how many Americans eat only 100 grams of meat a day?
Finally, it's not just 'red' meat that causes cancer. Chicken is also highly correlated and implicated in cancer. Many people reading this article will throw out red herring arguments--it's not the meat, it's the packaging! the cooking! the preservatives!
The hard truth is, when it comes to many cancers, lifestyle, including smoking, drinking, and eating meat, are largely to blame. What we do with that knowledge is a personal choice. The truth is out there.
8
Also, look both ways before crossing the street.
12
@Regina Valdez Warning: being born leads inevitably to death, but the government doesn't want you to know that!
6
Sodium Benzoate, and other Benzoate Salts, are also horrible for you. According to an Encyclopedia set from around 1975, there was a backlash against Benzoate Salts and other preservitives like Nitrites in the 50's, and they were phased out, then phased back in the food supply more recently. Among other effects, Benzoate salts react with citric and ascorbic acid in the body to produce formaldehyde in the body, unless you believe industry sponsored research, in which case they don't.
However did the article not state that the naturally occurring nitrates in vegetables were not bad for you? Then it went on to cast doubt on their healthfulness.
Health studies are hard to trust, and it would be nice if the Times dug a little deeper into this and gave us an honest accounting, as competing studies sponsored by trade groups with commercial interests often distort the conversation, while shills are paid to attack research and researchers and publications that harm their commercial interests, while our regulatory agencies are often corrupted by those moneyed interests.
10
For instance, how many of these comments are part of a misinformation campaign and how do the comments accumulate likes.
1
@Nathan Z, All things are relative. Fresh strawberries are also high in formaldehyde, even organically grown ones.
Eating animal flesh, eggs and dairy products is very bad for humans simply because our digestive system is not designed for it. All meat-eating creatures have very short digestive tracts so that the flesh they eat doesn't putrefy in the system but is quickly excreted. Humans have extremely long digestive tracts.
Don't eat animal products; it's bad for you, the environment and the animals....
13
@john michel wrote " our digestive system is not designed for [animal flesh]."
On the contrary, many primitive humans ate meat (often charred) long before they had access to vegetables (agriculture).
24
@john michel Humans definitely evolved to eat animal flesh. Google it. You may not like to eat meat products and there are many good reasons not to, but please spare us the junk science.
14
@john michel
John - just this month, I believe, Paleoarcheologists identified a Neanderthal Child's tooth that is more than 250,000 years old contained evidence of health and diet.
The Neanderthal tools indicate that they killed wild life to consume them.
"Scientists have discovered the oldest known modern human fossil outside of Africa, estimated to be between 177,000 and 194,000 years old"
We humans have a gut that is designed to eat meat too.
6
If these meats are so dangerous, how can the FDA allow them even to be sold? I’m not one for a nanny state, but good lord, from this article you’d think consuming cured meats are a death sentence.
8