this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
345 points (97.8% liked)

World News

50563 readers
2321 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Bacon and ham sold in the UK should carry cigarette-style labels warning that chemicals in them cause bowel cancer, scientists say.

Their demand comes as they criticise successive British governments for doing “virtually nothing” to reduce the risk from nitrites in the decade since they were found to definitely cause cancer.

Saturday marks a decade since the World Health Organization in October 2015 declared processed meat declared processed meat to be carcinogenic to humans, putting it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Redex68@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'll copy some of the answers from the WHO Q&A linked in the post:

Processed meat was classified in the same category as tobacco and asbestos, does that mean they're equally carcinogenic?

No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.

How many cancer cases per year?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.

These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

How much is the risk of cancer increased?

The consumption of processed meat was associated with small increases in the risk of cancer in the studies reviewed. In those studies, the risk generally increased with the amount of meat consumed. An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.

The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.

[–] buzzyburke@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

278g a day equals 100% cancer im fked thats less than a pound ive eaten that much bacon or ham in a sitting so many times

[–] Redex68@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

I don't think that's how that math works but sure

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Wait what.. goddamn it.

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 12 points 2 days ago

Is the UK going to start putting cancer labels on Gin, Scotch Whisky, ale and cider? Because alcohol is not just a proven carcinogen but also toxic to a number of organs and a huge public health problem. It is a much, much larger health problem than bacon. The anti-meat lobby is extremely passionate about their cause. They have some strong arguments about the ethics of factory farming and the environmental impacts but it does make any proposal like this suspect because you just know that some of the proponents are more concerned about the ethics of meat eating than the health impacts.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 63 points 4 days ago (6 children)

They just want to keep the bacon for themselves.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] spearz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (8 children)

In the UK (not sure about anywhere else) you can buy bacon without Nitrates. ‘Naked Bacon’ is in sainsburys, tesco, etc. Been buying it for years.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 40 points 4 days ago (3 children)

It's been working its way through California courts since the 2015 WHO guidelines said processed meats are carcinogenic. Under Prop 65 that should have triggered immediately labeling processed meats as "Known to the State of California to cause cancer" (like we already have on any charred food, parking garages, etc) but because reasons a decade later I think it is still being adjudicated.

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 47 points 4 days ago (4 children)

It's pointless because California standards are so stringent that literally everything has a prop 65 warning on it.

It's completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago (3 children)

That's not why. It's because it's cheaper for a manufacturer of your widget to just slap a Prop 65 label on anything and everything out of an overabundance of caution rather than go through all the testing and certification required to verify if there is or isn't any such material in the product. There's no penalty for false positives, so to remain "complaint" suddenly every manufactured good on Earth suddenly sprouted the warning.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago (7 children)

It really needs to specify the carcinogens and what they're used as. There's a huge difference between "this product uses a 30% lead solder in internal components" and "adhesives used in this product may offgas formaldehyde"

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 28 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Oh boy, can’t wait to see right wing screeches about Muslim takeover of UK.

IMO every food should have cancer rating in the nutrition facts, cause it’s not black and white.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CatsPajamas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 days ago

I mean ... They cause cancer. We literally know they do. It should at least be fucking STATED. Like come the fuck on

load more comments
view more: next ›