Jan 17, 2012 -- 2:35AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Jan 16, 2012 -- 3:50PM, solfeggio wrote:

... the consumption of known carcinogens like nitrite additives ...

Nitrite occurs naturally in the human organism. NO is a mediator of intra- and intercellular processes. Why do you think it is a carcinogen?

The studies in question were not specific to nitrites (or nitrates) but to consuming the products.  There is one theory that in cooking these products nitrosamines are formed, which are carcinogenic; but, the NIH study  cited mentions some possible other mechanisms.  There are still a lot of unknowns, and  a lot of research going on (for example, one of these studies mentions an increased risk of cancer in men but not women- still unexplained).

It seems reasonable to me that prudence is called for.  Eating multiple slices of bacon every day seems to me not prudent (nor part of any sort of a balanced diet).  But having bacon occasionally?  There is no science or any reason to think that is excessively risky or reckless when taken in the context with the other risks we accept every day. 

Of course, the association between meat-eating generally and various cancers in humans is well established by numerous studies (www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/...). The Larsson and Wolk study here--a meta-analysis of 11 prospective studies--only provides a more particular association between red/processed meat consumption and one of the most fatal types of cancer: pancreatic cancer.

What is noteworthy about the findings of this (and another) study is the small amount of processed meat consumption that results in a dramatically increased risk of cancer:

An increase in processed meat consumption of 50g per day, about one serving, was associated with a 19% increased risk of pancreatic cancer. 

www.nature.com/bjc/journal/vaop/ncurrent...

I’m thinking the average hotdog is probably more than 50g, which is less than 2 ounces. And most likely a hoagie from a restaurant contains several servings of processed meat.

A 2006 meta-analysis by Larsson and Wolk, of 15 prospective studies on red meat and 14 prospective studies on processed meat, found greater risks of colorectal cancer with consumption of red and processed meat, in which with increased consumption of red meat of 120 g/day there was a 28% higher risk of colorectal cancer, and with increased consumption of processed meat of 30 g/day there was a 20% higher risk of colorectal cancer:  onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc....

These data (and others) perhaps suggest that for these cancers there are discernible differences in the carcinogenic effects in humans due to the compounds formed during cooking (e.g., heterocyclic compounds; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and those used in preserving meat, as well as perhaps for heme found in all animal flesh but in greater quantities in red meat. There is no evidence that carnivores and omnivores who are biologically adapted to a diet of red meat develop dose-dependent cancers due to eating other mammals. And humans, unlike carnivores and omnivores, must cook meat in order to destroy deadly bacteria found animal flesh.

Other cancers that are common in heavily meat-eating societies, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, seem to be more related to consumption of animal fat. Elevated risks of kidney cancer and cancers of the blood are also found in human meat-eaters.

Exactly what causes the cancers found at higher rates among human meat-eaters are hardly more than speculations.

In any case, the short version of all the above is: it would be a mistake to think that eliminating processed meat eliminates the increased cancer risk associated with meat-eating in humans.

Yes, the recent study appears to show that a 4 ounce daily serving of sausage increases one's risk of pancreatic cancer by 19%. That is, from 1.4% to 1.7%.   I don't know that I've ever had a 4 ounce serving of sausage; maybe 2 or 3. And maybe once in two or three weeks.

Perhaps I might not make it to 150.

Why do people joke about potentially life-threatening conditions?

More to the point:  Why take even a little chance of possibly developing a disease by eating something that might be harmful, when you don't have to? 

Obviously, the processed meat industry counts on people not worrying about any sort of health problems with their products, because they're still going strong and raking in the money selling crap to people who willingly buy it.  The same goes for the tobacco companies. 

We Kiwis and Brits have a lovely word to describe your post: piffle.