Why is our beloved food causing us harm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Young
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between diet, particularly meat consumption, and cancer risk. It highlights that cancer accounts for a significant portion of deaths in the UK, raising concerns about processed meats and additives like BHA and BHT, which are considered potential carcinogens. Participants debate whether modern food production methods and chemical additives are contributing to rising cancer rates or if increased longevity is simply allowing more people to reach ages where cancer becomes more prevalent. They suggest that as society eradicates early causes of death, such as infectious diseases and malnutrition, cancer becomes more common due to aging. The conversation also touches on the complexities of cancer risk, noting that while processed meats may increase risk, many factors, including cooking methods and overall diet, play a role. The discussion concludes that while cancer risks may be rising, it is essential to consider the broader context of improved life expectancy and the evolving nature of health risks.
  • #51
empathy44 said:
we really don't know how many people died from cancer before it could be so reliably diagnosed.
I think we do. Since most of em died from infection, disease, injury, malnutrition, infant mortality, TB, plague, typhoid - cancer didn't stand a chance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
There is a basic concept in Biology - HE - Heredity Environment interaction. Different combinations of genes in individuals of one species of organism can respond radically different to the same environmental challenge. One type of challenge is the presence of extant relatively new man made chemicals. Humans did not evolve in the presence of those chemicals so the responses may be very unfavorable to individual survival.

Two points:
1. in your kitchen right now there are approximately 100 or more man made chemicals that are not naturally occurring, and were not available to chemistry researchers 100 years ago.
2. Natural Selection works on the basis of differential survival of individuals in a population. Based on genetic traits. Human population is huge compared to the past, and therefore there are large numbers (as Mathematicians use the term) of heretofore 'untested' gene combinations running around.

Also, cancer is not new, it is one of the consequences of being able to evolve - sort of a nasty side effect. Hadrosaurs - plant eating dinosaurs - had lots of cancer as found in fossil bone tissue:
http://www.nature.com/news/1998/031020/full/news031020-2.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes empathy44 and Buzz Bloom
  • #53
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi empathy:

Do today's preservatives cause more cancer than eating food protected by the means used 100 years ago or earlier?​
As I understand it, the at-home food preserving techniques used 100 years ago made preserved food pretty safe from bacterial contamination. I think that commercial techniques then were also good, and did not involve the enormous range of chemicals used today.

First, I want to say I'm not defending stuffing our meat to the proverbial (or literal) gills with all manner of chemicals.

From the article cited:
"WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat — meat altered through salting, curing, fermenting or smoking [emphasis mine] — as a Group 1 carcinogen. This group of cancer-causing agents also includes smoking and asbestos. The ranking means there’s convincing evidence linking the modified meats to colorectal cancer, evidence as strong as that linking smoking to cancer."

These are all forms of home preservation that have been around for a very long time.
  • Saying processed meat is carcinogenic isn't the same thing as saying it's much more carcinogenic than in the past. They found a correlation between eating lots of processed red meat and an increase in cancers (66 out of a thousand)--particularly colorectal, bowel and prostate cancers. People who ate the least red meat developed fewer cancers (56 out of 1000).
  • They are only talking about processed meats.
  • They go on to suggest what changed may simply have been the amount of meat we eat. This is not the same thing as saying that our meat is more carcinogenic.
 
  • #54
Buzz Bloom said:
They go on to suggest what changed may simply have been the amount of processed meat we eat.​
z
Recall that the processing refers to salting, smoking, curing meats. That's been going for centuries, at one time the only way to preserve meat for a time. I'm not sure that more meat so processed is consumed now or not.
 
  • #55
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi mheslep:

Nowadays, "processing" also includes adding additives,...
Yes, but on the subject of meats, only the processes I listed (smoking, salting, etc) are the ones noted to increase the rate of cancer in the recent study referenced in this thread. There's no evidence quoted in this thread about a particular meat additive causing cancer. None. Perhaps they exist, but have not been referenced here.
 
  • #56
Buzz Bloom said:
Nowadays, "processing" also includes adding additives, lots of different kinds, some known to be carcinogenic,

So the FDA is falling down on the job permitting known carcinogens onto the market?

Here is a site that lists know carcinogens

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...cinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

Many are industrial chemicals some may be produced by the processing some occur naturally. They have different powers for producing cancer. I have heard that gram for gram aflaitoxin produced by a mold on grain and peanuts is the most carcinogenic (for liver cancer) substance that could occur in the food chain.

Some substances as cadmium and lead occur in soil and are taken up by plants used from which products are made , one common one is cocoa powder. However these are permitted in concentrations lower that standards set by the Feds.

Alcohol is on the list and yes it is connected to oral cavity, throat and esophageal cancers in heavy drinkers with smoking exacerbating the problem but it is not producing a pandemic of these cancers.

The carcinogenic effect varies with exposure and below certain concentrations the cancer rate from these substances can become unobservable in the general population .
 
  • Like
Likes Buzz Bloom
  • #57
This is a very interesting article about the history of labeling of food and medicines. published by the FDA

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Overviews/ucm056044.htm
 
  • #58
Is deli meat processed? Like if I go to the deli counter and get a 1/2 pound of sliced turkey. That is considered processed?
 
  • #59
I believe it is especially if it is wrapped in plastic film. If you notice that such turkey has a slightly off taste that get worse as it gets older and becomes slimier .as compared to fresh roasted turkey.
 
  • #60
gleem said:
I believe it is especially if it is wrapped in plastic film. If you notice that such turkey has a slightly off taste that get worse as it gets older and becomes slimier .as compared to fresh roasted turkey.
I am fairly certain there is a more rigorous definition of 'processed' than this.
 
Back
Top