Are Processed Meats too Dangerous to Eat?
A review of research, published by an alternative food source, Total Health Breakthroughs:
http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.c...
What do you think?
-
Positive side is that it's better to support farmers who offer organic products.
Other side is I used to work on a giant chicken farm. Their feed was ground up animal parts ( pig, cow, turkey ) . The parts that the farmer could not sell to humans was ground up and sold as feed for animals. Spine, brain etc. The chickens ate this.
What I experienced has been well documented re: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Know anyone who has died from this ?? It come from made cows. This farmer also ground up his spine and beaks and sold it.
. My point here is why support these guys - those poor animals were so sick and sad. I never again ate non-organic meat again. I buy organic cause it tastes better, it is correct politically and it is my vote against the processes used. No one hot dog will not kill you, I mean just as a rule for my own home.›11 Replies-
-
re: Sal Vanilla
They don't use downer cows as feed any more but there's nothing wrong per se with spine and brain of healthy animals. Why not use those parts if they're selling the T bone, rib eye, etc. for human consumption? Given how few cases there have been of varCJ disease, with how many people actually eat beef, it's not something I worry about at all. Organic means nothing as this goes. Putting it perspective, look at the number of deaths caused by varCJD (the only CJ passed through eating downer cows):
http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/figures.htm
We're probably more likely to die with a slip in the shower.
-
-
-
re: Passadumkeg
We hunt quite a bit also. I do remember a few years back when I believe Montana and Wyoming asked the hunter to bring in the heads of their kill because CJ (wasting disease) had been discovered in the elk herds. Don't hear much about it lately - a very good thing. And in case I've given the wrong impression, I'll eat what hubby shoots anyday over most grocery store meat.
-
-
re: bellybones
Most organic chickens are raised on the same sort of factory farms as commercially produced chickens. The only difference is that they're fed organic feed. Oh, and they have "access to the outdoors," although that requirement can be met by opening a door leading to a small concrete slab for a few hours of the chickens' short lives.
If you really want chicken that tastes better and is "correct politically," buy it from a small operation where the birds are pastured. Otherwise, you're just paying extra for hype.
-
-
re: Veggo
Another thing to consider is that according to waht I read NOT all cured meats still retain significant quantitites of sodium nitrite at the time of consumption (bear in mind though I read this in a side panel in a Zingerman's catelouge so the information may be biased) It goes like this. The old tradtional way of curing the meat was to add Sodium nitrate (2 Oxygens) which isn't carcinogenic. As the meat cured the nitrate would lose one O to become sodium nitrite which did most of the curing (and which is carcinogenic) as the meat aged further the nitrite would lost the other O and become sodium nitride (which also isn't carcinogenic). The problem is as follows, since it it the nitrite that does the workhorse amount of curing, a lot of industrial meat processing systems add the nitrite directly in massive quantites, which speeds up curing time (and therfore speeds up the time between when the meat is made and when it can be sold) the problem is that the increased amount of nitrite has no time to break down so a lot of it enters the consumers unchanged.
Oh and if one's body can naturally turn nitrate into nitrite you may want to avoid eating any celery as well, it is LOADED with sodium nitrate (as are many other fruits and vegetables). If you ever have seen "nitrate free bacon" that is how they do it, they add celery juice to accomplish the job. Under the law it is only artificial sodium nitrate that needs to be cited (though a lot of the Nitrate free products do mention the celery juice), in much the same way that a resturant is allowed to say that thier food is MSG free, even though most meats and vegetables contain measurable quantites of MSG in and of themselves.
-
-
re: alanbarnes
Exactly, know your farmer. I've also read that large organic farmers have to restrict chickens more so they can control what they eat. Many small sustainably run farms can't afford or can't be bothered to get certified organic but their practices are far better than factory organics.
-
re: chowser
Very good point. When farmers let their chickens have space to roam around and eat grass and bugs like chickens are supposed to do, those chickens can't be certified unless every place they might graze qualifies as "organic." That's far too much of a burden for most farmers, so they just keep the birds in the chicken house (and that adjacent concrete slab) to preserve the certification.
-
re: chowser
I wouldn't have a problem purchasing chicken raised this way.
Just because a given farm isn't certified organic doesn't mean that nothing good comes from it. I saw Food Inc., which profiled Joel Salatin and Polyface farm. His farm is considered "beyond organic" and the pigs, cows and chickens there are raised as they should be raised. http://www.polyfacefarms.com/default....
Btw, I eat processed meats, but it has to be from Whole Foods or homemade.
-
-
-
-
That article affirmatively misrepresents the primary study it relies on. The WCRF expert panel never said that "Processed meats are too dangerous for human consumption" or that "[c]onsumers should stop buying and eating all processed meat products for the rest of their lives." Rather, it said that people who want to minimize their risk of cancer should limit red meat consumption to less than 500g a week, and that "very little if any" of it should be processed.
It also recommended that you keep your BMI under 23, exercise for at least half an hour daily, never have more than two alcoholic drinks a day, and avoid sugary drinks, fast food, and dietary supplements.
As for me, well, I don't take dietary supplements. That's a good start, right?
›4 Replies -
-
-
Having taught stats, I always emphasized that correlation is not causation because you'd be surprised the number of people who get that confused. My example: wearing bikinis increases with eating popsicles. Stats in the hands of the uninformed can be scary. That said, even if what they said were true, it's all about moderation. What is that saying about giving up drinking, swearing, things that aren't good for you--you might not live forever, but it'll feel like you have.
›12 Replies -
Do the words "association does not mean causation" ever filter into mainstream consciousness?
That article is nothing but an agenda-driven editorial piece.
Let's repeat some facts:
1. Nitrite is a salt used to preserve meat, fish, and poultry. It is also a chemical substance in the human body, formed through normal physiological processes and the digestion of foods containing nitrite or nitrate.
2. Nitrite has never been shown to cause cancer in humans or animals.
3. When nitrite is acidified in the stomach, it stimulates antimicrobial activity. Just as nitrite protects food and is essential for processed foods, it may also protect the human stomach against other food borne pathogens.
Relax, and go and enjoy that hot dog.
No matter what you eat, or how much of it, you're going to die eventually. No one lives forever.
›13 Replies-
re: ipsedixit
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc” may not roll of the average tongue, but it seems a big part of the problem comes from those who report on reports. In this instance the phrase “increase the risk” is used twice thereby implying causation. Without the ability to readily reference the underlying studies, one doesn’t know what the research showed – thus the author’s implication of causation will generally prevail. Perhaps the problem is compounded by poor critical reading skills and short attention spans.
Since I too accept my mortality, I choose revel in an occasional Pork Roll, Egg, and Cheese on a Hard Roll (a little ‘chup please). On the other hand, there is a certain inherent common sense that leads me to avoid overindulgence in anything processed based simply on the notion that the less man has touched something the safer it is likely to be . . . there's no need to rush things, right?
-
-
-
-
-
re: jfood
Come on J, I used to go to Jahns'. Nope, the old 201. Just because you incorrectly call it Taylor Ham! I would not want to grow up north of Union. New Brunswick is the epicenter of NJ. Go Scarlet Knights!
I've got to go on food runs to Albuquerque now, but less than an hour, better than the Maine to NJ.
-
-
re: Passadumkeg
Everyone knows the best Italian and French breads come from this area......and there's no better vessel to enjoy the following slathered in oil & vinegar....
Genoa
Sopressata
Prosciutto
Coppa
Mortadella
Salame
BresolaThen again, how can we fortget about othe meats..... can I give up a Pastrami sandwich from Katz's......I don't think so.
-
-
-
-
-
re: ipsedixit
"Association does not mean causation", but it would seem unwise to ignore the possibility. The correlation between smoking & lung cancer was observed long before there was proof. The association between being born & eventual death may not prove causation, but I'm not making any bets on immortality.
-
re: Rmis32
No, of course it shouldn't be ignored.
That's not the point.
The problem with the article is that is was stating that an association (or a correlation) does prove causation.
Not only was it making that claim, but it was making that claim in the face of clear evidence that there are no scientific studies that actually show there is a causal link between nitrates and cancer in human beings.
This is very different than your example of smoking and cancer.
Prior to epidemiological studies showing that tobacco can (stress the word "can") cause cancer in human beings, the studies that showed there was a correlation was done when the state of science lacked any evidence of the contrary -- i.e., that there is no causal link between tobacco and cancer in human beings.
Not so with nitrates. While there are studies showing an association or correlation, there are countervailing studies showing no causation between the two. If you have the latter, how in the world can you give any credence to the former?
Demagoguery. Nothing else.
-
re: Rmis32
Well... the degree to which we take correlation v. causation seriously also has to do with plausibility. Take smoking. Smoking plausibly introduces various reactive foreign compounds to one's lungs. Therefore, tobacco smoke can plausibly cause cancer. Nitrites ingested are rather identical to nitrites produced in situ during normal human biology. Therefore it is less plausible that nitrites are dangerous (notice I say less plausible, not impossible). If we spend our lives avoiding all barely plausible risks, we might as well live in a bubble. And indeed, we may expose ourselves to even worse risks by avoiding risks that are highly publicized.
-
-
-
-
If it comes down to eating what is recommended in the article or steamed chicken for the rest of my life to live a few years longer.....or eating different processed meats and enjoying myself in the present.......I' ll opt for the latter.
I'm from Jersey and I'm not giving up Hot Dogs or Taylor Ham
›2 Replies













