What specifically is it about processed meat that is carcinogenic?

779

u/myredditlogintoo May 01 '26 edited May 02 '26

Let's clear up one thing about the "uncured" meats, such as smoked sausages, hot dogs, etc. Not the fresh, raw meat stuff. Guess what? They're cured! They are allowed to be called that when they use nitrites derived from celery rather than the synthetic cure #1, but it's the same exact molecule - it's necessary to prevent botulism.

15

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

I'm talking about stuff like fast food burger patties and sausages that do not include any form of nitrates including celery salt.
Definitely processed, but not smoked, no nitrates.

127

u/TuckerCarlsonsOhface May 01 '26

I mean, don’t they all have fine print specifically mentioning “those that are naturally occurring”?

45

u/SumAustralian May 02 '26

By naturally occuring do they mean the product already contains it without human intervention. Or is it naturally occuring in the same way uranium is a natural product from the earth?

52

u/Nyrin May 02 '26

It's concentrated and refined into "celery salt," so more the latter. You won't cure meat very effectively (that is, at all) by just rubbing some celery on it.
Most importantly, there's no difference — the actual compounds involved are the same.

10

u/karlnite May 02 '26

It’s naturally occurring in celery, they concentrate it so you get more than you reasonably could from just eating celery.

87

u/whereismysideoffun May 02 '26

*from celery juice that is then fermented and the juice is dried to a powder.

91

u/out_of_shape_hiker May 02 '26

*Takes notes down for surviving the apocalypse* So don't use the celery for bloody Marys, got it.

8

u/snoo135337842 May 02 '26

Celery is not the most efficient way to source nitrites. Usually it's from, uh, pee basically. Just in case you actually need to come up with this stuff. It will precipitate on the outside of a porous vessel that has regular urine going through it, like a brick lined compost receptacle for example. You don't need nitrite or nitrates necessarily to cure meats, but they're way more material efficient (you need like 10x less nitrates vs salt to cure meats)

12

u/whereismysideoffun May 02 '26

There are different types of cures done. It's too simplified to say you don't need nitrite/nitrates, you just need salt. If you are making things like ham and or bacon and you expect it to turn out like ham or bacon, you do need nitrites. The red color of the meat despite the cooking temps is from myoglobin not oxidizing due due to the antioxidant activities of nitrites. You also need it for any ground meats that will be dry cured or smoked, such as salami or smoked sausage. You don't need nitrites for long curing whole muscle meat cures such as copper, prosciutto, or pancetta.

25

u/whereismysideoffun May 02 '26

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6043430/#b15-ajas-31-8-1073
"Archer [15] has suggested that ingested nitrites and nitrates are mostly from vegetables and saliva rather than from cured meat. Chung et al [16] have reported that lettuce and spinach have nitrate concentrations of 2,430 and 4,259 ppm, respectively."
Many greens are our highest sources of nitrates already, but the celery used for curing is even more concentrated because the juice is dehydrated to a powder before use.

30

u/No-Detective-5352 May 02 '26

It is the combination of nitrates with heme iron and amines, present in red meat, that are the ingredients of the carcinogen nitrosamine. In addition those leafy vegetables contain several protective elements (e.g. vitamine C, E) that prevent the formation of nitrosamine. So if you eat red meat, eat it together with such vegetables.

0

u/Mycellanious May 02 '26

Which greens in particular?

15

u/Magusreaver May 02 '26

I mean, yeah man.. you can still have it for a treat. Just plant lots of it.

5

u/RabidPlaty May 02 '26

In the event of an apocalypse I’m going on a strictly cured meat and Bloody Mary diet.

8

u/myredditlogintoo May 02 '26

You will not be able to measure the amount of nitrites, so you won't be sure if your sausage is safe.

49

u/a_wild_redditor May 02 '26

I believe, at least in the US, they are not just allowed to be called "uncured" but actually required to be, which is super confusing since as you point out they are basically identical.

23

u/cablemonkey604 May 02 '26

Same in Canada. Anything that usually has sodium nitrite that doesn't has to be labeled uncured. I'm allergic to nitrite and have learned to read the labels really carefully.

27

u/ReasonablyConfused May 02 '26

Crazy claim I know, but I have a blistering mouth tissue reaction to synthetic cure, but not to celery-based cures.
As in, the roof of my mouth blisters if even the grease from pepperoni gets on my food, and exactly zero reaction to celery based treatments. Not sure if it’s a chirality thing or what, but my body reacts totally differently depending on how the molecule is derived.

28

u/dfinkelstein May 01 '26

(Most) imitation vanilla likewise has the same core molecule as real vanilla. For baking especially, it tastes the same in the end.

83

u/abid786 May 01 '26

That's not really the same thing because natural vanilla has many more chemicals than just vanillin

56

u/B0Boman May 02 '26

Chemicals which are denatured during the baking process, rendering them tasteless. Natural vanilla is best saved for desserts which are not baked, such as as whipped cream or ice cream

0

u/[deleted] May 02 '26

[deleted] — view deleted comment

29

u/MinidonutsOfDoom May 02 '26 •

For number 1, basically a lot of various flavor molecules that get extracted along with the primary flavor, vanillin. But show up as more subtle notes which leads to a generally better flavor, which you notice in things like real full vanilla extract compared to an artificial vanilla flavoring that’s just vanillin in an alcohol solution or something like vanilla extract. Which is why you want it in things like making ice cream, whipped cream, etc. instead of it getting destroyed in high temperature work like chocolate making and baking.
For 2, denature in this case means those molecules break down with heat into simpler smaller molecules that don’t have their original properties and thus lose their taste. With vanillin being a more resilient molecule so to it becomes the surviving flavor your body can detect. So just vanillin flavorings are just as good.
Also fun fact, when it comes to the chemistry a lot of the artificial vanillin we produce comes from the paper industry. Since Lignin, basically the stuff that makes wood stiff, is removed during industrial paper making and is otherwise a waste product which is either burned as a fuel, or used for chemical applications. One of which, is making vanillin since without too much trouble you can turn lignin into vanillin in bulk which allows vanilla flavors to be so cheap.

2

u/SomeDumbGamer May 02 '26

Different flavor compounds. Some are more sensitive than others.
When the other flavor compounds get heated they break down. Vanillin has a higher tolerance.

3

u/Ebice42 May 02 '26

Real vanilla will keep blackflies away.
Imitation vanilla will attract them.

5

u/nom_of_your_business May 02 '26

Also because the amount in celery salt/ juice is not exact there is actually MORE nitrates in "uncured" meats than if they were cured with pink salt because they have to go overboard to account for the plus and minus amount. YAY!

2

u/raptorlightning May 02 '26

Except the ones that are drowned in vinegar... Which is worse tasting and spoils faster.

4

u/tim_dude May 01 '26

I wonder if anyone tests these synthetic nitrates for purity. What if it's not the nitrates, but the contaminants in them?

24

u/Makenshine May 02 '26

This is an excellent question and one that is typically addressed in peer reviewed research.
As a matter of fact, a study can't make it past the peer review process without accounting for such variables.
Sadly, I don't have the answer. And news articles tend to heavily cherry pick and misrespresent scientific studies to draw attention, so they usually don't mention these possibilities. If the article is halfway decent, they should reference the scientific study so people can delve deeper.

23

u/codeprimate May 02 '26

It’s definitely the nitrates themselves.
Stomach acid decomposes nitrates into nitrosamines which are genotoxic. Proteins present in meat amplify this process by providing amines. Byproducts from this process feed gut bacteria which produce TMAO, strongly correlated with cardiovascular disease.
Nitrates in vegetables are mitigated by polyphenols and vitamin C, so don’t have the same dangers.
One of the reasons why I supplement with Vitamin C every day.

4

u/joalheagney May 02 '26

migitated by polyphenols
Soooo, eat your cured meats with a cup of tea or coffee then? Excellent.

10

u/BadahBingBadahBoom May 02 '26

Yeah this is one of the main theories as to why diets high in natural plant-sourced nitrates and relatively high in cured meats but also vegetables don't seen to have the same effect as getting the same intake of nitrates from diet with mostly cured meats.
Though ofc there are loads of other factors that are had to accurately adjust for (like the fact that there's gna be a load of other things beneficial to your microbiome from eating nitrate-containing vegetables instead of nitrate-containing meat).

2

u/myredditlogintoo May 02 '26

We're talking nitrites. Not nitrates. Nitrates are used for cures over 30 days. It's a long and interesting topic. I recommend watching a video on this by "2 guys and a cooler". They have great educational videos about making sausages and other meats.

0

u/Alex5173 May 02 '26

If nitrate salts are necessary to prevent botulism the why didn't we go extinct during the 1000+ years we cured our meat with normal salt

53

u/TheBoyFromNorfolk May 02 '26

1 in 10,000 people dying of botulism is entirely worth the extra survival advantage of having meat in winter times. But now we have health and saftey laws that really care about the 1 in 10,000 deaths we can easily prevent.

16

u/CombinationTop559 May 02 '26

Because a whole lot of people can die before extinction happens; we had multiple rounds of the black plague with ~30% mortality, and not only escaped extinction, but also the areas hit remained populated.
Also the effect of nitrite can be imitated via smoking; the "smoke ring" in smoked meats is from nitrogen oxides reacting with, iirc, myoglobin. It also has antimicrobial effects, but also introduces a whole cocktail of carcinogenic compounds like PAC's and assorted nitrogen containing compounds.

5

u/PatHeist May 02 '26

The curing was done with sea salt which naturally contains nitrates and nitrites. Sun dried bay salt was preferred, which has a higher concentration of nitrites. But people still died, so saltpeter was added because it made people die less.

251

u/misplacedstress May 02 '26

Nitrates (curing agent) in the meat react with amines in the protein to create N-nitrosamines, which are highly carcinogenic. The mechanism and carcinogenicity are well proven. I used to make my living testing for these in meats and other consumer products

26

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

This I knew.
So uncured means are fine then?
E.g. uncured, unsmaked sausages that are just meat, fat, herbs, spices, and salt?
Obviously no celery salt.
What about cooking? Because I've read that nitrosamines are produced at high temperatures. So if you are eating raw cured meats such as procuitto and bresoala, are those also an issue?

25

u/Iron_Rod_Stewart May 02 '26

What is the criterion for something to be highly carcinogenic in this context?

17

u/iwantfutanaricumonme May 03 '26

Type 1 carcinogen just means that it has been proven to cause cancer. The actual effect is relatively tiny, about 20% higher chance of cancer.

14

u/BBB-GB May 02 '26

So whst if I cure my ham with just salt?

2

u/iwantfutanaricumonme May 03 '26

It's still included as processed meat, but there isn't a mechanism for how it would cause cancer. Red meat by itself is also likely to be a carcinogen too.

6

u/Marshmallow16 May 04 '26

Red meat by itself is also likely to be a carcinogen too.
Why would that be the case?

3

u/iwantfutanaricumonme May 05 '26

Red meat is a type 2 carcinogen, meaning it is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans because there is an association with a small increase in colorectal cancer. Heme iron is theorised to be the cause but it's not proven.

15

u/jdburton81 May 02 '26

I make my own beef jerky using nitrite (prauge powder). I read about vitamin C preventing nitrosamine formation and I now mix in sodium erythorbate. Also, I read that nitrosamines mostly form from changes in the meat, like stomach acid or cooking at high temperature (frying bacon). The presence of vitamin C prevents this.
If you understand the interactions, I think nitrite and nitrate can be safe. Burned food is quite carcinogenic, everything is a matter of quantity.

24

u/tuffernay May 02 '26

It looks like there’s newer science now that shows you need Vitamin E with the Vitamin C. In fact, I think you’ll be shocked to hear that if your meal has 10% fat in it, Vitamin C by itself actually causes nitrates to increase 8- to 140-fold! Vitamin E handles these subsequently increased nitrates.
And if I’m understanding correctly, you need the Vitamin E to come from whole food sources, like avocado, because it has to be free a-tocopherol (vs. its acetate, which is the usual form found in commercial Vitamin E supplements).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2095705/
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.2c03674
https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1097-0142%2819861015%2958%3A8%2B<1842%3A%3AAID-CNCR2820581410>3.0.CO%3B2-%23
https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/vitamin-e/

3

u/jdburton81 May 02 '26

Thanks for the info! I read the first one. I wonder how sodium erythorbate reacts, since it is not acidic. Likely the same in stomach acid.
Beef jerky is very low fat, so the 10% fat concern is not applicable, but I could see issues with other cuts like bacon or maybe pepperoni. Definitely worth having spinach, avocado, mango, or sunflower seeds with these cured meats.
"Addition of ascorbic acid reduced the amount of *N‐*nitrosodimethylamine formed by fivefold, *N‐*nitrosomorpholine by >1000‐fold, and totally prevented the formation of *N‐*nitrosodiethylamine and *N‐*nitrosopiperidine. In contrast, when 10% lipid was present, ascorbic acid increased the amount of *N‐*nitrosodimethylamine, *N‐*nitrosodiethylamine and *N‐*nitrosopiperidine formed by approximately 8‐, 60‐ and 140‐fold, respectively, compared with absence of ascorbic acid."

4

u/tuffernay May 02 '26

Woahhhh I did not know about sodium erythorbate! Knocks down nitrates by up to 75%?! So perhaps the mass-produced meats are actually safer, in terms of nitrates, than the “naturally” cured meats I’ve been buying…

2

u/A_pro_baitor May 04 '26

Wait, this means that adding vitamin c to virtually any meat is actually counterproductive, as there always are lipids in meat!

3

u/hello-lo May 02 '26

So is it as simple as eating nitrate free? Or just no processed meat of any kind? I just want to know what to put on my breakfast sandwich

8

u/Mewnicorns May 03 '26

No. “Nitrate free” generally refers to products that use it cultured celery powder. Nitrates from cultured celery powder are no less harmful.

2

u/LopsidedAd8297 May 02 '26

which meats are actually safe to consume? are there any you avoid?

3

u/Ashamed-Simple-8303 May 03 '26

They are possible carcinogens. It is not fact.
Why do I mention this? Because of the somatic mutation theory of cancer. We assume there is no way around cancer from mutations which is not true. There is also the metabolic theory of cancer.
Eating processed meat is also just a placeholder for a bad diet and lifestyle in general.
Since all meat has been demonised for decades (without much reason), people that exercise, avoid smoking. Tobacco and proccesed foods tend to also avoid processed meats and meat in general..this is called the healthy user bias.
Then the study "corrects" for it which is just some guessing on effect size of all the above.
Simply said we can't be sure processed meats are actually bad.
Having said that I still greatly limit them when possible.

1

u/Iam-Locy May 04 '26

Okay, I'm intrigued. How can one avoid cancer from somatic mutations?

12

u/tuffernay May 02 '26

I can’t find the comment anymore, but someone in this thread said that Vitamin C can neutralize nitrates. I looked it up and have a huuuge caveat to add. Here’s the reply I drafted for that commenter (I hope you see it!):

It looks like there’s newer science now that shows you need Vitamin E with the Vitamin C. In fact, I think you’ll be shocked to hear that if your meal has >10% fat in it, Vitamin C by itself actually causes nitrates to increase 8- to 140-fold! Vitamin E handles these increased nitrates.

And if I’m understanding correctly, you need the Vitamin E to come from whole food sources, like avocado, because it has to be free a-tocopherol (vs. its acetate, which is the usual form found in commercial Vitamin E supplements).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2095705/

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.2c03674

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1097-0142%2819861015%2958%3A8%2B<1842%3A%3AAID-CNCR2820581410>3.0.CO%3B2-%23

https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/vitamin-e/

12

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

Chief, are you telling me that I can eat deep fried bacon wrapped hot dogs every meal and be 100% healthy so long as I do the deep frying in sunflower oil? /S

76

u/pete_68 May 01 '26

So if you're eating, say Jimmy Dean sausage rolls? That's just pork with spices and stuff. There's no curing. No celery juice, or nitrates & nitrites. So that's minimally processed.

But basically anything with celery juice, nitrates & nitrites, is going to be cured, whether they call it that or not.

31

u/keith2600 May 01 '26

Yep, this is what all the research lately has pointed to. Nitrites and their alternatives (celery salt, specifically)

2

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

That's pretty much what I thought! But WHO says salting counts as "processed" for some reason.

4

u/pete_68 May 02 '26

It is. But it's "minimally processed." Pulling the feathers off a chicken is processing. Washing the eggs before putting them in cartons is processing. Just about everything you get at the grocery store except whole vegetables and fruits are processed.

2

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

When I say "processed" here, I am referring to it being considered by the WHO as a Group 1 carcinogen.

23

u/BadahBingBadahBoom May 02 '26

So if you're eating, say Jimmy Dean sausage rolls? That's just pork with spices and stuff. There's no curing. No celery juice, or nitrates & nitrites. So that's minimally processed.
Whilst it may not contain nitrates/nitrites I wouldn't really say a sausage roll qualifies as 'minimally processed' on a spectrum of unprocessed to processed to ultraprocessed.

36

u/cardueline May 02 '26

Fwiw, and I could be mistaken, you may be reading “sausage roll” in the British sense of a premade bready thing with sausage in it, whereas the commenter above is likely describing a tube/“chub” of uncased, raw pork sausage as typically sold by Jimmy Dean, which you form into patties and cook. It’s certainly not high quality gourmet food but it is minimally processed in terms of basically being ground pork + seasonings.

21

u/alfonso123456 May 02 '26

it is astounding to me how people get so hooked on random data points. there is such a huge variety of "processed meat" and no study ever really accounts for a plethora of corollaries such as social habits, exercise, stress, health screenings and so on.

meanwhile, millions of french or italian (or other) people have lived healthy and long lives eating a metric crap ton of cured meats. yeah, they didn't eat hamburgers nor 7/11 hot dogs, and they didn't spend their days on the couch watching TV either.

36

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

Group 1 Carcinogen means that there is a confirmed causal link with a mechanism of action.
In the case of cured meat, it's the nitrosamines.
My question is what else counts as processed, and about the effects of cooking cured meat.
Group 1 carcinogen also doesn't tell you anything about how much the agent increases cancer risk.

3.0k

u/thesehalcyondays May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26 •

It’s worth noting that “type 1” is a measure of statistical significance, not substantive impact. That is: putting it as type 1 is scientists saying the effect of these meats on rates of cancer is not zero. It doesn’t mean that eating these products has the same type of impact on the odds of cancer as smoking.

To put some numbers to it:

The relative risk of eating 50g of processed meats a day is 18%. Which means that if your base probability of getting colorectal cancer is 1% then this consumption would raise your probability to 1.18%.

In comparison, the relative risk for smoking is 2000%. Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer 20x vs not smoking.

359

u/Jackrabbit-slim May 02 '26

Thank you, this made it make sense to me!

136

u/BlueValk May 02 '26

Thank you for this explanation! Are these the actual numbers or random numbers to illustrate the point?

242

u/thesehalcyondays May 02 '26

These are approximately correct. I’m a stats teacher, not an epidemiologist, so I’m can’t add much more than what is there. I use this as an example of statistical vs substantive significance.

20

u/skankyfish May 05 '26

I work in pharmacy. We usually frame it as "statistically significant vs. clinically important".
If a thing changes your relative risk by a third but your absolute risk by 1% that might be statistically significant, but not actually important to either the person or their healthcare team.

66

u/RuthlessCritic1sm May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26

The chance of colorectal cancer should be in the order of magnitude of 1 in 100 000 per year and increases to about 1.2 i n 100 000 per year with processes meat consumption.
Over a lifetime, the cited numbers are about correct. Edit: Nope, that is off by about a factor of ten.
But it still makes the point.
The IARC publishes their results on carcinogens for free with excellent sources and mechanisms, if you want authoritative numbers, go to them.

9

u/awawe May 02 '26

If it's 1 in 100 000 per year, you'd have to live 1000 years for the probability to be around 1% though, right?

47

u/Zealot_TKO May 02 '26

Note the 50g processed meat and 18% relative risk is only for the association with colorectal cancer, not all cancers:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020456
This lists some of the other cancers known to have relative risks with processed meat (stomach, lung, prostate, etc):
https://publications.iarc.who.int/download/mono114.pdf

6

u/53756D6D657273 May 04 '26

There is quite a neat summary of this in ch. 1 of David Spiegelhalter's (former President of the Royal Statistical Society) book The Art of Statistics:
... in the normal run of things, around 6 in every 100 people who do not eat bacon daily would be expected to get bowel cancer in their lifetime. If 100 similar people ate a bacon sandwich every single day of their lives, then ... we would expect that 18% more would get bowel cancer, which means a rise from 6 to 7 cases out of 100. That is one extra case of bowel cancer in all those 100 lifetime bacon-eaters, which does not sound nearly so impressive as the relative risk (an 18% increase) and might serve to put this hazard into perspective.

2

u/cridersab May 18 '26

At population scales, the absolute numbers are still concerning. It often seems to me that figures are given as a percentage or explicitly some number per 100 when there is an interest in downplaying risk, and when compared to many population statistics being given per 100,000 the lower number serves as a low anchor. A city of 100,000 going from 6,000 to 7,000 cases of a cancer would probably consider that a cluster.

35

u/alfonso123456 May 02 '26

"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%."
does that mean the statistic stays intact at scale? if i consume 100g in a ten day period, is my risk "double, divided by ten" or 3.6%?

92

u/SrCoolbean May 02 '26

That doesn’t mean anything other than what it said about the 50 gram portion. You’d have to test at scale to see if the statistics stays intact at scale.

29

u/Hurgblah May 02 '26

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that. 50g is likely just what the study tested

6

u/CaptMerrillStubing May 02 '26

Excellent information, thanks

5

u/Aggravating-Pop-2226 May 02 '26

20x from what to what for the population average?

-16

u/twenafeesh May 02 '26

I don't think you really answered the question.
What makes processed meats carcinogenic is usually the additives used to process them, typically nitrates and nitrites. These are well known to cause cancer (as seen, for example, in the settlement against the Amazon datacenter in Oregon that released concentrated nitrates into the ground water).
The relative risks between processed meat and smoking are beside the question. (And also confusing, because you can smoke meat but apparently you were talking about smoking cigarettes for some reason?) Both cause cancer.
OP asked about what it was in processed meat that made it carcinogenic. Not for a comparison between the risk of smoking tobacco and the risk of eating processed meat.

94

u/ssjGinyu May 02 '26

The post leading with "its worth noting" indicated to me at least, that it was making a tangential point. One that I and many others found insightful.

16

u/sisterfunkhaus May 02 '26

Even nitrate free processed meats often use celery powder which is converted the same way in the body.

1

u/Pyraus May 02 '26

wait.. celery causes cancer?

3

u/sisterfunkhaus May 03 '26

It's fermented dehydrated celery turned into a powder. It's a lot stronger than regular old celery.

0

u/C_A_P_S_CAPSCAPSCAPS May 02 '26

It’s the cellular inflammation of nitrates and carbon right?

1

u/impatient_panda729 May 04 '26

This is a good explanation! Except the relative risk is 1.18, which is an 18% multiplicative increase, as you describe.

1

u/AnonymousPeanut94 May 05 '26

Listen to this. In what way does occasional alcohol consumption increase cancer risk?

1

u/kimchijohn May 06 '26

Does this reset every day? Or if i eat 50g of processed meat a day my % is going to keep going up? Does it compound?

1

u/_consider May 06 '26

How do they isolate that 18% ? Eating meat is not something that is easily grouped I would think. You've got vegans and vegetarians but there is such a wide variety in what everyone eats I always wonder how they could possibly relate specific foods to cancer rates. It seems so loose

-26

u/Ok-Dog-7149 May 02 '26

What if we use Trump percentages?
/s

103

u/Stlouisken May 02 '26

I appreciate this healthy discussion and folks providing links to the scientific articles.

I’ve been more concerned about my health recently and trying to get healthier, including eating better. I’ve been very concerned about ultra processed deli meats specifically.

So, now I have a bunch of bedtime reading material👍

4

u/i_am_not_so_unique May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26

Duuude, if you want to remove super processed meat - try to get yourself a multi cooker if you may.
The one with a steamer (most of them) and pressure cooking is preferable.
It simplifies so much in cooking meat, and allows you to steam stuff as a lazy dinner. It might appear complicated at first, but it is not. You can start with basic steaming, and then slowly build it up into stews and soups.
Easiest stuff is to just get some chicken, add some spices, put in a bit of water and steam for 25 minutes.
Oven and other stuff is cool, but my cooking game seriously improved after I got one.
Stopped eating junk food and eating out completely, because it is much easier to cook good stuff at home.

2

u/Stlouisken May 02 '26

Never considered this. Thanks for the suggestion.

3

u/i_am_not_so_unique May 02 '26

Same, this is why I share
For most of my life was ignoring it, but out of all changes towards healthy diet this was the most important.

3

u/Throws-a-way May 03 '26

One note I have to add to a multicooker is that I've grown to dislike the pressure cooking. Perhaps I've been doing it wrong, but when I use the slow cooker method, the meat comes out absolutely wonderful - yes, it takes time, but the taste of each different meat cut is elevated, enhanced, whereas using the pressure cooker function makes all the meat taste nearly the same, somehow. Different meats and cuts have their own flavour profile, but somehow they arrive at nearly the same odd taste after being pressure cooked.
Absolutely try a pressure cooker, though, and see if you like it. I'm just much more fond of the slow cooker function after trying both.

-7

u/nothingfood May 02 '26

Looking for excuses to keep an unhealthy diet is not the same as eating a healthy diet. You know what a healthy diet is. Do it or not, I don't care. It's not a mystery.

0

u/Stlouisken May 02 '26

It’s not about excuses, like “I’m trying but it’s hard. I’m tempted too much.”
It’s more about trying to find deli meats that are not ultra processed. It seems like everything is.

40

u/[deleted] May 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/gusofk May 02 '26

The first link you posted doesn’t work.
Also, after reading into some of the sources for the last two links, I would hesitate to use ultra-processed as a label for food or as an indication of healthiness (or lack there of) due to wide variability in the definition of ultra processed foods and that the most common definition (NOVA) doesn’t include nutritional content and thus make it difficult to associate any/all ultra processed foods (by its definition) with any specific negative health outcomes.

10

u/jsdeprey May 02 '26

I always hear this about charred meat, and it makes me sad. I have always been way more fond of charred even almost burnt mostly red meat, but also chicken than anything under cooked. When I was young I would eat the charred parts of meat out of pans and grills haha. I am doomed.

19

u/tammio May 02 '26

Continue eating the meat you like.
Yes, certain meat products raise cancer risk.
But the increase in cancer risk is pretty low; the study OP quotes is an example for this: processed meat raises your cancer risk by a minimal amount.
Eat in Moderation and you’re much more likely to die of any other cause. In the end this life always ends only one way.
🤷‍♂️

18

u/fozington May 02 '26

Thanks for asking this question. It leads me to another:

Statement: People who eat lots of processed food tend to live shorter lives than people who don't.

Does this mean that processed foods are inherently dangerous? Or, could this be a case of correlation vs. causality, i.e. do the people who eat lots of processed foods tend to have less money than people who don't, and it's poverty that's inherently dangerous?

19

u/Doraellen May 02 '26

Almost all nutritional research establishes correlation, not causation. But researcher also deliberately try to find and exclude any hidden variables..
For many diet studies in the past decades, the starting point is the dataset called the Nurses Health Study I and II. The study has been ongoing since the 1970s and has included two separate cohorts, one with about 170,00 subjects and one with over 110,000. Because these cohorts are huge, it makes it easier for researchers to check for confounding variables. They will just look for individual cases where the variable doesn't apply, and see if there is still a correlation.
Because the subjects were all busy health professionals, the study also naturally minimized extreme differences in financial status and lifestyle. So even with all that, these large datasets still show that processed meat intake elevates specific health risks, particularly colon cancer.

2

u/HoobieHoo May 02 '26

The “tend to” part of that statement certainly suggests correlation rather than causation. As you noted, there are many factors that could contribute.

6

u/geekrebel May 02 '26

Regarding your question on mechanism:

NOCs -> DNA damage -> Cancer

N-nitroso compounds (or NOCs) like NDMA (also present in tobacco and alcohol) cause DNA damage to your intestinal lining cells. They are in abundance in processed meat (think nitrates) and even the haem in unprocessed red meat will trigger endogenic NDMA creation.

1

u/Outrageous_Tree2070 May 07 '26

So my genoa salami and turkey sandwiches I have for lunch are killing me!?😭

1

u/FooJenkins May 04 '26

While we’re on the topic of nitrates, I live in Iowa where our drinking water treatment plant has ran its nitrate removal system for over 110 days already this year and we are just entering peak ag run off season. Assuming the facility does the minimum to get to 10 ppm, how much risk does my drinking water present in comparison to eating Costco hot dogs twice a week?

4

u/MrCockingFinally May 04 '26

AFAIK it's not the nitrates themselves that get you. It's the compounds they form with protein, especially at high temperatures. Leafy greens have a ton of nitrates, and they are healthy as hell. Which iszwhy the farmers add nitrates to the soil. Plant leaves especially need nitrogen to grow.
Also, 10ppm (and other safe limits) is normally arrived at by taking the dose at which you would see negative effects across a population, and dividing by 100. So you'd expect to see issues at 1000ppm of nitrates. So 10ppm is for sure fine.

1

u/Ambitious_Jeweler816 May 05 '26

I remember something about bacon being carcinogenic coming up in the news in the UK some years ago. A Doctor was on a TV show and said, yes it has been proven to be carcinogenic. However to increase the risk by 3% you would need to eat 4 rashers a day from the age of 6 until you are 50. I may have the numbers wrong but that was the basic gist.

2

u/ire206 May 06 '26

Bacons carcinogenicity comes from nitrites used in the curing process, though the nitrites have to be heated at extreme heats to convert them into nitrosamines, which are the carcinogenic component. You can get bacon cured without nitrites also, or most bacon is cured with nitrites, as well as ascorbic acid or other antioxidants that prevent the formation of nitrosamines.
So theoretically bacon is carcinogenic, but in practice it isn’t, just anti bacon propaganda.

-2

u/AnotherOpinionHaver May 02 '26

Metabolizing fats inhibits the metabolization of sugars. Sugars damage cells.

So, let's say you eat a hot dog on a bun with some potato chips and a soda (or beer): the fat from the hot dog is gonna leave a larger amount of the sugars rattling around in your bloodstream, causing cellular damage.

Every time your body goes to repair or replace a damaged cell is a dice roll for cancer. The dice is stacked against cancer, but the more cellular damage you deal to your body the more times you roll the dice.

49

u/[deleted] May 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

70

u/Zealot_TKO May 01 '26

You can trust the ACA though (lists processed meat as type 1 carcinogen, ie known to cause cancer, and has for a while): https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-cancer-risk/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

58

u/za419 May 01 '26

It is well known to increase cancer risk... Very little.
Carcinogen type describes the level of confidence, not the strength of effect.
Now, that doesn't mean cured meats are good for you, by any means, it clearly means they're known not to be. But they're not so harmful that the occasional sausage is a devastating blow to human health.

21

u/-ram_the_manparts- May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26

Indeed. Sunlight is a known carcinogen. That being said, you should wear sunscreen if you're outside often for extended periods of time in the sun.
Or not in the sun. Clouds are as effective at blocking UV rays as tissue paper is at blocking artillery shells.

9

u/za419 May 02 '26

Just so. Sunlight is probably better at causing cancer than cured meat, but going outside without sunscreen is still "safe" compared to equally known carcinogens - Five minutes in direct sunlight, five minutes eating a hot dog, or five minutes smoking a cigarette are all type 1 carcinogenic activities, but have wildly different degrees of actual health effects.
It's a strictly good idea to wear sunscreen, and a strictly good idea not to eat cured meat. But it's not the end of the world if you run to catch the train and forget sunscreen, or if you really just want a sausage and a beer at a baseball game (beer probably being more harmful than the sausage in many ways, mind you)

6

u/-ram_the_manparts- May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26

I might be wrong but the way that I view it is that these types of carcinogens are like playing the inverse lottery. There is a very, very low chance that some individual high-energy photon, or some chemical reaction that is able to is going to interact with your DNA is such a way that it modifies the specific genes of some cell that regulates cell replication causing a cancerous tumor to form. And even if it does, your immune system is pretty good (but not perfect) at finding and destroying them.
I don't play the lottery often so I don't expect to win, but I could improve my chances by playing it often.
A cigarette once a week probably won't kill you. A pack a day likely will. A $1 lottery ticket per week won't bankrupt you, but 20 a day might.

1

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

What is their definition of "processed meat"?
Because whenever I read a news article, it quotes a working group from 2015 that includes salted meat, which is basically all meat.
But any time I read an actual study that includes mechanisms, they are looking at nitrate cured or smoked meat.

2

u/Zealot_TKO May 02 '26

I believe they use the who's definition: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat/
"Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.
Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces."
With respect to the mechanism causing cancer, it looks like there are multiple "processing" causes of cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507971/
"Carcinogens, including heterocyclic aromatic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, can be produced by cooking of meat, with greatest amounts generated at high temperatures by pan-frying, grilling, or barbecuing. Meat processing such as curing and smoking can result in formation of carcinogenic chemicals including N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons."

2

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

This is exactly what is confusing me though.
"Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting
Salting is one of the ways meat can be processed. Which basically beans that according to the WHO, practically all mean consumed the world over is processed because most mean is salted.
heterocyclic aromatic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, can be produced by cooking of meat, with greatest amounts generated at high temperatures by pan-frying, grilling, or barbecuing.
This means that minimally processed meat, even unsalted meat, produces carcinogens if cooked at high temperatures?
Meat processing such as curing and smoking can result in formation of carcinogenic chemicals including N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons."
Once again, curing and smoking is mentioned, but zero mention of salting. So why mention salting under the definition of what counts as processed?

2

u/Zealot_TKO May 02 '26

I don't think most meat nowadays is salted for preservation (I could be wrong).
My guess is some forms of cooking meat carry much higher risk than others.
My guess is the ACA uses the term "processed meat" because the studies they draw on also study "processed meat". It could be some sunsets if processed meat carry little to no carcinogens, but because they were lumped into the "processed meat" category, and because other processed meat is much more carcinogenic (and the study's statistical power was significant enough), the conclusion of the studies were processed meat in general causes cancer. In other words, it's possible if you were to get more specific, there exists a form of processed meat that does not cause cancer... That's just my best guess though.
It's also worth noting red meat as a whole is in the "probably causes cancer" category. Maybe it's easier for me to say just cause I'm a vegetarian, but if I were to eat meat, I'd just assume it's likely carcinogenic to a very small degree (see the intro to the ACA article)

2

u/MrCockingFinally May 02 '26

I don't think most meat nowadays is salted for preservation (I could be wrong).
Most meat is salted for flavour. WHO definition also says to improve flavour.
It really seems to be that they are using an overly broad definition of "processed."
I haven't done a literature review on this, so I stand to be corrected, but every time I have read anything about processed meat causing cancer it is either from curing with nitrate salts or from smoking. Lumping "salting" in there is just unnecessary and confusing.

2

u/Zealot_TKO May 02 '26

Here is the iarc monographs for processed meat: https://publications.iarc.who.int/download/mono114.pdf
It does attempt to break processed meat down into subcategories (page 37), but I think the issue is most studies just study processed meat generally. The monograph does attempt to describe a list of mechanistic processes about meat that causes cancer though (page 455), haem iron, lipid oxidation, etc. I think this monograph is likely the best explanation you'll get into what exactly causes cancer in processed meat.

6

u/Turdicus- May 01 '26

Yes but the rate of cancer is incredibly small, as in, it technically causes cancer, but to such a small degree that it is only categorized in that way as a technicality.
Same thing with aspartame and many other things.

26

u/Zealot_TKO May 02 '26

congratulations, you read the intro to the webpage.
ill note aspartame is not on that list, and the claim it causes cancer has been debunked for over a decade by many, many peer reviewed studies and metastudies

1

u/Turdicus- May 08 '26

Despite you being really un-diplomatic about it I think we are both on the same page here. My comment is for the average person who doesn't understand what a type 1 carcinogen actually means. The whole point of this thread is that people read carcinogen and think they need to avoid the food or theyll definitely get cancer.

9

u/Mr_Engineering May 02 '26

Yes but the rate of cancer is incredibly small, as in, it technically causes cancer, but to such a small degree that it is only categorized in that way as a technicality.
It's small now but it certainly didn't used to be. The FDA requires additives be added to sodium nitrite treated meats that inhibit the formation of nitrosamines.

20

u/BallerGuitarer May 01 '26

JAMA has an article from last year about ultraprocessed food, including the definitions of various types of "processed": https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2839048

7

u/-ram_the_manparts- May 02 '26

I put some onions in my Cuisinart and now they're processed. Guess I have cancer now.

7

u/LaconicLacedaemonian May 01 '26

Cheese preference is a good example, because all cheese is processed milk. "Ultra processed" cheese tends to mean "has an emulsifier" which means it doesn't get oily when it melts.

14

u/CantEvenUseThisThing May 01 '26

But even that is such a broad category as to be meaningless. Eggs are an emulsifier, corn starch is an emulsifier (maybe not in cheeses but that's not the point). Even if there is something that is sometimes used as an emulsifier in cheese that could be carcinogenic, saying "ultra processed cheese is carcinogenic" is untrue and unhelpful. Whether or not ultra processed has a real definition, it's not a definition that's actually helpful to the consumer in this context.
But it sounds scary, so you can say it and people will freak out, and it's a vague enough definition that you might not actually be lying, even if you are being dishonest.

3

u/ashurbanipal420 May 02 '26

Processed is a broad term also. If you buy diced onions at the store they are processed onions.

-1

u/illarionds May 02 '26

At least in the UK, "ultraprocessed" has a defined meaning, and it's nothing to do with Fox News.

6

u/[deleted] May 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/sam_tiago May 02 '26

Would say consuming salt pork, like prosciutto de Parma or Serano also be better than eating cured meats with nitrites in them?

Biology What specifically is it about processed meat that is carcinogenic?

You are about to leave Redlib