this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
331 points (98.0% liked)

World News

50571 readers
5208 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Putting nitrates in the same category as fucking asbestos is literally insane.

It's like putting a Glock and a 10,000kg bomb in the same category, it's utterly disingenuous.

[–] blave@lemmy.world 24 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Not if the category is “causes cancer” — nor, in the case of your Glock and bomb, if the category is “can kill you”

Context matters

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

And fittingly, both of those categories are pretty much a perfectly overlapping venn diagram because they are so overarchingly vague.
Drinking water can kill you, and if it's too hot, it causes cancer.

Therefore "drinking water" is something that can be found it both lists. And so is "not drinking water".

[–] blave@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago

Well, I’m glad somebody noticed 😉

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I never said they weren't in the same category. To act like implying the risks of nitrates are identical to asbestos is insane and just makes people ignore these warnings.

There is a need to differentiate the level of risk because if you don't people are going to think the 10,000kg bomb is the same danger as a Glock when in reality they abso-fucking-lutely not.

It's disingenuous, you're right that context matters because displaying the two as if they're the same strips the risk assessment of its context.

[–] blave@lemmy.world -4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I never said they weren't in the same category

No, the fact that they are in the same category is the entire reason for your comment. Making such a claim is disingenuous… Which, if I recall, is your accusation.

To act like implying the risks of nitrates are identical to asbestos is insane

I agree. Most people here do. That’s why nobody has made such a claim.

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

How can you not see how putting in the same category implies the same level of harm.

I hate these fuckin reddit brained Lemmy users who intentionally misread comments just to argue some adjacent point.

Whatever if you all want pointless warning labels go for it, just know you're not doing anything useful.

[–] blave@lemmy.world -5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

How can you not see how putting in the same category implies the same level of harm.

Because I can read

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Clearly not well, reading comprehension is important

[–] blave@lemmy.world -3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I’m not the one who has misused several words, clearly not understanding their definition.

I’m also not the one making an absurdly obvious strawman argument.

How’s that for context? lol

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

this comment chain sucks

[–] JamieDub86@piefed.social 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

But everyone knows not to and therefore doesn't go near asbestos. Almost anyone who eats meat eats bacon.

literally everything has a prop 65 warning on it

Maybe stop putting things in stuff that mean that they require this warning?

But what do I know...

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Everyone knows bacon isn't good for you, nitrates aside the un*saturated fats are horrendous for you.

If you're eating bacon you're already doing it knowing it's bad for you.

We should save the prop65 warnings for things that actually need it. They're already way oversaturated and have lost all meaning to the vast, vast majority of consumers.

[–] JamieDub86@piefed.social 7 points 5 days ago

Seatbelts have been a legal requirement for longer than I've been alive, and people can see why, but people get pulled over daily for not wearing one.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

the saturated fats are horrendous for you.

Still not as bad as sugar, most essential fatty acids are saturated, while there is no such thing as an essential sugar, because we can make all the sugar we need from other types of food.
Bacon and eggs are not nearly as unhealthy as some have made them out to be, and it turns out sugar is a way more dangerous source for the most damaging form of cholesterol there is.

The reason bacon is bad and cancerous is mostly because it's smoked, and people like to fry it hard. It has very little to do with saturated fat.

[–] xep@discuss.online 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

people like to fry it hard

I've never understood this, it tastes far better nice and soft.

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

I think it is because US bacon is streaked with huge amounts of fat that they render down until it goes crispy. Elsewhere bacon is often more meaty and less fatty and cooking the shit out of it doesn't do anything for it.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Yes it does, but many prefer crispy bacon.

[–] xep@discuss.online 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why are saturated fats bad for you?

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I actually had it backwards, unsaturated fats are horrendously bad.

Their molecular shape makes them more grabby than saturated fats.

This grabbyness makes them clog your arteries faster than saturated fats.

It has to do with the availability of hydrogen binding spots, unsaturated fats have room for more hydrogen bonds, saturated fats don't.

[–] rockman057@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Trans unsaturated fats are perhaps worse, but saturated fats are associated with arterial plaque and heart disease. Poly and mono unsaturated fats are healthier than saturated fats.

[–] unpossum@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The category just means that there is scientific proof of carcinogenicity. The WHO states (somewhere) that it’s not to be taken to mean that bacon is as dangerous as tobacco. Of course, that’s what everyone thinks they mean, so maybe they should work on their messaging

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

That's what I'm saying, putting nitrates next to hardcore carcinogens like asbestos makes the hardcore carcinogens look less harmful than they actually are.

They need to differentiate the levels of harm or else it's just another warning that people will ignore because it's on literally everything.