Processed Meats?
Discussion
After reading 'all' the news reports on 'processed meats' yesterday and this morning, I'm still confused with the term.
I think we all know salted or smoked meats should be considered as 'processed meats' (of coz, any meats contain preservatives). In a few reports they even said that minced meat without any further added process should not be considered as 'processed meat'. Then, how about burgers? Does it mean if the burgers don't have any salt in them should be considered as fresh meat. If they have salt added in them, then they should be considered as 'processed meat'?
It gets stranger still. WHO considers all meats have been modified to either extend its shelf life or change the taste should be considered as 'processed meats'. Isn't cooking mostly about changing the taste of the original ingredients (even if just slightly). Otherwise, should we just simply boil or steam everything without adding anything from now on?
In some reports, people argue that if the meat is cooked 'freshly', then it should not be considered as 'processed meat', even though salt might be added to change the taste during cooking.
Then, how about if I marinate a piece of meat (with let's say salt, pepper, wine and other spices) the day before I actually cook it, will that 'fresh' piece of meat be considered as 'processed meat'? Coz, its taste is changed. And I'm not going to cook it straight after I put all the flavours into the meat.
So, it comes to the confusion bit of the whole 'how to classify processed meat'. We know for certain preservatives are big no no for anything. But, beside preservatives, can someone tell me exactly how many hours or minutes in advance can we put salt or other taste changing spices into the meat before that piece of meat being considered as 'processed meat'? This is the part no news articles or WHO has covered.
PS. Don't want to create an argument of meats vs veggies here. Just want to figure out something 'important', but been left out by the everyone so far...
I think we all know salted or smoked meats should be considered as 'processed meats' (of coz, any meats contain preservatives). In a few reports they even said that minced meat without any further added process should not be considered as 'processed meat'. Then, how about burgers? Does it mean if the burgers don't have any salt in them should be considered as fresh meat. If they have salt added in them, then they should be considered as 'processed meat'?
It gets stranger still. WHO considers all meats have been modified to either extend its shelf life or change the taste should be considered as 'processed meats'. Isn't cooking mostly about changing the taste of the original ingredients (even if just slightly). Otherwise, should we just simply boil or steam everything without adding anything from now on?
In some reports, people argue that if the meat is cooked 'freshly', then it should not be considered as 'processed meat', even though salt might be added to change the taste during cooking.
Then, how about if I marinate a piece of meat (with let's say salt, pepper, wine and other spices) the day before I actually cook it, will that 'fresh' piece of meat be considered as 'processed meat'? Coz, its taste is changed. And I'm not going to cook it straight after I put all the flavours into the meat.
So, it comes to the confusion bit of the whole 'how to classify processed meat'. We know for certain preservatives are big no no for anything. But, beside preservatives, can someone tell me exactly how many hours or minutes in advance can we put salt or other taste changing spices into the meat before that piece of meat being considered as 'processed meat'? This is the part no news articles or WHO has covered.
PS. Don't want to create an argument of meats vs veggies here. Just want to figure out something 'important', but been left out by the everyone so far...
I suggest we ignore it all, and eat what we like, in moderation. Enjoy life and worry less, that's what will keep you healthy and happy.
The media love these kind of stories where they can say stuff like "it causes a 20% increase in your chances of getting cancer". These headlines are SO misleading... 20% sounds like a massive difference. But consider this.
If your chances of getting cancer before eating bacon were 1 in a 1000, then eating bacon makes them 1.2 in 1000.
In other words... still highly unlikely!
Another thing about cancer - I feel that if you are going to get it, then you are going to get it. There are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 95+, and others who have never smoked who have died of lung cancer (Roy Castle for one). These carcinogens may well just be a trigger, rather than a cause.
And even if bacon definitely did cause cancer... I'd rather live 70 years with bacon than 90 years without bacon.
The media love these kind of stories where they can say stuff like "it causes a 20% increase in your chances of getting cancer". These headlines are SO misleading... 20% sounds like a massive difference. But consider this.
If your chances of getting cancer before eating bacon were 1 in a 1000, then eating bacon makes them 1.2 in 1000.
In other words... still highly unlikely!
Another thing about cancer - I feel that if you are going to get it, then you are going to get it. There are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 95+, and others who have never smoked who have died of lung cancer (Roy Castle for one). These carcinogens may well just be a trigger, rather than a cause.
And even if bacon definitely did cause cancer... I'd rather live 70 years with bacon than 90 years without bacon.
The sun is still up there throwing cancer at us all along with all the other stuff that has been blamed over the years - make considered choices, enjoy everything in moderation and try to lead a healthy lifestyle with a balanced diet. Having said this you'll still die.
I always thought it was the sodium nitrite that created the risks rather than the meat processing itself, nitrate converts to nitrite, this binds to protein and then some of the nitrite-protein combo converts into nitrosamine which is a bit carcinogenic / horrible.
Vitamin C is said to stop the conversion process happening so cover your hot dogs in ketchup, eat jerky with glass of fresh orange and so on... it's just a science project where your life is the focus.
I eat a terrible diet, worst poster-boy for this stuff ever despite an interest in reading all about it.
calibrax said:
I suggest we ignore it all, and eat what we like, in moderation. Enjoy life and worry less, that's what will keep you healthy and happy.
The media love these kind of stories where they can say stuff like "it causes a 20% increase in your chances of getting cancer". These headlines are SO misleading... 20% sounds like a massive difference. But consider this.
If your chances of getting cancer before eating bacon were 1 in a 1000, then eating bacon makes them 1.2 in 1000.
In other words... still highly unlikely!
Another thing about cancer - I feel that if you are going to get it, then you are going to get it. There are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 95+, and others who have never smoked who have died of lung cancer (Roy Castle for one). These carcinogens may well just be a trigger, rather than a cause.
And even if bacon definitely did cause cancer... I'd rather live 70 years with bacon than 90 years without bacon.
A couple of counter points....The media love these kind of stories where they can say stuff like "it causes a 20% increase in your chances of getting cancer". These headlines are SO misleading... 20% sounds like a massive difference. But consider this.
If your chances of getting cancer before eating bacon were 1 in a 1000, then eating bacon makes them 1.2 in 1000.
In other words... still highly unlikely!
Another thing about cancer - I feel that if you are going to get it, then you are going to get it. There are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 95+, and others who have never smoked who have died of lung cancer (Roy Castle for one). These carcinogens may well just be a trigger, rather than a cause.
And even if bacon definitely did cause cancer... I'd rather live 70 years with bacon than 90 years without bacon.
The chances of getting cancer are not 1 in a 1000 though (that is miles off) meaning the 20% is much much more significant.
Roy Castle spent years playing the trumpet in smokey clubs - an instrument which requires very deep inhaling to maximise lung potential. In essence, he worked in a smoky environment breathing in as hard as he could. That's possibly why he got lung cancer.
RobbieTheTruth said:
A couple of counter points....
The chances of getting cancer are not 1 in a 1000 though (that is miles off) meaning the 20% is much much more significant.
Good point. I didn't check the actual odds, I used 1 in 1000 just as an example. But the media do love to use numbers to present a false sense of fear.The chances of getting cancer are not 1 in a 1000 though (that is miles off) meaning the 20% is much much more significant.
RobbieTheTruth said:
Roy Castle spent years playing the trumpet in smokey clubs - an instrument which requires very deep inhaling to maximise lung potential. In essence, he worked in a smoky environment breathing in as hard as he could. That's possibly why he got lung cancer.
True, that might be the case. My point is that he must have already had a genetic predisposition towards it, as most heavy smokers will take in significantly more smoke than he did, yet they don't all get lung cancer.If you believe everything you read on the subject we would all be pretty misserable and probably deficient in a few vital vitamins! You may live a few years longer but misserable years I will take my chances, Chicken and Chorizo in the slow cooker with a glass of red tonight wish me luck.
Gassing Station | Food, Drink & Restaurants | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff