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.
It’s been working its way through California courts since the 2015 WHO guidelines said processed meats are carcinogenic. Under Prop 65 that should have triggered immediately labeling processed meats as “Known to the State of California to cause cancer” (like we already have on any charred food, parking garages, etc) but because reasons a decade later I think it is still being adjudicated.
anything preserved in nitrates, or celerey salt should be labeled as carcinogenic.
It’s pointless because California standards are so stringent that literally everything has a prop 65 warning on it.
It’s completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.
It really needs to specify the carcinogens and what they’re used as. There’s a huge difference between “this product uses a 30% lead solder in internal components” and “adhesives used in this product may offgas formaldehyde”
Yeah, that could also provide an incentive for companies to produce stuff in ways that reduce carcinogens, yet still have some amount. I think traditional bacon that doesn’t use synthetic curing salts contain less nitrates, for example.
The classic A to F + S ranking. Nobody wants to come near an S ranked carcinogen.
Lmao a carcinogen tier list would unironically be fantastic because it would help me gauge the relative risk.
I just feel like putting evering into one big bucket is lazy as fuck and doesn’t really help anyone.
Yes!! Thank you for getting it. I have no issues with labeling carcinogens but we really need to distinguish between agents that are harmful at the ppm and the ppb levels.
There’s an entire axis that differs by orders of magnitude that is being ignored and it’s incredibly detrimental to the whole system.
This list sucks because it lacks meaningful information and is just eventually going to be a list of every compound in the known universe.
There’s magnitude and that’s important but the big thing about what, where, how is that it tells me how to protect myself and others from it. If my metal shim is an alloy containing lead, I need to wash my hands after touching it, use breathing protection and air filtration if I grind it, and cover it in the final version of the product. If it’s made in a facility that also processes lead, I can just wash it and it’ll be fine. If it may contain trace lead from ore deposits I don’t have to care. Meanwhile internal components that don’t offgas just means I’m fine if I don’t open it up
Exactly, just slapping a “warning cancer” label on literally everything does absolutely nothing to help me actually protect myself.
That’s not why. It’s because it’s cheaper for a manufacturer of your widget to just slap a Prop 65 label on anything and everything out of an overabundance of caution rather than go through all the testing and certification required to verify if there is or isn’t any such material in the product. There’s no penalty for false positives, so to remain “complaint” suddenly every manufactured good on Earth suddenly sprouted the warning.
I mean that doesn’t really invalidate their point. If you can just slap it on anything you want then it’s not really serving any purpose, it’s not informing anyone.
Correct on that count. The whole thing is now just a boy-who-cried-wolf situation.
I would argue it is an important distinction, though.
The original statement implies that there is a problem in how California classifies what constitutes a risk.
That comment claims that it’s manufacturers being lazy.
If it’s manufacturers being lazy, then the issue is the regulation is too relaxed, allowing them to just bypass the regulation by slapping pointless stickers on things (like websites try to do with cookie banners)
If the actual requirements to not need the sticker are so stringent that everything with the label actually does need it, then there’s a problem with the level of danger listed and the regulation is too onerous.
I heard even talking about Prop 65 is known to the state of California to cause cancer
Agreed I bought a fender telecaster (black cherry starburst, so sexy) and it had a prop 65 sticker on it. Absolutely rediculous and meaningless
Prop 65 treats everything like it’s Happy Fun Ball.