Charcuterie’s link to colon cancer confirmed by French authorities | Hacker News Reader

Charcuterie’s link to colon cancer confirmed by French authorities

theguardian.com

21 pointspseudolus13 comments

> Anses said in its statement that reducing nitrates would result in increased risks of serious illnesses such as botulism, listeria or salmonella. But these dangers could be managed by shorter best-before consumption dates and modified manufacturing processes, it added.

We have an almost ideal solution for this. Irradiation. A heavy dose of gamma rays is completely sterilizing, while having minimal impact on the quality and nutrition of food. Raw meat that has been sealed and irradiated is shelf-stable at room temperature for months, without any added preservatives at all.

It's one of those collective failures that we haven't widely adopted it yet. Irradiation has some niche uses today, but it could probably replace most refrigeration. So many preservatives are unnecessary, too. I think it has something to do with a failure in education, and also consumer familiarity. A raw steak in a bag at room temperature for two weeks is a little off-putting, I suppose. But it's mostly lack of public education about the science involved. As one survey found:

> 46% expressed their belief that irradiated food means the same as radioactive food

Ionizing irradiation is already used a very great deal, at least in the US, to kill insect eggs and larvae in imported produce.

It is not used more than it is, e.g. at high enough intensity to kill microbes, because that damages flavor and texture.

So it is not, in fact, fear of radiation that prevents that use.

Another reason, though, is that everybody knows meat packers would then completely abandon any pretense of sanitation, and all the meat they buy would have shit all over it.

(Technically, the irradiation is mostly done before it crosses the US border.)

Nobody knows what possibly-toxic chemicals that never occur in nature or in cooking are produced by intensely irradiating any particular foodstuff. Of course the mix would be different for every single species irradiated. So, everybody involved just hopes nobody will succeed in proving anything, is careful to ensure somebody else will be blamed if anybody ever does, and tries not to attract attention. The US DA and FDA help with this last.

The word has a branding problem. You don’t want to think about Hiroshima or Chernobyl when you buy food.

We should call it something else. Bring in the marketers!

Irradiated involves radiation. People panic at radiation. It doesn't matter that only neutron radiation induces radioactivity, people are scared anyway.

Tangentially related, I sous vide some pork chops about a month ago, and forgot to take them out of the water bath in time for safe cool down and consumption.

I decided to keep them submerged in water in their original vacuum sealed bags, just to see what would happen.

So far, 1 month later, in about 16c water, they APPEAR the same. No gas buildup expanding the packaging and causing floatation. Just white looking meat in a bag.

Not sure how long this experiment will last, but considering 4 pork chops, I think it's time to take one out and open it up.

I’m curious, there is no right time for safe consumption with sous vide, if the temperature is high enough (>53C), just avoid turning it off with the food still inside. If the temperature is kept constant, remove immediately at any point for serving, or into an ice bath. 72h or even 96h cooks are very common.

At 16C you’re definitely breeding a nasty bacterial soup, it’s probably just having a slow start due to being sterilized initially. The plastic is also slightly porous and stuff will start leaking in & out until the water is dirty.

The Sous Vide Everything channel on YouTube has an experiment cooking a brisket for a month. It works, but you end up with terrible tasting mush.

My apologies, I was referring to immediately putting sous vide items in a 50+% ice bath. I had turned off the Sous Vide and forgot about it. When I came back, the 10 gallon bucket was close to room temperature 24 hours later.

Upon further reading, it appears I could have served it immediately. Maybe. But the warm pasturization won't kill certain bacteria which can then proliferate. Which is why transiting the danger zone of 140f down to 40f very fast is necessary.

"Moreover, while keeping the food sealed in plastic pouches prevents recontamination after cooking, spores of Clostridium botulinum, C. perfringens and B. cereus can all survive the mild heat treatment of pasteurization. Therefore, after rapid chilling, the food must either be frozen or held at

    below 36.5°F (2.5°C) for up to 90 days,
    below 38°F (3.3°C) for less than 31 days,
    below 41°F (5°C) for less than 10 days, or
    below 44.5°F (7°C) for less than 5 days

to prevent spores of non-proteolytic C. botulinum from outgrowing and producing deadly neurotoxin (Gould, 1999; Peck, 1997)." [1]

[1] https://www.cheftalk.com/threads/sous-vide-botulism.63351/

Don't forget that organic and healthy versions of processed meats often simply replace the chemical nitrates with... celery derived nitrates.

Indeed. When it says "no nitrates added" on a package of bacon, the truth is that about the same amount of nitrates were added, but in the form of concentrated celery juice. So the claim is that juice was added, not the nitrates that are highly concentrated in that "juice".

Nitrates are toxic enough that people (sadly) use them as a suicide agent, so this finding isn't surprising. But it is still surprising that something this toxic is so prevalent in food, even in minute quantities, though that's probably mostly due to regulatory capture.

I feel like there aren't nearly enough longitudinal studies on food additives like this, I'd like to think that would prevent more harmful things from being used, but probably not.

While I'm generally in favor and progress of reducing consumption of processed food, I would also take most news coming from non-scientific sources with a grain of salt, especially when it's coming from The Guardian.

I've been reading about nitrates/-ites causing cancer for decades now. What causes the huge amount of time required for some of these studies?

Long followup periods are needed to observe the effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com