Many media are saying that processed meats such as ham and bacon are classified as first-class carcinogens, and the risks and hazards are the same as cigarettes and arsenic.
Many people are asking, can you still eat sausage bacon after this?
My answer is:
It doesn't matter if ham bacon is listed as a Class I carcinogen. It is also okay to eat a small amount, but it is not recommended to eat more fiercely.
We know that processed meat is a carcinogen, so why can we continue to import it without immediate prohibition?
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > carcinogen grade ≠ carcinogenic intensity</h1>
The so-called "carcinogenic" is not "eating it or touching it, you will definitely get cancer", but "the possibility of getting cancer will increase".
At present, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) under WHO divides the carcinogenicity of substances into five levels, in order: carcinogenic, more likely to cause cancer, probable carcinogenic, uncertain carcinogenicity and probable non-carcinogenic.
The international classification of carcinogens measures the evidence of the relationship between the substance and cancer, rather than the strength of carcinogenicity.
As long as there is evidence of inevitable carcinogenicity, regardless of toxicity, it can be listed as a "class of carcinogens".
Therefore, in the first-level carcinogens, there are cigarettes, arsenic and other fierce roles, there are also processed meat products, aflatoxin, benzopyrene (barbecue, fried food), betel nut, coal tar, X-rays, dioxins (asphalt), alcohol, salted fish, ultraviolet rays, indoor coal, rubber industry and wood chips, etc. "five slags", the reason why we still treat these carcinogens as daily necessities is because their toxicity is "not strong"
Everyone knows a saying: to talk about toxicity aside from the dose is to play hooliganism. Accidentally eating a few moldy peanuts and rice, and picking up a skewer every week will not immediately get cancer.
Therefore, we do not have to demonize first-class carcinogens, and we can have scientific and rational cognition.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > how much processed meat is more appropriate to eat per day? </h1>
The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) has been recommending for years that no more than 50 grams of processed meat per person per day should be consumed, otherwise people's risk of bowel cancer will increase by 20%.
Processed meat products here usually refer to ham sausages, bacon, sausages, etc. that we have treated by smoking, marinating, adding chemicals, etc.
For example, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) believes that the more processed meat is eaten, the more risk increases.
For example, eating 1.7 ounces (about 50 grams) of bacon a day increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 20%, but if you eat 3.5 ounces (about 100 grams or so) per week, the risk of colorectal cancer increases by about 36%. The reason why there is such a high carcinogenicity rate is because processed meats often contain carcinogenic components such as nitrites, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heme iron and saturated fats.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > the carcinogenicity of processed meat, is it really so frightening? </h1>
Many people see that eating more meat cancer risk increases by 20% and 36%, and it is difficult not to worry. In fact, don't worry too much. The risk here increases by 20%, rather than having a 20% risk of colorectal cancer. Instead, it increases by 20% on top of the original carcinogenicity.
For example, if you don't eat ham and bacon at all, your cancer risk may be 1%, and after eating it, your risk increases to 1.20%.
Similarly, a 36% increase doesn't mean you have a 36% chance of getting cancer if you eat ham or bacon. Instead, it's 1.36%.
In the American Institute of Cancer Research's report, its director Kurt Straif also said that for individuals, the risk of colorectal cancer from eating processed meat products is still very small.
However, in view of the increase in global meat consumption, from the perspective of public health, this macro risk is worth noting, and more people need to establish awareness of cancer prevention and anti-cancer.