Brexit gives you cancer!!

By Pete North - February 17, 2021

“UK-US Brexit trade deal ‘could fill supermarkets with cancer-risk bacon’” the Observer reports. British stores could be flooded with “dangerous” bacon and ham from the US, marketed under misleading labels, as the result of a transatlantic trade deal, says Guillaume Coudray, the author of a new book based on a decade of investigation into the food industry.

There’s no actual reason for this story to appear since there is no immediate US trade deal in the offing. It’s just that Coudray has a new book to flog and he has a first class publicist. Not only does his book feature in The Observer, there is also a piece in the Daily Mail carrying the headline “EU’s food regulations are to blame for THOUSANDS of avoidable cancer deaths, bombshell book claims”. The story itself relates to Nitrates. On this there is an unusually useful piece on the BBC.

Nitrates and nitrites, such as potassium nitrate and sodium nitrite, are naturally occurring chemical compounds which contain nitrogen and oxygen. In nitrates the nitrogen is bonded with three oxygen atoms, while in nitrites the nitrogen is bonded with two oxygen atoms. Both are legal preservatives which suppress harmful bacteria in bacon, ham, salami and some cheeses. (Read more about how cured meats protect us from food poisoning).

From all the furore around processed meat, you may imagine it is the major source of nitrates in our diet. But in fact only around 5% of nitrates in the average European diet come from this source, while more than 80% are from vegetables. Vegetables acquire nitrates and nitrites from the soil they grow in – nitrates are part of natural mineral deposits, while nitrites are formed by soil microorganisms that break down animal matter.

As always, the headlines report the risk – but as any fool knows, risk is the probability of a hazard occurring. As always, dose makes the poison. Levels of 2-9 grams (2000-9000mg) of nitrate can be acutely toxic, causing changes in haemoglobin that present as a blueish tinge to lips and skin but that would be a difficult level to reach in one sitting, and very unlikely to happen from food itself – it’s more of a risk from, say, exposure to fertiliser-contaminated water.

The BBC notes that it’s virtually impossible to reliably estimate dietary nitrate intake because content in food is hugely variable. “Levels can vary up to 10,000-fold for lettuce, and nitrates within drinking water can also vary considerably within the legal limit (50mg/litre),” says nutritional epidemiologist Gunter Kuhlne of the UK’s Reading University. “It means that studies investigating the effects of nitrate on health need to be interpreted very carefully, as ‘nitrate’ might simply be a marker of vegetable intake”.

The upshot, asks the BBC? “If you want to eat the right kinds of nitrates and nitrites and avoid the potentially carcinogenic ones, then eat a widely varied diet with at least five servings a day of fruit and vegetables, and avoid nibbling on processed meats too often. That way, the benefits of nitrates and nitrates will almost certainly outweigh the downsides”.

So it would appear that though there is a risk, it’s not something to lose any sleep over – though a 2017 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report endorsed an Acceptable Daily Intake or ADI (the amount that can be consumed over a lifetime without appreciable health risk) that equates to 235mg of nitrate for a person weighing 10 stone (63.5kg/140lb). But the report also noted that people of all age groups can exceed this ADI quite easily.

But then over at the Daily Mail, Mr Coudray said “The links between influential members of the EFSA’s committee of experts and prominent players in the agri-food and agri-chemical industries are clear. ‘From 2012 to 2018, close to half the members of the EFSA expert panel on food additives had a financial conflict of interest. ‘The EU and its food standards agency have proven faithful allies of the processed meat industry. ‘They have been reluctant to encourage reform, systematically defended the status quo and taken no action to reduce the carcinogenicity of processed meats”.

This is indeed a rich seam to mine were you so inclined. EFSA corruption is absolutely legendary. In fact, if you’re looking at protectionist lobbying and dirty deals, it’s your first port of call. But whatever! You pays your money, you takes your choice. In the Twitter echo chamber, the EU can do no wrong, the US is bad, Brexit gives you cancer and Guillaume Coudray is right if he flogs his book in The Observer, and a paranoid conspiracy theorist if he flogs his book in the Daily Mail.

One should not dismiss out of hand labelling concerns over a US trade deal, but that same vigilance must apply to any other trade deal. One would note, however, that EFSA modifies its rules all the time with virtually no scrutiny, often rejecting demands for transparency from the European Parliament.

Brexit has repatriated that decision making, and it is now for our own parliament to debate what is allowed in our food. Once again food politics is back in the mix and the media is interested. Better that than out of sight, out of mind. The simplistic, childlike even, remainer view is that the EU is above reproach and we can afford to simply let “EU scientists” look after our interests. That could prove more dangerous than a mountain of a American bacon.