this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
330 points (98.2% liked)

World News

50563 readers
2185 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We may as well flatten the whole planet to eliminate the risk of falling down stairs.

I hate how far people go to safety pad the whole planet when an ounce of personality responsibility is all that's needed.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Except personal responsibility is impossible when people don't know that xyz food causes cancer.

That's why they're asking for a label. So that people can make an informed choice. That's literally their entire point.

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

My problem is that these labels don't differentiate the levels at which demonstrable harm occurs. I'm not against labels, I'm against bad labels

Putting something that's harmful at the parts per million(ppm) level in the exact same category as something that's harmful in the parts per billion(ppb) level is counterproductive.

This results in people treating incredibly harmful compounds that are dangerous in the ppb range the same as compounds that are dangerous in the ppm or even ppt(thousand) range.

Including minor and major carcinogens in the same label makes people think they're safer than they are.

It's why prop65 warnings are a joke and ignored by almost all consumers.

If we're going to use a single label that doesn't differentiate the level of harm then we need to save it for the most harmful compounds only.

Tldr: Without more information on the label putting nitrates in the same category as asbestos or lead is counterproductive via implied false equivalence.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

If the labels don't have some type of ranking system, then they are pointless. A great example being the California cancer labels that are on fucking everything. It's impossible to use them to gauge risk, because everything you buy causes cancer in California.