Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Unfortunately, some people give their kids hot dogs for dinner more than a couple times a week because they know the kids will eat them. I think a warning label is a great idea to smack some sense into these people and maybe make them think twice about serving their kids processed meat!

I didn't know they give you cancer... What's the science behind that?

Give me a F'n break, I'm so sick of these do gooder green, weenies, WE all know hot dogs , aren't health food, thats why they are so GOOD, hey stick your cancer label up your self righteous a.....

Yeah, am I missing something? How do hot dogs cause cancer?

I would be interested in how the research was conducted. Are the results based on anecdotal evidence? And what other variables were present, and how were they controlled? I would venture a guess that people who eat large amounts of processed meats also eat large amounts of other processed foods (which tend to be high-fat, high-sugar, and low fiber), and few raw fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

It will further weaker the authority of these kind of warning labels

i think they should have a label. "Caution: DELICIOUS."

They should simply provide the following label: Eating 6 or more hot dogs is gluttony and will increase your chances of dying a painful death. Would you like mustard with that?

If hot dogs get cancer warning labels, what else do you suppose would also be deserving of a cancer warning label? The answer, of course, is nearly everything.

Overacting, overreacting, attention-hungry organization.

Should we also put warning labels on chocolates, chips, etc. because they may cause obesity? Should we put warning labels on beef and pork because they may can elevate your cholesterol levels, which may lead to heart disease?

Come on...

A fair compromise would be to only put warning labels on hot dogs that are made with nicotine.

can you say overreaction? cmon people there are thousands of different types and forms of cancer, which is why I want to head smack people that say they need to find "the cure" yes maybe over indulagence in certain foods can triger a cancer to mutate but overindulgence in ANY food or drink is bad for you. Deal with it folks its called natural selection. Cancer sucks and I feel for the 3 in NJ but cmon, deal with it and enjoy what you have. This is someone using a bad situation to push their own freaking adgenda.

if you're going to put warning labels on hot dogs, you ought to put warning labels on every other packaged and processed food on the market.

@meat guy. Wow, that post gave me a headache. And it's early yet.

Vegan are not hypocrites for choosing to eat bacteria - which are not, btw, in the animal kingdom – bacteria do not have central nervous systems, their consumption does not hurt the environment, and depending on the product in which they appear, they can be pretty freaking healthy. There's no ethical, environmental or health reason to avoid bacteria or yeast or any other useful microorganism.

I see a lot of veg-bashing on this board, and it's unfortunate. This is a large community united around a love of food – any food – and people here eat a wide variety of diets. Calling all vegans "douche bags" or yelling at vegetarians means that you are, in fact, talking about people who participate on this forum. Please keep it civil.

ARE a cause of cancer? Everyone who eats a hot dog gets cancer?

Warning label or not, I think it is important to keep in mind that cancer is still a big mystery. NO ONE really understands the cause of each different type of cancer, and most cancers are probably caused by a number of factors.

If you eat multiple hot dogs a week, maybe you should cut back, but otherwise, don't worry about eating a hot dog every once in a while!

Also, are kosher hot dogs cancer-causing as well??

Since the vegan group has no standing, since they don't eat them, the case should be thrown out of court immediately and the group should be fined for a frivolous suit. This is way the legal system is in such a bad state.

Oscar Mayer died two weeks ago. He was 95 years old, and the cause of death was listed as "old age." I rest my case.

So am I supposed to live in a white room made completely from sustainable materials with no carpeting, with no exposure to the sun, not eating anything that could've been cooked on the grill or full of nitrites or mercury or salmonella? No meat, no veggies, no toothpaste, no food for my cat. Nothing fatty or genetically modified. No peanuts, pistachios, spinach, lettuce, tomatoes or peppers, and cupcakes will kill you.

Know what? That sounds like a really high-quality existence, but I'll stick with my 6 or so hot dogs per year. Thanks for playing.

@KarynMC - Thank you for posting that.

I'm not sure that the warning label will solve the issues the Cancer Group wants to address. For example, in New York City almost all chain restaurants/coffeeshops/and the like publicly post the number of calories in everything they serve. This was ordered as part of an effort to reduce obesity (probably among other things). Curious to see if it was working, I asked a few store merchants whether it deterred customers from ordering certain high calorie items. To my surprise in the 3 or 4 I questioned, their answer was no (yes, my survey group was small but it gave me an idea). It's the same with smoking - we can post warnings, show advertisements on TV, show statistics, but if the consumer wants to do it anyway, s/he will and a warning ad isn't going to stop them.

This campaign almost seems to benefit the hotdog companies more since adding a label will make it that much more difficult to sue if said customer does receive cancer from eating their product over the years.

Are they also going to push for warnings on processed soy products if it turns out that they do have an effect on hormonal development? Oh wait, that might not be on their agenda...

Processed foods aren't good for us. Particularly not in gross excess. Anyone who doesn't know that at this point doesn't care. Forcing government involvement here would be costly and inane.

It's the nitrites that may be causing the cancer. Just buy lunchmeat and hot dogs without nitrites. Trader Joe's has them at prices that are reasonable.

Saying that a risk increased by 21% or 67% sounds a lot more frightening than it is, even if the statistic is undeniably true. It doesn't mean that 21% or 67% of the people will get the disease. If the risk is low to begin with, an increased risk is still a small chance of getting the disease.

If the risk increased by 100% it means you're twice as likely as someone else. So, if the initial risk is one in a million, now you're at 2 in a million. Probably not the best lifestyle choice, but if you eat the equivalent of a hot dog a day, every day, for the amount of time required (and I'm betting it's years) then you're probably not eating a very healthy diet overall. So the risk of a whole lot of things is going to go up.

If someone has a high risk of cancer because of family history or other risk factors, compounding the problem isn't wise, I'm sure. But if your overall risk is low and you aren't living exclusively on hot dogs and bologna and salami, it's not as frightening as they make it sound. Even if the stats are true.

And unless I'm remembering it wrong, saying that there's a 50% risk of something is not the same as saying there's a 50% chance of it happening. Just because you're "at risk" for something, it doesn't mean that it will happen. It just means that you are more at risk for the event than someone else who may have no chance at all of it happening.

No matter what you eat or don't eat, you're going to die of something eventually. When the average lifespan was a lot shorter, fewer people died of cancer. Because they died of something else, first.

A 21% increased risk is, from what? .01% chance to 0.0121%?

I think we need one big warning label to place on all foods. Eating causes death. Not eating causes death faster.

oh, so the vitamin C used to accelerate the curing process should do the same thing then? Carcinogens are carcinogens, poisons are poisons, the body doesn't distinguish if it is natural or chemical. And the levels of nitrites used in meats are far lower than occurs naturally in white onions and celery. I once saw a natural label on rat poison, does it make it better for you than a chemical rat poison? If you consider Nitrites carcinogens, all sources should be labeled, natural or not, just like allergens are now required. If you restrict one food because of the levels, all products with similar levels should similarly be restricted.

As for not costing anything to remove Nitrites, what is the cost of a case of botulism, or the recall of a days production of hot dogs due to botulism? Nitrites are not added as color, they are added for FOOD SAFETY, they prevent botulism. Vacuum packaged foods can harbor botulism, dry aged meats can harbor botulism, that is why they are cured, not to make them pretty pink. The color is a reaction removing free iron (which C. botulinum needs to survive) from the meat.

As human nutrition studies are uncontrolled, it is difficult to provide the information needed to determine real facts, causes and effects.Perhaps the doctors funding this lawsuit should look at the Vietnamese study released a couple weeks ago where they discovered vegans had a lower bone density than people eating a meat containing diet.

Did the people in the study, eat the hot dog with onions or celery salt, maybe it was THEIR Nitrates and not the ones from the hot dog. Did they account for the effect of the condiments on the development of Cancer? did Ketchup with its Lycopenes from tomato reduce the risk? Did they have standard pickle relish or the Chicago day glo green relish? I think these are important questions as to the relevence of the study.

Suck it, hippies.

According to procedures established by USDA, nitrosamine testing required products to be cooked at a minimum of 350 degrees F. This is the ideal temperature for formation of nitrosamines. This is why grilled and griddled meats are of concern as promoting carcinogens. Nitrosamines can form at low temperature, but usually require a protein source and a catalyst, usually something acidic. This is a reason Spice blends for cured meats are not allowed to contain nitrites or nitrates, upon storage the amino acids in the protein can react and for nitroso compounds.

Regulations regarding manufacturing cured meats underwent huge changes almost 40 years ago when the concerns were first realized, and levels of use for nitrites and nitrates were evaluated and regulated to minimize the possibility of forming these components. many of the studies people are citing pre date this work, just like people think The Jungle is a factual documentation of today's meat industry, even though it is a fictional work that predates the original Federal meat inspection act which is over 80 years old.

the head of the legal team promoting this lawsuit was on the radio this morning in Chicago (WGN) He stated their agenda as being to promote veganism, not cancer prevention. The radio host stated that in an off the air conversation, the lawyer stated that this was a way for their cause to get multiple years of press promoting veganism while it was tied up in court, and they had no hope of winning, just bleeding the companies with large legal fees. Fine them for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

@hmw0029- Thanks for the feedback. Yes, my articles that I chose are old, but the general information from it is still relevant.

Though I had difficulty getting the first two articles that you prescribed, I did have the opportunity to read the last article.

You are correct in saying that nitrites have a very little chance of changing into the destructive nitroso compounds; however, I think the abstract that you read is misleading. If you read the discussion and conclusions of the article, it states that the combination of nitrites and hemin increases the likeliness of colon cancer. It is not just hemin alone. Nitrites are a precursor to carcinogenic compounds, but that does not mean that all nitrites will become cancerous. It is the presence of the hemin that quickly changes the nitrites into carcinogens.

While looking up more recent articles for my edification, I stumbled upon a very fascinating article: Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42 (4), pp 1032–1037

It states that these nitroso compounds are in hot tubs, pools, and the like. Nonetheless, there is not any conclusive evidence that hot tubs cause bladder cancer.

Is there a connection between cancer and nitroso compounds? Yes, but there is no concrete evidence that being subject to its precursors will make you sick. And really, what determines if one becomes sick or not? Not all people that are overweight have health problems, but they are more likely to be sick. In the same way, not all precursors will cause cancer, but there is some risks associated with eating nitrites.

As to the question posed in this blog, I'm not sure if we should put warning labels, but I hope people become at least a little more aware of what is going on chemically when they are eating. Sure you can eat hot dogs and bacon, but don't eat it every other day. You can die from just about anything if you have too much of it. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/sports/othersports/20marathon.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=death%20too%20much%20water&st=cse)

I don't eat hot dogs because I think they are disgusting, but there are also some pretty scary studies about soy. Maybe all those veggie dogs and burgers need a warning label as well.

Eating anything unhealthy every day increases risk of...death! Be it by cancer or heart disease, it's always a good idea to balance unhealthy foods with either healthy foods or...exercise! Tell those fatty kids to get off their asses.

Everything that we eat, drink and breathe can cause cancer.
(pesticides, hormones, pollution.
We need to eat, drink and breathe but we do not need to smoke
Get the picture?