Bacon may not be so bad after all, depending on your DNA

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. 

After the World Health Organization concluded that processed meats  cause cancer, millions presumably reconsidered their appetite for bacon and hot dogs.

But for many, the warning may be completely irrelevant.

In a study published in 2014 with little fanfare, researchers found that genetics – a simple difference in your DNA — may determine how dangerous processed meats are for you.

For people with one genetic variant, eating more processed meat was associated with more colorectal cancer, according to the research, just as the WHO scientists have asserted. But for people with the other genetic variant, eating more processed meat did not appear to raise the risk of getting colorectal  cancer.

“What this suggests is that there are some people who should be more careful with processed meat, and that there are some that did not increase their risks by eating processed meat,” Jane C. Figueiredo, a co-author of the study published last year in Plos Genetics and an assistant professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California said an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the finding has yet to be replicated and that just because one group appeared to be immune from the risks of processed meat does not exclude the possibility that some other undiscovered genetic combination may raise the cancer risk for some in that group. Processed meats might raise the risks of other chronic diseases, too, they said.

Read full, original post: Is bacon actually bad for you? It may depend on your DNA

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

S
As vaccine rejectionism spreads, measles may be taking a more dangerous turn
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-1.29.41-PM
Viewpoint: What happens when whole grains meet modern food manufacturing? Labels don’t tell the whole story.
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.56
Singularity crisis ahead? Can super babies save us from rogue AI geniuses?
Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-12.14.04-PM
The FDA wants to make many popular prescription drugs OTC—a great idea. Here’s why it’s unlikely to happen
Screenshot-2026-05-06-at-2.07.43-PM
Manufacturing a conspiracy: The timeline of how  the White House embraced the fringe claim that scientists are being mysteriously murdered
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-11.56.24-AM
‘Science moves forward when people are willing to think differently’: Memories of DNA maverick Craig Venter
Screenshot-2026-04-30-at-2.19.37-PM
5 myths about summer dehydration that could damage your health — or even kill you
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-11.15.51-AM
Paraben panic: How a flawed study, media hype, and chemophobia convinced the public of the danger of one of the safest classes of preservatives
images
The never-ending GMO debate: Pros and cons
Screenshot-2026-04-12-135256
Bixonimania: The fake disease scam that AI swallowed whole
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.