Blog

1

I've seen many mentions of bacon and how "paleo" it is, so I'd like to ask how the eating of meat cured with nitrites or other processed meats is considered healthy?

flag
16 
 You do realize that not 100% of bacon on planet earth is treated with nitrates, right? – BoneBrothFast Sep 25 at 10:04
1 
 Yes, but most is. – surfin' on a rocket Sep 25 at 10:44
3 
 Not only can you get nitrite free bacon, but you can get unseasoned bacon. – wickedween Sep 25 at 10:58
3 
 And there's a difference between nitrites and nitrates.. – surfin' on a rocket Sep 25 at 11:04
1 
 It's the nitrite salt that they use as poison (see below) – surfin' on a rocket Sep 25 at 11:05
show 3 more comments

20 Answers

3

From a brief survey at Pubmed:

Nitrates inhibit iodine uptake in the thyroid (promote hypothyroidosis?) and increase the risk of thyroid cancer in males (2011, large prospective study). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20824705

Association between cured meat consumption during pregnancy and risk of childhood brain tumors (2004, meta-analysis). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14739572

Association between nitrosamine and risk of gastric cancer (2006, systematic review). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16865769

Association between nitrite intake and ovarian cancer - 30% increase in highest consumers (2012, large prospective study) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21934624

However, it appears that co-consumption with vitamin C reduces the carcinogenicity of compounds that react with nitrite (2012, review). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202020

These results, for me, are troubling. There is no way one could responsibly promote the consumption of a food with evidence of carcinogenic potential in a health-based context. Clearly, the benefits of meat preservation using chemical hazardous to health belong to an age where refrigeration did not exist. Today, there is no benefit that can compensate for the carcinogenic potential in such foods.

alt text

link|flag
2 
 Smoking the meat also makes it carcinogenic. – meta Sep 25 at 14:53
3 
 So its a stastical jobbie (ie correlation), or is there an animal model, or smoking gun? – Jamie Sep 25 at 15:55
3 
 Interesting quote from your first study: The major contributors to nitrate intake were lettuce (34.4%), cooked spinach (10.2%), and broccoli (4.5%) and the major contributors to nitrite intake were cold cuts (7.2%), pasta (6.7%), and bread (6.5%). – Mscott Sep 27 at 1:02
2 
 I don't think it's necessarily correct that a diet high in bacon is also high in nitrates. Processed meats may have added nitrates, but natural nitrates dwarf them. – Matt Sep 27 at 15:50
3 
 Still ignoring the fact that the same studies show spinach and lettuce were accounted for what was it 35% and 17% and lunch meat accounted for less than 4%. Sheesh, give it a rest man. – Satchmo Sep 29 at 1:47
show 12 more comments
8

This is what we call a "forbidden" question. It is akin to asking why we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway, we are not meant to know the answer, only that it just "IS".

Matt
PhysiqueRescue.com

link|flag
Very Zen....... – Satchmo Sep 28 at 5:11
Bacon does seem to put me in a meditative state. . . – PhysiqueRescue Sep 30 at 4:18
8

People ask: Why doesn't everyone follow a Paleo diet?? The answer is in this thread. We look like a bunch of nutcases as we argue about bacon!

link|flag
1 
 Outstanding assessment – surfin' on a rocket Sep 26 at 4:51
6

The risk from nitrates/nitrites is low, and overblown. Aside from observational epidemiological studies, I've seen no support for nitrates in food causing cancer. See: http://paleohacks.com/questions/139951/do-nitrosamines-produced-in-food-actually-cause-cancer

link|flag
3 
 but there are plenty of observational epidemiological studies showing processed meat to increase your risk of diabetes and heart disease. I guess we're just ignoring those for now. – alligator Sep 25 at 13:43
4 
 Really? So nut butters are off limits because they're overly processed but bacon is game? Give me a break. – foreveryoung Sep 25 at 13:55
3 
 Bacon-eating correlates well with poor diet and not giving a shit about one's own health. But it's the bacon that's killing folks, right? That's the problem with epidemiological studies. There's an inherent bias that health folks bring to studies. Bring on an animal model that demonstrates that nitrate-containing (in the amounts found in human feedstuffs) foods cause cancer. I've only seen nitrosamine-spiked diets causing cancer in animal models, but I'm open to having my mind changed. – Matt Sep 25 at 15:31
3 
 I didn't say nut butters were off-limits, just than they weren't whole foods. They been processed into hyperpalatable foods that are incredibly easy to overeat. Bacon is very similar. I've said before that bacon is not optimal, but who gives a shit about being optimal 100% of the time? – Matt Sep 25 at 15:37
2 
 I rarely point to epidemological studies myself - they find patterns, which is important. It's up to controlled studies to figure out what (if anything) causes the patterns. There's a pattern between cured meats and various diseases (mostly cancer). I haven't seen the study that links nitrated-food to cancer in animals. One could postulate other causes of such a pattern. – Matt Sep 25 at 16:10
show 10 more comments
6

I rather eat unprocessed meats, so you can have my bacon :) So bring on lamb heart, kidneys, and livers for me rather than bacon.

link|flag
1 
 Sure, give me all your bacon. – Kelleil Sep 25 at 18:24
1 
 Like I said above pork belly seasoned as you like.... – JayJay Sep 25 at 19:15
1 
 Real bacon is always cured (pink salt, insta cure #1), that what gives the distinctive flavour. I have Ruhlmans book for reference. I dont care for pork tho, i prefer lamb and beef flavour reasons. Local finnish pork is poor quality. Lamb is taken care much better, and reindeer. Cured reindeer meat is damn good. It just so expencive. – Jan Sep 25 at 19:29
1 
 Here pork is poor mans meat, so they are fed grain and rape seed like crazy, any smart paleo would steer very far of those meats. I envy the places that have real old school pork that is taken care very well. In some parts of france pigs eat better diet than some people in Finland. Altho that isnt very hard ;) – Jan Sep 25 at 19:33
5

Ok, One more time.

PALEO IS NOT JUST EAT WHAT CAVEMEN ATE

Paleo is a belief that we evolved to eat certain types of foods. We have continued to evolve even after the "agricultural revolution". The idea is to eat foods that are healthy for YOU.

Also, man has been curing meat with smoke and/or salt for a very long time, it is certainly part of how we have evolved to eat.

link|flag
2 
 We have "evolved" to consume cured meat? Evidence? – meta Sep 25 at 13:40
3 
 "man has been curing meat with smoke and/or salt for a very long time". Man has been eating grains for a very long time as well. – Nasty Brutish and Short Sep 25 at 14:16
3 
 please see "The idea is to eat foods that are healthy for YOU." The onus is on the receiver. – CD Sep 25 at 15:42
3 
 JayJay, it is impossible to "eat as our paleolithic ancestors ate" because (1) We don't know what they ate. No one does, it's all conjecture (2) We cannot eat what they ate. Our foods are radically different in nutritional content than they were 100 years ago, God forbid 20,000 years ago. (3) Our genetic diversity, from breeding across "tribes" is radically different than our ancestors, thus it is impossible to eat in according to our ancestors as different gene expressions have been passed down. – CD Sep 25 at 19:29
1 
 So the Paleo template to eating is to revert to foundational level foods, and through experimentation determine what other foods provide us with the quality of life we desire. This may include foods that were not available to our paleolithic ancestors (like Dairy or Coconuts -- How the hell did an Irish boy evolve to eat coconut?). – CD Sep 25 at 19:30
show 4 more comments
3

Bacon is Paleo because it comes from a dead pig. And because it's awesome.

Where is your evidence that nitrates are unhealthy? I thought that was all bunkum:

http://bare5.com/2012/04/02/2221-hot-dogs-a-day-and-still-ok/

http://balancedbites.com/2011/05/bacon-health-food-or-devil-in-delicious-disguise.html

Nitrates had better be healthy, cos I'm glugging down the beetroot juice trying to increase mine right now: http://paleohacks.com/questions/151153/juicing-with-beetroot-is-a-5k-pb-worth-the-increased-cancer-risk

link|flag
1 
 For evidence google nitrites and cancer. But if you want to crap your pants search on Pubmed. – surfin' on a rocket Sep 25 at 10:41
1 
 This one is awesome patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2008104028 – surfin' on a rocket Sep 25 at 11:00
6 
 Dude, never heard the axiom, the dose makes the poison? Stop trolling. – Matt Sep 25 at 11:47
2 
 Dude, dying painlessly sounds awesome! More bacon please! – CD Sep 25 at 12:12
3 
 BTW, crapping your pants is not paleo. Frankly, once the bacon is done the pants come off! – Dave S. Sep 25 at 14:40
show 6 more comments
3

I think nitrates may be a little overblown, given they occur naturally in other foods.

But then again, I dont think we should eat loads of processed meat either. Like polyphenols (erroneously refered to as "anti-oxidants"), they are probably cleared quickly from the body, so only cause damage in higher quantities (All speculation of course).

It would be nice if more cured meats were made with just salt, given thats fully viable :/

Sucks that modern ham is usually low fat too :/

Of course pork is high in o6 too, so better to be free range as well.

If anyone find a truely nitrate free bacon/ham (as in, no juices either, just salt), which is not low fat, and free range - let us all know!

link|flag
I wonder how hard it is to make bacon? Its a damn tasty food, if its not overly hard, might be worth a shot making some truely nitrite free stuff maybe. Then again if its the nitrosamines, then surely we can just slow cook our bacon, forget about crispy and have our cake and eat it too? – Jamie Sep 25 at 14:39
Maybe we can consider cooking bacon slowly, and eating with fried tomatos (for vit c), the equivilant of soaking and roasting nuts... – Jamie Sep 25 at 14:41
Prosciutto not be bacon... – polynesian_metal Sep 25 at 14:42
store.honoredprairie.com/… <---where I get mine. Of course it does use vegetable juice powder for the "naturally" occurring cure. In the end I'm not concerned. Bring on the bacon. – JayJay Sep 26 at 0:46
1 
 Here's a pastured, nitrate free bacon I found at a local grocery store. Really, really good. beelerspurepork.com/Products/SpecPages/Bacon.htm – JessInSD Sep 26 at 16:59
3

The echo chamber effect seems to have manifested around this topic as many have risen to defend the consumption of meat processed with nitrite/nitrate. The defence seems to centre on personal experience (the "awesomeness" of bacon), or the experience of others (i.e. blog articles where arbitrary causality is established to support a view with no scientific referencing).

Given the available published research of the highest evidentiary scale (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) that indicate an association between nitrite/nitrate consumption from processed meats and an increase in cancer risk (references), this is surprising.

In order to stimulate a more rational discussion one could consider this issue from a different perspective by posing the following questions:

  • would you advocate that your significant other, or, your child consume meats preserved using this method?

  • would you advocate that a person who has been diagnosed with cancer consume meats preserved using this method?

Undoubtedly, there are genetic polymorphisms that enable some people to have an increased ability to metabolize toxins and resist oncogenesis. This is likely the reason why the degree of association between cancer risk and nitrite/nitrate consumption from processed meat is not as high as that of cigarette smoking and lung cancer, for example. However, as with cigarette smoking, there are a small number of individuals that live to well over 100 years despite being habitual smokers - and this is the argument that big tobacco used to maintain ignorance for as long as they could manage.

link|flag
3 
 Meh.....you get the idea, have a look round for yourself. These are just the first few I saw in some of those "blog articles where arbitrary causality is established to support a view with no scientific referencing"...guess you didn't read em. They seem to be referenced rather more than you make out. – JayJay Sep 26 at 1:15
2 
 I think JayJay understands the difference between observational and experimental studies. Which one can prove things and which one suggests things. – Matt Sep 27 at 1:52
1 
 On the premise that nothing is certain we are in complete agreement, however, when it comes to matters of health it is far better to err on the side of caution. There is clear epidemiological evidence of an association between high levels of dietary nitrates and physiological perturbation including cancer risk. That should be enough for a responsible person to caution on consumption of meats processed with nitrates. – meta Sep 27 at 11:09
1 
 Without the benefit of a survey of the relevant literature, I would propose that naturally derived nitrates are metabolised differently to artificially added nitrates. I suppose one could consider natural carbs (e.g. from vegetables) versus processed carbs (e.g. added sugar) as an analogy. – meta Sep 28 at 12:28
1 
 You need to distinguish between nitrAtes and nitrItes. – meta Sep 30 at 3:22
show 21 more comments
3

If bacon concerns you, start smoking your own meat over wood. My barrel smoker cost $300 and I run it on 100% wood, these days apple and filbert. What you get tastes nothing like bacon, or any other commercial smoked meat. The smoke flavor is intense and the meat needs no other seasoning. As far as I'm concerned this is as close to paleo as it gets.

I've smoked all kinds of stuff, including butternut squash. I usually run it pretty hot (oven roasting temperature) and 2-3 hours max, due to the burn time in the wood basket. Salmon invariably works the best, whether it smokes out dry or stays moist. I've also had good results with pork ribs and loin, beef loin shell, and chicken and duck thighs. I usually cover the meat with bacon strips, then salvage the smoked bacon to eat by itself.

link|flag
Abso-freaking-lutely. I love my smoker....I've done bout everything on it. – JayJay Sep 26 at 15:40
3

I'm getting the impression that discussing bacon presents some sort of existential threat here.

link|flag
1 
 Nah, just a subject we can all hack. – thhq Sep 26 at 7:32
1 
 Actually, it appears that "hacking" in this case has more to do with the aggressive voicing of unfounded and often inane opinions rather than creative brainstorming and informed debate. – meta Sep 26 at 15:01
1 
 You should see how paleos get all bent out of shape if you question protein powder. – Diane Oct 1 at 16:13
3

You are talking about poison bait traps for feral pigs, which are sensitive to nitrates. They are targeting 135mg/kg for the traps. That's a hell of a lot of nitrate, but one point is that they don't want other animals to die from it. Some of the pigs survived anyway...

"...in the United States, the concentration of nitrates and nitrites [in cured meats] is generally limited to 200 ppm or lower." - wiki. Okay, yet again "The dose makes the poison." - Paracelsus.

You have presented NO EVIDENCE that the levels of nitrates in bacon are problematic to humans. And, as an aside, there are more nitrites and nitrates in vegetables (beets, celery) than in bacon. And if you really are concerned, then go get the nitrite/nitrate free bacon at Trader Joe's (just watch out for the beet/celery juice that it is cured with). And don't eat their salmonella filled peanut butter snacks.

To actually answer your question, bacon is not truly paleo. No processed meats are. But neither is butter, ghee, coconut oil, coconut flour, modern fruit, red wine, coffee, dark chocolate, etc. etc... I keep waiting for Trader Joe's to carry wooly mammoth, but I digress. There is no good reason to avoid bacon apart from excess omega-6 levels.

EDIT:

Thank you Chris Kresser for clearing this up once and for all!
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon

link|flag
1 
 The concern with nitrates in bacon isn't the nitrate itself, but the nitrosamines that are formed when the bacon is cooked. – Alex Sep 25 at 12:45
2 
 There's enough evidence based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses to be a cause for concern. – meta Sep 25 at 14:27
Cant you cook it slower then, if its a degradation product? Bacon on slow heat? – Jamie Sep 25 at 14:34
1 
 It's a good idea to look at the evidence and take it into consideration. I've looked at it a number of times. It always seems very weak. I don't eat a ton of bacon or processed meats, but I also do not worry about it. Sugar, flour, omega-6 - these are things that concern me as I am pretty convinced of their deleterious effects, especially for me. A few other things like MSG, soy, caffeine and alcohol are also problematic for me. Bacon is not a problem in my book. – Dave S. Sep 25 at 14:36
4 
 Reviews and meta-analyses aren't real studies. They identify patterns, but cannot suggest any causative pathway for such patterns. In other words, they don't prove anything. – Matt Sep 25 at 15:51
show 12 more comments
2

I think it's close to 97% of all the nitrates and nitrites humans are exposed to are created by mouth flora.

Ima keep eating bacon thank you.

link|flag
2

Bacon is, simply put, side pork, or meat cut from the sides of a pig's belly. A brine is used to cure it and it is then smoked. It doesn't have to have nitrates added. This can preserve it for a long time. As far as cancer causing, anything burnt or cooked at too high a temp is going to cause cancer too. French fries is an example. I'd say moderation is going to be the key with bacon.

link|flag
2

JayJay, lets examine your references:

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3015194 -- 1986 study on the use of nitrates in fertiliser

  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7200054 -- 1982 study on nitrates in the drinking water of rats

  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3015194 -- 2008 review paper on nitrates in drinking water

  4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3974695 -- 1985 paper on salivary nitrate ion concentration

  5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19439460 -- 2009 paper on dietary nitrites present in plant foods

Not a single one of the references you've cited make mention of nitrates/nitrates used in meat processing. Furthermore, the evidentiary quality of the studies you're using to support your contention is considerably lower than the meta-analysis, systematic reviews and prospective studies with 400K+ sample populations opposing your position.

I have to point out that if this is the type of evidence you - and perhaps your colleagues - choose to hang your hat on, it casts doubt on claims of the benefit to risk ratio of other foods and dietary methods you provide advice on.

link|flag
1 
 Harry, I don't think anybody denies the correlation found in countless observational and meta-studies. What we (or at least I) question is the ability of the correlation to establish causation. While JayJay's references don't show nitrate-in-meat doesn't increase cancer rates, they confirm the theory that dietary nitrate has little effect on health. The absence of data or a negative result doesn't prove anything, but it strengthens an argument against such a link. – Matt Sep 26 at 12:11
Yes, basically take what we know in terms of safe levels of nitrites and what we know about processed meats and it seems that there is most likely another factor leading to the ill health benefits of consuming processed meats (which BTW never includes JUST BACON). So what would eating low grade bologne, hot dogs, McDonalds, chicken nuggets, fish sticks....and so on and so forth have in common BESIDES just the nitrite/nitrate load? Seems like there are plenty of other factors at play AND the least likely villain based on what we know is nitrate. – JayJay Sep 26 at 12:34
1 
 @Matt: the gold standard of establishing causality is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial that would compare a cohort with bacon consumption against a cohort without. The obvious problem is inability to blind. However, the bigger problem is that no ethics board would approve such a trial given the existing evidence that supports an association of cancer with processed meat consumption. – meta Sep 26 at 14:56
Exactly, Harry. None of which you've cited. You cannot establish causality with observational studies. – Matt Sep 27 at 1:53
1 
 A clinical trial is not the only way to establish carcinogenicity/toxicity. In fact, given nitrate-spiked water does not produce increased cancerous tumors in rats strongly suggests that nitrates aren't the issue. That doesn't let bacon/cured meats off the hook altogether though. – Matt Sep 27 at 10:56
show 1 more comment
2

definition of Paleo from Wikipedia: The paleolithic diet (abbreviated paleo diet or paleodiet), also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet, is a modern nutritional plan based on the presumed ancient diet of wild plants and animals that various hominid species habitually consumed during the Paleolithic era—a period of about 2.5 million years duration that ended around 10,000 years ago with the development of agriculture. In common usage, such terms as the "Paleolithic diet" also refer to the actual ancestral human diet.[1][2]

Doubt there was bacon 2.5 million years ago. There are SO many versions of Paleo out there it's hard to classify what is Paleo versus what is not. Not sure it matters as long as it tastes good, gives you energy, and is not harmful to your body.

link|flag
1 
 -- The salient point being whether it is harmful or not. – meta Sep 26 at 15:02
2

I'm new to Paleo and I avoid bacon because I am trying to lose weight. It seems like the fat content would not be good for weightloss and I have a hard time seeing how it is good for the heart if consumed in immoderate concentrations (although I know diehard Paleo people don't see a problem with high fat). I've been very taken aback by how rude a lot of the responses here have been. Personally I view bacon as a seasoning -- I will chop it up and cook kale in it for my family and things like that, but I avoid serving it as the main part of a meal (i.e., I avoid serving "eggs and bacon").

link|flag
1 
 I lost excessive amounts of weight eating copious amounts of bacon and eggs for breakfast. For me if I'm 'Very Low Carb' my weight goes through the floor. Paleo without lots of fat or safe starches isn't enough calories and could present a risk of rabbit starvation. I don't think anyone here is rude but bacon clearly has sacred and iconic status for some. – Spears Sep 26 at 18:38
1 
 Then an apt question to consider, Spears, is whether to place higher value on the "sacredness" that bacon has for some over the possible health dangers. One may be so bold as to also ask, whether some members of this community are so removed from medical and scientific reality as to be a danger - by means of poor advice - to their peers. – meta Sep 27 at 0:25
1

Pretty much any kind of meat you buy in the grocery store will contain nitrates or nitrites..so have fun on the paleo diet without eating meat. That's why a lot of people try to consume only grass-fed, antibiotic-free animals.

link|flag
Grass fed antibiotic free is 10% paleo, but only because it's meat. At best it makes it as 40% late neolithic. +1 for the meat comment though. You've gotta eat it in the best form available even if it isn't perfect. – thhq Sep 26 at 2:48
1

This seems like a pretty good analysis of the Nitrate/Nitrite issue:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-banning-hotdogs-and-bacon-make.html

link|flag
1

It makes me incredibly happy every morning, keeps my weight healthy and it once had a face, my verdict is it's freaken 100% paleo.

link|flag
Awesome for you :) – surfin' on a rocket Sep 26 at 4:58

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.