Food producers often add nitrates and nitrites to processed meats, such as bacon, ham, sausages, and hot dogs. These added compounds help to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria, add a salty flavor and make the meat look red.
In 2015, the WHO listed one of the additives in processed meats as carcinogenic. That same additive was nearly banned in America in the 1970s – until lobbying from the meat industry discredited the scientists. We reveal how, to impede or halt regulations on certain additives, lobbyists have been working in the shadows for decades. At the heart of this strategy are the scientists who collaborate, who receive generous compensation for studies that promote meat consumption. In conjunction with this, those whose work finds health risks associated with meat are ‘shot down’. From Brittany to Denmark, through California and Wisconsin, director Sandrine Rigaud conducted a year-long investigation on the tactics of the meat industry.
**************
Articles
The truth about the nitrates in your food
Usually associated with processed meats, nitrates and nitrites are potentially cancer-causing compounds. But what are they, really – and are they always detrimental?
“Nitrates” may make you think of school chemistry lessons or fertilisers. They’re probably less likely to be something you’d associate with dinner.
If you do think of nitrates in the context of food, it is probably a negative image that comes to mind – in particular, perhaps, the recent call for nitrate and nitrite preservatives to be banned from bacon and ham because of potential cancer-causing effects.
But the relationship between dietary nitrates/nitrites and health is a lot more nuanced than merely saying “they’re bad for us”. For example, the high natural nitrate content of beetroot juice has been credited with lowering blood pressure and enhancing exercise performance. Nitrates are also the active ingredient in some medications for angina, a condition in which reduced blood flow causes chest pain.
So are nitrates and nitrites actually bad for us?
Read more
Foods High in Nitrates
Nitrates are a set of compounds that involve nitrogen and oxygen molecules. While they are often associated with cured meats, green, leafy vegetables are actually much richer in nitrates.
While the association of nitrate with cured meats causes some to worry about their cancer-causing effects, other studies show that the nitrates found in vegetables may actually help reduce the risk of cancer. Studies suggest that eating foods rich in natural nitrates can help reduce your risk of a number of chronic health conditions, whereas eating foods high in added nitrates can cause health risks.
Why You Should Avoid Nitrates
Nitrates on their own are not broken down by stomach acid. Instead, your gut biome can break down nitrate into nitrite, which can cause health complications such as an increased risk of cancer.
Nitrate is an inorganic, water-soluble chemical. Your body makes around 62 milligrams (mg) of nitrites a day, but the majority of nitrates come from your diet. On average a person living in the United states consumes 75 to 100 mg of nitrates a day.
Health risks of consuming added nitrates, include:
- Methemoglobinemia in infants (blue baby syndrome)
- Increased risk of cancer
- Complications during pregnancy
Foods With Added Nitrates
Many processed meats are high in nitrates. While these nitrates are useful for preserving and improving the color of food, they are not good for your health. Many studies recommend that vitamin C be added to cured meats high in nitrates to prevent the formation of harmful nitrite compounds.These 4 foods are some of the worst offenders for added nitrates:
Read more
Other
The US meat industry’s wildly successful, 40-year crusade to keep its hold on the American diet
Your doctor might tell you to eat fewer burgers and steak sandwiches, but thanks to the exceptional lobbying skills of the American meat industry, the US government probably never will.
Rejecting the advice of their own expert panel, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced this month that the latest edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will not include considerations of environmental sustainability. Had they decided otherwise, they likely would have recommended that people lower their intake of meat, the production of which is widely recognized as a major contributor to climate change.
Health advocates are still hoping that the final guidelines, to be unveiled later this year, will include a directive to eat less red and processed meats, based on nutrition and health concerns alone. But if history is any indication, that hope is likely to go unfulfilled.
The meat industry has influenced the dietary guidelines for decades
The size of the US meat industry is immense. Beef alone is a $95 billion-a-year business, according to the USDA. And the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) estimates that, in total, the meat industry contributes about $894 billion to the US economy.
That size translates into political influence: In 2014, the industry spent approximately $10.8 million in contributions to political campaigns, and another $6.9 million directly on lobbying the federal government (calculated by combining totals for the meat processing and products and livestock sectors, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets website).
While the USDA is tasked with regulating the meat industry, it also has a role in promoting it. This tension plays out every time the US government wants to give out dietary advice—and the results generally wind up favoring the industry.
The pattern traces back to at least 1977, when Congress—a no less conflicted institution when it comes to coziness with the meat industry—had a more prominent role in setting nutrition guidelines. That year, a Senate committee report recommended that Americans decrease consumption of meat, eggs and other foods high in fat. This did not sit well with producers in those industries, who made their displeasure known at a hearing on the guidelines. As shown in the below exchange between the representative from the American National Cattlemen’s Association and senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the organization objected to a recommendation to decrease consumption of any of its products, even if paired with a recommendation to increase consumption of other ones.
Read more
***************
Report
Processed meats and risk of childhood leukemia (California, USA)
Abstract
The relation between the intake of certain food items thought to be precursors or inhibitors of N-nitroso compounds (NOC) and risk of leukemia was investigated in a case-control study among children from birth to age 10 years in Los Angeles County, California (United States). Cases were ascertained through a population-based tumor registry from 1980 to 1987. Controls were drawn from friends and by random-digit dialing. Interviews were obtained from 232 cases and 232 controls. Food items of principal interest were: breakfast meats (bacon, sausage, ham); luncheon meats (salami, pastrami, lunch meat, corned beef, bologna); hot dogs; oranges and organge juice; and grapefruit and grapefruit juice. We also asked about intake of apples and apple juice, regular and charcoal broiled meats, milk, coffee, and coke or cola drinks. Usual consumption frequencies were determined for both parents and the child. When the risks were adjusted for each other and other risk factors, the only persistent significant associations were for children’s intake of hot dogs (odds ratio [OR]=9.5, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]=1.6–57.6 for 12 or more hot dogs per month, trendP=0.01), and fathers’ intake of hot dogs (OR=11.0, CI=1.2–98.7 for highest intake category, trend P=0.01). There was no evidence that fruit intake provided protection. While these results are compatible with the experimental animal literature and the hypothesis that human NOC intake is associated with leukemia risk, given potential biases in the data, further study of this hypothesis with more focused and comprehensive epidemiologic studies is warranted.
Susan Preston-Martin
January 18, 1942 – November 13, 2016 Susan Preston-Martin, a former faculty member at USC’s Dept. of Preventive Medicine. Susan grew up in Swarthmore, PA. She received a BA in Psychology from Swarthmore College and continued to earn a Ph. D. in Epidemiology at UCLA. Susan went on to be the first woman Fellow at USC. She joined the faculty in 1974 and remained as a professor until her retirement in 2006. She was admired by her colleagues and also played an instrumental role as a mentor to many junior faculty
The alternative?
There are meat suppliers who do not inject their meat with nitrites. This one is a leading brand in Denmark…
http://hanegal.dk/hanegal-in-english/
Hanegal is a Danish organic meat supplier who products include:
- Meat and Charcuteri: salami / salami sticks / pâté / sausages/ bacon
- Ready Meals with and without meat: chilled / frozen
- Plant Based: meat alternatives / vegan bacon / vegan pâté / ready meals
and free from
- Additives
- Gluten Free
- Lactose Free
- Soy Free
- Vegan / Plant based
