# What is the issue with Nitrates?



## pyro50 (Oct 6, 2011)

Been reading the Bacon cure discussions and there is a wealth of informative posts out there, thanks guys.

One thing I couldn't find (forgive me if i missed it) is the logic behind the USDA's guideline against Nitrates in bacon (or "anything fried" as someone put it).

Is it carcinogenic(or more so than the other cures)? Or is there a greater risk for bacteria growth if used incorrectly?  Or????????

I don't want to start the debate of one vs. the other again here, so.......JUST THE FACTS MA'AM!!!


----------



## daveomak (Oct 6, 2011)

Here are the facts from one source.... Read and reread.. I would help but I ain't gettin' into this discussion.. Sorry about that... My sincerest appologies... Dave

http://www.wedlinydomowe.com/sausage-making/curing


----------



## alblancher (Oct 6, 2011)

The USDA based their rule on how nitrates are converted to Nitrosamines when subject to high heat.  Since most people eat bacon crisp, fried they advise that Nitrates are not suitable to bacon curing.   This leads to many opinions about the dangers of nitrosamines, the amout of nitrosamines when using nitrates and so on.   DaveOmak is a wise man, I think I will take his advice and not offer my opinion.


----------



## daveomak (Oct 6, 2011)

alblancher said:


> The USDA based their rule on how nitrates are converted to Nitrosamines when subject to high heat.  Since most people eat bacon crisp, fried they advise that Nitrates are not suitable to bacon curing.   This leads to many opinions about the dangers of nitrosamines, the amout of nitrosamines when using nitrates and so on.   DaveOmak is a wise man, I think I will take his advice and not offer my opinion.


----------



## fpnmf (Oct 6, 2011)

Ya might try putting Nitrate  nitrates   nitrosomine in the handy dandy search tool.

There was just a discsussion about this last week..








Craig


----------



## alblancher (Oct 6, 2011)

Gee,  if people don't ask questions the forum sure would get slow.   Pyro,  ask away,  we love chatting and helping new members!

As you have seen this is one of those volatile issues and if you would like to continue the conversation in PM  feel free to contact me, but be warned,  I am biased.  Hehe


----------



## DanMcG (Oct 6, 2011)

First off....Welcome to the forums, Pyro50
 


Pyro50 said:


> Been reading the Bacon cure discussions and there is a wealth of informative posts out there, thanks guys.
> 
> One thing I couldn't find (forgive me if i missed it) is the logic behind the USDA's guideline against Nitrates in bacon (or "anything fried" as someone put it).
> 
> ...




Ok just the fact's;

This is from the Marianski's book "Home Production of Quality Meats and Sausages".
[h2]Nitrate Safety Concerns[/h2]
_"There has been much concern over the consumption of Nitrates by the general public. Studies have shown that when nitrites combine with by-products of protein (amines in the stomach), that leads to the formation of nitrosamines which are carcinogenic (cancer causing) in laboratory animals. There was also a link that when Nitrates were used to cure bacon and the latter one was fried until crispy, it helped to create nitrosamines. In order to accomplish that the required temperatures had to be in the 600° F (315° C) range. Most meats are smoked and cooked well below 200° F (93° C) so they are not affected. Those findings started a lot of unnecessary panic in the 1970’s about the harmful effects of nitrates on our health. Millions of dollars were spent, a lot of research was done, many researchers had spent long sleepless nights seeking fame and glory, but no evidence was found that when Nitrates are used within the established limits they can pose any danger to our health."_

Basically  I think the USDA's issue with nitrate is that when you have nitrate in a short term cure it might not be converted to nitrite and then to nitric oxide since it's dependent on bacteria to make the conversion and there's a good chance that when you get around to frying that bacon it *might* still have residual amounts of nitrate that* could* form nitrosamines that *could* cause cancer.

Are they right to forbid it's use in commercial meat processing. Sure, The USDA always plays it safe with our food and with the use of cure accelerators now a days a meat plant can pump out a cured belly in a matter of hours so there is no call for the nitrate.

Is it safe to use at home.........LOL no comment.......

We here at SMF try to use the USDA's guideline as our reference for safety, so if it says no nitrates in the bacon then that's what some of use preach especially to the newbies. once you understand the process you can be you own judge.


----------



## pyro50 (Oct 6, 2011)

I hate to perpetuate this, but I'm too damn technical for my own good at times

I now understand the conversion of nitrates to nitrites with bacteria present in the meat, no questions there.  BUT, the real question now is that a little side bar chemistry research I've done has indicated that sodium nitrite can produce nitrosamines just as nitrate can when subjected to high heat.  So we're all screwed.  

I've already talked myself out of this conversation... oh well, everything in moderation.  I'll take my chances.  I'm gonna go crack a beer and light the new AMNS.

Thanks Gents.


----------



## alblancher (Oct 6, 2011)

Yes it can,  but nitrites break down fairly fast and the concentration of nitrite in the meat after curing is low so you have less to make the nitrosamines meaning less nitrosamine.  Nitrates beak down slowly so there is more available to form the nitrosamines resulting in higher amounts


----------



## roller (Oct 6, 2011)

They never could prove that it causes cancer....didn`t you know that everything causes cancer ....


----------



## pyro50 (Oct 6, 2011)

Great break down, that makes sense in regard to nitrates being used for long term cures at higher-than-fridge temps.  Thanks Al.


----------



## alblancher (Oct 6, 2011)

That is why we pay attention to cure times.  Most of us follow the information that nitrite takes three days to have it's effect on the raw belly.  Some of us will use the entire amount of cure, applied in one application and then allow the bellies to cure for 7 - 14 days.  This gives the nitrites time to break down, the flavors to meld and salt to be absorbed.    I use multiple applications and allow the belly to cure for slightly longer. 

Glad we where able to help

Al


----------



## fpnmf (Oct 6, 2011)

Gee, I usually post the search tool stuff dont I?? Gee, here ya go!!

Lots of reading and good info..

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/108289/nitrosamines-bad-erythorbate-good-recipes

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/111498/sodium-nitrite

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/...g-from-michael-ruhlman-author-of-chartcuterie

79 posts on this one...  http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/101497/curing

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/a/curing-salts-for-sausage-making

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/a/...rining-pickling-corning-marinating-and-curing

http://www.smokingmeatforums.com/t/104205/how-long-with-cure


----------



## venture (Oct 6, 2011)

Supposedly high heat is the issue.  But these folks tell us something different about every two years.

Cook the food you like and enjoy it.  How long do you want to spend in the nursing home diapers anyway?  LOL

Good luck and good smoking.


----------



## roller (Oct 6, 2011)

Your a funny guy Bear....


----------



## chefrob (Oct 7, 2011)

great info dan.....that's how i am understanding it.

nice save bear!


----------



## africanmeat (Oct 7, 2011)

I will treat this matter like a marriage .


----------



## africanmeat (Oct 7, 2011)




----------



## tjohnson (Oct 7, 2011)

Not to stirrrrrr the pot, but aren't nitrates also used for long term curing?

So, how would nitrates be OK for ham and not bacon?

If nitrates need to hit 600° to be converted to nitrosamines, then what temp does bacon fry at?

Our wonderful government warns people to eat some fish only (1) time per week, as it may contain low levels of Mercury.  Mercury will accumulate over time and can be harmful.

I'm sure there are some fish that should never be eaten, and some that could be eaten every day. 

The Feds throw out a blanket statement as a warning to eat fish in moderation.

I view the statement on Nitrates the same way.  Food with Nitrates should be in moderation!

Just My 2 cents

Todd


----------



## Bearcarver (Oct 7, 2011)

TJohnson said:


> Not to stirrrrrr the pot, but aren't nitrates also used for long term curing?
> 
> So, how would nitrates be OK for ham and not bacon?
> 
> ...


Agree.

I checked my burner on high with my infra-gun, and it was around 400˚.

I don't burn my Bacon. If I want to do that, I'll use the grill, and eat the charcoal.

States have a list of which fish are "never eat", "once a week", "twice a month", etc, etc.

I think there's too much variance from state to state, for the Fed to do fresh water fish warnings.

I think Fed has a seafood bulletin (international??).

My 1 1/2¢  
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





Bear

EDIT:  I forgot to mention, most of the State fish warnings have two categories. One for children, pregnant women, & women of child bearing age, and one for the rest of us.

Naturally the rules are more strict for those women & kids.


----------



## roller (Oct 7, 2011)

I nuk most of my bacon and I bet it does not get to 600* if 600* is a problem all the time or any of the time...I agree with Todd ! By the way didn`t you know that everything causes cancer !!! Just think about all those cemicals that hog ate before it died....Think any of those cause cancer...I have never seen in the news that anyone died from eating bacon cured with TQ...


----------



## michael ark (Oct 7, 2011)

Their is no post what happened?Did someone disagree.It's back now.


----------



## michael ark (Oct 7, 2011)

Who in their right mind would trust the government that does this.http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/cheese-is-serious-bemis.htm  or thishttp://www.infowars.com/usda-threat...man-in-legal-possession-of-indoor-lemon-tree/or this http://www.infowars.com/a-national-response-to-two-fda-armed-raids-on-rawesome/or any of these http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/articles.htmTheir is even more if you just look.


----------



## chefrob (Oct 7, 2011)

michael ark said:


> Their is no post what happened?Did someone disagree.It's back now.




i think it was on another thread........"cure"


----------



## michael ark (Oct 7, 2011)

No something happened 1 of bears post is M.I.A.


----------



## tjohnson (Oct 7, 2011)

chefrob said:


> i think it was on another thread........"cure"




Yes, it was a different thread.......

I have no dog in this fight, and don't plan on entering one....EVER!!

I personally use cure #1 or a variation of, but have used TQ in the past.  I switched because I needed a lower salt form of curing, not because of what's inside a box of TQ. 

As I see it, if Mortons Cure was a danger to consumers, the U.S Government would have made Mortons pull their products off the shelves by now.  In addition, attorneys would be taking names and lining customers up for a class action lawsuit against Mortons.  Since neither of these has happened yet, my personal opinion is that Morton's Products are safe for me and my family to use.

Many times the U.S. Government will come out with a warning, and then relax or change it later.  I threw out the fish example, because fish have nobody to lobby for them in congress.  The animal industry is full of lobbyist's who persuade our politicians to believe their opinions are best.  It's just about as corrupt as it can be, and still be marginally legal.

Keep-In-Mind, that this is my "Personal Opinion" and "My Opinion Only".  It is not based on any U.S. Government facts or statistics.

Todd


----------



## alblancher (Oct 7, 2011)

Mercury was mentioned so I will use it as an example  We have a serious problem with this heavy metal down here from gas well monitoring devices leaking into the waterways.  Mercury is a poison that affects the nervous system and its development, much like lead poisoning.  Some fresh water ponds and lakes have warnings not to eat any fish caught in the pond because of abnormally high mercury levels.  Many (the majority) will have warnings to limit the consumption of certain species of fish depending on where they are in the food chain and the amount of toxin present in the soils and water column.  Usually men and non-pregnant women can eat the species in question weekly.  Often children and pregnant women or women hoping to have children are warned to not eat the affected fish at all. 

Our population is a tremendous mix of races with different genetic makeups and differing susceptibility to outside environmental influences.  IF we believe that cancers and diseases can be "turned on" by external environmental influences then it is the obligation of the USDA and Health Departments to make that information available and to make recommendations as to exposure levels.   If we can reduce the chance of a baby being born with and trying to live with neurological damage by simply limiting their exposure to mercury it just seems like a no brainer to me to make and follow these recommendations.  If we can reduce the possibility of a person developing cancer by following some simple rules it makes some sense to me.

Please remember that 30 years ago nitrates and nitrites where pervasive in our food supply.  Foods from wine to luncheon meat where loaded with these chemicals.  The direct link to cancer is still in question, but to those susceptible to these potential carcinogens their consumption can cause long term health problems. 

Many of you chose to ignore the recommendations, I understand, I seldom wear a seat belt, my choice, but we all know that we are taking a risk with our health by making these decisions.  I just ask that you do not try to convince other, less informed readers, that your acceptable risks should be their acceptable risk.   

Al


----------



## Bearcarver (Oct 7, 2011)

TJohnson said:


> Yes, it was a different thread.......
> 
> I have no dog in this fight, and don't plan on entering one....EVER!!
> 
> ...


I'll risk it----Exactly!

Bear


----------



## Bearcarver (Oct 7, 2011)

alblancher said:


> Mercury was mentioned so I will use it as an example  We have a serious problem with this heavy metal down here from gas well monitoring devices leaking into the waterways.  Mercury is a poison that affects the nervous system and its development, much like lead poisoning.  Some fresh water ponds and lakes have warnings not to eat any fish caught in the pond because of abnormally high mercury levels.  Many (the majority) will have warnings to limit the consumption of certain species of fish depending on where they are in the food chain and the amount of toxin present in the soils and water column.  Usually men and non-pregnant women can eat the species in question weekly.  Often children and pregnant women or women hoping to have children are warned to not eat the affected fish at all.
> 
> Our population is a tremendous mix of races with different genetic makeups and differing susceptibility to outside environmental influences.  IF we believe that cancers and diseases can be "turned on" by external environmental influences then it is the obligation of the USDA and Health Departments to make that information available and to make recommendations as to exposure levels.   If we can reduce the chance of a baby being born with and trying to live with neurological damage by simply limiting their exposure to mercury it just seems like a no brainer to me to make and follow these recommendations.  If we can reduce the possibility of a person developing cancer by following some simple rules it makes some sense to me.
> 
> ...


Another very good thread---Thanks Al !

Bear


----------



## michael ark (Oct 7, 2011)

Then why do 2 people say your name in post 15&16 and your not on here till 20 or 21?


----------



## tjohnson (Oct 7, 2011)

Al,

I recently watched a program, where the U.S. Government and it's experts were discussing exposure to mercury by eating fish.  Since our bodies cannot dispose of many heavy metals like lead and mercury, the effects are cumulative.  A child who eats contaminated fish will accumulate more mercury over his/her lifetime, than a middle age man or woman.  It was eye opening to me!!

Here's my point.....

It's a "Warning" and not a "Ban"

It's up to the individual to make an educated decision, as to eat potentially hazardous fish.

I could not tell you if the amount of potentially hazardous nitrates in a slice of bacon is more or less than the naturally occurring  nitrates in piece of celery.  I just can't find the data that compares the two.  Am I being ignorant?....No, I Honestly Just Don't Know.

Does this mean we should stop eating celery or other green vegetables?....NO!

I also believe that any unnecessary processing of food is what's causing many of the health issues we have today.  It's taken a heart attack and 5 stents to finally figure out that I've been killing myself with processed foods for 47 years!!

Did your point hit home?.....YES!

TJ


----------



## fpnmf (Oct 7, 2011)

alblancher said:


> Many of you chose to ignore the recommendations, I understand, I seldom wear a seat belt, my choice, but we all know that we are taking a risk with our health by making these decisions.  I just ask that you do not try to convince other, less informed readers, that your acceptable risks should be their acceptable risk.
> 
> Al


Gee... wearing a seat belt in La is not a choice or a recommendation...it is a law!!

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/bystate/la.html

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/troopcseatbelt.pdf

Have a great day!!

  Craig


----------



## alblancher (Oct 7, 2011)

There again my choice.  But I wouldn't try to convince you or anyone else not to wear your seat belt.  It isn't illegal to smoke in your own home.  Would you try to get someone to start smoking cigarettes or dipping or chewing stogies?  

I suggest we defer to published safety guidelines when making public comments on this forum

I believe in

   the 4 hour Rule

   cooking to proper internal temperature

   following safe food handling procedures

   and using the proper cure with the proper procedure


----------



## SmokinAl (Oct 7, 2011)

I think what Al said here pretty much says it all.

"I believe in

   the 4 hour Rule

   cooking to proper internal temperature

   following safe food handling procedures

   and using the proper cure with the proper procedure"


----------



## roller (Oct 7, 2011)

Yes one of Bear`s post is M.I.A.   !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SmokinAl (Oct 7, 2011)

UH OH Bad Bear!


----------



## michael ark (Oct 7, 2011)

I personal think we have way too many laws.That they say is for your own good is B.S.I am a grown man i can make decisions for myself and live with my choices good or bad.We need to get back to the ten commandment's and the Constitution.God bless
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





America land of the somewhat free and home of the brave.


----------



## Bearcarver (Oct 7, 2011)

Bad Bear?

You guys should know better than that by now.

Bear


----------



## fpnmf (Oct 7, 2011)

There again my choice.  But I wouldn't try to convince you or anyone else not to wear your seat belt.  It isn't illegal to smoke in your own home.  Would you try to get someone to start smoking cigarettes or dipping or chewing stogies?  

I suggest we defer to published safety guidelines when making public comments on this forum

Huh???


----------



## DanMcG (Oct 7, 2011)

Pyro50 said:


> One thing I couldn't find (forgive me if i missed it) is the logic behind the USDA's guideline against Nitrates in bacon (or "anything fried" as someone put it).
> 
> 
> I don't want to start the debate of one vs. the other again here, so.......JUST THE FACTS MA'AM!!!


How the hell can a simple fact based discussion turn into the same old two sided pissin match?

This get's old sometimes.


----------



## tjohnson (Oct 7, 2011)

Links: http://www.wedlinydomowe.com/sausage-making/curing/nitrates

          http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/nutrition/DJ0974.html

Read the article, the whole article, and you'll probably be as confused as I am!

Still can't find the USDA stuff, but if there's a link, please let me know?

My conclusion, and this is "My Opinion", Vegetables contain more nitrates than cured meat. 

We need to go back to natural farming and let the whole world starve!

Leave My Bacon Alone!

TJ
[h2]Nitrate Safety Concerns[/h2]
There has been much concern over the consumption of Nitrates by the general public. Studies have shown that when nitrites combine with by-products of protein (amines in the stomach), that leads to the formation of nitrosamines which are carcinogenic (cancer causing) in laboratory animals. There was also a link that when Nitrates were used to cure bacon and the latter one was fried until crispy, it helped to create nitrosamines. In order to accomplish that the required temperatures had to be in the 600° F (315° C) range. Most meats are smoked and cooked well below 200° F (93° C) so they are not affected. Those findings started a lot of unnecessary panic in the 1970’s about the harmful effects of nitrates on our health. Millions of dollars were spent, a lot of research was done, many researchers had spent long sleepless nights seeking fame and glory, but no evidence was found that when Nitrates are used within the established limits they can pose any danger to our health.

A review of all scientific literature on nitrite by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences indicates that nitrite does not directly harm us in any way. All this talk about the danger of nitrite in our meats pales in comparison with the amounts of Nitrates that are found in vegetables that we consume every day. The Nitrates get to them from the fertilizers which are used in agriculture. Don’t blame sausages for the Nitrates you consume, blame the farmer. It is more dangerous to one’s health to eat vegetables on a regular basis than a sausage.


----------



## solaryellow (Oct 7, 2011)

DanMcG said:


> How the hell can a simple fact based discussion turn into the same old two sided pissin match?
> 
> This get's old sometimes.











I know I am done with it.


----------



## tjohnson (Oct 7, 2011)

Pyro50 said:


> Been reading the Bacon cure discussions and there is a wealth of informative posts out there, thanks guys.
> 
> One thing I couldn't find (forgive me if i missed it) is the logic behind the USDA's guideline against Nitrates in bacon (or "anything fried" as someone put it).
> 
> ...


This is the OP's thread

The OP wants the "Facts" and I think that I dug out some good info.  Maybe not "Facts", but good info.

I happen to trust the U of M Extension Service and the other source seemed to confuse the issue, that's why I posted it.

My point is, it's confusing as hell, and just what or who do we believe or trust?

Help the guy out........

Maybe we can all learn a thing or 2 along the way.

I still have no dog in the fight

TJ


----------



## DanMcG (Oct 8, 2011)

I couldn't agree more Todd, it is confusing,  I've been researching it on and off for a while now and still have a lot to learn.


----------



## chef jimmyj (Oct 8, 2011)

Is this not a moot point?...There are Bacon Recipes that contain all kinds of stuff but in General...Cure #1 containing Nitrite for Bacon, Ham and it's variants...Cure #2 containing Nitrite and Nitrate for DRY CURED STUFF,to be eaten as is.  The folks here at SMF have some of the Best Bacon Recipes I have ever seen and NONE, that I've found, contain NITRATE! aka Cure #2...So Moot Point, am I right?

This is an interesting read...http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/seasoningflavoring/a/nitrates.htm

My Dog is a little winded from the "Cure" thread...But he learns from and enjoys a Good Fight now and then...
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	





  ...JJ

Edited for Accuracy

Note in the above I was being specific about Cure #2...I forgot about TQ and it's SMALL amount of Nitrate, half the amount by weight of Cure#2...I have looked into the safety of TQ and have found no indication that there are any problems with it's use...JJ


----------



## tjohnson (Oct 8, 2011)

DanMcG said:


> I couldn't agree more Todd, it is confusing,  I've been researching it on and off for a while now and still have a lot to learn.


I learn something every day and this place has taught me a lot!

Much info we receive from our Government, contradicts itself.  The USDA may make a claim that the FDA does not necessarily follow to the letter. 

I'm not sure where the line is drawn between the USDA and the FDA, and this seems to lead to even more confusion.

Does the USDA control commercial processors?

Does the FDA control the non commercial food supply?

Since we are not commercial processors, do we follow USDA or FDA guidelines, or Both?

Todd


----------



## Bearcarver (Oct 8, 2011)

solaryellow said:


> I know I am done with it.


Me too---My Dog is Mute.

Bear


----------

