Are canned meats okay to eat every day?

[danielg733]

I've been eating a 1-2 cans (80g) of meat a day (tuna, salmon and chicken), and I'm beginning to wonder if this is really that healthy to be doing long-term. It's just so damn convenient. Most online article seems to suggest no-one should EVER eat canned meat, but never really explain why. Anyone have any thoughts?

[Heisman2]

I've never read anything to indicated canned meats are inherently bad. Check the nutrition label if you want to keep an eye on sodium content or the other nutrients.

[AdamWW]

I've been eating a 1-2 cans (80g) of meat a day (tuna, salmon and chicken), and I'm beginning to wonder if this is really that healthy to be doing long-term. It's just so damn convenient. Most online article seems to suggest no-one should EVER eat canned meat, but never really explain why. Anyone have any thoughts?

The main reason people are saying this moreso nowadays is BPA lining on the cans. However, I'm not sure what level of exposure you'd get on average or what the impact would be. Also, you can find BPA-free cans now pretty often.

That being said, it's just a processed meat... they chop it up, can it, ship it... I don't see how it'd be worse than something in a plastic container.

[radrd]

I think aside from sodium and mercury (tuna) it's probably not too bad, but I haven't researched. Canned salmon tastes good, at least the stuff I got from Costco. I'd add that if you want to expand slightly.

[Dudevoid]

One reason I stopped eating processed meats in cans is they have to be cooked at high temperatures for longevity of storage, because of this will have higher levels of compounds called advanced glycation end products (AGEs)

Cook your own food as much as possible and avoid processed meats as much as possible. There is a lot of information on the web regarding AGEs if you google too. I can't post links yet but there is a good article in the NCBI website called "Advanced Glycation End Products in Foods and a Practical Guide to Their Reduction in the Diet" that gives some interesting information on them.

[Mrpb]

Canned chicken is considered processed meat and associated with several health problems. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Eating canned tuna and salmon daily will easily put you over the mercury limits.

[AdamWW]

Canned chicken is considered processed meat and associated with several health problems. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Eating canned tuna and salmon daily will easily put you over the mercury limits.

So any no-salt version would not qualify? I see many of those nowadays.

[Mrpb]

So any no-salt version would not qualify? I see many of those nowadays.

As far as I know the salt isn't necessarily the problem.

[AdamWW]

As far as I know the salt isn't necessarily the problem.

From the description as long as it's not 'cured', 'salted', etc... then they classify it as not processed /

There's a lot of uncured, unsalted items now.

[Mrpb]

From the description as long as it's not 'cured', 'salted', etc... then they classify it as not processed /

There's a lot of uncured, unsalted items now.

You mean unprocessed chicken in a can, without preservatives? Can you show me with a link? Haven't seen that in Europe yet.

[Heisman2]

Canned chicken is considered processed meat and associated with several health problems. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Eating canned tuna and salmon daily will easily put you over the mercury limits.

You sure about that with the salmon? I am on my phone so cannot look this up easily now; I can look later

I need to look at the AGEs mentioned above more.

[AdamWW]

You mean unprocessed chicken in a can, without preservatives? Can you show me with a link? Haven't seen that in Europe yet.

https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Planet-O...019QD714Y?th=1

[Mrpb]

You sure about that with the salmon?

He says he's eating canned tuna and salmon daily. Yes, I think that can easily put him over the mercury limits.

https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Planet-O...019QD714Y?th=1

It says "Roasted in the can, resulting in delicious rotisserie taste. "

WHO defines processed meat as: "meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation". I'd say that canned chicken is considered processed meat by the WHO definition.

I do think it's a better choice than say, the average hot dog from a can. But still, I'd always prefer fresh unprocessed chicken and prepare it myself.

[x-ray vision]

It says "Roasted in the can, resulting in delicious rotisserie taste. "

WHO defines processed meat as: "meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation". I'd say that canned chicken is considered processed meat by the WHO definition.

A little common sense needs to be employed here. "Resulting in a delicious rotisserie taste" is something a marketing dude came up with. Roasting, in a can or elsewhere, is not what the WHO was getting at regarding being "transformed through...", which should be obvious when looking at their examples " salting, curing, fermentation, smoking." "Other processes" is going to include things of that nature, not roasting, canning, or roasting in a can.

[FlySwiftPanda]

Canned meats are amazing. I recommend basing your protein intake on how your body feels, if you feel like you need to eat meat then by all means eat.

[Mrpb]

A little common sense needs to be employed here. "Resulting in a delicious rotisserie taste" is something a marketing dude came up with. Roasting, in a can or elsewhere, is not what the WHO was getting at regarding being "transformed through...", which should be obvious when looking at their examples " salting, curing, fermentation, smoking." "Other processes" is going to include things of that nature, not roasting, canning, or roasting in a can.

Have you really read the full WHO documentation on the topic? I'm getting the impression that you didn't, at least not fully. Roasting actually does produce certain compounds that enhance flavour. So it's likely not just marketing. Roasting also transforms meat; it creates carcinogenic compounds. It is also a process that improves preservation. Canning meat is also specifically mentioned in the WHO papers.

To summarise: I see no valid reason to assume that this canned chicken doesn't fit the processed meat label that the WHO uses.

I wouldn't recommend making canned chicken a staple food, even if it's organic low sodium roasted in a can. That being said, it is probably a healthier choice than the average hot dog.

Now I'll mention one valid argument against the WHO position: there was probably a very small percentage of people (if any) eating this specific type of canned poultry in the studies they summarised. So it would be fair to say that it's uncertain what the long term effects are. However, because roasting at high temperatures does create carcinogenic compounds it's probably still a good idea to limit consumption.

[ArchangelEST]

I seriously doubt a measly 80-160g of canned meat a day will have any relevant effect on health even if canned products were somehow somewhat unhealthy. The quantity seems far too small to begin with. Hell I didn't even know there were cans that damn small, lol.

[Mrpb]

Going by the WHO numbers 50 gram of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.

IIRC it means that the risk goes up from about ~5% to ~6% for 50 grams daily.

[x-ray vision]

Have you really read the full WHO documentation on the topic? I'm getting the impression that you didn't, at least not fully. Roasting actually does produce certain compounds that enhance flavour. So it's likely not just marketing. Roasting also transforms meat; it creates carcinogenic compounds. It is also a process that improves preservation.

I did. I also read your ridiculous extrapolation and responded to it appropriately.

This was "roasted" in the can. Again, marketing. How high a temperature did they "roast" this product at? How much of a Maillard reaction do you think there would be from cooking in a can? Let's take a look at a pic and see:

https://momsmeet.com/program/wild-pl...hicken-breast/

Damn, that's practically cancer in a can!

Canning meat is also specifically mentioned in the WHO papers.

Yes, it is. It says the following:

"Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces."

Once again, a little common sense can go a long way. What Wild Planet is doing in the product mentioned in the OP is far from typical regarding processed and canned meats. If you want to stick to "but the WHO paper says, neener, neener, neener" have at it. Oh, and because a marketing genius said roasting in a can made it delicious. THAT was actually your rationale for roasted chicken being processed chicken according to the WHO. Ever hear of "spirit of the law"? That WHO paper isn't saying what you think it is.

To summarise: I see no valid reason to assume that this canned chicken doesn't fit the processed meat label that the WHO uses.

Of course you don't.

However, because roasting at high temperatures does create carcinogenic compounds it's probably still a good idea to limit consumption.

Who said anything about high temperatures? You do realize roasting generally means above a heat source hot enough to brown the meat, right? Take another look at the pic in the link I provided. There are carcinogenic compounds in almost everything. Yes, almost EVERYTHING should be "limited" to some degree.

This:

It says "Roasted in the can, resulting in delicious rotisserie taste. "

WHO defines processed meat as: "meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation". I'd say that canned chicken is considered processed meat by the WHO definition.

was an idiotic statement. You probably see it now, but knowing your track record, you'd never admit it.

You will get the last word in, don't worry. You always do because even when others are right, you don't give up. I think you believe if you get the last word in, you win. Good for you.

[Mrpb]

I did. I also read your ridiculous extrapolation and responded to it appropriately.

Wow that's a lot of negative attitude.

First make sure you read the whole paper, not just a single page summary. https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-conten...06/mono114.pdf

This was "roasted" in the can. Again, marketing.

So what? Roasting produces those same compounds.

How high a temperature did they "roast" this product at?

You don't know, I don't know. Does it matter? not really because roasting is enough to know.

How much of a Maillard reaction do you think there would be from cooking in a can? Let's take a look at a pic and see:

Enough to enhance flavour en improve preservation.

Damn, that's practically cancer in a can!

Nice strawman. And apparently you think you can judge the amount of carcinogenic compounds from a picture. That's funny.

Yes, it is. It says the following:

"Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces."

What do you think AS WELL AS CANNED MEAT means? Answer that one question.

[Mrpb]

Oh, and because a marketing genius said roasting in a can made it delicious. THAT was actually your rationale for roasted chicken being processed chicken according to the WHO.

Another strawman. The roasting is the processing that enhances preservation. Forget what it does to the flavour.

Who said anything about high temperatures?

Even if it's roasted at relatively lower temperatures it wouldn't solve the whole problem.

You do realize roasting generally means above a heat source hot enough to brown the meat, right?

Browning makes it worse. The logical error you're making is assuming that roasting without browning is completely harmless.

There are carcinogenic compounds in almost everything. Yes, almost EVERYTHING should be "limited" to some degree.

But only very few foods have been consistently linked with an increased risk for cancer. Processed meat (including canned chicken) is one of the few.

[Mrpb]

The forum has a glitch going making it impossible to post the last part of my post: I'll summarise it here. X-ray vision, show me 1 example where I was actually wrong and did not admit it. Just 1.

You'll probably find that I wasn't actually wrong. If I'm wrong show me, and I'll confirm it if it's true.

[AdamWW]

Another strawman. The roasting is the processing that enhances preservation. Forget what it does to the flavour.


Even if it's roasted at relatively lower temperatures it wouldn't solve the whole problem.


But only very few foods have been consistently linked with an increased risk for cancer. Processed meat (including canned chicken) is one of the few.

This confuses me a bit..

If this is true, than even roasting at home and then freezing or refrigerating would carry the same risks, wouldn't it? "Roasted" is just baking, as far as I know...

So, even if you cook it yourself, it's being 'processed' in the same way here, isn't it? If that's the case, I'm not sure why there'd be a difference depending on who did the roasting...

[Mrpb]

@AdamWW, most important to keep in mind: it is not exactly known why processed meats are consistently associated with increased cancer risk. The formation of carcinogenic compounds is just one possible explanation, but not the only one.

And yes you're right, roasting or cooking at home also creates those compounds. To what extent will be influenced by a number of factors: for example the temperature, the length it is cooked (or roasted) and whether there is contact with a hot surface.

The method has an impact on the formation of carcinogenic compounds such as HAAs or PAHs (Skog et al., 1998; Giri et al., 2015). At low temperatures (around 100 °C), steaming, boiling, or stewing generate much lower levels of these carcinogenic compounds. For baking and roasting, temperatures are higher (up to 200 °C), but as there is limited direct contact with a hot surface, the formation of these carcinogenic compounds is also low (Rohrmann et al., 2002). Barbecuing, grilling, and pan-frying expose meat products to high temperatures, and to a hot surface or to direct flame, and thus can produce an appreciable level of these carcinogenic compounds (American Institute for Cancer Research/World Cancer Research Fund, 1997; Sinha et al., 1998a, b).

So, even if you cook it yourself, it's being 'processed' in the same way here, isn't it?

Can you roast chicken at home and are you able able to store it in cans with long shelf life (outside the fridge)?

If you can I'd say you've made your own processed chicken.

[x-ray vision]

So what? Roasting produces those same compounds.

...

[Regarding temperature of the can "roasting":]

You don't know, I don't know. Does it matter? not really because roasting is enough to know.

...

Even if it's roasted at relatively lower temperatures it wouldn't solve the whole problem.

Temperature doesn't matter? Seriously? Any heat from an oven is a concern? Provide evidence that roasting in a can at lower temperatures is a reasonable health concern. I can't believe I'm having this debate.

It was "roasted" in a can! How would heating it another way make a difference? You are extrapolating from a study in a manner I've never seen before.

[Regarding the Maiiliard reaction:]

Enough to enhance flavour en improve preservation.

Nonsense! Prove that there has been a significant Malliard reaction from that can "roasting."

Nice strawman. And apparently you think you can judge the amount of carcinogenic compounds from a picture. That's funny.

How adorable that you accuse me of a straw man and follow up with one.

The hyperbolic comment of mine followed my statement regarding a Malliard reaction. There was no apparent browning in the pic I provided.

What do you think AS WELL AS CANNED MEAT means? Answer that one question.

I'll tell you what it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that ANY form of canning makes a meat on the same, or anywhere NEAR the same, level of a health concern as the examples given.

Another strawman. The roasting is the processing that enhances preservation. Forget what it does to the flavour.

So does boiling. So does...virtually ANY type of cooking enhances preservation! That is a ridiculous metric to judge danger by!

From that WHO pdf:

Fernandez et al. (1997) (112 cases and 108 controls), based on data from a case–control study in northern Italy, focused on subjects with a family history of cancer and reported that some processed meats were positively associated with colorectal cancer. For the highest versus the lowest tertile, the odds ratios were 2.1 (95% CI, 0.9–4.9; Ptrend > 0.05) for raw ham, 2.6 (95%
CI, 1.0–6.8; Ptrend > 0.05) for ham, and 1.9 (95%
CI, 1.0–3.3; Ptrend < 0.05) for canned meat. [The limitations of this study were the unclear definition of processed meats, the modest sample size, and the lack of adjustment for energy intake and other potential confounders.]

The bolded part is telling, isn't it? ONCE again, some common sense: Most canned meat consumed IS NOT anywhere near on par with the product in the OP.

Regarding stomach cancer:

Exposure assessment method: questionnaire; dietary intake was based on an FFQ including 29 food items; individuals were asked to indicate the frequency of consumption of these items per week before the onset of the disease that led to hospital admission and to recall any major change in frequency of intake of the same foods during the 10-yr period preceding the diagnosis; items related to processed meat were “raw ham”, “ham”, “salami and other sausages”, and “canned meat”

Just a guess: The canned meat consumed wasn't anywhere near on par with the Wild Planet product in question.

X-ray vision, show me 1 example where I was actually wrong and did not admit it. Just 1

How about a real-time example?

You do realize roasting generally means above a heat source hot enough to brown the meat, right?

Browning makes it worse. The logical error you're making is assuming that roasting without browning is completely harmless.

I didn't make any logical errors. I never made an assumption that roasting without browning is "completely harmless." Just two sentences later I wrote "There are carcinogenic compounds in almost everything. Yes, almost EVERYTHING should be "limited" to some degree."

Just like "canned meat" is generally more of a health concern than the canned meat product in question here, "roasting" dangers are generally not because of some amount of heat from an oven. That is the gist of my statement.

So you were wrong, weren't you?

You'll probably find that I wasn't actually wrong. If I'm wrong show me, and I'll confirm it if it's true.

Dude, I just accused you of not being able to admit when you're wrong. Do you think I trust that you're going to do it now because you say you will?

[x-ray vision]

Going by the WHO numbers 50 gram of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.

IIRC it means that the risk goes up from about ~5% to ~6% for 50 grams daily.

Another strawman. The roasting is the processing that enhances preservation.

So...odd.

[Mrpb]

X-Ray vision, (1) the product is canned meat. (2) The meat has been roasted. (3) It stays well in a can.

The WHO definition: "Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, OR OTHER PROCESSES to enhance flavour or IMPROVE PRESERVATION. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, POULTRY, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky AS WELL AS CANNED MEAT and meat-based preparations and sauces.

It does not get much clearer than that.

The effects of roasting are described in detail in that paper: https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-conten...06/mono114.pdf

How many carcinogenic compounds are there in that specific chicken in a can? Impossible to answer. It will depends on a number of factors: what temperature did they use, was there contact with the can, for what length of time did they roast etc. If you're really interested I suggest emailing the manufacturer. But still that will be a very limited indication.

Personally I'd rather avoid consuming processed/canned meats. I prefer fresh fish and chicken and prepare it on the lowest temperature possible. That's just me though. YMMV.

[AdamWW]

X-Ray vision, (1) the product is canned meat. (2) The meat has been roasted. (3) It stays well in a can.

The WHO definition: "Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, OR OTHER PROCESSES to enhance flavour or IMPROVE PRESERVATION. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, POULTRY, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky AS WELL AS CANNED MEAT and meat-based preparations and sauces.

It does not get much clearer than that.

The effects of roasting are described in detail in that paper: https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-conten...06/mono114.pdf

How many carcinogenic compounds are there in that specific chicken in a can? Impossible to answer. It will depends on a number of factors: what temperature did they use, was there contact with the can, for what length of time did they roast etc. If you're really interested I suggest emailing the manufacturer. But still that will be a very limited indication.

Personally I'd rather avoid consuming processed/canned meats. I prefer fresh fish and chicken and prepare it on the lowest temperature possible. That's just me though. YMMV.

Would the same concern apply to uncured, unsalted packaged meat (ie Turkey) which has only the meat as the ingredient but doesn't come in a can (comes in a plastic/air-tight bag of sorts)? I see those on shelves a lot, too, and they don't keep that long... maybe 1-2 months or so.

[Mrpb]

Would the same concern apply to uncured, unsalted packaged meat (ie Turkey) which has only the meat as the ingredient but doesn't come in a can (comes in a plastic/air-tight bag of sorts)? I see those on shelves a lot, too, and they don't keep that long... maybe 1-2 months or so.

I haven't seen those yet. Do you know how they prepared it?

[x-ray vision]

X-Ray vision, (1) the product is canned meat. (2) The meat has been roasted. (3) It stays well in a can.

I went over this already. Thoroughly.

The effects of roasting are described in detail in that paper: https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-conten...06/mono114.pdf

Thanks, I found some interesting tid-bits:

"At low temperatures (around 100 °C), steaming, boiling, or stewing generate much lower levels of these carcinogenic compounds. For baking and roasting, temperatures are higher (up to 200 °C), but as there is limited direct contact with a hot surface, the formation of these carcinogenic compounds is also low (Rohrmann et al., 2002). Barbecuing, grilling, and pan-frying expose meat products to high temperatures, and to a hot surface or to direct flame, and thus can produce an appreciable level of these carcinogenic compounds[/b]

...

The higher the cooking temperature, the more AGEPs are formed in red and processed meat. Different studies have shown that oven-frying produces more AGEPs than deep-frying, and broiling produces more AGEPs than roasting.

...

In a prospective study conducted by the Norwegian National Health Screening Service (143 cases of colon cancer) among Norwegian men and women aged 20–54 years between 1977 and 1983 (Gaard et al., 1996), consumption of meatballs, meat stews, and fried or roasted meats was unrelated to colon cancer risk.

...

(Navarro et al., 2004) (296 cases, 597 controls) reported that a higher intake of darkly browned red meat was associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer, particularly for barbecued, iron pan–cooked, and fried red meat, but not roasted red meat."

It is of course important to point out that "roasting" has to be taken in context. Again, roasting generally enables browning. Wild Planet is using a marketing term to make their product sound more enticing. It's heated in a can. That is all.