New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

What's the Definition of Processed Meat?

The reason that it’s hard to find a hard and fast definition for processed meat is that there isn’t one. Nutrition Diva makes sense of the madness

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


Catherine writes:

We all know that processed meats are not good for us, but what is the definition of processed meat? Is fresh sausage from the butcher with no added chemicals processed? How about the organic lunch meats that have no added preservatives? What about local bacon with no added nitrites or nitrates?”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Catherine is not alone in her confusion about processed meat. This is always a hot topic among those who do my 30-Day Nutrition Upgrade™ program, for example. The daily quiz that we use in that program asks (among other things) whether you ate any cured meats before giving you a nutrition grade for the day. Many people hope that buying “uncured” bacon or hot dogs gets them off the hook on that question.

Today, we’re going to clear up the confusion once and for all.

What is the Definition of Processed Meat?

The reason that it’s hard to find a hard and fast definition for processed meat is that there isn’t one. This term is defined a little differently by everyone. The American Institute for Cancer Research defines processed meat as “meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical preservatives.”

The World Health Organization has a slightly broader definition: "meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation."

»Continue reading on QuickAndDirtyTips.com

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe