Why Cured Meat Does Not Belong on the Grill? DW’s Misleading Science

By Eben van Tonder

Introduction

On 20 August 2025, Deutsche Welle ran a piece with the dramatic title “Why cured meat does not belong on the grill.” It claims that putting bacon or ham on the fire is essentially poisoning oneself with carcinogens. The article has traction because it repeats a story the public has been hearing for decades. But repetition does not make it true.

The problem is not that nitrosamines were never a concern, which they were in the 1970s. The problem is that DW pretends nothing has changed since then. It ignores the regulatory fixes, the chemistry, the physiology, and the nutritional context. The result is a one-sided, outdated, and misleading article that reads more like a scare campaign than science.

Nitrosamines and the Role of Ascorbate

Yes, nitrosamines can form when nitrite meets amines at high heat. That was the bacon problem fifty years ago. But what DW refuses to tell its readers is that the problem was solved. Since 1978, bacon curing in the United States has required 550 ppm of sodium ascorbate or erythorbate, precisely because these antioxidants block nitrosamine formation at the source (USDA FSIS, 2025).

Cassens (1997) put it bluntly:

“The inclusion of ascorbate or erythorbate in cured meat formulations inhibits nitrosamine formation to the point where levels are negligible or non-detectable in commercial products” (Cassens 1997).

It worked. So well that the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service shut down its nitrosamine testing programme in 1998, and in 2025 struck the last traces of it from federal regulation (USDA FSIS 2025). That is not a cover-up. It is a public-health success story. DW simply omits it.

Nitrosamines in the Stomach: The Phantom Menace

DW also hints at nitrosamines forming in your stomach after eating cured meats. Again, technically possible. In reality? Unlikely.

Mirvish (1995) already showed that vitamin C in the stomach suppresses nitrosamine formation (Mirvish 1995). Xu et al. (2020) confirmed in controlled studies that under normal dietary conditions, endogenous nitrosation is “minimal and counterbalanced by natural inhibitors” (Xu et al. 2020).

In other words, your own stomach chemistry, aided by a normal diet, keeps the supposed “time bomb” in check. DW ignores this literature entirely.

Nutritional Value: The Inconvenient Truth

Not only does DW ignore the chemistry, it ignores nutrition. Cured meats are not empty carcinogen carriers—they are among the most nutrient-dense foods in the human diet.

Biesalski (2005) writes:

“Meat is one of the most nutrient-dense foods, providing proteins of high biological value together with bioavailable micronutrients, and contributes importantly to human nutrition” (Biesalski 2005).

Protein, iron, zinc, vitamin B12—these are not trivial contributions. Leaving them out of the conversation distorts public understanding.

Nitrite in Physiology: From Demon to Defender

Far from being a toxin, dietary nitrite is part of a life-saving biochemical cycle. Once in the stomach, nitrite feeds the nitrate–nitrite–nitric oxide (NO) pathway. This pathway is a cornerstone of antimicrobial defence and vascular health.

Lundberg et al. (2008) describe it clearly:

“Nitrite in the acidic stomach is converted to NO, contributing to antimicrobial defence and mucosal blood flow regulation” (Lundberg et al. 2008).

DW manages to erase this entirely, as if nitrite had no physiological value. That is not journalism—it is narrative engineering.

Grilling Risks Are Universal

Finally, DW singles out cured meats for grilling risk. This is scientific sleight of hand. The real issue with grilling is temperature and smoke, not curing. At high heat, all meats produce HCAs and PAHs. The National Cancer Institute states it plainly:

“HCAs and PAHs are formed when muscle meat—including beef, pork, fish, or poultry—is cooked using high-temperature methods such as pan frying or grilling directly over an open flame” (NCI 2020).

Even vegetables pick up PAHs when grilled over smoky flames. To target cured meats specifically is to mislead.

Conclusion

DW’s article is not neutral science reporting. It is selective storytelling that revives old fears while ignoring decades of solutions. The mandatory use of ascorbate and erythorbate in curing brines has already neutralised the nitrosamine issue in commercial products. Gastric nitrosation is suppressed in vivo. Cured meats remain nutrient-dense, and nitrite itself is a physiological ally in the nitrate–nitrite–NO pathway.

Most importantly, grilling is a universal high-heat risk, not a “cured meat” risk. The omission of these facts is not an oversight. It is a choice.

Why would credible scientists or journalists produce such skewed material? Because it sells fear, it fits policy narratives, and it plays into a cultural mood that is eager to blame tradition rather than face complexity. But complexity is the truth: grilling risks are real, but they belong to all foods at high heat. Cured meats are not villains—they are, in fact, among the most carefully regulated foods on the planet.

Link to all my work on meat curing and human health. / Link zu all meinen Arbeiten über Fleischpökelung und menschliche Gesundheit.

References