Re: is smoked fish bad for you

[Guest guest]

-

>I have been wondering if smoked fish like lox and so forth is

>unhealthy in terms of digestibility. Did Weston Price come across

>cultures that smoked their fish? I have heard a couple of opinions on

>this but didn't know if there was a definitive smoked fish expert in

>this group.

I don't know that there's a definitive answer to that. Not all lox

is smoked, however, and any fish which is smoked is almost certainly

cold-smoked, which has a much greater chance of being safe and

healthy than hot-smoking, or traditional barbecue.

Notwithstanding all the nonsense you can hear from the pro-nitrate

crowd, smoke actually functions as a preservative, though it takes

much more than is generally used nowadays to have a meaningful

effect, and if it's produced in a way that prevents fat from dropping

on the heat source (and from clean wood or coals, of course) it might

be perfectly healthy. The main problem comes from fat hitting the

coals, burning, getting turned into polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(principally benzopyrene) and being redeposited on the meat.

One way to avoid this problem is to use a water smoker. Another is

to use liquid smoke instead of an actual smoke source, as liquid

smokes have had virtually all their polycyclic hydrocarbons

removed. I'm not aware of any organic liquid smoke products on the

market, though, so who knows what other nasties might be lurking in

there. That said, I use liquid smoke myself from time to time as I

live in a Manhattan apartment and can't possibly use a water smoker.

-

[Guest guest]

Personally I'd almost rather die than give up my smoked oysters (ok, maybe

not QUITE that extream, but I sure do like 'em!)

On 1/14/06, Idol <paul_idol@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> I don't know that there's a definitive answer to that. Not all lox

> is smoked, however, and any fish which is smoked is almost certainly

> cold-smoked, which has a much greater chance of being safe and

> healthy than hot-smoking, or traditional barbecue.

>

> Notwithstanding all the nonsense you can hear from the pro-nitrate

> crowd, smoke actually functions as a preservative, though it takes

> much more than is generally used nowadays to have a meaningful

> effect, and if it's produced in a way that prevents fat from dropping

> on the heat source (and from clean wood or coals, of course) it might

> be perfectly healthy. The main problem comes from fat hitting the

> coals, burning, getting turned into polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

> (principally benzopyrene) and being redeposited on the meat.

>

> One way to avoid this problem is to use a water smoker. Another is

> to use liquid smoke instead of an actual smoke source, as liquid

> smokes have had virtually all their polycyclic hydrocarbons

> removed. I'm not aware of any organic liquid smoke products on the

> market, though, so who knows what other nasties might be lurking in

> there. That said, I use liquid smoke myself from time to time as I

> live in a Manhattan apartment and can't possibly use a water smoker.

>

>

> --

> Mrs. () Siemens

> Weston A Price Foundation; Teeswater Chapter Leader

>

> Blessed to be his helpmeet, 7 years and counting!!!

>

> Mommy to Zack (5) and Liddy (21 months)

>

> no fear, only faith; no guilt, only grace; no pride, only praise; no

> claim, only Christ

>