🎉 NEW soft, tangy, delicious corn & soy free goat chevre! BUY CHEVRE.

How did pork get a bad rep anyway? Why is Miller's pork exceptional?

written by

Marie Reedell

posted on

January 7, 2025

pigs-in-woods-2.jpg

Did you know that, globally, pork is the #1 meat? According to the UN, 10% more pork is eaten compared to poultry worldwide. And, 50% more pork is eaten compared to beef worldwide. Wow!

But, for some reason, this isn't the case in the US. According to the USDA, pork ranks #3 when it comes to meat. Americans eat 30% less pork compared to poultry and 15% less compared to beef.

Why is this? Well, pork has gotten a pretty bad rep in the US. Of course there are some religions that prohibit pork, but that's not the leading factor. 

Some reasons why pork has a bad rep.

1- Too much saturated fat. 

The low fat craze started in the 1970s and fizzled out in the 1990s. It came from the belief that (1) fat makes us fat; and (2) that too much saturated fat = high cholesterol = bad things like heart disease and cholesterol. These myths have been debunked. Read more in fats and health blog post.

The bottom line is that not all fats are created equal. Natural animal fats from happy, healthy animals are good. It's those highly processed hydrogenated saturated fats that are bad. In other words, eat all the pork fat!

2- Worry about disease. 

People still seem to think they can get sick from pork. There's fear of parasites (like the roundworm Trichinella spiralis that can cause trichinosis) or bacteria or other things. 

The reality is that getting sick from pork is really rare nowadays. If you cook pork properly, you don't need to worry about disease. Muscle meat (like chops or tenderloin) should be cooked to 145F. Ground meat and organs should be cooked to 160F. 

3- Worry of bad ingredients. 

This only relates to processed pork like hot dogs and bacon and ham. There's truth to this one. Nitrates and nitrites, commonly used in curing conventional pork, have been shown to cause cancer and other health issues. And stabilizers, artificial colors, preservatives, and other additives have been linked to negative health outcomes, too.

But, this isn't the case for all pork. How meat it's processed matters a lot. At Miller's, we don't put any of that yucky junk in our meat, even the salami and bacon and sausages (more on that below).

4- Worry that eating pork will have a negative affect on your blood. 

The Weston A. Price Foundation did a bunch of research on this. It's true that plain pork can cause blood clotting and inflammation. However, properly preparing pork (by marinating it in vinegar or naturally curing it) or by eating pork with fermented veggies like sauerkraut removes these negative effects. Read more about pork and your blood in this blog post.

5- The belief that pigs are "dirty". 

I think this one mainly comes from the fact that pigs roll around in mud. They do this to protect their nearly hairless bodies. It's like natural sunscreen. It doesn't mean the meat is dirty at all.

It may also come from the fact that pigs are often treated as garbage disposals. They will literally eat anything. And that includes kitchen scraps, meat processing scraps, curdled milk, and more.

But again, not all pork is created equal. When you source from trusted farms, you can actually know that the pigs are eating clean food and are rolling around in chemical-free mud. 

6- Strange rumors that pigs are deformed.

This one came from Nailea on the farm. At some point, she watched a video about how some pigs are born without buttholes or have odd deformities or become cancerous. Yet, despite their weirdness, they're still raised for meat. I don't know how true this is for conventional pigs. But, it's certainly not true for our pigs. They are intact and happy and healthy. And our processor would never give us meat that's weird or cancerous.

Why you should eat pork.

I'm here to inform you that, when produced naturally and properly, pork is pretty awesome. 

It's high in protein, zinc, iron, and B vitamins (particularly the "anti-stress" vitamin B1 - read more about thiamine and pork in this blog post). It's packed with quality, healthy saturated fats. And it's the most affordable meat and can be produced year round. 

This is why people around the world love pork. I think you should love pork, too!

Miller's pork is not just any old pork. 

Here are 6 quick reasons it stands above the rest:

1- Woodland raised. 

Our pigs get plenty of exercise and forage for countless nuts and grubs and roots. This diverse diet gives our pork some extra flavor. And you can be assured that the environment is free of chemicals and is a happy place for our pigs to live.

2- Corn & soy free. 

This means low PUFA and no chance of GMOs. We haven't tested our pork like we did for our chicken and eggs. But, if we did, I assume we'd get similar results with our pork having balanced omegas and packed with vitamins and minerals.

3- Heritage breeds. 

Our pigs are Berkshire, Duroc, Red Waddle, and Black crosses. These heritage breeds are known for their intensity of flavor, juiciness, marbling, and tenderness. It's nothing like the bland, dry pork you often get at the grocery store.

4- No junk like nitrates or additives. 

We reduce toxins and anything unnatural as much as possible. Our bacon is cured simply with Celtic sea salt (in a store it would have "uncured" on the label). Our sausages have clean ingredients, no weird thickeners or preservatives. Our salami is cured naturally with celery juice powder.

5- Washed in organic apple cider vinegar. 

No harsh chemicals like bleach or citric and lactic acids touch our pork. We are so fortunate to have a naturally minded processor!

6- No drugs. 

We don't vaccinate. We don't give antibiotics or hormones or anything like that. Through a natural diet and lifestyle, our pigs stay naturally healthy.

Do you eat pork? Why or why not? What do you look for when shopping for pork?

I'd love to hear from you. Comment below - no account required (start typing for the guest option to appear). ðŸ˜Š

-----

SOURCES:

More from the blog

Raw milk or fermented dairy and lactose intolerance. Why might it help?

I was misinformed. At some point, I read that raw milk contains lactase. As it turns out, this is not true! It is true that raw milk contains many live enzymes that are inactivated during pasteurization. But, what about lactase? I’ve heard many anecdotal stories from people who are lactose intolerant... but can handle raw milk or fermented dairy. If raw milk, yogurt, kefir, or cheese doesn’t contain lactase, then why is that?

Our bone broth tested negative-ish for heavy metals 🥳 NATURAL AND CLEAN

Over the past few months a bunch of people asked us if we tested our bone broth for toxic heavy metals. When we get the same question a lot, we of course look into it. My first question was --- Is there an issue with toxic metals in bone broth? As it turns out, yes, there "can" be an issue! Heavy metals are naturally present in our environment. We need the "good" heavy metals to thrive: iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, etc. But, we can 100% do without the toxic heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, etc. Too many toxic heavy metals can lead to a host of pretty awful issues: nervous system damage, cardiovascular issues, cancer, endocrine disruption, kidney damage, and so on. Our body is designed to excrete heavy metals through urine (and a little bit through sweat, hair, and breastmilk too)... but only so much. There's a limit. If you're overloaded, your body will store those heavy metals in your bones, blood, tissues, and organs. Similarly, if an animal is exposed to heavy metals via food, water, air, dust, or soil, those heavy metals accumulate in the bones. Maybe the farm's soil or air is contaminated from a nearby factory. Maybe the pipes for the water has lead solder connecting them. Maybe the feed a farm is buying was grown on contaminated soil or processed on contaminated equipment.  And, of course, a main purpose of bone broth is drawing out as much as possible from the bones. If there are heavy metals in bones, they will make their way into the broth. This is especially true when you pre-soak with apple cider vinegar and simmer for 48 hours to make it thick and gelatinous (like our broth). And that led me to my second question --- Should I be concerned about every bone broth? Where is the fear coming from? Well... it seems it might be a little political. There was a study done in the UK in 2013 that scared a lot of people. It's titled "The Risk of Lead Contamination in Bone Broth Diets". This study found high levels of lead in organic chicken bone broth, which is quite concerning. And, in fact, this one study is still cited in articles written today! Let's dig a little deeper. Let's go farther than the short abstract. Here are the broths tested in the study and their test results for lead:  (9.5 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus skin and cartilage(7.01 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus bones(2.3 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus meat(0.89 parts per billion): Tap water alone cooked for the same amount of time as a control. But, they only used organic chicken from one farm. And, there's zero information about that farm, their practices, the feed, and the broth recipe. Did they use vinegar or wine in the broth? Was the chicken's water contaminated with lead? What was the quality of the feed and the soil? Were the chickens raised indoors or outdoors? So many unanswered questions! All we get is that it was one "organic chicken" that created a lead issue with broth. Another curious thing is that the broth with skin and cartilage contained more lead than the broth made with just bones. Bones are where lead is stored, so why wouldn't the broth made with bones only contain more lead? It's an odd result. Moreover, the abstract of the study specifically called out "bone broth diets" like GAPS and paleo. They even go so far as to write, "In view of the dangers of lead consumption to the human body, we recommend that doctors and nutritionists take the risk of lead contamination into consideration when advising patients about bone broth diets." That's quite curious. Why are they worried about these diets? Are the researchers anti healing through food? Who funded the research? Is it political? My opinion? This study is not comprehensive. It does not speak to all bone broths. But it does cover a potential issue if the water or animals are overloaded with heavy metals. What I glean from this study is that we need more research. We don't need fear to spread and people to stop drinking broth from this one study. Regardless of whether the fear was fabricated or legit, we tested our bone broth anyway. After all, it's always nice to validate that your food choices are as clean as you think. For Miller's, here were my concerns before testing: What if there's mercury in the fishmeal in our chicken feed?What if the soil that our animals live on is contaminated?What is the well water that the broth is made with is contaminated?What if the Celtic sea salt has lots of heavy metals? We got the test results back. I was super excited. But, I was also confused. At face value, it appeared that our bone broth tested NEGATIVE for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. You can find the test results right here! You'll notice that, for every sample, the results are "<0.01 mg/kg" and "<0.02 mg/kg".  I asked the lab what the "<" means. They said that it indicates their limit of quantitation (LOQ), the lowest concentration that can be accurately tested using the test procedure in that sample type. So the results simply report that none of the metals tested were found in the sample above the specific reporting LOQs. Whether or not they were present below this LOQ is information that is not provided by the test. When talking to the lab, I told them what we needed and assumed that this test would go below a 1 ppb. So, when the results came in, I assumed that a "mg/kg" was the same as a part per billion (ppb). Ummm... that math wasn't write! A "mg/kg" is actually a part per million (ppm). That means that the test we ran had results saying that the broth had less than 0.02 ppm (or 20 ppb) of arsenic and lead. And, it had less than 0.01 ppm (or 10 ppb) of cadmium and mercury. For some reference, the EPA says that less than 15 ppb of lead is safe in drinking water. Not saying that I agree, but it's a good reference point.  These results are good. It means the broth definitely isn't overloaded with toxic heavy metals. But, it's not good enough!!! We need to test again! We really need to a lower LOQ. We need to know the results with an accuracy of as low as 1 ppb. It looks like the lab we sent the original samples to doesn't have an LOQ that low. So here I am on the hunt for a lab to do it again. As soon as I can, I'll send samples in again and paying for more expensive testing to get the info you deserve. Stay tuned! I hope to have the new results in by the end of April 2025. Do you worry about toxic metals (or other junk) in your food? Where have your fears stemmed from? I'd love to hear from you. You can comment below (no account required) or contact us ðŸ˜Š ----- Sources The risk of lead contamination in bone broth dietsBone Broth and Lead Toxicity: Should You Be Concerned?Bone Broth and Lead Contamination: A Very Flawed Study in Medical HypothesesBone Broth, Collagen, and Toxic Metals: A Research Review