SPAM has been a staple in American households for decades, but with an increasing consumer focus on health, its ingredients are coming under the microscope.The meat comes in a can and is convenient, but sometimes there's a tradeoff between convenience and health when it comes to processed foods.
But is SPAM bad for you? Are any of its ingredients shown in medical studies to be harmful to human health? Is SPAM Lite a healthier option than SPAM Classic? And are there any healthier alternatives?
In this article we’ll review the ingredients in SPAM based on medical studies and give our take on whetherthe brand is healthy or unhealthy. We'll also share our thoughts on whether SPAM Lite is healthier than SPAM classic, andhighlight two convenient protein products that we think are healthier options than SPAM.
What is SPAM Made Of?
SPAM now has several different products, but the most popular is called SPAM Classic and has used the same six ingredients since the company’s inception: pork, salt, water, modified potato starch, sugar and sodium nitrate.
Pork is the main ingredient in SPAM, while the other ingredients are either fillers,taste enhancersand one preservative.
We would consider this a "processed" food, and in general we think it's a healthier option tomakewhole, unprocessed foods as large of a percentage of diet as possible.
A 2016 meta-study analyzed data from 42 different medical reviews on meat consumption and cancer risk, and found that processed meat consumption is associated with increased cancer risk.
Added sugar is clinically shown to be associated with increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity as we documented intheare Clif Bars healthy review that we recently published.
Sodium nitrate is a preservative, and dietary nitrates have been shown in a medical review published in the International Journal of Epidemiology to be associated with increased risk of certain types of cancer.
Our concerns about the health effects of SPAM involve not just the individual ingredients but some of the macronutrients. We'll analyze the Nutrition Facts label in the next section.
Nutrition Facts Analysis
The Nutrition Factsfor SPAM Classic is shown above.
The serving size is listed as only two ounces, which we feel is highly questionable, and some consumers may fail to understand that all ofthe nutrient values need to be multiplied by six to get the nutritional facts for the entire can.
Food companies sometimes list a small serving size because it makescertain ingredients (like sodium) look better on the label, but it seems unlikely that consumers are going to eat one-sixth of a can of SPAM.
A full can of SPAM Classic contains 4,740 milligrams (mg) of sodium, which means that one single can of SPAM contains more than 200% of the sodium recommended for an entire day according to the FDA's guidelines.
A medical review published in the Clinical Cardiology journal found that high sodium intake is associated with increased blood pressure, and while we don't believe that any one nutrient should be demonized (sodium is necessary for optimal health), we consider this too high of a dose for one single meal.
SPAM doesn’t provide very much nutritional value for the 1,080 calories it contains.The entire can provides 0% of theDaily Value (DV) of vitamin D, 0% of the DV of calcium, and only 12% of the DV of potassium. For a meal providing nearly half a day's worth of calories, thisis suboptimal nutrition.
Can You Make Healthy Meals With SPAM?
AYouTubecreator named Janice Fung shared five easy SPAM recipes in a video with over 900,000 views. The recipes used whole food ingredients and we would consider these recipes a great way to make healthier meals for those who already have purchased SPAM:
Is SPAM Lite Healthier Than SPAM Classic?
The ingredients in SPAM Liteare shown above.
SPAM Lite is positioned as a healthier alternative to SPAM Classic, because it's lower in calories (660 vs. 1,080), lower in sodium (3,480 mg vs. 4,740 mg) and lower in fat.
Thisproduct contains twoquestionable preservatives.
Sodium phosphateswere shown in a 2012medical review to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk, and the study authors concluded that "the public should be informed that added phosphate is damaging to health."
Sodium nitrite may be associated with increased all-cause mortality, as we documented in our review of Beyond Meat ingredients.
Overall we do not consider SPAM Lite to be healthier than SPAM Classic. We consider the two products to be equivalent, because SPAM Lite does contain less sodium, but it also contains more preservatives.
Our Healthy Packaged ProteinPicks
For consumers who want convenient, no-cooking protein options we believe there are better options than SPAM.
Grass-fed beef jerkyis a good choice, because meat from grass-fed animals is shown in medical research to be nutritionally superior to meat from conventionally-raised animals.
The New Primal Grass-Fed Beef Jerky Sticks is our top pick for a healthier meat product. They're convenient (no cooking required), sourced from exclusively grass-fed animals, free of nitrates and nitrites and also free of added sugar.
Interested consumers can check out The New Primal beef jerky sticks at this link to the brand's official Amazon listing.
Sardines are a cheap and convenient canned protein option with significant health benefits. As wedocumented in our review on the benefits of fish oil supplements, fish oil can support healthy cholesterol levels and provides potent anti-inflammatory effects.
Wild Planet Sardinesis our top pick because they're sustainably sourced, packed inwater and free of questionable additive ingredients. Sardines are also high in calcium, providing 15% DV in only 140 calories.
Interested consumers can check out Wild Plant Sardines at this link to thebrand's official Amazon listing.
What Does SPAM Stand For?
Interestingly enough, the company actually doesn’t disclose what the brand name stands for. Onthe SPAM website, the brand states that the origins of the company name are “only known by a small circle of Hornel Foods executives.”
Conclusion
We consider SPAM to be bad for you for a few reasons: it's relatively low in naturally-occurring nutrients, it contains preservatives, it's quite high in sodium and it's made primarily with processed meat.
Healthiness exists on a spectrum and no one food product is inherently bad. SPAM could be incorporated into a healthy diet, but in our opinion eating a diet composed of minimally-processed foods is the best option.
SPAM Classic provides over 200% of the DV of sodium, which is concerning in our opinion.
We don't consider SPAM Lite to be any healthier than SPAM Classic, because while the former product does contain less sodium, it also contains more preservatives.
For consumers who already purchased SPAM, there are ways to incorporate the products into a relatively healthy meal, and we'd recommend referencing the video we published in this article from a food blogger who made SPAM recipes that included whole food ingredients.
As an enthusiast with a deep understanding of nutrition and health, I can confidently analyze the information provided in the article about SPAM. The article discusses the long-standing presence of SPAM in American households and the increasing scrutiny its ingredients face due to the growing consumer focus on health. It delves into questions about the health implications of SPAM, the comparison between SPAM Classic and SPAM Lite, and suggests alternative protein options.
The primary ingredients in SPAM Classic, the most popular variant, include pork, salt, water, modified potato starch, sugar, and sodium nitrate. The article highlights the processed nature of SPAM and expresses a preference for whole, unprocessed foods. It references a 2016 meta-study associating processed meat consumption with an increased risk of cancer, drawing attention to the potential health concerns related to SPAM's ingredients.
The Nutrition Facts analysis reveals significant sodium content in SPAM Classic, with one can providing more than 200% of the recommended daily intake. The article cites a medical review linking high sodium intake to increased blood pressure. Additionally, it criticizes the nutritional value of SPAM, stating that a full can contains 0% of the Daily Value (DV) of vitamin D, calcium, and only 12% of the DV of potassium.
The article questions the viability of creating healthy meals with SPAM and introduces a YouTube creator's recipes that incorporate whole food ingredients. It then compares SPAM Lite to SPAM Classic, noting that while SPAM Lite has fewer calories and less sodium, it contains two questionable preservatives, sodium phosphates, and sodium nitrite. The potential health risks associated with these preservatives are discussed, leading to the conclusion that SPAM Lite is not necessarily healthier than SPAM Classic.
Finally, the article recommends two alternative protein options: grass-fed beef jerky and canned sardines. The benefits of grass-fed meat and the nutritional advantages of sardines, including their omega-3 content, are highlighted. The conclusion emphasizes the perceived drawbacks of SPAM, such as low nutritional value, preservatives, and high sodium content, while acknowledging that healthiness is a spectrum and suggesting ways to incorporate SPAM into a relatively healthy meal.
In summary, the article provides a comprehensive analysis of SPAM's ingredients, nutritional content, and potential health implications, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of nutrition and health.
