Disclaimer:

This article is meant as a critique on church doctrine, not as health advice. Unlike some who write for the churches of God, I do not pretend to know more than I do about health. I just did some research on this topic and compared it to the position taken by those churches.

Article:

The Churches of God (COGs) that came out of the breakup of the Worldwide Church of God do not eat pork. If they want to do that just because the Old Testament says so, that's their choice. However, one might ask why God does not want them to eat pork. They will answer that pork is not healthful, and give "scientific" reasons why pork is not healthful.

I have no problem with people who don't want to eat pork. I am not trying to sell pork. What I do have a problem with is ministers who misrepresent science in their effort to "prove" pork is not a healthful food.

Pork is probably the most controversial of the Biblically forbidden foods because it is widely consumed and specifically named in the Bible as unclean (Lev 11:7). So let's see if pork is as bad as the Churches of God say it is.

I am writing this after having reviewed two Church of God articles on clean and unclean foods. From what I have seen so far, I have not seen any valid health reasons for not eating pork. Now I list the reasons we've been given in these articles for not eating pork and summarize my responses.

Wikipedia is not an ideal source of information, but it is probably much less biased on this subject than Church of God literature. Wikipedia can be very useful on technical subjects (though some articles are frequently edited).

How dangerous is pork compared to other meats? Is pork ever dangerous if properly cooked? The Wikipedia article Pork says:

Undercooked or untreated, the meat may harbour worms. .... The FSIS states that Listeria and other microrganisms will be "destroyed by proper handling and thorough cooking to an internal temperature of 160°F." Other microorganisms such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Staphylococcus aureus can be found in inadequately cooked pork, poultry, and other meats.

The pig is the carrier of various helminths [parasitic worms], like roundworm, pinworm, hookworm, etc. One of the most dangerous and common is Taenia solium, a type of tapeworm. Tapeworms may transplant to the intestines of humans as well when they consume untreated or undercooked meat from pigs or other animals. (Wikipedia article Pork, as of Nov 8, 2010)

Note that the problem seems to be undercooking, not the swine itself, because other foods like poultry are also a danger when undercooked. Poultry is defined as "domestic fowls reared for the table, or for their eggs or feathers, such as cocks and hens, capons, turkeys, ducks, and geese" (Webster, 1913). Cocks, hens, turkey and ducks are clean foods.

What about trichinosis? How dangerous is it? The article continues:

Trichinosis ... is a parasitic disease caused by eating raw or undercooked pork infected with the larvae of a species of roundworm Trichinella spiralis .... Infection was once very common, but is now rare in the developed world. From 1997 to 2001, an annual average of 12 cases per year were reported in the United States. The number of cases has decreased because of legislation prohibiting the feeding of raw meat garbage to hogs, increased commercial and home freezing of pork, and the public awareness of the danger of eating raw or undercooked pork products. (ibid.)

Only 12 cases per year does not sound like a reason to avoid eating pork, especially since eating other meats also has risks. The article does not report a single case from properly cooked pork.

Are hogs uneconomical as claimed in the Living Church of God article Do You Really Want to Eat That? Not according to the Wikipedia article which said:

Pork is popular throughout eastern Asia and the Pacific, where whole roast pig is a popular item in Pacific Island cuisine. It is consumed in a great many ways and highly esteemed in Chinese cuisine. There, pork is preferred over beef due to economic and aesthetic reasons; the pig is easy to feed and is not used for labour. (Wikipedia, Pork).

In other words, in contrast to the LCG article, the hog is more economical, not less.

While we're on the subject, here are some additional reasons I've heard from Church of God members for not eating pork, along with my responses.

As far as hogs being disgusting, that is a subjective viewpoint, not a scientific one, and has nothing to do with health. Also, people who think hogs are disgusting often eat ground meats such as hamburger and beef or chicken wieners. Ground beef can contain several types of tissue including skeletal tissue, connective tissue, blood vessels, nerve tissue, bone, and cartilage. Some of those things don't sound so appetizing either.

And what happens to the "disgusting" (again, this is subjective) organs of an animal, such as the tongue, testicles, and penis? I've heard it said that these parts end up in wieners and ground meats. A search of the internet for about an hour to confirm or refute this turned up nothing conclusive from any authoritative sources. I suspect that most reputable web sites which discuss ground meats prefer not to talk about it.

Some disgusting "foods" might in fact be meant for us according to this article on Dried nasal mucus:

Stefan Gates in his book Gastronaut discusses eating dried nasal mucus, and says that 44% of people he questioned said they had eaten their own dried nasal mucus in adulthood and said they liked it. As mucus filters airborne contaminants, eating it could be thought to be unhealthful; Gates comments that "our body has been built to consume snot," because the nasal mucus is normally swallowed after being moved inside by the motion of the cilia.

Friedrich Bischinger, a lung specialist at Privatklinik Hochrum in Innsbruck, says that nose-picking and eating the result is beneficial for the immune system. (Wikipedia, Dried nasal mucus, Nov 10, 2010).

I am not suggesting that the reader eat nasal mucus; I'm merely stating that disgusting foods can be healthful. Whether a food is appetizing or disgusting has nothing to do with the health benefits or lack of them.

According to the following source, there are many benefits of eating pork.

Pork makes to the position of most widely consumed meat till today, with being bred almost in all major parts of the world. It is a rich source of proteins and fats. This meat being used to make sausages, ham and bacon is an essential part of people's daily nutrients requirement in many countries. No doubt, Pork has always been an energy packed food.

Pork has a high mineral content of Phosphorus, Selenium, Sodium, Zinc, Potassium and Copper. The two minerals which are present in good quantities are Iron and Magnesium, while Calcium and Mangnese are found in traces only.

Pork is highly enriched with Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, Thiamin, Niacin, Riboflavin and Pantothenic Acid. However, Vitamin A and Vitamin E are found in very small amounts.

Calorific value of Pork is 458.0 per 100 gm [Beef is 155.0 per 100 gm]. This is quite high when compared to other animal products like chicken.

Consumption of Pork in moderate quantities is helpful in gaining energy. It is good for skin, eyes, nervous system, bones and mental performance. Intake of Pork also ensures better immunity to body due to presence of essential antioxidants. (Copied from here on Nov 6, 2010).

Once again, I don't care if people eat pork or not. All I'm saying here is that I can see no scientific or health reason for not eating pork. If pork is truly not good for us, the accepted science apparently still hasn't figured that out despite the fact that pork has been widely consumed for thousands of years.

Sometimes church members think science will eventually prove them right. Though it is conceivable that some day science will discover that pork is associated with cancer or some other disease, such speculation is just that, purely speculation. Speculation is not science. It is not a scientific reason for not eating pork today. One could make such speculations about any food, clean or unclean. Until such discoveries are made some churches seem to be grasping at straws when they try to use science to claim pork is unsafe. That is not an honest approach to questions of health or the Bible.

When COGs write about pork are they being honest about what they discover in their research? In their research, how did they miss seeing the same information I did? That information shows that, as far as current science can tell us, pork is just as healthful as clean meats. Aren't the COGs taking information out of context to make it sound like the health experts are on their side?

Romans 1:18 says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (New International Version). Are some churches distorting science to suppress the truth—that there are no currently known health reasons for their claims that pork is less healthful than clean meats? Does God want people to promulgate dishonest reasons for following him? Are the people who support these churches helping to promote a deception on the readers? Are church members helping to bear false witness to what current science says?

To my knowledge, these churches all teach pretty much the same thing about eating pork. If they are misrepresenting the currently accepted science on eating pork, can we trust them to do other research accurately or honestly?

If they are dishonest (or biased) about science won't they be dishonest (or biased) on other topics they write about, whether they write about history, the Bible, or current events?

Note 1. The Bible Reason: In Leviticus 11, one of the chapters on clean and unclean meats, the word "abomination" occurs ten times. The word "health" does not occur there at all. Therefore, I think it makes a lot more sense to say that certain foods were prohibited because they were considered disgusting than it does to say that they were prohibited for health reasons. Isn't saying these foods were prohibited for health reasons using human reasoning to put a personal interpretation into the scripture? If the Bible interprets itself, shouldn't we look at the Bible reason these foods were not permitted?

The New International Version uses the word "detestable" and God's Word Translation uses "disgusting".

Note 2. More on Boogers: Wikipedia says:

According to Dr. Friedrich Bischinger, a lung specialist in Austria, those who eat their boogers [nasal mucus] are happy and in tune with their bodies. He also suggests that booger eating is one of the best ways to stay healthy. He encourages booger eating and says, "Medically it makes great sense and is a perfectly natural thing to do ... When this mixture arrives in the intestines it works just like a medicine" due to the antiseptics and antibodies contained within the mucus. (Wikipedia, Eating Mucus, Jan 9, 2012).

I think this is a lot more disgusting than eating pork, but it is not prohibited by scripture (to my knowledge), while pork is. And please don't tell me the Israelites didn't have to be told because apparently people do eat it, even adults.

Note 3. Butter: The Bible prohibits eating fat (Leviticus 7:23) but permits butter (Genesis 18:8, Isaiah 7:15). Yet butter is 50% fat—a contradiction. Presumably, when the Bible was written it was not known that butter was 50% fat. But if God inspired it, wouldn't he have known that?

The Bible does say to use moderation, but that does not mean much if we are not told what a moderate amount of butter (or salt, etc) is, and it does not tell us that. Like everyone else, church members have to get that information from other sources, not from the Bible.