Nitraat wordt niet opeens gezond omdat het toevallig in producten zit die wel gezonde stoffen bevatten. Dat is een logische redenering. Wijs is Katan's 2e lijn van argumenteren. In zijn artikel wijst hij op onderzoekers die nitraat en nitriet voedingselementen willen noemen die passen bij een gezond voedingspatroon.
Dat is merkwaardig, zegt hij, want sinds wanneer is de afwezigheid van ongezonde effecten bewijs voor gezondheid?
Een wisecrack? Nee, het is volstrekt terechte kritiek, al is niet helemaal duidelijk hoe hard of retorisch Katan zijn vraag bedoelt. Onderzoekers, in plaats van onafhankelijke wetgevers, bepalen wat gezond mag heten. De wetgever en zijn politie-agent hebben het allang opgegeven om daar zelf nog over na te denken.
Al dan niet met een rugzak vol belangen, schrijven
Uit onderzoeken blijkt steevast dat Europeanen vertrouwen hebben in de voedselveiligheid die hun regeringen wettelijk voor hen regelen. Vinden we voedselveiligheidsnormen nog steeds betrouwbaar, als er dergelijke vreemde discussies plaatsvinden en we moeten constateren dat overheid en VWA de resultaten ervan overnemen als wet en waarheid? Te constateren valt immers dat op dergelijke discussies geen extern toezicht meer bestaat. Ook ik maak me vooralsnog geen zorgen omdat ik vertrouw op fatsoenlijke mensen. Ik constateer wel dat die het steeds moeilijker krijgen. Dat is een teken aan de wand.
En dan nog een onderzoek in relatie met kanker:
Conclusion
"A long history of safe use as a food additive, minimal endogenous production of N-nitrosamines and natural metabolism of ingested nitrite all argue that nitrite as currently used in foods is a safe food additive and even beneficial to human health. Dietary intake of nitrate is a well-known marker of a health-promoting fruit and vegetable diet. In addition, nitrite and nitrate per se, as individual chemical compounds, have never been shown to be carcinogens in animal or human studies. Nitrate itself is not capable of reacting with amines to form N-nitrosamines. One could ask the question then, how simultaneous ingestion of nitrite/nitrate and nitrosatable amines/amides could be prevented or reduced by public policy considerations stemming from IARC’s “probably carcinogenic to humans” conclusion, when the majority of ingested (swallowed) nitrite is endogenously produced in saliva and the major source of nitrate is the consumption of health-promoting fruits and vegetables. Thus, to eat is to ingest nitrite, nitrate,amines and amides, regardless of the specific diet. Specifically, the consumption of processed, cured meats would be no more or less risky given the low amount of residual nitrite in such products ready to consume (approximately 10 ppm in individual servings, and sometimes even undetectable).
There will very likely be considerable debate about the emerging health benefits of dietary nitrite and nitrate in light of the fact that we have been told to limit their intake. However, when considered in the context of evolving research about the biological function of all nitrogen oxides (including nitrite and nitrate) and their metabolism, any changes to current food regulations on nitrite are simply unwarranted, as are any regulatory implications for the unavoidable presence of nitrate in fruits and vegetables. The use of nitrite as a direct food additive represents only a small addition to the body burden of endogenously produced nitrogen oxides. It is hard to believe that the ingestion of nitrite from cured meats or nitrate from fruits and vegetables could have any potential adverse toxic outcomes. As more is understood about the human metabolic nitrogen oxide cycle, it will become apparent that nitrite is a safe and appropriate food additive providing many more benefits to society than risks, and nitrate naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables and some drinking waters poses insignificant risks. In fact, the inherent nitrate content of Traditional Chinese Medicines and their ability to convert nitrite to NO in essence provide over 5000 years of phase 1 safety data in humans with known curative properties for certain ailments and conditions [94].
Consumers should avoid getting caught up in fads to the point where they might ignore sound science and common sense. Dietary fads seem to have varying lifetimes, sometimes 3 months to even 3 years and, often in retrospect, some common sense critical thinking at the early stages of dietary research reporting could avoid a lot of poor dietary advice. We have seen a variety of diet vs. disease fads, some spanning decades, such as the low-fat craze which, according to some observers, has led to significant increases in the incidence of both obesity and type 2 diabetes. Such fads may have negative consequences where they not only fail to improve public health, but actually result in unintended adverse health effects. The importance of dietary variety, balance and moderation should be stressed along with the importance of protective factors (including adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables) in the total diet, combined with a physically active lifestyle. We believe that the weak and inconclusive data on nitrite and nitratecancer risks described here are far outweighed by the health benefits of restoring NO homeostasis as described by the volumes of published work over the past 10 years [72], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100] and [101]. The risk/benefit balance should be a strong consideration before there are any suggestions for new regulatory or public health guidelines for dietary nitrite and nitrate exposures."
Source: Nutritional epidemiology in the context of nitric oxide biology: A risk–benefit evaluation for dietary nitrite and nitrate Nitric Oxide, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 11 September 2009
Andrew Milkowski, Harsha K. Garg, James R. Coughlin, Nathan S. Bryan
Helaas kon ik geen nieuwer onderzoek van EFSA vinden,
Noot: De bronnen die ik heb gebruikt zitten in een gesloten databank vandaar geen links.