Potussium

SCIENTIFIC OPINION
ADOPTED: 5 April 2017

doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4787
Re-evaluation of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium

nitrate (E 252) as food additives
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS),
Alicja Mortensen, Fernando Aguilar, Riccardo Crebelli, Alessandro Di Domenico,
Birgit Dusemund, Maria Jose Frutos, Pierre Galtier, David Gott, Ursula Gundert-Remy,
Claude Lambre , Jean-Charles Leblanc, Oliver Lindtner, Peter Moldeus, Pasquale Mosesso,
Agneta Oskarsson, Dominique Parent-Massin, Ivan Stankovic, Ine Waalkens-Berendsen,
Rudolf Antonius Woutersen, Matthew Wright, Piet van den Brandt, Cristina Fortes,
Leonardo Merino, Fidel Toldra, Davide Arcella, Anna Christodoulidou, Federica Barrucci,
Ana Garcia, Fabiola Pizzo, Dario Battacchi and Maged Younes
Abstract
The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion
re-evaluating the safety of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) when used as food
additives. The current acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for nitrate of 3.7 mg/kg body weight (bw) per
day were established by the SCF (1997) and JECFA (2002). The available data did not indicate
genotoxic potential for sodium and potassium nitrate. The carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats
were negative. The Panel considered the derivation of an ADI for nitrate based on the formation of
methaemoglobin, following the conversion of nitrate, excreted in the saliva, to nitrite. However, there
were large variations in the data on the nitrate-to-nitrite conversion in the saliva in humans. Therefore,
the Panel considered that it was not possible to derive a single value of the ADI from the available
data. The Panel noticed that even using the highest nitrate-to-nitrite conversion factor the
methaemoglobin levels produced due to nitrite obtained from this conversion would not be clinically
significant and would result to a theoretically estimated endogenous N-nitroso compounds (ENOC)
production at levels which would be of low concern. Hence, and despite the uncertainty associated
with the ADI established by the SCF, the Panel concluded that currently there was insufficient evidence
to withdraw this ADI. The exposure to nitrate solely from its use as a food additive was estimated to
be less than 5% of the overall exposure to nitrate in food based on a refined estimated exposure
scenario. This exposure did not exceed the current ADI (SCF, 1997). However, if all sources of
exposure to dietary nitrate are considered (food additive, natural presence and contamination), the
ADI would be exceeded for all age groups at the mean and the highest exposure.
© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf
of European Food Safety Authority.
Keywords: sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, E 251, E 252, food additive, CAS Registry number
7757-79-1, CAS Registry number 7631-99-4
Requestor: European Commission

Question number: EFSA-Q-2011-00462; EFSA-Q-2011-00463
Correspondence: fi[email protected]
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

Re-evaluation of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252)
Panel members: Fernando Aguilar, Ric cardo Crebelli, Alessandro Di Domenico, Birgit Dusemund,
, Jean-Charles
Maria Jose Frutos, Pierre Galtier, David Gott, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Claude Lambre
Leblanc, Oliver Lindtner, Peter Moldeus, Alicja Mortensen, Pasquale Mosesso, Agneta Oskarsson,
Dominique Parent-Massin, Ivan Stankovic, Ine Waalkens-Berendsen, Rudolf Antonius Woutersen,
Matthew Wright and Maged Younes.
Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this
scientific output: The hearing experts from the Scientific Committee: Josef Schlatter and Thorhallur
Halldorsson; the hearing experts from the CONTAM Panel: Helle Knutsen and Jan Alexander and the
members of the CONTAM Panel: Lars Barregard and the EFSA staff members Andea Bau, Petra
Gergelova, Gilles Guillot, Laura Martino and Jose Gomez Ruiz for the support provided to this scientific
output. The Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies
and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output.
Suggested citation: EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to
Food), Mortensen A, Aguilar F, Crebelli R, Di Domenico A, Dusemund B, Frutos MJ, Galtier P, Gott D,
Gundert-Remy U, Lambre C, Leblanc J-C, Lindtner O, Moldeus P, Mosesso P, Oskarsson A, Parent-Massin D,
Stankovic I, Waalkens-Berendsen I, Woutersen RA, Wright M, van den Brandt P, Fortes C, Merino L,
F, Arcella D, Christodoulidou A, Barrucci F, Garcia A, Pizzo F, Battacchi D and Younes M, 2017.
Toldra
Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) as
food additives. EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787, 123 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4787
ISSN: 1831-4732
© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf
of European Food Safety Authority.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License,
which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
Figure 1: © Stockphoto
The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food

Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union.
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

Summary
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient
Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to re-evaluate the safety of potassium nitrate (E 251) and
sodium nitrate (E 252) when used as food additives.
Sodium (E 251) and potassium (E 252) nitrates are authorised as food additives in the European
Union (EU) according to Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives and they were
previously evaluated by the EU Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), the Joint FAO/WHO Expert
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The current
acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for sodium and potassium nitrate (expressed as nitrite ion) established
by the SCF (1997) and JECFA (2002) are both at 0–3.7 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day.
The Panel was not provided with a newly submitted dossier and based its evaluation on previous
evaluations and reviews, additional literature that came available since then and the data provided
following public calls for data. The Panel noted that not all original studies on which previous
evaluations were based were available for re-evaluation by the Panel.
Sodium and potassium salts of nitrate, together with those of nitrite, are commonly used in curing
mixtures to develop and fix the colour of meat, to inhibit microbial growth and/or to develop
characteristics flavours (IARC, 2010; Sindelar and Milkowski, 2012). Specific purity criteria on sodium
and potassium nitrites are defined in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.
Short-term and subchronic toxicity studies in rats showed, overall, that nitrate intake of up to 5% in
the diet (equivalent to 4,500 mg sodium nitrate/kg bw per day) did not result in adverse effects in
rats. At higher dose levels, animals showed signs of methaemoglobinaemia leading to the death of the
animals.
In vitro studies on sodium and potassium nitrate in bacteria and mammalian cells did not provide
evidence of a genotoxic potential. In mammals, no reliable indication of genotoxicity was obtained in
mice and rats exposed to nitrate by the oral route, both in somatic and in germ cells. Although the
database was limited, the Panel concluded that the available experimental data indicated that nitrate
salts do not raise concern for genotoxicity.
Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies with sodium and potassium nitrate were available. In
studies with mice, sodium nitrate did not show any difference in tumour incidences compared to
controls. Four non-standard studies in rats and pigs assessed haematological parameters or effects on
thyroid and thyroid-related hormones (Boink et al., 1995; JECFA, 1996; Zaki et al., 2004;
Mukhopadhyay et al., 2005; Azeez et al., 2011). Overall, the Panel considered that nitrate did not
affect adrenal and thyroid glands function in animals and it was not carcinogenic in animal studies.
No effects were observed in a reproductive/developmental toxicity screening study (OECD TG 422)
in rats administered potassium nitrate by gavage at doses up to 1,500 mg/kg bw per day. No
developmental toxicity was observed in mice, rats, hamsters or rabbits receiving doses up to 400,
1,980, 280 or 206 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per day by gavage, respectively. In a reproductive
toxicity study in mice given potassium nitrate in drinking water, effects were observed on sperm count
and testicular enzymes at the highest dose tested, at which also sperm abnormalities were observed;
the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) in this study was 122 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per
day. Histopathological changes in testis, epididymis and other sex organs were reported in this study. A
conclusion could not be reached since the duration of the dosing in males in this screening study was
limited and the number of animals tested was low. Overall, the Panel noted that although some effects
were observed in sperm analysis and reproductive organs in this limited study in mice, no indications
of reproductive toxicity were observed at higher doses in a rat study conducted according to OECD
guideline TG 422.
Human non-cancer effects were observed in the thyroid in several studies, suggesting that nitrate
exposure altered human thyroid gland function by competitively inhibiting thyroidal iodide uptake. A
large cohort study (n = 21,977 women) showed that increasing intake of nitrate from dietary sources
was associated with an increasing occurrence of hypothyroidism (Ward et al., 2010). In addition, in
several studies, an enlarged thyroid or even goitre was observed when the intake of nitrate via
drinking water was high. Other studies, however, showed no effects. Overall, there was some evidence
to relate exposure to nitrate with the development of enlarged thyroid, goitre and hypothyroidism. The
exposure levels were in the same range as that within which methaemoglobinaemia was observed.
The methaemoglobin formation reported in animal studies can also be observed in humans. This
effect occured both, upon acute exposure as well as after chronic exposure, to nitrate. The effect was
a consequence of the endogenous production of nitrite from ingested nitrate.

In epidemiological studies, the summary evidence for an association between nitrate exposure and
each type of human cancer was categorised by the Panel as: (i) there was no evidence for an
association, if studies indicate no association with a specific cancer; (ii) there was insufficient evidence,
to (unequivocally) link to a cancer (e.g. few studies, contradictory results, etc.); (iii) there was some
evidence for an association with a specific cancer (e.g. inconsistent results between cohort studies and
case–control studies); (iv) there was evidence, for an association with a specific cancer (e.g. consistent
results from cohort studies and case–control studies).
The Panel concluded that there was no evidence for a positive association between: ingested
nitrate and oesophageal cancer and its subtypes oesophageal squamous cell carcinomas and
oesophageal adenocarcinoma (ESCC and EAC); ingested nitrate and gastric cancer or its subtypes
gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) and gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma (GNCA); dietary nitrate
and colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon or rectum cancer; ingested nitrate and pancreatic cancer;
ingested nitrate and lung cancer; dietary nitrate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); ingested nitrate
and breast cancer; ingested nitrate and renal cell cancer; and ingested nitrate and adult glioma or
childhood brain tumours.
There was insufficient evidence for a positive association between: nitrate from processed meat
and colorectal cancer (CRC) or its subtypes; drinking water nitrate and CRC or its subtypes; drinking
water nitrate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); ingested nitrate and leukaemia; ingested nitrate and
ovarian cancer; ingested nitrate and bladder cancer; ingested nitrate and prostate cancer; and
ingested nitrate and thyroid cancer.
There were insufficient data to draw conclusions on: ingested nitrate and head and neck cancer
and ingested nitrate and liver cancer.
The human studies on goitre and the single study on hypothyroidism were considered not sufficient
for deriving reference points for a health-based guidance value.
Hence, in the absence of other adverse effects and the unavailability of the original 1958 study
used by JECFA and the database currently available, the Panel decided that the most relevant
approach for assessing the toxicity of nitrate would be methaemoglobinaemia induced by nitrite
formed from nitrate excreted in the saliva, once absorbed. The Panel review the reported information
on secretion estimates of nitrate into the mouth in humans and observed that most estimates available
varied between 20% and 25% of the dose (Spiegelhalder et al., 1976; Bartholomew and Hill, 1984).
Additionally, the Panel noted that these studies were quite old and had limitations (it might be possible
to obtain more accurate estimates nowadays). The Panel therefore considered that adequate, well
conducted modern studies might decrease the uncertainty associated with this estimate.
The Panel noted that available estimates of the ratio of concentrations of nitrite to nitrate varied
within and between individual subjects. The nitrate-to-nitrite conversion in the mouth was estimated to
range from 5% to 36% (e.g. Spiegelhalder et al., 1976; Wagner et al., 1983; Bartholomew and Hill,
1984; Bos et al., 1988; Granli et al., 1989; Shapiro et al., 1991; Jin et al., 2013; Bondonno et al.,
2015; Hohensin et al., 2016; Montenegro et al., 2016); Woessner et al., 2016. The Panel noted that
the available studies were carried out in diverse and differing populations. The Panel considered that
to reflect the uncertainties in the underlying data and inter-individual variability in conversion, it was
appropriate to use a range of values for the conversion percentage of nitrate to nitrite in the saliva.
The Panel considered that any single estimate of the overall conversion of ingested nitrate to nitrite
would not be reliable. The Panel did not consider it was possible to derive a single value as ADI from
the data available.
Based on the secretion rates of nitrate (20–25%) into the saliva and the range of conversion rates
of nitrate to nitrite (5–36%) in the mouth, a range for the overall conversion percentage between 1%
and 9% would be estimated. Using this range and considering the ADI of nitrite (0.07 mg nitrite ion/kg
bw per day), the ADI values estimated for nitrate would be between 1.05 and 9.4 mg nitrate ion/kg bw
per day. The current ADI established by SCF (1997) (3.7 mg nitrate ion/kg bw per day) falls within
those estimates. The Panel considered that, as a point estimate, the current ADI was likely to be as
accurate as this range.
The Panel also took into consideration the lack of overt toxicity data reported in the available
studies in animals and that there was no cancer concerns overall from epidemiological studies in
humans. Despite the uncertainty associated with the ADI set by the SCF (1997) due to the inability to
examine its basis thoroughly, the Panel considered that currently there was insufficient evidence to
withdraw this ADI.
The Panel recognised that further data from human studies were warranted. These studies could
target the secretion of nitrate in the saliva and the conversion of nitrate to nitrite in the mouth, as well

as the subsequent effect of increased nitrite blood concentrations, namely increase in

methaemoglobinaemia, or assess the effects of nitrate on thyroid function in a well conducted study.
Since these data might also affect evaluations in other areas of EFSA’s remit, the Panel recognised that
an integrated risk assessment would be required to best define further data requirements.
The Panel noted that nitrates (E 251–E 252) were authorised for use in a wide range of foods and
it was therefore not expected that brand-loyalty would result in higher exposure in the general
population. The Panel therefore selected the non-brand loyal scenario refined scenario as the most
relevant exposure scenario for the safety evaluation of these food additives.
From its refined estimated exposure scenario considering concentration levels not exceeding the
MPLs for food categories listed under Annex II to Regulation No 1333/2008, in the non-brand-loyal
scenario, mean exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) from their use as food additives (E 251–
E 252) ranged from 0.01 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 0.09 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th
percentile of exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) ranged from 0.05 mg/kg bw per day in the
elderly to 0.22 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers.
Applying these exposure scenarios considered for exposure assessment of nitrates (E 251–E 252)
from their use as food additives, the most important contributors to the total mean exposure for all
population groups were meat products (preserved meat and sausages) and cheese, whereas fish and
fishery products contributed less.
From the exposure scenario considering the exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) from all
sources (food additives, natural presence and contamination), applying reduction factors for
vegetables, mean exposure ranged from 0.97 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 4.15 mg/kg bw per
day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure to nitrates ranged from 1.59 mg/kg bw per day in the
elderly to 8.73 mg/kg bw per day in children.
The main contributing food categories from the exposure scenario considering all sources (food
additives, natural presence and contamination across surveys and population groups, range min–max)
were vegetables and vegetable-based foods for all population groups (0–29%). In particular, the main
contributing food categories were starchy roots and tubers in infants, toddlers and children (4–35%),
whereas the leafy vegetables (0.4–47%) and prepared salads (0–44%) were the main contributors in
children, adolescents, adults and the elderly. In infants, also foods for infants and toddlers (4–33%)
made an important contribution to the total mean exposure to nitrates from all sources.
The Panel estimated that, when comparing all sources (food additives, natural presence and
contamination), including reduction factors for vegetables, using the same refined exposure
methodology (non-brand-loyal consumer scenario for general population), the contribution of nitrates
(E 251–E 252) from their use as food additives is less than 5% of contribution to the overall exposure
to nitrates from all sources in any scenario and for any population group (approximately 2% in
average, range 0.4–4.4%).
The Panel noted that exposure to nitrates from their use as food additives was below the ADI of
3.7 mg/kg bw per day using the most appropriate refined exposure scenario (non-brand loyal). The
estimates for the high level consumers in all population groups were approximately 15% or less of the
current ADI. As such there would not be a safety concern from the current uses and use levels of
nitrate as a food additive.
Overall, the Panel considered that the uncertainties identified would, in general, result in an
overestimation of the exposure to nitrates (E 251–E 252) as a food additive in European countries for
the regulatory maximum level exposure scenario and for the refined scenario considering that it was
not possible to include a number of restrictions.
Based on a refined estimated exposure scenario, the exposure to nitrate resulting from its use as a
food additive does not lead to an exceedance of the ADI of nitrates.
The Panel noted that total dietary exposure to nitrate from all sources exceeded the current ADI in
all populations considered. Assessing whether or not the total dietary intake of nitrate was a safety
concern was outside the scope of this re-evaluation and beyond the remit of the ANS Panel.
The formation of N-nitroso compounds (NOCs) is a key step when considering the carcinogenic risk
of nitrites (EFSA ANS Panel, 2017). In order to be able to estimate the amount of nitrosamines formed
from nitrate its conversion to nitrite needs to be quantifiable. In view of the large variability observed
among the populations on the proportion of nitrite that can be formed from nitrate in the mouth, the
Panel considered that even using the highest nitrate-to-nitrite conversion factor of 9% a dose
corresponding to the ADI of 3.7 mg/kg bw per day will be converted into 0.25 mg nitrite ion/kg bw
per day. With this dose, the methaemoglobin levels will increase above background levels (1–3%)
which is measurable, but not clinically significant. Furthermore, ingestion of 0.25 mg/kg bw per day

nitrite ion would lead to an endogenous N-nitroso compounds (ENOCs) production of 8.22 9 107 mg/kg
bw per day calculated using the formula given in the Guideline for Canadian Drinking Water (Health
Canada, 2013). Then, the margin of exposure (MoE) between the produced amount of ENOCs and the
BMDL10 of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) (0.027 mg/kg bw per day) would be 3.2 9 104 which is still
above the MoE of 10,000 considered by the Scientific Committee as of low concern from a public health
point of view (EFSA, 2005; EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012b).
The Panel recommended further human studies with a better control of confounding factors (e.g.
radiation exposure dietary iodine intake and other anions that compete with iodide uptake in the
thyroid) are needed to confirm the findings in thyroid gland.
The Panel recommended that additional experimental studies in humans measuring the excretion of
nitrate into the saliva and its conversion to nitrites and the consequent methaemoglobin formation
should be conducted in order to reduce uncertainties.
The Panel recommended that further studies on the levels of nitroso compounds formed in different
meat products with known ingoing amounts of nitrates /nitrites added, with appropriate controls and
with specified levels of detection (LOD) and levels of quantification (LOQ) for potentially formed nitroso
compounds would be necessary.

Table of contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................................. 1
Summary............................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 9
1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the European Commission ............................ 9
1.1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 9
1.1.2. Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................. 9
1.1.3. Interpretation of Terms of Reference ......................................................................................... 9
1.2. Information on existing authorisations and evaluations................................................................ 10
2. Data and methodologies ........................................................................................................... 12
2.1. Data........................................................................................................................................ 12
2.2. Methodologies.......................................................................................................................... 13
3. Assessment.............................................................................................................................. 13
3.1. Technical data.......................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1. Identity of the substances......................................................................................................... 13
3.1.2. Specifications ........................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.3. Manufacturing process .............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.4. Methods of analysis in food....................................................................................................... 16
3.1.5. Stability of the substance, and reaction and fate in food ............................................................. 17
3.1.6. Technological function .............................................................................................................. 20
3.2. Authorised uses and use levels .................................................................................................. 21
3.3. Exposure data.......................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1. Reported use levels or data on analytical levels of nitrates (E 251–E 252) .................................... 24
3.3.2. Summarised data extracted from the Mintel GNPD database........................................................ 26
3.3.3. Food consumption data used for exposure assessment ............................................................... 26
3.4. Exposure to nitrates (E 251–252) from their use as food additives ............................................... 29
3.4.1. Regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario ........................................................... 29
3.4.2. Refined exposure assessment scenario....................................................................................... 30
3.4.3. Dietary exposure to nitrates (E 251 and E 252) from their use as food additives ........................... 30
3.4.4. Uncertainty analysis.................................................................................................................. 31
3.5. Exposure to nitrates from all sources (food additives, natural presence and contamination) ........... 32
3.6. Biological and toxicological data ................................................................................................ 34
3.6.1. Absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) ......................................................... 35
3.6.1.1. Animal studies.......................................................................................................................... 35
3.6.1.2. Studies in humans .................................................................................................................... 36
3.6.2. Acute toxicity ........................................................................................................................... 38
3.6.3. Short-term and subchronic toxicity ............................................................................................ 38
3.6.3.1. Rats ........................................................................................................................................ 38
3.6.3.2. Rabbits.................................................................................................................................... 39
3.6.4. Genotoxicity............................................................................................................................. 39
3.6.4.1. In vitro .................................................................................................................................... 39
3.6.4.2. In vivo..................................................................................................................................... 40
3.6.5. Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity ........................................................................................... 41
3.6.5.1. Animal studies.......................................................................................................................... 41
3.6.5.2. Endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds upon nitrate intake ............................................. 43
3.6.6. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.................................................................................... 43
3.6.6.1. Reproductive toxicity studies ..................................................................................................... 43
3.6.6.2. Developmental studies.............................................................................................................. 43
3.6.6.3. Other studies on reproductive endpoints .................................................................................... 44
3.6.7. Other studies ........................................................................................................................... 45
3.6.7.1. Methaemoglobinaemia .............................................................................................................. 45
3.6.7.2. Animal study on laryngopharyngeal mucosa ............................................................................... 45
3.6.7.3. Effects on adrenal and thyroid glands ........................................................................................ 46
3.6.7.4. Cardiovascular system and haematology .................................................................................... 49
3.6.7.5. Allergy and immunotoxicity ....................................................................................................... 49
3.6.8. Epidemiological studies on cancer.............................................................................................. 49
3.6.8.1. Head & neck cancer ................................................................................................................. 50
3.6.8.2. Oesophageal cancer ................................................................................................................. 50
3.6.8.3. Gastric cancer .......................................................................................................................... 53
3.6.8.4. Colorectal cancer (CRC) ............................................................................................................ 57

3.6.8.5. Liver cancer ............................................................................................................................. 61

3.6.8.6. Pancreatic cancer ..................................................................................................................... 62
3.6.8.7. Lung cancer............................................................................................................................. 63
3.6.8.8. Breast cancer........................................................................................................................... 63
3.6.8.9. Ovarian cancer ......................................................................................................................... 64
3.6.8.10. Prostate cancer ........................................................................................................................ 65
3.6.8.11. Renal cancer ............................................................................................................................ 67
3.6.8.12. Bladder cancer ......................................................................................................................... 68
3.6.8.13. Thyroid cancer ......................................................................................................................... 71
3.6.8.14. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) ................................................................................................ 72
3.6.8.15. Leukaemia ............................................................................................................................... 74
3.6.8.16. Brain cancer............................................................................................................................. 74
3.7. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 76
4. Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 81
5. Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 81
Documentation provided to EFSA ............................................................................................................ 81
References............................................................................................................................................. 82
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix A – Summary of the reported use levels (mg/kg or mg/L as appropriate) of sodium and
potassium nitrate (E 251–252) provided by industry.................................................................................. 95
Appendix B – Summary of analytical results (mg/kg) of sodium and potassium nitrate (E 251-252) provided
by Members States................................................................................................................................. 96
Appendix C – Concentration levels of sodium and potassium nitrate (E 251–252) used in the refined
exposure scenarios (mg/kg or mL/kg as appropriate)................................................................................ 97
Appendix D – Summary of total estimated exposure of sodium and potassium nitrate (E 251–252) from
their use as food additives for the maximum level exposure scenario and the refined exposure assessment
scenarios per population group and survey: mean and 95th percentile (mg/kg bw per day)......................... 98
Appendix E – Toxicological studies and human studies on thyroid reviewed................................................. 99
Appendix F – Report on the systematic review on the types and levels of nitrosamines and nitrosamides
produced in food products from the use of nitrates and nitrites as food additives........................................ 103
Annex A – Protocol for the systematic review on the types and levels of nitrosamines and nitrosamides
produced in food products from the use of nitrates and nitrites as food additives........................................ 111
Appendix G – Report on the selection of epidemiological studies................................................................ 121

1. Introduction
The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of sodium nitrate [E 251(i) and (ii)] and potassium
nitrate (E 252) as food additives.
1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the European

Commission
1.1.1. Background
Regulation (EC) No 1333/20081 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives
requires that food additives are subject to a safety evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) before they are permitted for use in the European Union (EU). In addition, it is foreseen that
food additives must be kept under continuous observation and must be re-evaluated by EFSA.
For this purpose, a programme for the re-evaluation of food additives that were already permitted
in the EU before 20 January 2009 has been set up under the Regulation (EU) No 257/20102. This
Regulation also foresees that food additives are re-evaluated whenever necessary in light of changing
conditions of use and new scientific information. For efficiency and practical purposes, the re-
evaluation should, as far as possible, be conducted by group of food additives according to the main
functional class to which they belong.
The order of priorities for the re-evaluation of the currently approved food additives should be set
on the basis of the following criteria: the time since the last evaluation of a food additive by the
Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) or by EFSA, the availability of new scientific evidence, the extent
of use of a food additive in food and the human exposure to the food additive taking also into account
the outcome of the Report from the Commission on Dietary Food Additive Intake in the EU3 of 2001.
The report ‘Food additives in Europe 20004’ submitted by the Nordic Council of Ministers to the
Commission, provides additional information for the prioritisation of additives for re-evaluation. As
colours were among the first additives to be evaluated, these food additives should be re-evaluated
with a highest priority.
In 2003, the Commission already requested EFSA to start a systematic re-evaluation of authorised
food additives. However, as a result of adoption of Regulation (EU) 257/2010, the 2003 Terms of
References are replaced by those below.
1.1.2. Terms of Reference

The Commission asks EFSA to re-evaluate the safety of food additives already permitted in the
Union before 2009 and to issue scientific opinions on these additives, especially taking into account the
priorities, procedures and deadlines that are enshrined in the Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 of 25
March 2010 setting up a programme for the re-evaluation of approved food additives in accordance
with the Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food
additives.
1.1.3. Interpretation of Terms of Reference

EFSA has been asked in accordance with the Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 setting up a programme
for the re-evaluation of approved food additives, to re-evaluate the safety of nitrates (E 251–252) and
nitrites (E 249–250) as food additives. Delivery of the EFSA opinion was initially foreseen by 31
December 2015. During the re-evaluation process, additional activities, listed below, have been
initiated:
• Within the frame of M-2010-0374, a call for the continuous collection of data on the
occurrence of chemical contaminants in food and feed,5 the European Commission sent a
1
Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. OJ L
354, 31.12.2008, p. 16–33.
2
Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 of 25 March 2010 setting up a programme for the re-evaluation of approved food
additives in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives.
OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, pp. 19–27.
3
COM(2001) 542 final.
4
Food Additives in Europe 2000, Status of safety assessments of food additives presently permitted in the EU, Nordic Council of
Ministers, TemaNord 2002, p. 560.
5
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/data/call/datex101217.htm

request to EFSA (DATA and BIOCONTAM units) on 28 March 2014 for a scientific report on the
occurrence of nitrates in leafy vegetables and exposure of the human population, including
vulnerable groups. In addition, the European Commission asked for the collection of data from
an ad hoc study on the use of nitrites by the food industry in different categories of meat
products, finalised (in SANCO/2014/E3/029) by January 2016. The Panel considered that the
outcome of the exposure assessment considering all food sources and the information on
the uses of nitrites by the industry is relevant in the frame of this opinion and the delivery of
the opinion was aligned with this activity.
• On 18 May 2015, the European Commission requested EFSA to consider additional information
provided by Denmark on the safety of nitrite use during its re-evaluation (EC Reference
1188419).
Therefore, a realistic deadline of 31 December 2016 for finalisation of the scientific opinions on the
re-evaluation of nitrates and nitrites has been considered by the ANS Panel.
1.2. Information on existing authorisations and evaluations

Sodium and potassium nitrate are authorised as food additives in the EU under Commission
regulation (EU) No 1333/2008 amended by regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 on food additives for use in
foodstuffs. Specific purity criteria on sodium and potassium nitrates have been defined in Commission
Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.
The current acceptable daily intake (ADI) set by the SCF and the Joint Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for
sodium and potassium nitrate (expressed as the nitrate ion) is 0–3.7 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day
(SCF, 1997; JECFA, 2003b).
The SCF has reviewed nitrate on two occasions (SCF, 1992, 1997). In its 1990 evaluation, the SCF
reviewed the safety of nitrate and nitrite when used as food additive taking into consideration the
potential formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines and information on their uses in meat products,
cheese milk and fish products (SCF, 1992). The SCF concluded that nitrate per se has very low acute
toxicity and that any reported adverse effects (formation of methaemoglobin) resulted from its
reduction to nitrite either before ingestion or in vivo. The SCF report mentioned that ‘experimental
carcinogenicity studies on nitrate per se had proved negative and that realistic levels of dietary nitrate
did not appear to lead to a significant formation of volatile N-nitroso compounds, nor of nitroso-amino
acids’. On the epidemiological studies available at that time, the SCF considered that ‘they have failed
to unequivocally demonstrate a link between nitrate exposure and cancer incidence in populations
exposed to higher than average nitrate intake either in the diet and drinking water, or occupationally’.
Similarly, at the time of SCF evaluation, ‘epidemiological studies in populations with high and low
cancer incidences have failed to demonstrate a link between cancer risk and nitrate intake’. The SCF
derived an ADI of 5 mg/kg bw per day (expressed as sodium nitrate) from a 2-year carcinogenicity
study in the rat showing a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 2,500 mg/kg bw per day
(Maekawa et al., 1982). This ADI include human intake from all sources. A safety factor of 500 was
applied to this NOAEL to account of interspecies differences between the rat and man in that rat does
not secrete nitrate in saliva with subsequent partial reduction to nitrite. Finally, the SCF considered
that, because ‘infants may be more likely to reduce exogenous nitrate to nitrite and are more sensitive
to the acute effects of nitrite, nitrate should not be used as an additive in infant foods.’ As regards the
formation of nitrosamines and nitrosamides, while there appeared to be no such clear correlation
between added nitrate levels and formation of volatile nitrosamines, further information was required
by the SCF ‘about the potential involvement of nitrate in the formation of non-volatile N-nitroso
compounds’. The SCF considered that exposure, epidemiological and other data relating to dietary
nitrosamines provided no direct evidence that the current levels of nitrosamines present in the diet
were hazardous to human health. However, the SCF was ‘not in a position to make a quantitative
assessment of risk from all N-nitroso compounds present in foods as eaten or formed by nitrosation in
the human gastrointestinal tract’ and considered that it was prudent to ensure that exposure to
preformed nitrosamines in foods should be minimized by appropriate technological practices (SCF,
1992).
In its 1995 report (SCF, 1997), the SCF updated and extended its previous 1990 evaluation. The
SCF updated the dietary exposure to nitrate taking into consideration nitrate levels in vegetables and
other foods and reviewed the literature on the toxicology of nitrate, nitrite and N-nitroso compounds
(NOCs). The SCF concluded that the intake of nitrate from the use of its salts as food additives was

low compared to that resulting from the consumption of vegetables and drinking water, with no likely
toxicity arising within the expected daily intake from natural sources and use as food additives. From
the available toxicity and epidemiological data, it was concluded that nitrate per se was of relatively
low toxicity. However, as the toxicity of nitrate is encompassed by its conversion to nitrite and the
possible endogenous formation of NOCs and that the toxicokinetics and biotransformation of nitrate in
rats is different from humans, the safety evaluation of nitrate was carried out in conjunction with that
of nitrite. With regard to the epidemiological studies on gastric cancer risk, the SCF considered them
inconsistent (the more reliable case–control and cohort studies not suggesting any association)
probably due to the known strong protective effect of vegetables and fruits on the risk of gastric
cancer. The SCF evaluation concluded that ‘long-term animal studies did not indicate that nitrite or
nitrate per se are carcinogenic and that there was no quantitative evidence for the endogenous
formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds after exposure to realistic levels of nitrate and
N-nitrosatable precursors. In addition, the Committee concluded that, overall extensive epidemiological
studies on nitrate have failed to demonstrate an association with cancer risk in man. The Committee
therefore felt it appropriate to derive an ADI for nitrate’. The SCF concluded that the evidence from
human metabolism studies on nitrate taken together with the toxicity of nitrite provided confirmation
of the ADI for nitrate established previously. The SCF retained thus an ADI of 0–3.7 mg/kg bw per day
for nitrate ion (equivalent to 0–5 mg/kg bw per day for sodium nitrate) and confirmed that this ADI
was applicable to all sources of dietary exposure to nitrates (SCF, 1997).
Nitrate was reviewed by JECFA on several occasions (JECFA, 1965, 1974, 1995, 1996, 2002, 2003a,b).
JECFA (1996), in its evaluation of nitrate, based its ADI on a chronic study in rats, which is referenced as
Lehman (1958). However, this reference only summarises unpublished data. The most recent review on
nitrate by JECFA (2003a) evaluated new data that had become available since its 1996 evaluation and
concluded that the pivotal studies having observed toxic effects of nitrate are consequent on its
conversion to nitrite in vivo. As the new data on nitrite would not provide a basis for a significant change
in the previous ADI for nitrate, the Committee retained the ADI of 0–5 mg/kg bw, expressed as sodium
nitrate, or 0–3.7 mg/kg bw, expressed as nitrate ion, during this evaluation. The JECFA evaluation also
concluded that ‘overall, the epidemiological studies showed no consistently increased risk for cancer
with increasing consumption of nitrate. These data, combined with the results of the epidemiological
studies considered at a previous meeting, do not provide evidence that nitrate is carcinogenic to humans’
(JECFA, 2003a). In addition, in its previous meeting (JECFA, 1995), it was stated that ‘since uncertainties
still exist with respect to the possible endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds after nitrate
exposure, the most appropriate approach at present is to derive an ADI based on the most sensitive
toxicity criteria for nitrite in rats and the toxicokinetics of nitrate in humans, in addition to deriving an ADI
directly from toxicity studies with nitrate’.
A risk assessment of the intake of naturally occurring nitrate and its metabolites from vegetables
has also been performed by EFSA, with respect to the risks and benefits of consuming nitrate (EFSA
CONTAM Panel, 2008). The EFSA Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM)
concluded that, overall, the estimated exposures to nitrate form vegetables are unlikely to result in
appreciable health risks, and therefore the recognised beneficial effects of consumption of vegetables
prevail.
In that opinion, the exposure assessment to nitrate from vegetables only was carried out. There
was a large variation in median concentrations of nitrate in different vegetables from 1 mg/kg (peas
and Brussels sprouts) to 4,800 mg/kg (in rucola). The assessment was not based on real consumption
data but was based on several scenarios assuming the consumption of vegetables, excluding potatoes,
at a level in line with dietary recommendations (400 g per day).
A further opinion was delivered by the CONTAM Panel on the potential health risks for infants and
young children from the presence of naturally occurring nitrate in leafy vegetables (EFSA CONTAM
Panel, 2010b). The CONTAM Panel concluded that ‘the concentrations of nitrate in spinach have the
potential to increase dietary nitrate exposure to levels at which a health concern cannot be excluded.
It also observed that inappropriate storage of cooked vegetables can result in in situ conversion of
nitrate to nitrite, leading to an increased potential for causing methaemoglobinaemia’. The CONTAM
Panel noted ‘that infants and children with bacterial infections of the gastrointestinal tract are more
sensitive to nitrate, and recommended against feeding spinach to such children’.
The scientific opinions delivered by EFSA did not propose revision of the established ADI previously
set by the SCF and JECFA (SCF, 1997; JECFA, 2003a).
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently re-evaluated data available on
nitrate and nitrite (IARC, 2010) but did not comment on the ADIs set previously by other

organisations. The IARC evaluation includes a review of the effects of ingested nitrate in experimental
animals and in humans arising from epidemiological studies. Concerning the animal experiments, the
IARC concluded that ‘there is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of
nitrate’. Concerning the human data, IARC concluded that ‘there is an active endogenous nitrogen
cycle in humans that involves nitrate and nitrite, which are interconvertible in vivo. Nitrosating agents
that arise from nitrite under acidic gastric conditions react readily with nitrosatable compounds,
especially secondary amines and amides, to generate N-nitroso compounds. These nitrosating
conditions are enhanced following ingestion of additional nitrate, nitrite or nitrosatable compounds.
Some of the N-nitroso compounds that could be formed in humans under these conditions are known
carcinogens’. Taken into consideration these aspects, the IARC further concluded that ‘under conditions
that result in endogenous nitrosation ingested nitrate or nitrite, is probably carcinogenic to humans
(Group 2A)’.
The WHO produced a background document (WHO, 2007) for the development of WHO guidelines
for drinking water quality for nitrate and nitrite. A guideline value for nitrate in water was calculated to
be 50 mg/L, with consideration of epidemiological evidence on infant methaemoglobinaemia. A
provisional guideline value of 0.2 mg nitrite ion/L of water was calculated based on the JECFA ADI of
0–0.07 mg/kg bw per day, assuming that a 60-kg adult ingests 2 L of drinking water per day, and
allocating a 10% contribution of drinking water to the ADI. The provisional status of the guideline was
based on the uncertainty with regard to the susceptibility to nitrite toxicity of humans compared to
experimental animals. In 2011, the WHO drinking water guideline value for nitrite was set at 3 mg/L
based on methaemoglobinaemia, which can be caused at doses as low as 0.4 mg/kg bw in infants.
The guideline value was derived by assuming a body weight of 5 kg for infants and consumption of
0.75 L of drinking water per day (WHO, 2011). No guidelines for drinking water have been derived for
chronic effects.
The Nordic Council of Ministers (TemaNord) report on sodium and potassium nitrate (TemaNord,
2002) reviewed the results and limits set by the preceding evaluations by the SCF and JECFA (SCF,
1992, 1997, JECFA, 2003a), concluding that the toxicological re-evaluation of these substances was not
necessary. However, reference was made to the SCF recommendation that ‘exposure to preformed
nitrosamines in food should be minimised by appropriate technological practices such as the lowering of
levels of nitrate and nitrite added to foods to the minimum required’. Furthermore, it was highlighted
that the ADI of 0.06 mg/kg bw set for the nitrite ion was not applicable to infants younger than
3 months of age (TemaNord, 2002). It was also stated that there are several groups of individuals who
are expected to be more sensitive to the methaemoglobin-forming potential of the nitrites. These
groups include pregnant women, individuals with metabolic disorders and adults with reduced gastric
acidity.
Health Canada has published a report on the metabolite N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) (Health
Canada, 2011), as well as a document on nitrate and nitrite guidelines in drinking water (Health
Canada, 2013).
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority has published a risk assessment on dietary nitrate and
nitrite (Thomson et al., 2007). The Australian Food Safety Authority has published a report on nitrate
and nitrite in 2011 (FSANZ, 2011).
A Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) initial assessment profile is available through the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemicals Program (OECD, 2007) for several nitrates.
2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data
The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was not provided with a
newly submitted dossier. EFSA launched public calls for data6,7 to collect information from interested
parties.
The Panel based its assessment on information submitted to EFSA following the public calls for
data, information from previous evaluations and additional available literature up to 16 January 2017.
6
Call for scientific data on food additives permitted in the EU and belonging to the functional classes of preservatives and
antioxidants. Published: 23 November 2009. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/dataclosed/call/ans091123
7
Call for scientific data on selected food additives permitted in the EU- Extended deadline: 1 September 2014 (batch A), 1
November 2014 (batch B) Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/dataclosed/call/140324.htm

Attempts were made at retrieving relevant original study reports on which previous evaluations or
reviews were based; however, these were not always available to the Panel.
The EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database (Comprehensive Database8) was
used to estimate the dietary exposure.
The Mintel’s Global New Products Database (GNPD) is an online resource listing food products and
compulsory ingredient information that should be included in labelling. This database was used to
verify the use of food additives sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) in food products.
2.2. Methodologies
This opinion was formulated following the principles described in the EFSA Guidance on
transparency with regard to scientific aspects of risk assessment (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2009)
and following the relevant existing guidance documents from the EFSA Scientific Committee.
The ANS Panel assessed the safety sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) as food
additives in line with the principles laid down in Regulation (EU) 257/2010 and in the relevant guidance
documents: Guidance on submission for food additive evaluations by the Scientific Committee on Food
(SCF, 2001) and taking into consideration the Guidance for submission for food additive evaluations in
2012 (EFSA ANS Panel, 2012).
When the test substance was administered in the feed or in the drinking water, but doses were not
explicitly reported by the authors as mg/kg bw per day based on actual feed or water consumption,
the daily intake was calculated by the Panel using the relevant default values as indicated in the EFSA
Scientific Committee Guidance document (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012a) for studies in rodents or,
in the case of other animal species, by the JECFA (2000). In these cases, the daily intake is expressed
as equivalent. In these cases the daily intake is expressed as equivalent. When in human studies in
adults (aged above 18 years), the dose of the test substance administered was reported in mg/person
per day, the dose in mg/kg bw per day was calculated by the Panel using a body weight of 70 kg as
default for the adult population as described in the EFSA Scientific Committee Guidance document
(EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012a).
Dietary exposure to sodium nitrate (E 251(i) and (ii)) and potassium nitrate (E 252) from their use
as food additives was estimated combining food consumption data available within the EFSA
Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, with the maximum permitted levels and/or
reported use levels and analytical data submitted to EFSA following a call for data. Different scenarios
were used to calculate exposure (see Section 3.3.1). Uncertainties on the exposure assessment were
identified and discussed.
Specific methodologies, applied to the following parts of the evaluation, are described in detail
under the respective chapters:
• Selection of studies evaluating nitrosamines formation in food products authorised to contain
nitrites and nitrates in the EU (Section 3.1.5);
• Exposure scenarios (Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5);
• Selection and appraisal of epidemiological studies (Section 3.6.8);
• Derivation of guidance values for nitrate, nitrite and nitrosamines (Section 3.7).
3. Assessment
3.1. Technical data
3.1.1. Identity of the substances

Solid sodium nitrate (E 251(i)) has the molecular formula NaNO3 and a molecular weight of
85.00 g/mol. The CAS Registry number is 7631-99-4 and the European Inventory of Existing
Commercial Chemical Substances (EINECS) (or EC) number is 231-554-3.
Solid sodium nitrate is described in Commission Regulation (EU) 231/20129 as a white crystalline,
slightly hygroscopic powder. The melting point is 306.5°C (Haynes, 2010); the substance decomposes
at 380°C (IARC, 2010). At room temperature, sodium nitrate is freely soluble in water (Haynes, 2015).
8
Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/datexfoodcdb/datexfooddb.htm
9
Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 of 9 March 2012 laying down specifications for food additives listed in Annexes II
and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. OJ L 83, 22.3.2012, p. 1.

According to Commission Regulation (EU) 231/2012, synonyms include Chile saltpetre, cubic or
soda nitre.
Liquid sodium nitrate (E 251(ii)) has the molecular formula NaNO3 and a molecular weight of
85.00 g/mol (liquid sodium nitrate). The CAS Registry number is 7631-99-4 and the EINECS (or EC)
number is 231-554-3, the same as those of solid sodium nitrate.
Liquid sodium nitrate is defined in Commission Regulation (EU) 231/2012 as ‘an aqueous solution of
sodium nitrate as the direct result of the chemical reaction between sodium hydroxide and nitric acid
in stoichiometric amounts, without subsequent crystallisation. Standardised forms prepared from liquid
sodium nitrate meeting these specifications may contain nitric acid in excessive amounts, if clearly
stated or labelled’ and is described as a clear colourless liquid in which the substance is present from
33.5% to 40.0% (w/w).
Potassium nitrate (E 252) has the molecular formula KNO3 and a molecular weight of 101.11 g/mol.
The CAS Registry number is 7757-79-1 and the EINECS (or EC) number is 231-818-8.
Potassium nitrate is described in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 as a white crystalline
powder or transparent prisms having a cooling, saline, pungent taste. The melting point is 334°C and
the substance decomposes at 400°C (Haynes, 2010). At room temperature, potassium nitrate is freely
soluble in water (Haynes, 2015).
3.1.2. Specifications
The specifications for solid sodium nitrate (E 251(i)), liquid sodium nitrate (E 251(ii)) and potassium
nitrate (E 252) as defined in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 and by JECFA (JECFA,
2006a,b) are listed in Tables 1–3.
Table 1: Specifications for solid sodium nitrate (E 251(i)) according to Commission Regulation (EU)
No 231/2012 and the JECFA (2006a)
Commission Regulation (EU) No
JECFA (2006a)
231/2012
Assay Content not less than 99% on the Not less than 99.0% on the dried basis
anhydrous basis
Description White crystalline, slightly hygroscopic Clear, colourless, odourless, transparent crystals,
powder or white granules or powder; deliquescent in
moist air
Identification
Test for nitrate Passes test Passes test
Test for sodium Passes test Passes test
pH 5.5–8.3 (5% solution) –
Solubility – Freely soluble in water; slightly soluble in
ethanol
Purity
Loss on drying Not more than 2% (105°C, 4 h) Not more than 2% (105°C, 4 h)
Nitrites Not more than 30 mg/kg expressed Not more than 30 mg/kg
as NaNO2
Arsenic Not more than 3 mg/kg –
Lead Not more than 2 mg/kg Not more than 2 mg/kg
Mercury Not more than 1 mg/kg –
The Panel also noted that the JECFA specifications include the following functional uses for sodium
nitrate and potassium nitrate: antimicrobial preservative, colour fixative (JECFA, 2006a,b).
The Panel noted that, according to the EU specifications for sodium nitrate (E 251(i)), liquid sodium
nitrate (E 251(ii)) and potassium nitrate (E 252), impurities of the toxic elements arsenic, lead and
mercury are accepted up concentrations of 3, 2 and 1 mg/kg, respectively. Contamination at those
levels could have a significant impact on the exposure to these metals, for which the intake is already
close to the health-based guidance or benchmark doses (lower confidence limits) values established by
the EFSA (EFSA CONTAM Panel, 2009a,b, 2010a, 2012a,b,c, 2014).

Table 2: Specifications(a) for liquid sodium nitrate (E 251(ii)) according to Commission Regulation
(EU) No 231/2012
Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012
Assay Content between 33.5% and 40.0% of NaNO3
Description Clear colourless liquid
Identification
Test for nitrate Passes test
Test for sodium Passes test
pH 1.53.5
Purity
Free nitric acid Not more than 0.01%
Nitrites Not more than 10 mg/kg expressed as NaNO2
Arsenic Not more than 1 mg/kg
Lead Not more than 1 mg/kg
Mercury Not more than 0.3 mg/kg
(a): This specification refers to a 35% aqueous solution.
There is no corresponding JECFA specification for this form of sodium nitrate.

Table 3: Specifications for potassium nitrate (E 252) according to Commission Regulation (EU)
No 231/2012 and to (JECFA, 2006b)
Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 JECFA (2006b)
Assay Content not less than 99% on the anhydrous Not less than 99.0% on the dried basis
basis
Description White crystalline powder or transparent prisms Colourless, odourless, transparent prisms,
having a cooling, saline, pungent taste or white granular or crystalline powder
Identification
Test for nitrate Passes test Passes test
Test for potassium Passes test Passes test
pH 4.5–8.5 (5% solution) –
Solubility Soluble in water; slightly soluble in
ethanol
Purity
Loss on drying Not more than 1% (105°C, 4 h) Not more than 1% (105°C, 4 h)
Nitrites Not more than 20 mg/kg expressed as KNO2 Not more than 20 mg/kg
Arsenic Not more than 3 mg/kg –
Lead Not more than 2 mg/kg Not more than 2 mg/kg
Mercury Not more than 1 mg/kg –
The Panel noted that in the European Commission specifications for potassium nitrate, information
on the taste of the chemical is given and such information requires analysts to taste possibly harmful
substances.
3.1.3. Manufacturing process

The majority of the world’s production of sodium nitrate is from natural deposits in Chile (Wisniak
and Garce s, 2001; Kirk-Othmer, 2006a). Traditionally, sodium nitrate was extracted from the ore by
leaching with brine, followed by fractional crystallisation: the Shanks process, which allowed recovery
of approximately 60% of the nitrate in the ore, was developed in 1863 and utilised until the late
1970s. The Guggenheim process developed in the late 1920s, which permitted the exploitation of
natural reserves having a content of nitrate ore as low as 7%, was similarly based on leaching of
caliche, at 30–40°C: a few modifications were introduced over time, but the process in use nowadays
is not very different from the original one. Sodium nitrate can also be made synthetically by absorbing

waste gases from nitric acid production in sodium hydroxide or a sodium carbonate solution. The
gases contain nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO). However, the process is not very efficient
and tends to produce mainly sodium nitrite with possibly small amounts of sodium nitrate: if some
sodium nitrate is formed, it can readily be recovered by differential crystallisation. Sodium nitrate can
also be obtained from the nitrite by treatment with nitric acid.
Potassium nitrate can be produced through a double replacement reaction between potassium
chloride and sodium nitrate or ammonium nitrate: the by-products of these reactions are sodium
chloride and ammonium chloride, respectively. Potassium chloride can also react with nitric acid to
yield potassium nitrate and hydrochloric acid: the reaction can be chemically driven so that chlorine is
produced as an economically advantageous co-product (Kirk-Othmer, 2006b; Joshi et al., 2015).
Food-grade sodium and potassium nitrate are readily available from the market.
3.1.4. Methods of analysis in food

The measurements of nitrite/nitrate are performed for three main reasons: (a) to assess
compliance with the current regulation on additives and contaminants; (b) to determine the
concentration of nitrite/nitrate in individual foodstuffs and diet; and (c) to study the fate of nitrite/
nitrate in the body. Each of these applications demands specific requirements that the analytical
chemist should attended to demonstrate the method is ‘fit for purpose’. Thus, the international
standardisation bodies (European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and International Organisation
for Standardisation (ISO)) have approved five analytical methods for the determination of nitrate in
foodstuffs (meat products and milk products).
The CEN describes two methods for the determination of nitrate ion in meat products (CEN, 1997).
In the first method (CEN, 2005a), nitrate is extracted from a homogenised sample under alkaline
conditions (pH 8–8.5). The extract is clarified with Carrez solution 1 (potassium hexacyanoferrate(II)
solution, 150 g/L) and Carrez solution 2 (zinc acetate solution, 230 g/L). Nitrate in the clarified extract
is reduced to nitrite by the addition of nitrate reductase. Sulfanilamide is added to the resulting
solution, followed by N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride. This produces a red compound
whose concentration is determined spectrometrically at a wavelength of 540 nm. If nitrite is also
present in the sample, this is determined in the same way but without the reduction step, and the
nitrate content is calculated by subtraction this result from the result including the reduction step. In
the second method (CEN, 2005b), nitrate is extracted from the sample in hot water. Acetonitrile is
used to remove interfering substances from the extract. Ion exchange chromatography is used to
separate nitrate from nitrite, and both are quantified using ultraviolet detection at 205 nm. The limit of
detection (LOD) for nitrate was 10 mg/kg.
The ISO describes three alternative implementations of a method related to that described by the
CEN (2005a) for the analysis of nitrate (and nitrites) in milk and milk products. In the first (ISO, 2004a),
a sample of the milk product is dispersed in warm water. Fat and proteins are precipitated, and the
resulting mixture is filtered. A copperised cadmium column is used to reduce the nitrate to nitrite.
Sulfanilamide and N-1-naphthyl ethylenediamine dihydrochloride are used to produce a coloured
derivative, which is determined spectrometrically at 538 nm. When nitrite is present at significant levels
(see below) in the sample, derivatisation is carried out on an unreduced sample to determine the nitrite
content, and the nitrate content is calculated as the difference. In the second method (ISO, 2004b), the
procedure is similar but a flow system is used and a dialysis cell is employed to clean up the dispersion
product before reduction (for nitrate), derivatisation and quantification. The nitrate content is calculated
as the difference between reduced and unreduced samples as above. The third method (ISO, 2004c)
uses a flow injection system, including a dialysis cell. This standard indicates that, if the level of nitrite is
above 0.5 mg/kg or exceeds 10% of the nitrate content, then the nitrite content should be subtracted
from the total to give the nitrate content. The second and third methods reduce the volume of waste
solutions, thus reducing the potential exposure or release of cadmium.
The Nordic Committee of Analysis of Food (NMKL, 2013) specifies a spectrophotometric method for
the determination of nitrate/nitrite content in foodstuffs and water after zinc reduction and very
sensitive and widely used Griess reaction. The method has been validated in vegetables (lettuce),
meat products, baby food, dairy product (milk) and surface water. The LOD of nitrate for surface water
and meet products was 0.04 mg/L and 5 mg/kg, respectively.
The Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL present two photometric methods for the
determination of nitrate/nitrite in meat and cured meat (AOAC, 2005). In the first method, nitrate ion react
with 2,4-xylenol in sulfuric acid, steam-distilled and measured at 450 nm. Nitrite is oxidise to nitrate with

potassium permanganate and determined by difference. The second method is based on diazotisation-
coupling principle (Griess reaction). Read at 540 nm. This method was adopted as a Codex Reference
method (Type II) for nitrite and potassium and/or sodium salts in canned corned beef and luncheon meat.
IARC (2010) compiled analytical methods for nitrate and nitrite. The majority of the methods are
for analysis in water. A number of the methods included are for matrices relevant to the use of sodium
and potassium nitrate as additives in foodstuffs: meat and meat products, cured meats, curing
preparations, and cheese. No limits of detection or quantification are reported for these methods in
the IARC Monograph (IARC, 2010).
Recent examples are provided below of methods for the analysis of nitrate in foodstuffs, including
some modifications to the standard methods described above.
Chung et al. (2011) analysed the levels of nitrate and nitrite in vegetables in Hong Kong. Samples
were extracted with hot water and the extracts were cooled and filtered. For nitrate, an ion
chromatograph with a conductivity detector was used for quantification. The LOD was given as 4 mg/
kg and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 10 mg/kg.
Leth et al. (2008) analysed a range of meat products for their nitrate and nitrite contents. Samples
were extracted with hot water; protein was precipitated by the addition of Carrez solutions I
(potassium hexacyanoferrate (II) at 150 g/L) and II (zinc sulfate at 300 g/L). Following filtration, the
sample was injected into a flow analysis system. This included a cadmium column to reduce the nitrate
to nitrite; this was then reacted in the system with sulfanilamide and N-(1-naphthyl)-ethylene
diammonium chloride to form a violet azo colour, which was measured spectrophotometrically at
540 nm. The LOD was 5 mg/kg.
Iammarino et al. (2013) reported the results of 5 years of official control and monitoring of nitrate
and nitrite in 1,785 samples of fresh meat products, shellfishes, diary product and leafy vegetables.
The determinations of nitrate and nitrite were carried out with an in-house validated ion
chromatographic method with electrochemical detection. All positive samples were confirmed by a
different verified chromatographic method that uses the same procedure for sample preparation and
similar chromatographic system but a different ionic exchange mechanism. Acceptable agreement in
the comparative performance of both methods was reported. The LOD for nitrate was 3.2 mg/kg.
Croitoru (2012) developed a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-ultraviolet (UV)/visible
(VIS) method for the determination of low concentrations of nitrite and nitrate in vegetables and
biological samples. The method combines the simultaneous VIS detection of the nitrite related azo dye
(Griess reaction), with the simple UV detection of nitrate. The proposed method provide an alternative
to overcome the poor detectability of nitrite due to interference of UV absorbing substances that often
masks the nitrite peak and makes unreliable the UV/VIS detection in HPLC methods. The LOD and
LOQ in plasma for nitrate ion are 0.06 and 0.2 lg/L, respectively.
The sensitivity and accuracy of the official methods are commonly good enough for enforcing
purposes; however, the need to improve the accuracy of the exposure estimate by detecting low levels
of nitrite/nitrate in individual foods and diet, as well as the study of their fate in the body, has
encouraged the development of new analytical methods using other detection techniques. Thus, in
EFSA CONTAM Panel (2009b), several methods were mentioned for the simultaneous quantitative
determination of nitrate and nitrite in different food items, including chromatography (Butt et al.,
€
2001; Stalikas et al., 2003; McMullen et al., 2005), amperometry, capillary electrophoresis (Oztekin
et al., 2002) and spectrophotometry (Andrade et al., 2003; Ensafi et al., 2004; Casanova et al., 2006).
Methods, selectively intended for the quantitative determination of nitrite alone include
spectrophotometry with or without flow injection analysis (Ghasemi et al., 2004), chemiluminescence
(Gao et al., 2005; He et al., 2007), fluorescence (Gao, 2002; Li et al., 2003), optical sensor technology
(Kazemzadeh, 2005) and even dipstick technology (Fang et al., 2005).
3.1.5. Stability of the substance, and reaction and fate in food

Concerning stability in food, no precise information could be identified on nitrate added to food
items, although it was reasonable to assume that the nitrate concentration will decrease over time due
to the activity of nitrate-reducing bacteria or their own chemical instability and reactivity. Inversely,
nitrate concentration can also be increased in some heat-treated meat products from the natural
conversion of nitrite to nitrate in a low-acid environment (Honikel, 2008). The formation of nitrate,
even in cases when no nitrate has been added, proceeds through the formation of NO2 from N2O3.
Nitrous anhydride (N2O3) is formed in food through its formation from nitrite (NO2) in acidic aqueous
solution according to the following reaction:

2NO þ
2 þ 2H N2 O3 þ H2 O
N2 O3 ! NO þ NO2
2NO2 þ H2 O ! NO
2 þ NO3 þ 2H
þ
Furthermore, some NO2 may be also generated in the presence of air:
NO þ 1=2 O2 ! NO2
In summary, the overall reaction (Pegg and Honikel, 2015) is:
2NO
2 þ 1=2 O2 ! NO2 þ NO3
This means that, from two NO2 molecules, one HNO3 molecule is produced. Part of the nitrate
generated is then reduced to nitrite in the meat product through bacterial reduction or might remain as
nitrate if the pH is too low and the activity of bacterial nitrate reductase is inhibited. This is why some
nitrate may be detected in meat products by laboratory controls where no nitrate was initially added.
It has also been reported that, in some particular cooked meat products with high pH values
(within 6.0–6.8), such as liver and blood sausages, the added nitrite may be oxidised to nitrate by the
endogenous enzymes or by metal ions (Pegg and Honikel, 2015).
Specific information on the stability of nitrate in vegetables was identified for this re-evaluation.
Although the Panel is aware that the information is related to the natural occurrence of nitrate in
vegetables and not to their use as food additives, the Panel considered that it is also useful to present
this general information on nitrate reaction and fate in foods. Nitrate may naturally occur in vegetables
and their levels in raw agricultural commodities can be influenced by a number of factors such as
storage time and conditions (i.e. ambient, refrigerated, frozen) and food processing (i.e. washing,
peeling, blanching, boiling)10 (EFSA CONTAM Panel, 2008).
Tamme et al. (2009) monitored the changes in nitrate concentration during the industrial
production of vegetable-based infant food. The overall nitrate content decreased as the vegetables
were mixed with other ingredients, although the processing did not have any significant effect on the
levels. Storage of opened cans of infant food under refrigerated conditions led to an average increase
of 15% in the nitrate level over 48 h. Storage over the same duration at 20–22°C led to an increase of
29%. The nitrite content in all analysed samples was below the quantification limit.
The same authors, Tamme et al. (2010), measured the concentrations of nitrate and nitrite in
home-made and small-scale industrially produced vegetable juices and the effect of storage. The nitrate
contents in the industrially produced juices (carrot, red beetroot and cabbage) decreased with storage
at ambient temperatures, by 47%, 39% and 57%, respectively, after 48 h. Lower reductions in nitrate
concentrations of 11–30% were seen after 48 h under refrigerated conditions. The greatest decrease in
nitrate concentrations from 1,708 to 739 mg/L at 20–22°C was observed in red beetroot juice, and was
accompanied by an increase in nitrite concentration from 3.2 to 11.1 mg/L. A similar pattern was seen
with the home-made vegetable juices under both ambient and refrigeration conditions, although higher
nitrite levels (up to 110 mg/L) were found in the juices stored at ambient temperatures.
Chung et al. (2004) examined nitrate and nitrite levels in four types of vegetables (spinach, crown
daisy, organic Chinese spinach and organic non-heading Chinese cabbage) during storage at ambient
(22 1°C) and refrigerated (5 1°C) conditions over 7 days. At ambient temperatures, nitrate levels
dropped significantly from day 3 onwards; initial levels were ~3,000–5,000 mg/kg, although these
were all below the detection limit (not given) after 4 days. Nitrite levels increased from around 5 mg/
kg at day 3 to around 4,500 mg/kg in spinach after 5 days, before declining to around 4,000 mg/kg
by day 7. A similar pattern was seen in organic Chinese spinach and organic non-heading Chinese
cabbage, with nitrite levels peaking on day 4 and declining thereafter, but still at around 2,500 and
1,000 mg/kg, respectively, after 7 days. By contrast, only a slight increase in nitrite levels in crown
daisy was seen. No changes in nitrite levels (around 5 mg/kg) or nitrate levels (ranging from 2,830 to
5,270 mg/kg) were seen in the refrigerated samples of all four vegetables.
Some processing conditions can also influence the content in nitrate levels in vegetables.
Leszcynska et al. (2009) reported the effect of blanching, boiling, freezing, frozen storage and boiling
10
Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/514e

on the previous frozen vegetables. The blanching and boiling processes caused a considerable
reduction in the nitrate with respect to the raw vegetables, which ranged from 35% in blanched green
cauliflower to 73% in boiled curly kale. Other studies have reported a decrease of 52% in cooked
carrot (Czarniecka-Skubina and Gołaszewska, 2001) although the losses depend on the cooking
method, duration and type of vegetable. During frozen storage of vegetables, increases in nitrite have
been observed compared with blanched vegetables due to the fact that nitrate is partly reduced to
nitrite after storage periods longer than 4 months (Leszcynska et al., 2009).
Under appropriate conditions (pH and concentration of reactants), nitrites, resulting from the
reduction of nitrates, have been shown to form NOCs (nitrosamines and nitrosamides) from
constituents in the food. The reactions involved in this process are generally described as nitrosation.
Nitrosamines are formed by the reaction of a nitrosating agent with an amine, and their formation
could be due to a chemical and/or microbial reaction. Formation of N-nitrosamines is a complex process
and their presence in meat products depends on different parameters related to the preparation,
thermal processing and storage of meat. The presence of amines and the pH together with the nitrite
are the conditions that enhance the formation of nitrosamines (Drabik-Markiewicz et al., 2009).
The basic chemical reaction (nitrosation) that may lead to nitrosamine formation in food has been
described in several studies (Lijinsky, 1999; Scanlan, 2003) and, recently, in more detail by Pegg and
Honikel (2015). A detailed description of nitrosation has not been included in this opinion as sodium
and potassium nitrite are the subjects of a separate opinion by the Panel (EFSA ANS Panel, 2017).
Nitrate, when converted to nitrite, can also react with haem proteins and smoke components
(Walters, 1992). The woodwood smoke and liquid smoke used for the production of meat and meat
products contain a large number of compounds, of which acids, phenols and carbonyls are the main
components (Simko, 2011) together with other compounds such as formaldehyde (Sen et al., 1986). This
compound and other aldehydes can condensate with cysteine resulting in the formation of nitrosamines.
However, phenols may prevent the nitrosamine formation. Higher levels of the non-volatile N-nitroso-
thiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid (NTCA) have been reported for smoked meat than for non-smoked meat
(Sen et al., 1986; Tricker and Kubacki, 1992). The levels of volatile nitrosamines N-nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA) and N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR) do not appear to be affected by smoking. Liquid smoke added
to a meat product provides an acidic and antioxidant medium that favours the transformation of nitrite in
nitrous acid and, consequently, the formation of red nitrosomyoglobin, reduces the nitrite level (Girard,
1991). Theiler et al. (1984) reported that liquid smoke reduced the volatile nitrosamine NPYR in fried
minced pork that has been nitrite cured. Another study showed that the use of commercial smoke
flavouring to frankfurters, with potassium nitrate (200 mg/kg), resulted in a significant reduction of
rez-Rodrıguez et al., 1998).
nitrate to nitrite after 26 days of refrigerated storage (Pe
The pigments responsible for the colour of meat are myoglobin (Mb) and haemoglobin (Ledward,
1984), with Mb being the main component. Many ligands can bind to the iron atom in the haem ring
in myoglobin and the resultant bonds are responsible for the various colours observed in meat. The
most important Mb forms in fresh meat are red oxymyoglobin. In metmyoglobin (MetMb), the iron is
oxidised to Fe3+ and this causes a loss of the ability of myoglobin to reversibly bind with oxygen. In
addition, nitrosomyoglobin (NOMb) is also an important derivative responsible for the pink colour of
uncooked, cured products (Millar et al., 1996).
The colour of cured meat products depends on the reaction of myoglobin with sodium chloride and
curing salts (nitrates and/or nitrites). During fermentation in meat products, nitrite forms nitric oxide
which reacts with the haem compounds of myoglobin to form NOMb, giving the product its
characteristic colour and oxidise Mb into MetMb that also reacts with NO to form nitrosometmyoglobin
(NOMetMb). During drying, NOMetMb is reduced to NOMb (Chasco et al., 1996). In cooked cured
products, the cooking processing denatures and separates the protein from the non-protein haem and
contributes to the visual colour change to the final pink colour of the cooked cured meat due to the
presence of nitrosylhemochrome pigment. The system in all cured meats include sodium chloride in
different amounts and nitrous acid reacts with the chloride ion to produce nitrosyl chloride (NOCl)
which is a more active nitrosylating agent than N2O3 (Møller and Skibsted, 2002). This means that
chloride ions accelerate colour development in cured meat.
HNO2 þ Hþ þ Cl ! NOCl þ H2 O

Nitrous acid can also react with sulfhydryl groups of meat proteins to release nitric oxide an
oxidation–reduction reaction that results in a disulfide according to the following reaction (Pegg and
Shahidi, 2004):

2HNO2 þ 2R-SH ! 2R-S-S-R þ 2NO þ 2H2 O
This contributes to meat texture as the crosslinking between proteins could lead to an increase in
firmness.
The application of heat during processing, such as frying or baking, to meat products containing
nitrates and nitrites affects the levels of nitrosamines in processed meat (Drabik-Markiewicz et al.,
2009). In the products heated above 130°C, an increase in nitrosamines can be observed (Honikel,
2008). The presence of NDMA in heated meat products was only influenced by temperatures higher
than 120°C and by the nitrite concentration and not by nitrate concentration in the brine. A further
increase in the nitrosamines can be observed at even higher temperatures (e.g. the levels of NDMA
and NPYR were affected by frying, with temperature ranging from 150 to 200°C being the optimal for
their formation) (Drabik-Markiewicz et al., 2009).
The addition of potassium or sodium nitrate in the manufacture of certain types of cheese is a
common method for the prevention of blowing and gassy defects (Tompkin, 2005). Nitrate in cheese is
reduced to nitrite by xanthine oxidase present in milk or by nitrate reductase produced by
microorganisms (Munksgaard and Werner, 1987).
Results of systematic review on the types and levels of nitrosamines and nitrosamides
in experimental studies with meat products upon addition of nitrates and nitrites (food
additive grade)
The Panel considered important to address the question of which nitrosamines and nitrosamides are
produced in food products from the use of nitrates and nitrites as food additives and at which levels
they can be found in those food products. Therefore, a systematic review has been performed (see
Appendix F) with the objective to select reliable studies performed to identify the type of nitrosamines
and nitrosamides and to measure their respective levels in food products found in the European market
to which specified amounts of nitrates/nitrites have been added. Based on the search strategy, a total
of 33 articles were identified and 10 of them have been evaluated as being of good quality. Out of these
10 articles, there were four studies on cheese with appropriate control samples which were considered
by the Panel and they have been summarised in the Appendix F. No relevant studies measuring
nitrosamides in cheese products were found. The Panel noted that no studies of good quality were
identified in which nitrosamine formation was measured after the addition of nitrates to meat products.
The Panel noted on the results that:
• the compounds measured in dairy products were volatile nitrosamines mostly NDMA, N-
nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDBA) and N-nitrosomorpholine
(NMOR).
• these studies in which all conditions were held constant and only the amount of nitrates has
been changed, did not show a relationship between nitrates added and the formation of the
non-volatiles nitrosamines tested in the different cheese.
3.1.6. Technological function

The technological functions of nitrates have been reviewed by the SCF with respect to their uses in
meat products, cheese milk and fish products (SCF, 1992).
Data in the literature indicate that the sodium and potassium salts of nitrate combined with nitrite
salts are commonly used in curing mixtures (i.e. sodium chloride solutions) for meats to develop and fix
the colour of meat, to inhibit microbial growth and to develop characteristic flavours. Sensory evaluations
also indicate that nitrite contributes to cured meat flavour, apparently through its role as antioxidant
(Ramarathnam and Rubin, 1994). Nitrite rather than nitrate is the functional constituent the former, also
contributing to the characteristic colour development. Preservation of meat is necessary for its extended
storage, especially because no raw meat is completely sterile and there is always a potential for the
presence and growth of pathogenic microorganisms that might cause infections and intoxications. Meat is
an excellent medium for the growth of Clostridium botulinum and its toxin production, which is a highly
neurotoxic protein. Nitrite production in meat occurs via the bacterial reduction of nitrate. Furthermore,
nitrites rather than nitrates inhibit the growth of Clostridia in cured meats. The Panel noted that the use of
nitrates in meat products would serve mainly as a necessary reservoir for nitrite production to achieve the
foreseen technological functions. Thus, in meat products, nitrates do not appear to serve a direct
technological role as opposed to nitrites. The antimicrobial mechanism of nitrite is unknown, although it
has been suggested that the acidified nitrite results in the generation of nitric oxide (NO) through the
intermediate N2O3 as described below, which has potent antibacterial activity against a range of

pathogens, including Salmonella, Yersinia and Sheila species, Helicobacter pylori and Pseudomonas
aeruginosa (Lundberg et al., 2008). The efficacy of nitrite combined with other factors like heat
treatment, pH, water activity, salt and redox potential, in inhibiting growth and toxin production by C.
botulinum is widely recognised in the scientific literature and has an excellent record of safety. However,
some traditional products with slow ripening such as traditional dry-fermented sausages or dry-cured
ham may need the use of nitrate as a reservoir of nitrite that is generated through the nitrate reductase
activity of the microbial flora. Even though nitrate does not directly protect against C. botulinum, it is its
reduction to nitrite that is active against C. botulinum (EFSA, 2003).
As mentioned before, the use of nitrate appears necessary in particular traditional dry meat
products, typical of the Mediterranean countries, like long-ripened dry-fermented sausages and dry-
cured ham. Traditional dry-fermented sausages experience a long-ripening process (up to several
months) with a slow and mild pH drop (usually the pH remains relatively high), where the added
nitrate is progressively reduced to nitrite contributing not only to safety, but also to specific and
characteristic sensory properties. The rate of reduction is quite variable and mainly depends on the
natural microbial flora that is present in the product. Dry-cured ham is an entire piece where curing
salt has to be rubbed on the outer surface of the ham and left for several weeks for its diffusion
through the entire piece (Toldra , 2002). This is a very slow process that may take up to 2 months
under cold storage, where the progressively diffused nitrate constitutes a reservoir of nitrite. In this
way, nitrite effectively reaches the centre of the ham; especially to critical inner locations like the bone
joints, where protection by nitrite is essential before the next stages of processing, which increase the
temperature for ripening and drying of the product (EFSA, 2003). A recent study on the evolution of
nitrate and nitrite inside dry-cured hams formulated with different types of salts showed that residual
nitrate in dry-cured ham was < 20 mg/kg (expressed as ion) in the outer muscle semimembranosus
and < 40 mg/kg in the inner muscle biceps femoris (Armenteros et al., 2012). In the case of nitrite,
the levels were very low, < 1 mg/kg (expressed as ion) in the outer muscle and < 3 mg/kg in the inner
muscle (Armenteros et al., 2012). It must be taken into account that, in meat products, the added
amount of nitrate is reduced to nitrites with a high variability. So, monitoring residual levels of nitrate
in the final product gives poor information on how much nitrate was initially added. This is due to the
different rate of nitrate loss in the products, depending on the type of the product, processing
conditions and microbiota present (EFSA, 2003).
The situation is different with regard cheese milk in which the addition of nitrate serves a direct
role of preservative against bacteria such as Clostridium tyrobutyricum, which hampers the
manufacturing of certain cheeses. Also, in the case of fish products, the information gathered by the
SCF suggested that nitrates were used directly to prevent the growth of microorganisms producing off-
flavours during ripening with no apparent preservative function against pathogens (SCF, 1992).
3.2. Authorised uses and use levels

Maximum levels of nitrates (E 251–E 252) have been defined in Annex II to Regulation (EC)
No 1333/2008 on food additives, as amended. In this document, these levels are named maximum
permitted levels (MPLs).
Currently, nitrates (E 251–E 252) are authorised food additives in the EU at MPLs ranging from 10
to 500 mg/kg in 24 food categories (considering different restrictions/exceptions).
Table 4 summarises foods that are permitted to contain nitrates (E 251–E 252) and the
corresponding maximum permitted levels (MPLs) as set by Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.
Table 4: Summary of foods that are permitted to contain nitrates (E 251–E 252) and the corresponding
maximum permitted levels (MPLs) as set by Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008
Food MPL (mg/L or
E-number/ mg/kg as
category Food category name Restrictions/exception
group appropriate)
number
01.7.2 Ripened cheese Nitrates Only hard, semihard and semisoft cheese 150(a)
(E 251–E 252)
01.7.4 Whey cheese Nitrates Only cheese milk of hard, semihard and 150(a)
(E 251–E 252) semisoft cheese

Food MPL (mg/L or

E-number/ mg/kg as
group appropriate)
number
01.7.6 Cheese products (excluding Nitrates Only hard, semihard and semisoft ripened 150(a)
products falling in category 16) (E 251–E 252) products
01.8 Dairy analogues, including beverage Nitrates Only dairy-based cheese analogue 150(a)
whiteners (E 251–E 252)
08.3.1 Non-heat-treated processed meat Nitrates 150(b)
(E 251–E 252)
08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured Nitrates Only Wiltshire bacon and similar products: 250(c,d)
products (meat products cured by (E 251–E 252) meat is injected with curing solution
immersion in a curing solution followed by immersion curing for 3–10 days.
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, The immersion brine solution also includes
salt and other components) microbiological starter cultures
08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured Nitrates Only Wiltshire ham and similar products: 250(c,d)
products (meat products cured by (E 251–E 252) meat is injected with curing solution
immersion in a curing solution followed by immersion curing for 3–
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, 10 days. The immersion brine solution also
salt and other components) includes microbiological starter cultures
08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured Nitrates Only Entremeada, entrecosto, chispe, 250(c,d)
products (meat products cured by (E 251–E 252) orelheira e cabeca (salgados), toucinho
immersion in a curing solution fumado and similar products: Immersion
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, cured for 3–5 days. Product is not heat-
salt and other components) treated and has a high water activity
08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured Nitrates Only cured tongue: immersion cured for at 10(c,d)
products (meat products cured by (E 251–E 252) least 4 days and precooked
immersion in a curing solution
containing nitrites and/or nitrates,
salt and other components)
08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured Nitrates Only kylma ^savustettu poronliha/kallro
€kt 300(b)
products (meat products cured by (E 251–E 252) renko€tt: meat is injected with curing
immersion in a curing solution solution followed by immersion curing.
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, Curing time is 14–21 days followed by
salt and other components) maturation in cold-smoke for 4–5 weeks
08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured Nitrates Only bacon, filet de bacon and similar 250(b,d,e)
products (meat products cured by (E 251–E 252) products: Immersion cured for 4–5 days at
immersion in a curing solution 5–7°C, matured for typically 24–40 h at
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, 22°C, possibly smoked for 24 h at 20–25°C
salt and other components) and stored for 3–6 weeks at 12–14°C
08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured Nitrates Only rohschinken, nassgepo €kelt and similar 250(c)
products (meat products cured by (E 251–E 252) products: Curing time depends on the
immersion in a curing solution shape and weight of meat pieces for
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, approximately 2 days/kg followed by
salt and other components) stabilisation/maturation
08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products. (dry Nitrates Only dry cured bacon and similar products: 250(c,d)
curing process involves dry (E 251–E 252) dry curing followed by maturation for at
application of curing mixture least 4 days
salt and other components to the
surface of the meat followed by a
period of stabilisation/maturation)
08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products. (dry Nitrates Only dry cured ham and similar products: 250(c,d)
curing process involves dry (E 251–E 252) dry curing followed by maturation for at
application of curing mixture least 4 days
salt and other components to the

Food MPL (mg/L or

E-number/ mg/kg as
group appropriate)
number
08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products. (dry Nitrates Only jamon curado, paleta curada, lomo 250(c,d)
curing process involves dry (E 251–E 252) embuchado y cecina and similar products:
application of curing mixture dry curing with a stabilisation period of at
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, least 10 days and a maturation period of
salt and other components to the more than 45 days
08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products. (dry Nitrates Only presunto, presunto da pa and paio do 250(c,d)
curing process involves dry (E 251–E 252) lombo and similar products: dry cured for
application of curing mixture 10–15 days followed by a 30–45-day
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, stabilisation period and a maturation
salt and other components to the period of at least 2 months
08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products. (dry Nitrates Only jambon sec, jambon sel and other 250(c,d,e)
curing process involves dry (E 251–E 252) similar dried cured products: dry cured for
application of curing mixture 3 days + 1 day/kg followed by a 1-week
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, post-salting period and an ageing/ripening
salt and other components to the period of 45 days to 18 months
08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products. (dry Nitrates Only rohschinken, trockengepo €kelt and 250(c,d)
curing process involves dry (E 251–E 252) similar products: curing time depending on
application of curing mixture the shape and weight of meat pieces for
containing nitrites and/or nitrates, approximately 10–14 days followed by
salt and other components to the stabilisation/maturation
08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products. Nitrates Only rohschinken, trocken-/nasgepo €kelt 250(c,d)
(immersion and dry cured processes (E 251–E 252) and similar products: dry curing and
used in combination or where nitrite immersion curing used in combination
and/or nitrate is included in a (without injection of curing solution).
compound product or where the Curing time depends on the shape and
curing solution is injected into the weight of meat pieces for approximately
product prior to cooking) 14–35 days followed by stabilisation/
maturation
08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products. Nitrates Only jellied veal and brisket: Injection of 10(c,d)
(immersion and dry cured processes (E 251–E 252) curing solution followed, after a minimum
used in combination or where nitrite of 2 days, by cooking in boiling water for
and/or nitrate is included in a up to 3 h
compound product or where the
curing solution is injected into the
product prior to cooking)
08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products. Nitrates Only rohwu€rste (salami and kantwurst): 300(b,e)
(immersion and dry cured processes (E 251–E 252) product has a minimum 4-week maturation
used in combination or where nitrite period and a water/protein ratio of less
and/or nitrate is included in a than 1:7

Food MPL (mg/L or

E-number/ mg/kg as
group appropriate)
number
08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products. Nitrates Only Salchichon y chorizo traducionales de 250(b,d,e)
(immersion and dry cured processes (E 251–E 252) larga curacion and similar products:
used in combination or where nitrite maturation period of at least 30 days
and/or nitrate is included in a
08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products. Nitrates Only saucissons sec and similar products: 250(b,d,e)
(immersion and dry cured processes (E 251–E 252) raw fermented dried sausage without
used in combination or where nitrite added nitrites. Product is fermented at
and/or nitrate is included in a temperatures in the range 18–22°C or
compound product or where the lower (10–12°C) and then has a minimum
curing solution is injected into the ageing/ripening period of 3 weeks. Product
product prior to cooking) has a water/protein ratio of less than 1:7
09.2 Processed fish and fishery products Nitrates Only pickled herring and sprat 500
including molluscs and crustaceans (E 251–E 252)
MPL: maximum permitted level.
(a): In the cheese, milk or equivalent level if added after removal of whey and addition of water.
(b): Maximum amount that may be added during the manufacturing, expressed as NaNO2 or NaNO3.
(c): Maximum residual amount, residue level at the end of the production process, expressed as NaNO2 or NaNO3.
(d): Nitrates may be present in some heat-treated meat products resulting from natural conversion of nitrites to nitrates in a low-acid
environment.
(e): Without added nitrites.
3.3. Exposure data
3.3.1. Reported use levels or data on analytical levels of nitrates (E 251–E 252)
Most food additives in the EU are authorised at a specific MPL. However, a food additive may be
used at a lower level than the MPL. Therefore, information on actual use levels is required for
performing a more realistic exposure assessment.
In the framework of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives and of Commission
Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 regarding the re-evaluation of approved food additives, EFSA issued a
public call11 for occurrence data (usage level and/or concentration data on nitrates (E 251–E 252). In
response to these calls, both types of data on nitrates (E 251–E 252) were submitted to EFSA by
industry and Member States, respectively.
In addition, analytical data on nitrates were collected through a call for annual collection of
chemical contaminant occurrence data in food and feed issued by EFSA in December 2010 with a
closing date of 1 October of each year.12
Summarised data on reported use levels in foods provided by industry
Industry provided EFSA with data on use levels (n = 6) of nitrates (E 251–E 252) in foods for two
out of 24 food categories in which nitrates (E 251–E 252) are authorised. These use levels were
reported as potassium nitrate (n = 4) and sodium nitrate (n = 2).
Updated information on the actual use levels of nitrates (E 251–E 252) in foods was made available
to EFSA by FoodDrinkEurope for the following food categories of finished products: non-heat-treated
processed meat (FCS 08.3.1) and traditionally cured meat products (FCS 08.3.4).
The Panel noted that the reported usage levels were all identical (minimum, typical and maximum
levels) and equal to the MPL for all food categories for which data has been reported.
Appendix A.1 provides data on the use levels of nitrates (E 251–E 252) in foods as reported by
industry.
11
Call for food additives usage level and/or concentration data in food and beverages intended for human consumption.
Published 27 March 2013. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/dataclosed/call/130327.htm
12
Call for continuous collection of chemical contaminants occurrence data in food and feed. Published: 16 December 2010.
Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/data/call/datex101217

Summarised data on concentration levels in food submitted by Member States

In total, 53,551 analytical results were reported to EFSA by 25 countries: Germany (n = 18,004),
Spain (n = 5,303), Slovakia (n = 3,809), Bulgaria (n = 2,778), Austria (n = 2,768), Hungary
(n = 2,757), the Netherlands (n = 2,704), Ireland (n = 2,576), Slovenia (n = 2,175), the Czech
Republic (n = 2,140), Denmark (n = 1,762), Romania (n = 1,178), Poland (n = 986), France (n = 869),
Belgium (n = 790), Finland (n = 764), Luxembourg (n = 475), Cyprus (n = 415), Portugal (n = 406),
Estonia (n = 326), Sweden (n = 227), Malta (n = 154), Croatia (n = 102), Latvia (n = 53) and Greece
(n = 30). Of these, 12,461 analytical results were related to foods that are permitted to contain
nitrates (E 251–E 252) as food additives and 41,090 analytical results were related to nitrates from
other foods where nitrates have been considered to be naturally present or due to contamination.
The data on nitrates (E 251–E 252) as food additives were mainly for non-heat-treated processed
meat (FCS 08.3.1; n = 4,403), traditionally cured meat products (FCS 08.3.4; n = 5,657) and ripened
cheese (FCS 1.7.2; n = 948). Foods were sampled between 2000 and 2014, and the majority of them
(99%) were analysed in the year that they were collected. Only three analytical data were available for
processed fish and fishery products (FCS 09.2).
The analytical data on nitrates from other sources (natural presence and contamination) were mainly
for vegetables and vegetable products (n = 25,603), drinking water (n = 4,365), food for infants and small
children (n = 3,548), meat and meat products (n = 3,154) and starchy roots and tubers (n = 2,197).
Foods were sampled between 2000 and 2015, and the majority of them (99%) were analysed in the year
that they were collected. These analytical data were used only for the exposure scenario considering all
sources (food additives, natural presence and contaminants) as described in Section 3.5.
Considering data on nitrates (E 251–E 252), 11.7% of the analytical results were left-censored:
either not quantified (< LOQ) in 1,081 samples or not detected (< LOD) in 374 samples. Considering
data on nitrates from other sources (natural presence and contamination), 13.4% of the analytical
results were left-censored: either not quantified (< LOQ) in 4,875 samples or not detected (< LOD) in
617 samples. Therefore, it should be noted that the use of middle-bound (MB) LOD/LOQ values (half
of LOD or LOQ) in the exposure assessment (Section 3.5), may have resulted in either an
overestimation, where nitrates (E 251–E 252) or nitrates from other sources were not present, or an
underestimation, where the concentration was between the MB and LOQ/LOD value, although the
analytical method was not able to detect or quantify it.
Regarding the sampling strategy, 1,174 data on nitrates (E 251–E 252) and 4,223 data on nitrates
from other sources (natural presence and contamination) were excluded due to an inappropriate
sampling strategy (e.g. suspect sampling).
Occurrence data sampled from 2000 to 2006 (8,724 records from Germany, Denmark and Slovakia) were
considered as obsolete and were removed from the assessment. Of these, 5,817 results were on nitrates
(E 251–E 252) and 2,907 results were on nitrates from other sources (natural presence and contamination).
Four results on nitrates from other sources (natural presence and contamination) were removed
because neither the concentration nor the LOD or LOQ values were reported. Complete information on
the methods of analysis (e.g. validation) was not made available to EFSA, although the majority (95%)
of samples were derived from accredited laboratories.
Overall, 50 results were removed because they were considered as outliers.
The Panel considered only exposure resulting from authorised uses with occurrence levels not
exceeding the MPLs due to the fact that results over MPL is part of risk management measures (e.g.
non-compliance purpose). For this reason, such analytical results over the MPLs (n = 168) were not
used in the present exposure assessment.
Overall, 39,208 analytical results, 5,717 results reported for nitrates (E 251–E 252) and 33,491
results reported for nitrates from other sources (natural presence and contamination), were considered
by the Panel in the present exposure assessment. For the scenario considering only nitrates
(E 251–E 252) as food additives, data were available for 21 food categories out of 24 in which nitrates
(E 251–E 252) are authorised as food additives (Annex II to Regulation No 1333/2008).
Because a part of the analytical data was reported on salts, the following conversion factors were
applied to convert those data into nitrate ion: for potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate, the analytical
results were divided by 1.62 and by 1.37, respectively.
Appendix A.2 shows the analytical results of nitrates (E 251–E 252) and nitrates from other sources
(natural presence or contamination) in foods as reported by Member States.

3.3.2. Summarised data extracted from the Mintel GNPD database

The Mintel’s Global New Products Database (GNPD) is an online database that monitors product
introductions in consumer packaged goods markets worldwide. It contains information for over 2
million food and beverage products of which more than 900,000 are or have been available on the
European food market. Mintel started covering the EU food markets in 1996, currently having 20 out
of its 28 member countries and Norway presented in the GNPD.13
For the purpose of this Scientific Opinion, the GNPD14 was used for checking the labelling of
products containing nitrates (E 251–E 252) within EU food products because the GNPD shows the
compulsory ingredient information presented in the labelling of products.
In the 20 EU countries, nitrates (E 251–E 252) are labelled on products (n = 6568) mainly of
‘Processed Fish, Meat & Egg Products’, ‘Meals &Meal Centers’, ‘Dairy’, ‘Snacks’, ‘Side Dishes’ and
‘Savoury Spreads’.
Appendix B presents the percentage of the food products labelled with nitrates (E 251–E 252)
within the last 5 years, out of the total number of food products per food sub-categories according to
the Mintel food classification.
3.3.3. Food consumption data used for exposure assessment

EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database
Since 2010, the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database (Comprehensive
Database) has been populated with national data on food consumption at a detailed level. Competent
authorities in the European countries provide EFSA with data on the level of food consumption by the
individual consumer from the most recent national dietary survey in their country (cf. Guidance of
EFSA on the Use of the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database in Exposure
Assessment’ (EFSA, 2011a). New consumption surveys recently15 added in the Comprehensive
database were also taken into account in this assessment.8
The food consumption data gathered by EFSA were collected by different methodologies and thus
direct country-to-country comparisons should be interpreted with caution. Depending on the food
category and the level of detail used for exposure calculations, uncertainties could be introduced owing
to possible subjects’ under-reporting and/or misreporting of the consumption amounts. Nevertheless,
the EFSA Comprehensive Database represents the best available source of food consumption data
across Europe at present.
Food consumption data from the following population groups: infants, toddlers, children,
adolescents, adults and the elderly were used for the exposure assessment. For the present
assessment, food consumption data were available from 33 different dietary surveys carried out in 19
European countries (Table 5).
Table 5: Population groups considered for the exposure estimates of nitrates (E 251–252)
Countries with food consumption surveys covering
Population Age range more than 1 day
Infants From more than 12 weeks up to and Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, UK
including 11 months of age
Toddlers From 12 months up to and including Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy,
35 months of age Netherlands, Spain, UK
Children(a) From 36 months up to and including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark,
9 years of age Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia,
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK
Adolescents From 10 years up to and including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
17 years of age Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Spain, Sweden, UK
Adults From 18 years up to and including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,
64 years of age France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Sweden, UK
13
Missing Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia.
14
Available online: http://www.gnpd.com/sinatra/home/
15
Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/150428.htm

Countries with food consumption surveys covering

Population Age range more than 1 day
The From 65 years of age and older Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
elderly(a) Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Sweden, UK
(a): The terms ‘children’ and ‘the elderly’ correspond, respectively, to ‘other children’ and the merge of ‘elderly’ and ‘very elderly’
in the Guidance of EFSA on the ‘Use of the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database in Exposure
Assessment’ (EFSA, 2011a).
Consumption records were codified according to the FoodEx classification system (EFSA, 2011b).
Nomenclature from the FoodEx classification system has been linked to the Food Categorisation
System (FCS) as presented in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, part D, to perform exposure
estimates. In practice, FoodEx food codes were matched to the FCS food categories.
Food categories considered for the exposure assessment of nitrates (E 251–E 252)
The food categories in which the use of nitrates (E 251–E 252) is authorised were selected from
the nomenclature of the EFSA Comprehensive Database (FoodEx Classification System), at the most
detailed level possible (up to FoodEx Level 4) (EFSA, 2011b).
Some food categories or their restrictions/exceptions are not referenced in the EFSA
Comprehensive Database and could therefore not be taken into account in the present estimate. This
may have resulted in an underestimation of the exposure. The food categories which were not taken
into account are described below (in ascending order of the FCS codes):
• 01.7.6 Cheese products (excluding products falling in category 16), only hard, semihard and
semisoft ripened products;
• 01.8 Dairy analogues, including beverage whiteners, only dairy-based cheese analogue.
For the following food categories, the restrictions/exceptions which apply to the use of nitrates
(E 251–E 252) could not be taken into account, and therefore specific assumptions were applied and
the whole food category was considered in the exposure assessment. This may have resulted in an
overestimation of the exposure:
• 08.3.1 Non-heat-treated processed meat;
• 08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured products, only Wiltshire bacon and similar products;
• 08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured products, only Wiltshire ham and similar products;
• 08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured products, only Entremeada, entrecosto, chispe, orelheira
e cabeca (salgados), toucinho fumado and similar products;
• 08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured products, only cured tongue;
• 08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured products, only kylma ^savustettu poronliha/kallro€kt renko
€tt;
• 08.3.4.1 Traditional immersion cured products, only bacon, filet de bacon and similar products;
• 08.3.4.1Traditionalimmersioncuredproducts,onlyrohschinken,nassgepo €keltandsimilarproducts;
• 08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products, only dry cured bacon and similar products;
• 08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products, only dry cured ham and similar products;
• 08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products, only jamon curado, paleta curada, lomo embuchado y
cecina and similar products;
• 08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products, only presunto, presunto da pa and paio do lombo and
similar products; only jambon sec, jambon sel and other similar dried cured products;
• 08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products, only jambon sec, jambon sel and other similar dried
cured products;
• 08.3.4.2 Traditional dry cured products, only rohschinken, trockengepo €kelt and similar products;
• 08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products, only rohschinken, trocken-/nasgepo €kelt and similar
products;
• 08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products, only jellied veal and brisket;
• 08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products, only rohwu €rste (salami and kantwurst);
• 08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products, only Salchichon y chorizo traducionales de larga
curacion and similar products;
• 08.3.4.3 Other traditionally cured products, only saucissons sec and similar products;
• 09.2 Processed fish and fishery products including molluscs and crustaceans, only pickled
herring and sprat.

In particular, the following assumptions were applied:

• the food category ‘non heat-treated processed meat’ (FCS 08.3.1) was linked to the FoodEx
categories ‘uncooked smoked sausage’ and ‘fresh and lightly cooked sausage’;
• the food categories within ‘traditionally cured meat products’ (FCS 08.3.4) were linked to the
FoodEx categories ‘semi-dry sausage’ and ‘dry sausage’ and ‘preserved meat’;
• the food category ‘processed fish and fishery products including molluscs and crustaceans’ was
linked to the FoodEx categories ‘herring’ and ‘sprat’.
For the scenarios considering nitrates (E 251–E 252) as food additives, 20 food categories were
included in the exposure assessment without considering the restrictions/exceptions as set in Annex II
to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Two food categories were not taken into account in the exposure
assessment because they or their specific restrictions/exceptions are not referenced in the EFSA
Comprehensive Database. For the refined scenario, the food category FCS 01.7.4 was not taken into
account because no concentration data were provided for this food category to EFSA. For the food
category FCS 01.7.2, the refinements considering the restrictions/exceptions as set in Annex II to
Regulation No 1333/2008 were applied. Overall, for the regulatory maximum level exposure scenario,
22 food categories were included in the present exposure assessment to nitrates (E 251–E 252)
(Appendix C.1).
For the scenario considering all sources (food additives, natural presence and contamination),
besides the food categories in which nitrates (E 251–E 252) are authorised as food additives (Annex II
to Regulation No 1333/2008), additional food commodities, in which nitrates occur naturally or as
contaminants, were considered to perform exposure estimates (Section 3.5).
Also, in this case, some food commodities of the EFSA Comprehensive Database were not taken
into account because no concentration data (or very few) were provided to EFSA, including animal and
vegetable fats and oils (two analytical results), eggs and egg products (no data), products for special
nutritional use (two analytical results) and sugar and confectionary (12 analytical results).
In most of the cases, the FoodEx level 2 category was used to link occurrence and consumption
data. Only in the case of alcoholic beverages, drinking-water and fruit and fruit products was FoodEx
level 1 category used. FoodEx level 2 category for which limited or no occurrence data were available
have been excluded from the assessment or the concentration level for the corresponding FoodEx level
1 category was used.
For the following FoodEx level 3 category, relatively high levels of nitrates were identified and
therefore this FoodEx level was used to link occurrence and consumption data:
• herring, salmon and trout;
• potatoes and potato products, potatoes and potatoes products, new potatoes, main-crop
potatoes and French fries;
• livestock meat, preserved meat and sausages;
• Brassica vegetables, bulb vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leaf vegetables, root vegetables,
stem vegetables and vegetables products.
Similarly, for the FoodEx level 3 category having limited or no occurrence data available, they were
excluded from the assessment or the concentration value for the corresponding FoodEx level 2
category was used.
For specific FoodEx categories, ad hoc assumptions have been considered in order to overcome
lack or poorness of data:
• for the FoodEx level 1 category ‘Composite food’, the concentration level assigned to food
categories at FoodEx level 2 was based on the levels related to the main ingredients (e.g. for
bean-based meals, the concentration level of nitrates in legumes, beans, green with pods was
used);
• limited and contradictory information were available for infant formulae and follow-on formula
(liquid infant formula: n = 2; liquid follow-on formula: n = 14; powder infant formula: n = 7;
powder follow-on formula: n = 8), and therefore, the occurrence levels from literature (Hord
et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2014) were used for these food categories. In particular:
– for infant formulae and follow-on formula, both liquid, the nitrates concentration of
2.5 mg/kg was considered;
– for infant formulae and follow-on formula, both powder, the nitrates concentration of
20 mg/kg was considered.

The addition of nitrate (E 251–E 252) is not authorised in fresh meat and fresh meat preparations;
nevertheless, different studies have reported not-negligible concentrations of nitrates in these products
(Bernini et al., 2001; Tanzi and Saccani, 2005; Hsu et al., 2009). These residues seem to derive from
their natural presence and not from additives addition. Iammarino and Di Taranto (2012) conducted an
investigation on 200 samples of beef, pork, equine and chicken fresh meats from local markets of
Foggia (Italy) to trace quantifiable concentrations of nitrate. The analyses were carried out by a
validated ion chromatography with conductometric detection method. In beef, pork and equine fresh
meats, quantifiable concentrations of nitrate were found at a concentration in the range
10.2–36.5 mg/kg. This nitrate development appeared more marked in equine fresh meats compared to
beef and pork. In particular, the nitrate mean concentration was 20.6 mg/kg in equine fresh meats,
13.2 mg/kg in beef and 11.6 mg/kg in pork fresh meats. Nitrates resulted absent in chicken fresh
meats.
In the present assessment, the reported results on mean concentration for fresh meat ranged from
0.11 mg/kg for generic livestock meat to 61.34 mg/kg for mutton/lamb livestock meat. In particular,
based on the reported analytical results, the nitrate mean concentration level was 44.7 mg/kg for pork
fresh meat (n = 144) and 23.0 mg/kg for poultry (n = 32). These values are higher than the mean
values reported in literature and are likely to be an overestimation of the nitrate concentration in fresh
meat. This overestimation could be explained by a possible misclassification of some of the food
samples reported as fresh meat as, despite careful checking of the data, it cannot be excluded that
some of them may refer to processed meat, in particular for samples of pork meat and poultry.
Indeed, initially a wrong classification was identified for 447 analytical results of fresh meat that, on
the basis of the information reported with respect to the food description and processing description,
were reclassified as ‘meat products’ (FCS 08.3). The levels of nitrate in fresh meat, and consequently,
the exposure to nitrate from all sources, could therefore be overestimated.
3.4. Exposure to nitrates (E 251–E 252) from their use as food additives
The Panel estimated chronic exposure to nitrates (E 251–E 252) for the following population
groups: infants; toddlers, children, adolescents, adults and the elderly. Dietary exposure to nitrates
(E 251–E 252) was calculated by multiplying nitrate (E 251–E 252) concentrations for each food
category (Appendix C.1) with their respective consumption amount per kilogram body weight for each
individual in the Comprehensive Database. The exposure per food category was subsequently added to
derive an individual total exposure per day. These exposure estimates were averaged over the number
of survey days, resulting in an individual average exposure per day for the survey period. Dietary
surveys with only 1 day per subject were excluded because they are considered to be adequate for
assessing repeated exposure.
This was carried out for all individuals per survey and per population group, resulting in
distributions of individual exposure per survey and population group (Table 5). On the basis of these
distributions, the mean and 95th percentile of exposure were calculated per survey and per population
group. The 95th percentile of exposure was only calculated for those population groups where the
sample size was sufficiently large to allow this calculation (EFSA, 2011a). Therefore, in the present
assessment, the 95th percentile of exposure for infants from Italy, as well as for toddlers from
Belgium, Italy and Spain, was not included.
Two exposure scenarios were defined and carried out by the ANS Panel regarding the concentration
data of nitrates (E 251–E 252) used: (1) MPLs as set down in the EU legislation (defined as the
regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario) and (2) the reported analytical data (defined
as the refined exposure assessment scenario). These two scenarios are discussed in detail below.
3.4.1. Regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario

The regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is based on the MPLs as set in Annex
II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and listed in Table 4.
Food categories of traditionally cured meat products (FCS 08.3.4), were included in the exposure
assessment without considering the restrictions/exceptions (as described in Section 3.2) as set in
Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, and the MPL of 250 mg/kg was considered for each
subcategory in the exposure assessment. This is the prescripted value for 14 out of 18 restrictions/
exceptions.

The Panel considers the exposure estimates derived following this scenario as the most
conservative because it is assumed that the population group will be exposed to nitrates (E 251–
E 252) present in food at the MPL over a longer period of time.
3.4.2. Refined exposure assessment scenario

The refined exposure assessment scenario was only based on analytical results reported by Member
States. The Panel decided not to further consider use levels reported by the industry because, for each
food category, they were all identical and equal to the MPL. This exposure scenario can consider only
food categories for which the above data were available to the Panel.
Appendix C.1 summarises the concentration levels of nitrates (E 251–E 252) used in the refined
exposure assessment scenario considering their use as a food additive. Based on the available data
set, the Panel calculated two refined exposure estimates based on different model populations:
• The brand-loyal consumer scenario: It was assumed that a consumer is exposed long-term to
nitrates (E 251–E 252) present at the 95th percentile of reported analytical level for one food
category. This exposure estimate was calculated as follows:
– Combining food consumption with the 95th percentile of the analytical results for the main
contributing food category at the individual level.
– Using the mean of analytical results for the remaining food categories.
• The non-brand-loyal consumer scenario: It was assumed that a consumer is exposed long-
term to nitrates (E 251–E 252) present at the mean reported analytical levels in food. This
exposure estimate was calculated using the mean of analytical results for all food categories.
In the two refined exposure assessment scenarios, the concentration levels considered by the
Panel were extracted from the whole data set (i.e. analytical results). To consider left-censored
analytical data (i.e. analytical results < LOD or < LOQ), the substitution method as recommended in
the ‘Principles and Methods for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food’ (WHO, 2009) and the EFSA
scientific report ‘Management of left-censored data in dietary exposure assessment of chemical
substances’ (EFSA, 2010a) was used. In the present opinion, analytical data below LOD or LOQ were
assigned half of LOD or LOQ, respectively (MB). Subsequently, per food category, the mean or median,
whichever is highest, MB concentration was calculated.
3.4.3. Dietary exposure to nitrates (E 251 and E 252) from their use as food
additives
Table 6 summarises the estimated exposure to nitrates (E 251–E 252) from their use as food
additives in six population groups (Table 5) according to the different exposure scenarios. Detailed
results per population group and survey are presented in Appendix C.2.
Table 6: Summary of dietary exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) from their use as food
additives (E 251–E 252) in the maximum level exposure assessment scenario and in the
refined exposure scenarios, in six population groups (minimum–maximum across the
dietary surveys in mg/kg bw per day)
Infants Toddlers Adolescents Adults
Children The elderly
(12 weeks– (12–35 (10–17 (18–64
(3–9 years) (≥ 65 years)
11 months) months) years) years)
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Maximum level exposure assessment scenario
Mean 0.07 0.22 0.26 0.65 0.14 0.49 0.15 0.38 0.13 0.28 0.11 0.19
95th percentile 0.36 0.71 0.8 1.19 0.46 1.31 0.43 0.91 0.35 0.76 0.31 0.54
Refined estimated exposure assessment scenario
Brand-loyal scenario
Mean 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.24 0.05 0.20 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.08
95th percentile 0.16 0.30 0.35 0.56 0.17 0.51 0.15 0.43 0.12 0.29 0.11 0.22


(12 weeks– (12–35 (10–17 (18–64
Non-brand-loyal scenario
Mean 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04
95th percentile 0.06 0.14 0.12 0.25 0.07 0.23 0.07 0.19 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.10
min: minimum; max: maximum.
From the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario, mean exposure to nitrates
(expressed as nitrate ion) from their use as food additives (E 251–E 252) ranged from 0.07 mg/kg bw
per day in infants to 0.65 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure to nitrates
(E 251–E 252) ranged from 0.31 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 1.31 mg/kg bw per day in children.
From the refined estimated exposure scenario considering concentration levels not exceeding the
MPLs for food categories listed under Annex II to Regulation No 1333/2008, in the brand-loyal scenario,
mean exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) from their use as food additives (E 251–E 252)
ranged from 0.03 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 0.24 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high exposure
to nitrates ranged from 0.11 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 0.56 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. In
the non-brand-loyal scenario, mean exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) from their use as food
additives (E 251–E 252) ranged from 0.01 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 0.10 mg/kg bw per day in
toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) ranged from 0.05 mg/kg
bw per day in the elderly to 0.25 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers.
From all exposure scenarios considered for exposure assessment of nitrates (E 251–E 252) from
their use as food additives, the most important contributors to the total mean exposure for all
fishery products contributed less. The food categories and their contribution to the exposure to
nitrates (E 251–E 252) are presented in Appendices C.3 and C.4.
3.4.4. Uncertainty analysis

Uncertainties in the exposure assessment of nitrates (E 251–E 252) have been discussed above. In
accordance with the guidance provided in the EFSA opinion related to uncertainties in dietary exposure
assessment (EFSA, 2007), the following sources of uncertainties have been considered and
summarised in Table 7.
Table 7: Qualitative evaluation of influence of uncertainties on the dietary exposure estimate

Sources of uncertainties Direction(a)
Consumption data: different methodologies/representativeness/underreporting/misreporting/no +/
portion size standard
Use of data from food consumption survey of a few days to estimate long-term (chronic) +
exposure for high percentiles (95th percentile)
Correspondence of analytical data to the food items in the EFSA Comprehensive Food +/
Consumption Database: uncertainties to which types of food the levels refer to
Food categories selected for the exposure assessment: exclusion of food categories due to
missing FoodEx linkage (n = 2/24 food categories)
Food categories selected for the exposure assessment: inclusion of food categories without +
considering the restriction/exception (n = 20 for the maximum permitted level (MPL) and refined
scenarios out of 24 food categories)
Food categories included in the exposure assessment: data not available for certain food
categories which were excluded from the exposure estimates (n = 1 only for the refined
scenarios out of 24 food categories, considering different restrictions/exceptions)
Concentration data:
• levels considered applicable for all items within the entire food category +/

Sources of uncertainties Direction(a)

Regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario:
• food categories authorised at MPL according to Annex II to Regulation (EC) +

No 1333/2008
Refined exposure assessment scenarios:
• use of middle-bound (MB) for left-censored data in the exposure assessment +/
Uncertainty in possible national differences in use levels of food categories +/

(a): +, uncertainty with potential to cause overestimation of exposure; , uncertainty with potential to cause underestimation of
exposure.
overestimation of the exposure to nitrates (E 251–E 252) as food additives in European countries for
3.5. Exposure to nitrates from all sources (food additives, natural

presence and contamination)
The analytical levels provided by the Member States reflect the levels of nitrates in foods, whatever
their origin (food additives, natural presence and contamination). Numerous analytical data were
reported on food categories in which nitrates (E 251–E 252) are not authorised as a food additive
(Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008).
The exposure estimated using all analytical data should reflect more closely what is ingested
through the diet via all sources for which data are available and thus should represent the exposure
coming from all dietary sources. Therefore, the Panel calculated the exposure to nitrates from all
sources in a separate scenario (defined as general population scenario all sources; Section 3.5),
considering, besides the food categories in which nitrates (E 251–E 252) are authorised as a food
additive (Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008), additional food commodities, in which nitrates
occur naturally or due to a contamination.
In 2012, EFSA outsourced a study10 on the effect of processing on nitrate content in vegetables.
The study included nine different vegetables: lettuce, spinach, white cabbage, Chinese cabbage, green
bean, courgette, potato, carrot and red beet. The processing techniques considered are washing,
peeling, slicing, boiling, microwave, steaming, blanching, saute , deep-frying, grill, baking, stir-frying,
puree and fermentation, differently selected and combined for each specific type of vegetable. Nitrate
content in vegetable samples was determined by two methods, in both cases by ion exchange
chromatography, and the results for each group of vegetables were compared using non-parametric
statistical test to analyse the change in nitrate content.
The report identified a statistically significant (p < 0.001) average reduction, based on fresh weight,
for washing lettuce (19%), Chinese cabbage (–26%) and spinach (27%). Boiling significantly
(p < 0.001) reduced the nitrate content for courgette (35%), green bean (15%) and potatoes
(43%). In the case of spinach, both washing and boiling statistically significantly decreased nitrate
levels on average by 56%.
Grilling and deep-frying showed a significant (p < 0.001) increase in nitrate content for courgette
(grilling +49%) and potatoes (deep-frying +97%), although this could be mainly explained by the loss
of weight due to these types of processing.
In response to this study, an additional scenario with correction factors for loss of nitrates during
the manufacturing process applied to fresh vegetables (defined as general population scenario all
sources, including reduction factors for vegetables) was also estimated, based on the following
assumptions:
• spinaches are always consumed boiled and a factor of 0.47 was applied to the concentration
levels;
• potatoes and potatoes products, new potatoes, main-crop potatoes are always consumed
boiled and a factor of 0.57 was applied to the concentration levels;
• legumes and beans are always consumed boiled and a factor of 0.85 was applied to the
concentration levels;

• Brassica vegetables and leaf vegetables are always washed before consumption and a factor
0.75 of was applied to the nitrate concentration level.
Appendix D.1 summarises the levels of nitrates used in the exposure assessment scenario
considering all sources.
Table 8 summarises the estimated exposure to nitrates from all sources (food additives, natural
presence and contamination) in six population groups (Table 5). The estimates were calculated both
without and with considering the losses of nitrates during the manufacturing process. Detailed results
per population group and survey are presented in Appendix D.2.
Table 8: Summary of dietary exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) from all sources (food
additives, natural presence and contamination) based on all analytical data using the refined
exposure scenario (non-brand-loyal approach for general population) in six population
groups (min–max across the dietary surveys in mg/kg bw per day)
(12 weeks– (12–35 (10–17 (18–64
General population scenario all sources
Mean 2.31 3.67 2.45 4.62 2.27 4.26 1.27 2.47 1.07 2.35 1.13 2.47
95th percentile 4.67 8.90 3.85 9.17 3.99 9.26 2.36 5.30 2.16 5.12 1.93 5.25
General population scenario all sources, including reduction factors for processed vegetables
Mean 1.87 3.30 2.28 4.15 2.18 3.83 1.21 2.22 1.00 2.09 0.97 2.08
95th percentile 3.75 6.93 3.54 7.82 3.82 8.73 2.17 5.28 1.88 4.68 1.59 4.57
sources (food additives, natural presence and contamination), mean exposure ranged from 1.07 mg/kg
bw per day in adults to 4.62 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high exposure to nitrates ranged from
1.93 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 9.26 mg/kg bw per day in children.
In the scenario applying reduction factors for vegetables, mean exposure to nitrates (expressed as
nitrate ion) from all sources (food additives, natural presence and contamination) ranged from
0.97 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 4.15 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of
exposure to nitrates ranged from 1.59 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 8.73 mg/kg bw per day in
children.
In addition, the Panel calculated the contribution of the mean exposure to nitrates (expressed as
nitrate ion) from their use as food additives (E 251–E 252) to overall exposure to nitrates from all
sources (food additives, natural presence and contamination) (Table 9).
The same uncertainties presented above (Section 3.4) for the refined exposure to nitrates (E 251–
E 252) from their use as food additives are also valid for the refined exposure estimates to nitrates
from all sources (food additives, natural presence and contamination). In this case, an additional
uncertainty leading to an overestimation of exposure to nitrates is related to food processing. To
evaluate this uncertainty, the Panel also considered a scenario including all dietary sources and
reduction factors for processed vegetables. However, for the highest 95th percentile, a reduction in the
order of 5% was noted. Nevertheless, it is not possible to exclude a reduction effect related to the
processing of foods other than vegetables for which no data are currently available.

Table 9: The percentage of contribution of the mean exposure to nitrates (E 251–E 252) from their
use as food additive to overall exposure to nitrates from all sources (food additives,
natural presence and contamination)
Infants
Toddlers Adolescents Adults
(12 weeks Children The elderly
(12–35 (10–17 (18–64
to (3–9 years) (≥ 65 years)
months) years) years)
11 months)
% % % % % %
General population scenario all sources
Contribution from their 0.4 1.2 1.0 4.1 0.6 3.2 1.2 3.9 1.1 3.6 0.9 2.6
use as food additives
General population all sources, including reduction factors for vegetables
Contribution from their 0.4 1.4 1.1 4.4 0.6 3.7 1.4 4.4 1.3 3.9 1.1 2.8
use as food additives
(E 251–E 252) from their use as food additives may represent approximately 2% (range 0.4–4.4%) of
the overall exposure to nitrates.
additives, natural presence and contamination), for both without and with reduction factor, were
vegetables and vegetable-based foods for all population groups. In particular, the main contributing
food categories were starchy roots and tubers in infants, toddlers and children, whereas the leafy
vegetables and prepared salads were the main contributors in children, adolescents, adults and the
elderly. In infants, also foods for infants and toddlers made an important contribution to the total
mean exposure to nitrates from all sources.
The Panel noted that none of food categories considered for the exposure assessment to nitrates
(E 251–E 252) from their use as food additives exceeded 5% of contribution to the overall exposure to
nitrates from all sources in any scenario and for any population group.
The Panel noted that its exposure estimates from all sources were in line with results published in a
French study (Menard et al., 2008). Also in this study, major food contributors to exposure to nitrates
were vegetables other than potatoes and potatoes, processed meats products and other food
categories that could contain nitrates from their use as food additives (E 251–E 252) did not appear
among main food contributors.
The food categories and their contribution to the exposure to nitrates from all sources (food
additives, natural presence and contamination) are presented in detail in Appendices D.3 and D.4.
3.6. Biological and Toxicological data

There were no new toxicokinetic or toxicological studies submitted to EFSA following a public call
for data. A literature search was conducted on the most commonly available online databases for
toxicological and biological information (Pubmed, Toxnet and Chemical Abstracts). The search was
restricted to reveal information published from 2002 onwards, which is the year before the last major
review was conducted by JECFA (2003a,b,c).
The literature search revealed relevant toxicokinetic studies that are included in the appropriate
sections below, together with a summary of the current understanding with regard to the absorption,
distribution, metabolism and excretion of these two food additives. The opinion reports, in brief, key
data discussed in previous major reviews by the SCF and JECFA (SCF, 1992, 1997; JECFA, 2003a) but
does not describe them in detail as these data have already been extensively reviewed by these
bodies, and their findings with regard to toxicology are comparable. Previously unavailable data that
have been published after 2002 have been described in detail, and the results discussed in relation to
the existing findings from the major reviews.

The sodium and potassium ions are expected to enter normal homoeostatic processes, and are not
expected to impact on the toxicity of the salts, which is determined by the nitrate ion, at the levels of
intended uses. Thus, the properties of the cations are not discussed further.
As summarised in the IARC report, during recent years, the biochemistry of nitrate has been shown
to be involved in biological pathways implicating several important compounds such as nitrite, nitric
oxide, carbon dioxide, superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide. These compounds have been shown
to be part of normal and abnormal physiological conditions related to various pathways such as neural
signalling, blood pressure, inflammation and ischaemia. Nitrate is thus becoming to be considered as a
compound playing roles in metabolic cycles in which nitrite and nitric oxide are interconverted
depending on physiological needs and not only as an undesirable contaminant arising from food intake
or as a hazardous by-product formed endogenously (IARC, 2010).
3.6.1. Absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME)

3.6.1.1. Animal studies
Several experimental studies on the toxicokinetic behaviour of the nitrate ion in animals have been
carried out and many of these have been discussed in previous evaluations (SCF, 1997; JECFA, 2003a;
IARC, 2010). It is generally agreed that nitrate is rapidly and almost completely absorbed from the
proximal and small intestine subsequent to ingestion in most animals, with little if any absorption from
the stomach and lower intestine (JECFA, 1996, 2003a). Nitrate can also be formed endogenously and
nitrate/nitrite occurring in many tissues and sites of inflammation has been described as a ‘steady-
state baseline level in the body, which is then episodically supplemented by ingested nitrate/nitrite’
(IARC, 2010).
It is generally accepted that, in most laboratory animal species excepted rats, about 25% of the
oral dose of nitrate is recirculated into the saliva in a dose-dependent manner via an active transport
mechanism of which around 20% is reduced to nitrite by the oral bacteria; this amount would be
equivalent to about 5% of the ingested nitrate but these estimates show great interindividual and day-
time variations (JECFA, 2003a; IARC, 2010; Health Canada, 2013).
By contrast to humans, rats show low salivary nitrate secretion leading to a low production of
nitrite in the mouth. Despite the absence of active salivary secretion in the rats, nitrate undergoes
enterosystemic circulation by the secretion of nitrate into other gastric and intestinal fluids via an
active transport mechanism (JECFA, 1996, 2003a). The absorbed nitrate, not converted to nitrite, is
distributed throughout the body, including the stomach, intestines, urinary bladder, kidney and other
organs and, after equilibrium in body fluids (milk, gastric fluid, endotracheal secretion), it is rapidly
excreted via urine (JECFA, 2003a; IARC, 2010; Health Canada, 2013). Some studies on germ-free and
conventional-flora Sprague–Dawley rats exposed to radiolabelled nitrate show a rapid distribution of
radioactivity throughout the body within 1 h after dosing (IARC, 2010). Nitrate can be reduced to
nitrite by enteric bacteria but its reduction depends on gastric pH conditions. The gastric pH and
concurrent bacterial populations are low in the stomachs of rabbits and ferrets, whereas rats and dogs
are known to have higher gastric pH and therefore also higher reduction of nitrate to nitrite in the
stomach (Mirvish, 1975).
Germ-free and conventional-flora Sprague–Dawley rats (five to seven rats per group, 60–90 days of
age, sex not stated) were administered 1,000 lg/mL sodium nitrate in their drinking water for 48 h (to
0.05 mg/kg bw per day) and sections of their intestinal tract assessed for nitrate and nitrite (Witter
and Balish, 1979). The germ-free rats had detectable levels of nitrate only in the stomach, small
intestine, caecum and colon in response to being fed sodium nitrate. The rats with conventional flora
had both nitrate and nitrite in the stomach, although only nitrate in the small intestine and colon in
response to being fed sodium nitrate. When fed sodium nitrite, the germ-free rats had both nitrate
and nitrite in the entire gastrointestinal tract, whereas conventional flora rats fed sodium nitrite had
both ions in the stomach and small intestine but only nitrate in the large intestine. Control animals
(germ-free or conventional flora) that were not administered sodium nitrate had only trace amounts of
nitrate in their stomachs and bladders. The in vivo study was complemented with in vitro studies
assessing intestinal contents. The overall conclusion of the study was that nitrate to nitrite conversion
is a function of normal flora, whereas nitrite oxidation depends on the host.
Overall, according to JECFA (2003a) the ‘major site of conversion of nitrate to nitrite varies by
species and depends on the sites of microbial colonization and absorption of nitrate’.
Germ-free and conventional rats were used to investigate nitrate-dependent nitrite formation by
measuring methaemoglobin levels (Ward et al., 1986). Germ-free rats were housed in plastic isolators

and fed a sterilised, commercial diet and autoclaved water. Conventional rats received the same diet
and unsterilised tap water. In the case of the germ-free rats, faecal samples were collected to monitor
whether microbial growth could be detected. The first experiment, assessing in vivo nitrate reduction
used gnotobiotic BDIX rats (two males, four females per group; 5 months old), monocontaminated
with an unspecified yeast. Conventional rats were used as comparison. Both groups of rats were
administered 2% (w/v) solution of potassium nitrate ad libitum for 6 days in drinking water (equivalent
to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day). Blood samples were collected on days 2 and 6 and analysed for
haemoglobin and methaemoglobin content; thereafter, distilled water was provided to rats instead of
the potassium nitrate solution for 13 days. In a second experiment, with germ-free and conventional
Wistar rats (four males, 11 weeks old per group) were administered a 2% (w/v) solution of potassium
nitrate ad libitum for 9 days in distilled drinking water (equivalent to 2,400 mg/kg bw per day). Blood
samples were collected at 2, 6 and 9 days after dosing began and analysed for haemoglobin and
methaemoglobin content (Ward et al., 1986). The methaemoglobin levels were higher in the germ-free
rats than in the conventional rats (p < 0.01). No difference was observed between germ-free and
these specific gnotobiotic rats. The gastrointestinal pH of the germ-free rats was also measured to be
generally higher than that of the conventional rats, an attribute which was concluded to influence the
higher rate of nitrosation in the conventional rats compared to their germ-free counterparts.
Reduction of nitrate was shown to occur in tissues of rats and mice (Jansson et al., 2008; Huang
et al., 2010), possibly through the action of xanthine oxidoreductase. JECFA (2003a) reported
comparative studies with germ-free and conventional rats that showed that nitrate reduction activity in
mammals affects the rate of conversion of nitrate to nitrite in these animals to a large extent. It has
been reported that, in rats, 90% of total nitrate reduction activity in mammalian tissue was present in
the liver (JECFA, 1996). It is likely that, also in the latter cases, enzymes such as xanthine
oxidoreductase are involved.
Additionally, nitrite can be oxidised to nitrate via reactions with oxyhaemoglobin showing that nitrite
and nitrate are in dynamical equilibrium (Health Canada, 2013; see Section 3.1.5).
3.6.1.2. Studies in humans
Absorption
In humans, dietary nitrate is rapidly and extensively absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract
(Iijima et al., 2002). Nitrate is found in high concentrations in the saliva due to its secretion by salivary
glands. In the mouth, bacterial metabolism converts the secreted nitrate into nitrite. Some nitrite is
also formed in the stomach. In the gastrointestinal tract, nitrite is absorbed and thereafter enters the
general circulation where it can be oxidised by haemoglobin to form nitrate and methaemoglobin.
Nitrate is metabolised to a minor extent. Its biotransformation comprises nitrate reduction, nitrite
formation, nitrite reoxidation to nitrate, and formation of methaemoglobin or NO, in a dynamic
equilibrium (Gladwin et al., 2005; Lundberg et al., 2008). Due to the very low gastric pH, very little
further reduction of nitrate to nitrite occurs in man (Mirvish, 1975). Between 70% (Wagner et al.,
1983) and 100% (Pannala et al., 2003) of a nitrate dose is excreted by the kidneys.
In a study by RIVM (Lambers et al., 2000; published van Velzen et al., 2008), absorption of nitrate
was measured in 12 healthy subjects (six males and six females). The oral doses were sodium nitrate
contained either in 300 mg of spinach, 300 mg of lettuce or 300 mg of beetroot given in the fasting
state. The content of nitrate was 1,880 mg/kg spinach, 3,017 mg/kg lettuce and 2,144 mg/kg
beetroot. The intravenous dose was 500 mg of sodium nitrate. The systemic availability was calculated
to be roughly 100% (70–116%) from all food sources based on the comparison of AUCs in plasma
after oral doses to the AUC after intravenous administration. It should be noted that in this study the
nitrite concentration was in most of the plasma samples below the limit of detection.
Distribution
The volume of distribution was calculated to be between 18 and 32 L, or 0.24 and 0.44 L/kg bw
(mean 0.32 L/kg bw) (Lambers et al., 2000). The volume of distribution is smaller than the body water
and higher than the blood volume, indicating that nitrate is distributed throughout the body.
The Panel calculated the volume of distribution from the data reported in Hunault et al. (2009) and
confirmed the value of Lambers et al. (2000). Nitrate is also found in the milk of lactating women
where the concentration is similar to that in the plasma (Green et al., 1982).

Metabolism (see Figure 1)

Nitrate is mainly converted to nitrite in a specific mechanism. Nitrate is secreted into the saliva by
an active mechanism most probably involving Na+/I symporter (NIS). This symporter seems to
mediate the active transport of nitrate from plasma to a wide variety of organs, including the thyroid,
gastric mucosa, salivary glands and mammary glands (Jhiang et al., 1998; Spitzweg et al., 1998,
Spitzweg et al., 1999; Lacroix et al., 2001; Riedel et al., 2001).
The amount secreted into the saliva is estimated to vary between 20% and 25% of the dose
(Spiegelhalder et al., 1976; Bartholomew and Hill, 1984). In mouth, nitrate is metabolised to nitrite
whereby bacteria in the mouth play an important role (Gangolli et al., 1994). The ratio of the nitrite
concentration in saliva to nitrate concentration in saliva varies widely between the different authors
and even in one individual. From this ratio, it can be calculated that 5–36% of the nitrate secreted into
the saliva is converted to nitrite by bacterial metabolism in the mouth (e.g. Spiegelhalder et al., 1976;
Wagner et al., 1983; Bartholomew and Hill, 1984; Bos et al., 1988; Granli et al., 1989; Shapiro et al.,
1991; Jin et al., 2013; Bondonno et al., 2015; Hohensin et al., 2016; Montenegro et al., 2016;
Woessner et al., 2016). Also, in the upper part of stomach, some ingested nitrate is transformed to
nitrite. In infants, the higher stomach pH (2–5) may lead to the growth of nitrate-reducing bacteria
(Zeman et al., 2002). Mouth washing with antibacterial fluids reduced the amount of nitrate converted
to nitrite (Govoni et al., 2008). Several models have been proposed for nitric oxide formation and
further nitrosylation of proteins from nitrite (Vitturi and Patel, 2011). More details on the nitrate–nitrite
cycle are provided in a separate opinion by the Panel on sodium and potassium nitrite (EFSA ANS
Panel, 2017 and on Section 3.1.5).
Metabolism
Oral nitrate/nitrite
exposure 100% absorption NO2–
NO
NO3–
NO2–
NO3–
Saliva NO3–
Reactive oxygen species
urinary
other pathways
excretion
formation of NOCs
(70-100%)
nitrosylation
methaemoglobin formation
Figure 1: Fate of nitrate and nitrite in the body (NOCs comprise N-nitrosamines and N-nitrosamides)
Excretion
Urinary excretion was measured in several studies. In the study by Pannala et al. (2003), urinary
excretion of nitrate after three high nitrate containing meals (mean 221 10.8 mg of content) was
about 100%. Other studies (Bartholomew and Hill, 1984) could only recover 50–73% of the dose in
the urine and Wagner et al. (1983) reported that the urinary excretion of a dose of N15-labelled nitrate
was 60%. Nitrite excretion was measured in a study in which meals with high nitrate contents were
given and the amount was roughly 0.02% of the dose (as calculated by the Panel) (Pannala et al.,
2003). This indicates that renal excretion is an only minor pathway of excretion for nitrite.
Clearance of nitrate can be calculated by using the information on dose and AUC from two studies
(van Velzen et al., 2008; Hunault et al., 2009). In the study by van Velzen et al. (2008), the dose
given intravenously was nitrate, whereas, in the study by Hunault et al. (2009), the dose given was
nitrite, which was converted 100% into nitrate. When recalculating the AUC into mmol 9 h/L instead
of mg 9 h/L as given in the two publications, the AUCs resulted in 2.93 mmol 9 h/L after 6.7 mmol
and 1.81 mmol 9 h/L after 5.88 mmol, which shows good agreement. The Panel calculated that the
total clearance (dose/AUC) was 38 and 54 mL/min, respectively. Cortas and Wakid (1991) calculated a
renal nitrate clearance of 28 mL/min, normalised to 1.73 m2 body surface. The renal clearance of less
than the glomerular filtration rate (120 mL/min in a healthy young subject) indicates that reabsorption

from the renal tubulus must occur and explains the longer half-life of nitrate (5–13 h; van Velzen et al.,
2008; Hunault et al., 2009) compared to nitrite (30 min) (Hunault et al., 2009).
In summary, in humans, nitrate is systemically available to 100%. The volume of distribution is
smaller than the body water and higher than the blood volume. Nitrate is secreted into saliva (20–25%
of the dose) and converted to nitrite by bacteria in the mouth (5–36%). Nitrite is absorbed and further
metabolised to nitrate. Small amounts of nitrite are metabolised to NO and reactive oxygen species
and 0.02% of a dose of nitrite is found in the urine. Most of nitrate is excreted into the urine, with the
amounts varying between 50% and 100%. The Panel noted that the most reliable studies reported
excretion of nitrate in urine of nearly 100%.
3.6.2. Acute toxicity

Acute oral values for sodium nitrate were reported to range between 2,480 and 6,250 mg sodium
nitrate/kg bw for mice, and between 4,860 and 9,000 mg sodium nitrate/kg bw for rats. For rabbits, a
LD50 value of 1,600 mg/kg bw was reported (RIVM, 1989).
3.6.3. Short-term and subchronic toxicity

The literature search for data produced from 2002 onwards identified two new sub-chronic studies
(Bako et al., 2009; Azeez et al., 2011).
3.6.3.1. Rats
In a 4-week study in rats (10 per sex; age and strain not specified), animals were administered
0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% or 6% potassium nitrate (KNO3) or 5% sodium nitrate (NaNO3) in feed
(equivalent to 0, 900, 1,800, 2,700, 3,600 or 5,400 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per day and 4,500 mg
sodium nitrate/kg bw per day, respectively) (Til et al., 1985a,b). Both references tested the same
conditions of exposure the only difference being that in Til et al. (1985a) the tested compounds were
added to a semipurified, basal diet whereas in Til et al. (1985b) they were added to a cereal basal
diet. The same experimental protocols were tested and results obtained were similar in both studies.
Mean body weights were decreased in a dose-related manner only at 3% KNO3 and above in both
sexes. No differences were reported in body weights between animals of the KNO3 and NaNO3 groups.
Mean water intake was increase in a dose-related manner at 2% KNO3 and above in males and at 4%
KNO3 and above in females. Animals placed in the 5% NaNO3 drunk more water that the
corresponding rats on the 6% KNO3 group. At doses of 3% KNO3 and above, the methaemoglobin
levels in female rats increased in a dose-related manner. Frequent slight changes in red blood cell
parameters were reported and in the 4% KNO3 group haemoglobin levels in males and packed cell
volume in females were increased. Absolute weight of the hearts, livers and lungs were decreased in
the 6% KNO3 and the 5% NaNO3 group. The kidney relative weights were increased in a dose-related
manner in males of 2% and in females of the 3% KNO3 groups. No effects related to nitrate exposure
were observed upon gross and microscopic examination of heart, kidneys, liver, spleen and lungs
tissues.
In a 6-week study, F-344 rats (10 per sex per group, 5 weeks old) were exposed to sodium nitrate
ad libitum in the diet at doses of 0%, 1.25%, 2.5%, 5%, 10% or 20% (equivalent to 0, 1,125, 2,250,
4,500, 9,000 or 18,000 mg/kg bw per day, respectively) (Maekawa et al., 1982). All females and seven
males in the high-dose group (20%) died. At autopsy, the abnormal colour of the blood and the spleen
due to methaemoglobin was marked in these animals. With the exception of males in the highest dose
group and females at the 10% dose group, all other groups did not differ by more than 10% in their
body weight gain. The maximum tolerated dose for sodium nitrate was established to be 5% in the
diet (equivalent to 4,500 mg/kg bw per day; Maekawa et al., 1982).
A 6-week study in male Wistar rats (6–8 per group) assessed the effects of nitrate exposure in feed
on various biochemical parameters in a non-standard study. Group 1 served as the control group,
group 2 was treated with 2% potassium nitrate in feed and group 3 was co-administered 2%
potassium nitrate and 1% ascorbic acid (equivalent to 1,800 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per day and
900 mg ascorbic acid/kg bw per day, respectively). Blood samples were collected weekly (time of day
not specified) and serum glucose, cholesterol, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate
aminotransferase levels were analysed. A significant increase (p < 0.05) in all measured parameters
was detected from weeks 3–6, and this effect was reversed by the addition of 1% ascorbic acid to the
diet (Azeez et al., 2011). The Panel noted that no necropsy was carried out.

As part of a study investigating the antioxidant effects of ethanolic seed extract of Hibiscus
sabdariffa linn, two groups of five Wistar rats (sex not specified) were administered either 25 mg
sodium nitrate/kg (it was not clear whether dose refers to body weight of the animals) per day alone
or the same amount of sodium nitrate together with 10 mg/kg per day vitamin C or 100 and 200 mg/
kg per day ethanolic extract for 60 days (Bako et al., 2009). The method of administration of the test
substance is not stated. At the end of the study period, the animals were sacrificed and blood samples
taken for the analysis of haematological parameters and total protein. A significant reduction in
(p < 0.05) total serum protein and measured haematological parameters (white blood cells,
haemoglobin) in response to sodium nitrate administration was evident in comparison with the control
group. Vitamin C and ethanolic extracts treatments did not show statistically significant differences on
measured parameters compared to control group (Bako et al., 2009).
3.6.3.2. Rabbits
In a limited described 4-week study, rabbits (six males per group) were administered 0, 200, 400 or
600 mg/kg bw per day potassium nitrate by a pulse dose via gelatin capsules (Nighat et al., 1981). In
all treatment groups, signs of effects were present within 2 weeks after administration. Clinical signs
included significant weight reduction, tachycardia, weakness and polyuria.
3.6.4. Genotoxicity
The genotoxicity of nitrate has been evaluated in various in vitro and in vivo test systems, and also
has been reviewed in the IARC monograph No 94 (IARC, 2010); in this section, genotoxicity data
reviewed in the IARC publication are briefly summarised and discussed together with findings from
studies published after the preparation of IARC Monograph or that were not included in that
document.
3.6.4.1. In vitro
Tests in bacteria
In a screening of food additives, potassium and sodium nitrate were tested in bacterial reversion
assays (Ames test) using the Salmonella Typhimurium tester strains TA92, TA94, TA100, TA1535 and
TA1537 with and without rat liver microsome fraction (S9) (Ishidate et al., 1984). Maximum tested
doses were 20 mg/plate for potassium nitrate and 5 mg/plate for sodium nitrate. The results were
evaluated as negative by the study authors, based on the ‘twofold’ rule (i.e. no increase in revertant
colonies above twice the control was observed in treated plates). The Panel noted that no raw
experimental data are shown in this publication.
Tests in mammalian cells
In the same study quoted above, potassium and sodium nitrate were tested in an in vitro chromosomal
aberration assay in Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts (Ishidate et al., 1984). Cells were treated for 24 and
48 h with potassium and sodium nitrate at maximum concentrations of 1 and 6 mg/mL, respectively. All
experiments were carried out without exogenous metabolic activation. According to the study authors, the
spontaneous incidence of chromosomal aberrations in this cell line was usually below 3.0%; as in-house
evaluation criteria, a substance was evaluated as positive when the aberration frequency was 10% or
above, equivocal at between 5% and 9.9%, and negative below 5%. Accordingly, potassium nitrate was
evaluated as negative (maximum aberration frequency was 3.0%), whereas sodium nitrate was
considered positive as it induced 24% of aberrations at the maximum tested dose of 6.0 mg/mL (at
harvest time of 48 h) and 10% of aberrations at the lower dose of 4.0 mg/mL at both 24 and 48 h. The
Panel noted that the doses of sodium nitrate evaluated as positive in this study are above the highest
doses recommended by current guidelines (OECD, 2014) and correspond to 70 and 47 mM, respectively,
which is well above the limit of 10 mM set to avoid artefacts due to osmolality. Moreover, the Panel noted
that no concurrent measurement of cytotoxicity was performed in the assays, and that gaps were
included in the calculation of chromosome aberration frequencies. Based on the above considerations, the
Panel concluded that the positive findings reported with sodium nitrate in this study have questionable
biological significance and that the overall result of the study is negative.
Potassium nitrate was tested in an in vitro sister chromatid exchange assay in human lymphocytes,
only performed without metabolic activation (Mpountoukas et al., 2008). Blood samples were collected
from six healthy individuals, and lymphocytes cultured in the presence of 0, 0.02, 0.2, 2, 4 and 8 mM

potassium nitrate for 72 h. No treatment-related increase of sister chromatic exchange (SCE), as well
as no effect on cell proliferation, was observed in treated cultures.
In another published study, no induction of DNA single-strand breaks, as measured by the alkaline
elution assay, was observed in Chinese hamster V79 cells treated with 0.5–1.0 mM sodium nitrate
(Gorsdorf et al., 1990).
3.6.4.2. In vivo
Drosophila
Sodium and potassium nitrate, alone or in combination, were tested in the somatic mutation and
recombination test (SMART) in Drosophila melanogaster (Sarikaya and Cakir, 2005). This test measures
the loss of heterozygosity in somatic cells of larvae fed with the test agent, which are visible in flies
after metamorphosis as spots on their wings. A significant and dose-related increase in small and large
spots was observed in adults emerging from larvae fed with medium containing sodium or potassium
nitrate (50, 75 or 100 mM). The lowest tested dose (25 mM) was ineffective, whereas both salts
tested in combination at 25 mM each elicited a positive response. The Panel noted that the SMART
test in Drosophila has not been validated for risk assessment, nor it is recommended in current testing
strategies.
Mammals
Inui et al. (1979) examined the transplacental effect of sodium nitrate on Syrian hamster embryo
cells. To this aim, pregnant females were treated per os with 500 mg sodium nitrate/kg bw on days 11
and 12 of pregnancy and embryos were isolated 24 h later. Primary cultures of embryo cells were set
up for the detection of induced gene mutations (8-azaguanine and ouabain resistance), cytogenetic
abnormalities (chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei) and morphological transformation. For the
induction of resistant mutants, cells were grown 72 h before selection; chromosomal aberrations were
evaluated in metaphases harvested after 24 h of culture, and micronuclei in interphase nuclei after
30 h of culture; cell transformation was evaluated after 3–5 days of culture. No induction of
micronuclei, chromosomal aberrations, gene mutations and transformation was observed in embryonic
cells exposed in utero. A clear-cut positive response was elicited by the positive control
dimethylnitrosamine. The Panel noted that the methods applied in this study have not been validated
further and therefore their results cannot be used for risk assessment.
Luca et al. (1985) evaluated the cytogenetic effects of sodium nitrate in male Wistar rats and Swiss
mice (four per group) treated per os twice 24 h apart with 2,120, 706.6, 235.5 and 78.5 mg/kg bw
(corresponding to 1/3, 1/9, 1/27 and 1/81 of LD50); the same daily doses were given by gavage to
rats (six per group) for 2 weeks. Twenty-four hours after last treatment, chromosomal aberrations
were evaluated in bone marrow cells of mice and rats (receiving acute or subacute treatment).
Micronuclei were scored in mice only (sacrificed 6 h after last administration). No consistent increase in
the frequency of chromosomal aberrations was observed in either mice or rats after acute treatments
with sodium nitrate. In mice, a twofold increase in the percentage of micronucleated polychromatic
erythrocytes was only observed at the two lowest doses. On the other hand, a significant increase in
the percentage of aberrant metaphases (excluding gaps) was reported in bone marrow of rats after
subacute treatment with the two highest doses of sodium nitrate (7.95% and 7.33% vs 2.33% in
control). The Panel noted the limited protocol of this study, with less animals and cells scored than
recommended, the lack of a metaphase-arresting agent in chromosomal aberration assays, as well as
the lack of positive controls and historical control data. Overall, the Panel concluded that this study
cannot be considered for risk assessment.
The effect of oral administration of sodium nitrate (600 and 1,200 mg/kg) for 14 days on mouse
germ cells was investigated by Alavanticet al. (1988a). No induction of heritable translocations, as well
as no sperm abnormalities and morphological changes, were observed in the progeny of treated
males. In the latter, a significant increase in sex-chromosomal univalency at diakinesis in
spermatocytes, as well as sperm head abnormalities, was observed after treatment of differentiating
spermatogonia. The Panel noted that sex-chromosomal univalency and sperm abnormalities are not
considered as reliable indicators of genotoxicity.
The same research group evaluated the effect of oral administration of sodium nitrate on
unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) and sperm abnormalities in mice after treatment of spermatids
(Alavanticet al., 1988b). To this aim, sodium nitrate was given for 3 days at 600 and 1,200 mg/kg, and
UDS and morphological head abnormalities evaluated in sperm 17 days after the last treatment. No

induction of UDS and sperm-head abnormalities was observed in nitrate treated animals, whereas the
positive control elicited a strong response.
Finally, in a study cited in the IARC Monograph (2010), increased cytogenetic changes were
observed in the bone marrow of mice injected intraperitoneally with 50 or 100 mg sodium nitrate/kg
bw (Rasheva et al., 1990). However, the Panel noted that the intraperitoneal route of administration is
not considered relevant for the evaluation of the in vivo genotoxic hazard related to oral exposure.
Studies in humans
The genotoxic effects associated with oral exposure to nitrate in drinking water were evaluated in a
study in children aged 12–15 years resident in areas with high (56–88 mg/L, 17 subjects) and low
(0.7 mg/L, 20 subjects) nitrate concentrations in drinking water. SCEs and chromosomal aberrations
were measured in peripheral blood lymphocytes as markers of genotoxicity. The number of mean
chromatid or chromosomal breaks was not found to be higher in children from areas with nitrate
concentrations > 55 mg/L; however, the frequency was increased in the subgroup with intake of
> 70 mg/L. No significant increase was detected in the mean number of sister chromatid exchanges
per cell (Tsezou et al., 1996). The Panel noted that the design of the study did not allow establishment
of a causal role for nitrate in the effects observed, nor the possible involvement of other uncontrolled
study variables, and it was concluded that this study cannot be considered for risk assessment.
In summary, in vitro studies on sodium and potassium nitrate in bacteria and mammalian cells did
not show evidence of a genotoxic potential. In in vivo studies, no reliable indication of genotoxicity
was obtained in mice and rats exposed to nitrate by the oral route, both in somatic and in germ cells.
Similarly, no transplacental genotoxic effect was observed in Syrian hamster. Although the database is
limited, the Panel concluded, based on the available experimental data, that nitrate salts did not raise
concern for genotoxicity.
3.6.5. Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity

The EFSA call for data did not reveal any chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity data for sodium nitrate
or potassium nitrate. A literature search (conducted to retrieve new data produced from 2002
onwards) revealed one new publication on carcinogenicity (Del Negro et al., 2008). The key studies
discussed in previous major reviews are also summarised.
3.6.5.1. Animal studies
Mice
Mice (10 per sex per group) receiving for more than 1 year diets containing 0, 25,000 or
50,000 mg sodium nitrate/kg of feed (equivalent to 0, 3,750 and 7,500 mg/kg bw per day). No
differences in tumour incidences were reported in the animals (Sugiyama et al., 1979 and as referred
to in JECFA, 1995). IARC (2010) described the same study as ‘testing groups of 10 male and 10
female ICR mice, 8 weeks of age, fed an experimental diet containing 0, 2.5 or 5.0% sodium nitrate
for 2 years. No significant differences in food intake, body weight or tumour incidences were observed
between untreated control and treated animals’. However, IARC noted the small number of animals per
group.
In a study by Greenblatt and Mirvish (1973), the effect of sodium nitrate was tested in strain A
mice (40 males per group; 7 weeks old at the start of the study) at a concentration of 12.3 g/L
(equivalent to 1,267 mg/kg bw per day of drinking water for 20–25 weeks, followed by a recovery
period of 13 weeks. Untreated controls received food and tap water only. Treatments did not affect
the survival rates (> 90%). The presence of adenomas at the surface of the lungs was counted and
histopathological observations (one of five mice) served as confirmation. Body weights at the end of
the study did not differ significantly compared to controls. Sodium nitrate did not increase lung
adenomas yield compared to controls.
In an 18-month study, female mice (100 per group) weighing 27–31 g, received 0, 100 or
1,000 mg nitrate/L of drinking water. These concentrations were calculated to be equivalent to 0, 30
or 300 mg calcium nitrate/kg bw by IARC (2010). According to the authors, the parameters studied
were liver function, kidney function, total iron, ammonium, total protein and electrophoresis of the
various serum proteins, body weight, and N-glycolyl-neuraminic acid as a tumour marker. The exposed
mice lost weight and died prematurely. This was observed for the mice exposed to 100 mg nitrate/L
(equivalent to 30 mg/kg bw per day) drinking water, and not at the highest dose tested (Mascher and

Marth, 1993). IARC reports that survival of the high-dose group was lower than that of the controls
and also that no increase in tumour incidence was observed in the nitrate-treated groups.
Rats
In a 14-month study, male rats (10 per group, strain not identified) received a dose of 0 or
4,000 mg/L (equivalent to 200 mg/kg bw per day) of sodium nitrate in drinking water (Chow et al.,
1980). There were no major differences in the methaemoglobin levels among both groups. Animals
receiving nitrate showed methaemoglobin average values from 0% to 2% as compared to less than
1% in controls. The average glutathione (GSH) levels in plasma were only 0.7% lower as compared to
controls. High incidence of chronic pneumonitis was reported in the nitrate group but of mild severity
as well as lower liver weights.
F344 rats (50 animals per sex per group, 8 weeks old) were given 0%, 2.5% and 5% sodium
nitrate in the diet ad libitum (equivalent to 0, 1,250 and 2,500 mg/kg bw per day) in a 2-year feeding
study (Maekawa et al., 1982). Rats in the control group were given a basic diet without nitrate
ad libitum. Treatment was stopped at week 104 and the rats were given a basic diet until week 123 to
account for the number of survivors in at least one group of either sex that was less than 20%. Diet
and water consumption was constant in all groups throughout the study. The growth curves showed
that the mean body weight of male fats did not differ more than 10%, whereas female rats differed by
more than 10% in the high-dose group after week 60. However, no statistically significant differences
were reported for this parameter. Treatment with sodium nitrate did not have statistically significant
effect on survival rates, although male rats in the 5% group (equivalent to 2,500 mg/kg bw per day)
had 10% higher cumulative mortality compared to the 2.5% group (equivalent to 1,250 mg/kg bw per
day). At the end of the study (2 years), both male and female control groups showed a statistically
significant lower number of survivors compared to both treatment groups. However, the mean survival
time did not differ significantly among all groups. The incidence of tumours in all groups, including
controls, was high. For example, the percentage of animals showing tumours in the control groups
was reported to reach 94% and 92% for male and female rats, respectively. In male rats from the
2.5% sodium nitrate group (equivalent to 1,250 mg/kg bw per day), tumour incidence was reported to
be 100%, whereas, in male rats from the 5% dose group (equivalent to 2,500 mg/kg bw per day), the
incidence was 96%. All other groups showed lower absolute tumour incidences than controls. The
most commonly observed tumour in males was in the testes (interstitial cell) followed by the mammary
gland, adrenal gland and liver. Tumours of the mammary gland, pituitary gland, uterus and adrenal
gland were the most commonly observed tumours in females. Overall, there was no statistically
significant difference of any specific tumour. The time of appearance of the first background tumour
was not affected in any treatment group. Only the incidences of tumours of the haematopoietic organs
were reported to be statistically significantly lower in the treated groups compared to controls,
especially concerning mononuclear cell leukaemia. The authors concluded that sodium nitrate did not
have carcinogenic activity in F344 rats when administered continuously for 2 years.
The Panel noted that this study (Maekawa et al., 1982) was the basis for the derivation by the SCF
of the ADI of 0–3.7 mg/kg bw per day for the nitrate ion (equivalent to 0–5 mg/kg bw per day for
sodium nitrate) (SCF, 1997). However, the Panel noted the high incidence of tumours in all groups,
which renders the study not sensitive enough to detect any treatment-related cancer effects.
JECFA (1996) briefly describes three long term studies in rats as follows:
In a 2-year study, rats (20/sex/group) were fed a diet containing 0, 0.1, 1, 5 or 10% sodium
nitrate. At the 5% dose level a slight growth inhibition was observed, whereas inanition was noticed at
the 10% dose level. Complete histopathological examination, including tumour incidences, was
performed. No abnormalities or increased tumour incidences were found. The NOEL in this study was
1%, equivalent to 500 mg sodium nitrate/kg bw per day, or 370 mg/kg bw per day expressed as
nitrate ion (Lehman, 1958; based on unpublished data). The Panel noted that the actual data for this
study (Fitzhugh and Nelson, no date) considered in JECFA (1996) are unpublished and only a summary
was available to the Panel for review.
In a carcinogenicity study, rats (15/sex per group) received 0 or 5% sodium nitrate/l of drinking-
water for 84 weeks and were killed 20 weeks later. Histopathological examination did not reveal any
increase in tumour incidence (Lijinsky et al., 1973).
In a 2-year carcinogenicity study, F344 rats (50/sex per group) received diets containing 0, 2.5 or
5.0% sodium nitrate, equivalent to 0, 1,250 or 2,500 mg/kg bw per day, or 0, 910, or 1,820 mg/kg
bw per day expressed as nitrate ion. No carcinogenic effects were detected. This strain of rats is

known to have a high incidence of mononuclear leukemia which was higher in controls than in the
experimental groups (Maekawa et al., 1982).
In its evaluation, the JECFA commented that, in the two long-term feeding studies in rats, doses of
370 and 1,820 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as nitrate ion, failed to produce any effects (JECFA, 1996).
JECFA considered, however, that the study in which a dose of 1,820 mg/kg bw per day was reported was
solely a carcinogenicity study, and therefore, this dose could not be considered as a no-observed-effect
level (NOEL). Overall, JECFA considered that ‘on the basis of the NOEL of 370 mg of nitrate ion/kg bw per
day in the long-term study in rats and a safety factor of 100, an ADI of 0–5 mg/kg bw per day, expressed
as sodium nitrate, or 0–3.7 mg/kg bw per day expressed as nitrate ion, could be allocated’ (JECFA,
1996). JECFA further considered that ‘because nitrate may be converted to nitrite in significant amounts
and infants below the age of 3 months are more vulnerable to the toxicity of nitrite than adults, the ADI
does not apply to such infants’.
In its more recent evaluation, JECFA retained the ADI of 0–5 mg/kg bw per day expressed as
sodium nitrate, or 0–3.7 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as nitrate ion, established in its 2002 evaluation
(JECFA, 2003a).
3.6.5.2. Endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds upon nitrate intake
It has generally been considered that the toxicity of nitrate is encompassed by its conversion to nitrite
and the possible endogenous formation of NOCs (SCF, 1997). Many NOCs, but not all, are carcinogens
(IARC, 1998; NTP, 2011). Under the appropriate conditions (pH, concentration of reactants), nitrites
have been shown to form NOCs, nitrosamines and nitrosamides from constituents in the food. The
reactions involved in this process are generally described as nitrosation. As mentioned before, a detailed
description of nitrosation and its relevant risk to humans has not been included in this opinion as sodium
and potassium nitrite are the subjects of a separate opinion by the Panel (EFSA ANS Panel, 2017).
3.6.6. Reproductive and developmental toxicity

The literature search conducted (as described in Section 3.6) identified two new reports on
reproductive and developmental effects (OECD 422 study referred to OECD, 2007; Pant and
Srivastava, 2002) are summarised below. Previously reviewed toxicity studies in existing evaluations
that has been considered by the Panel to be ‘key studies’ are also discussed below.
3.6.6.1. Reproductive toxicity studies
In an OECD TG 422 reproductive/developmental toxicity screening study performed under good
laboratory practice (GLP), rats were exposed to 0, 250, 750 and 1,500 mg potassium nitrate mg/kg bw
per day by gavage (referred to OECD, 2007). The NOAEL for reproduction and developmental toxicity
was 1,500 mg/kg bw/day based on the absence of adverse effects.
3.6.6.2. Developmental studies
JECFA (2003a) referred to several prenatal developmental toxicity studies with sodium nitrate and
potassium nitrate were conducted in CD1 mice, Wistar rats, golden hamsters and Dutch-belted rabbits
(FDRL, 1972a,b). Animals were administered different doses of sodium nitrate by gavage; the control
groups were vehicle treated (vehicle not specified). Body weights were recorded at regular intervals
during gestation and all animals were observed daily for appearance and behaviour. All dams were
subjected to caesarean section, and the numbers of implantation sites, resorption sites, live and dead
fetuses, and body weight of live fetuses were recorded. All fetuses were examined grossly for external
abnormalities, one-third underwent detailed visceral examinations and two-thirds were stained and
examined for skeletal defects.
Mice
Groups of 20–24 pregnant albino CD-1 mice were dosed via gavage with 0, 4, 20, 100 or 400 mg
sodium nitrate/kg bw per day from gestational days (GD) 6–15 (FDRL, 1972a). Body weights were
recorded on GD 0, 6, 11, 15 and at necropsy on GD 17. For both dams and fetuses, no adverse effects
were noted at doses of up to 400 mg/kg bw per day.
Groups of 20–25 pregnant albino CD-1 mice were dosed via gavage with 0, 4, 20, 100 or 400 mg
potassium nitrate/kg bw per day from gestational GD 6–15 (FDRL, 1972b). Body weights were
recorded on GD 0, 6, 11, 15 and at necropsy on GD 17. For both dams and fetuses, no adverse effects
were noted at doses of up to 400 mg/kg bw per day.

Rats
Groups of 22–24 pregnant albino Wistar rats were dosed via gavage with 0, 2.5, 12, 54 or 250 mg
sodium nitrate/kg bw per day from GD 6–15 (FDRL, 1972a). Body weights were recorded on days 0, 6,
11, 15 and at necropsy on GD 20. Dams and fetuses were examined as described in the above study
with mice. No adverse effects for both dams and fetuses were noted at doses of up to 250 mg/kg
bw per day.
Groups of 19–21 pregnant albino Wistar rats were dosed via gavage with 0, 2, 9, 40 or 180 mg
potassium nitrate/kg bw per day from GD 6–15 (FDRL, 1972b). Body weights were recorded on days 0,
6, 11, 15 and at necropsy on GD 20. Dams and fetuses were examined as described in the above study
with mice. No adverse effects for both dams and fetuses were noted at doses of up to 180 mg/kg
bw per day.
Hamster
Groups of 22–26 pregnant golden hamsters were dosed via gavage with 0, 4, 20, 100 or 400 mg
sodium nitrate/kg bw per day from GD 6–10 (FDRL, 1972a). Body weights were recorded on days 0,
8, 10 and at necropsy on GD 14. Dams and fetuses were examined as described in the above study
with mice. No adverse effects for both dams and fetuses were noted at doses of up to 400 mg/kg bw
per day.
Groups of 21–25 pregnant Golden hamsters were dosed via gavage with 0, 3, 20, 70 or 280 mg
potassium/kg bw per day from GD 6–10 (FDRL, 1972b). Body weights were recorded on days 0, 8, 10
and at necropsy on GD 14. Dams and fetuses were examined as described in the above study with mice.
No adverse effects for both dams and fetuses were noted at doses of up to 280 mg/kg bw per day.
Rabbits
Groups of 15 Dutch-belted rabbits were dosed once daily via gavage with 0, 2.5, 12, 90 or 250 mg
sodium nitrate/kg bw per day from GD 6–18 (FDRL, 1972a). A Caesarean section was performed on
GD 29. Live litters were observed in 9, 8, 9, 3 or 5 dams of the 0, 2.5, 12, 90 or 250 mg sodium
nitrate/kg bw per day groups, respectively. The incidences of corpora lutea, implantations, live and
dead fetuses, and resorptions in dams were within the normal range. In fetuses, there were no
increased incidences of external, visceral and skeletal abnormalities and also fetal weights were not
affected. Due to the low number of dams with live litters, the Panel considered this study not relevant
for risk assessment.
Groups of 15 Dutch-belted rabbits were dosed once daily via gavage with 0, 2, 10, 50 or 206 mg
potassium nitrate/kg bw per day from GD 6–18 (FDRL, 1972b). A caesarean section was performed on
GD 29. From the 0, 2, 10, 50 or 206 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per day groups 1, 1, 1, 4 or 3
animals (pregnant or non-pregnant) died. Therefore, at necropsy, only 12, 13, 9, 6 or 10 litters were
available in the 0, 2, 10, 50 or 206 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per day groups. The incidences of
corpora lutea, implantations, live and dead fetuses, and resorptions in dams were within the normal
range. In fetuses, there were no increased incidences of external, visceral and skeletal abnormalities
and also fetal weights were not affected. Due to the low number of dams with live litters and high
mortality, the Panel considered this study not relevant for risk assessment.
3.6.6.3. Other studies on reproductive endpoints
Sexually mature white Swiss mice (5 males/group; 7 weeks old) were administered with 0, 90, 200,
500, 700 or 900 mg potassium nitrate/L drinking water (equivalent to 0, 15.7, 34.8, 87, 121.8 or 156.6
mg potassium nitrate/kg bw) for 35 days to assess the testicular and spermatotoxic effects of nitrate
(Pant and Srivastava, 2002). A decrease in sperm count and motility, and an increase in total
percentage on sperm abnormalities were reported in the males of the highest dose group.
Histopathological changes in the highest dose group included congestion and moderate atrophy in
testis with prominent interstitial spaces, although it was not mentioned if these changes were
statistical significant different to controls. In the highest dose group, the level of 17-b-hydroxysteroid
dehydrogenase (17-bHSD) was decreased and c-glutamyl transpeptidase (c-GT) increased (p < 0.05)
in a homogenate of a portion of the testis. No other overt signs of toxicity were recorded during the
study and body weight gain, testicular, epididymal and accessory sex organ weight were similar to
controls at all doses tested. The Panel noted the small number of animals tested and the short
duration of exposure in the study. The authors concluded that a long-term reproduction toxicity study
is necessary to examine this effects detected. The Panel agreed with this conclusion.

Overall, the Panel noted that no effects were observed in a reproductive/developmental toxicity
screening study (OECD TG 422) in rats by gavage at a dose up to 1,500 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per
day (the highest dose tested) (referred to OECD, 2007). No developmental toxicity was observed in
mice, rats or hamsters receiving by gavage doses up to 400, 250 or 400 mg sodium nitrate/kg bw per
day, respectively (FDRL, 1972a). In prenatal developmental studies with potassium nitrate by gavage in
mice, rat or hamsters, no developmental toxicity was observed up to 400, 180 or 280 mg/kg bw per day
(FDRL, 1972b). In a study in mice given potassium nitrate in drinking water effects were observed on
sperm count, sperm abnormalities, histological changes of the testis and testicular enzymes at the
highest dose tested; the NOAEL in this study was 122 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per day (Pant and
Srivastava, 2002). A definitive conclusion cannot be reached as the duration of the dosing in males in
the screening study is limited as well as the number of animals tested.
The Panel noted that although some effects were observed in sperm analysis and reproductive
organs in a limited study in mice, no indications of reproductive toxicity were observed at higher doses
in a rat study conducted according to OECD guideline TG 422.
3.6.7. Other studies

3.6.7.1. Methaemoglobinaemia
Ingested nitrate is reduced to nitrite in humans by the nitrite reductase of bacteria in the oral
cavity. In infants, the higher stomach pH (2–5), as compared to the adult (pH 1–3), may lead to the
growth of nitrate-reducing bacteria (Zeman et al.,2002). This might increase the risk of
methaemoglobin formation in infants. Nitrite can convert Fe2+ in the haemoglobin into Fe3+, leading to
methaemoglobinaemia. Methaemoglobinaemia is the most reported side effect in humans correlated
with the exposure towards nitrate. Fe3+ can be reconverted into Fe2+ by cytochrome b5 reductase.
Individuals genetically deficient in cytochrome b5 reductase, fetus and infants where concentrations
of the cytochrome b5 reductase enzyme were found to be only about 60% of the concentration found
in adult red blood cells (Ross, 1963; Bartos and Desforges, 1966).
The specific sensitivity of infants below 16 weeks of age to methaemoglobinaemia can be explained
by differences in the activity of cytochrome b5 reductase (which converts methaemoglobin back to
haemoglobin), which is 40–50% lower than in the adults (Bartos and Desforges, 1966, Wright et al.,
1999). In addition, these infants have a large proportion of fetal haemoglobin still present in their
blood, which has been shown to form twice as much methaemoglobin than adult haemoglobin under
in vitro conditions (Wind and Stern, 1977; WHO, 2007).
From 151 publications found in a literature search between 1951 and 2015, there were case
reports on methaemoglobinaemia including cases of suicidal attempts. A wide range of doses were
reported to cause methaemoglobinaemia. Human oral lethal doses range from 4 to 50 g (Mirvish,
1991) and from 67 to 833 mg/kg bw (Boink et al., 1999). However, the data were not suitable for an
analysis of a dose–response relationship. Experimental data on methaemoglobin formation have been
evaluated under the section toxicokinetics (e.g. Lambers et al., 2000; published van Velzen et al.,
2008). However, the data were not suitable for a BMD modelling.
3.6.7.2. Animal study on laryngopharyngeal mucosa
A new study by Del Negro et al. (2008) was identified in the literature search, in which the
carcinogenic potential of hydrochloric acid associated with pepsin, with and without the addition of
sodium nitrate on rat oropharyngeal mucosa simulating the reflux of gastric contents, was
investigated. Wistar rats (12 males per group; weighing between 300 and 400 g) were divided into
seven groups and administered various combinations of test solutions directly on the
laryngopharyngeal mucosa. Groups V and VI received treatment with sodium nitrate: Group V received
a mixture of 400 mg of sodium nitrate (diluted in 300 mL of water equal to 1,333 mg sodium nitrate/kg
bw per day), with a solution of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid applied directly on the laryngopharyngeal
mucosa three times per week. Group VI was treated similar to group V but twice weekly. Group VII
served as the control group and was treated twice weekly with filtered water. The rats were treated for
a period of 6 months, after which specimens for study were taken out by dissecting the risk mucosa
and removing the parts that were fixed in formalin and stored in a 70% alcohol solution. Inflammatory
histological changes were present in several animals, including the presence of lymphocytes and mast
cells. The presence of mast cells was more pronounced in groups V and VI (p = 0.006) compared to
the control group. No epithelial changes indicating carcinogenicity (dysplasia, intra-epithelial neoplasia
or invasive carcinoma) were detected in any of the animals.

In previous evaluations, nitrate safety has been evaluated in conjunction with that of nitrite by
considering conversion values of nitrate to nitrite (JECFA, 1996). JECFA, (2003a) mentioned a combined
physiologically based pharmacokinetic/toxicodynamic model allowing quantification of the kinetics of
nitrate and nitrite in humans. The model was published later as Supplementary Information to the
publication Zeilmaker et al. (2010). The model included values for the absorption of nitrate from drinking
water and vegetables, secretion of nitrate from blood into saliva, conversion of nitrate to nitrite, and
absorption of nitrite and its interaction with haemoglobin, yielding methaemoglobin, as obtained by
applying rate constants of reaction to available experimental data sets. According to the report by JECFA,
a dose of 44 mg/kg bw per day of nitrate would not induce clinical methaemoglobinaemia in adults,
doses of 88–270 mg/kg bw per day would progressively induce methaemoglobinaemia and clinical
hypoxia, and doses higher than 440 mg/kg bw per day would induce lethal toxicity. According to JECFA’s
report on unpublished authors conclusions ‘the intake by healthy adults of nitrate from food and/or
drinking-water has negligible effects on methaemoglobin formation but may significantly affect
methaemoglobin formation in neonates with inflammatory disease’ (JECFA, 2003a).
3.6.7.3. Effects on adrenal and thyroid glands
As nitrate shares a common transport mechanism with iodine, the influence of nitrate intake on
thyroid function had been studied previously in risk evaluations of nitrate as a food additive.
In vitro studies
In a study by Tonacchera et al. (2004), the relative inhibitory activity of several anions on the NIS
was measured in an in vitro model (CHO cell line transfected with human NIS). Inhibition of NIS by
NO3 was 249 times lower than that by CLO4, and the affinity of NO3 to bind to NIS was eightfold
lower than the binding affinity of iodine. Inhibition of NIS by other anions leads to a decrease in iodine
ion uptake by the thyroid and, consequently, has a negative effect on the production of thyroid
hormones. From the in vitro study, it can be deduced that nitrate, by reducing thyroid hormone
production, may lead to enlarged thyroid and hypothyroidism depending on the intake.
In vivo studies
Animal studies with nitrate exposure and effects on the thyroid (summarised in Appendix E,
Table E.2).
Rat
JECFA (1996) described briefly two studies addressing this potential effect. ‘Rats dosed with 40 to
4000 mg nitrate/l in drinking water (equivalent to 3.6 to 360 mg/kg bw per day) had no effect on the
serum iodine level or protein-bound iodine. Minor changes were reported in 131I uptake in thyroid,
thyroid weight and the histology of the thyroid. These effects were seen at all dose levels, but there
was no dose–response relation’ (Ho €ring, 1985; Ho
€ring et al., 1988; Seffner, 1985; as referred to in
JECFA, 1996). In the second described study, ‘potassium nitrate was administered to 56-day old pigs
at a dietary concentration of 3% for 2 days or 6 weeks (equivalent to 730 mg/kg bw per day
expressed as nitrate ion). Levels of methaemoglobin, serum T4, T3, nitrate and somatomedin were
determined. Sufficient iodine uptake by mothers prevented a decrease in T4 levels after administration
of potassium nitrate for 2 days. After 6 weeks of treatment, however, the decrease in T4 levels could
not be prevented by supplementing the diet with 0.5 mg iodine/kg bw. A decrease in serum
somatomedin activity due to nitrate administration was also observed which correlated with a
decreased body-weight gain in pigs’ (Jahreis et al., 1987; as referred in JECFA, 1996).
JECFA (2003a) reported a study on groups of male Wistar rats (10 per group) administered
potassium nitrate at a concentration of 36 mmol/L in drinking water (equivalent to approximately
3,636 mg/L) for 90 days, aiming to evaluate potential effects on the zona glomerulosa of the adrenal
glands of these animals (Boink et al., 1995, 1996, as referred to in JECFA, 2005). The control group
was treated with the same amount of potassium chloride in drinking water. ‘No differences in food
intake per kg bw were noted although body-weight gain was lower in the treated animals. Blood
nitrate concentrations were higher in the treated group. Treatment has no consistent effect on the
concentrations of thyroxin, free thyroxin, thyroid simulating hormones, adrenocorticotrophic hormone,
corticosterone or aldosterone in blood. Microscopic examination of the tissues showed minimal
hypertrophy in 20% of animals treated with potassium nitrate’. Although no indication is given on
statistical differences on this effect compared to controls, it is reported that the minimal hypertrophy
of the adrenal zona glomerulosa occasionally observed in rats was barely detectable by morphometric

analysis 90 days after treatment and that the fractional zona glomerulosa surface area of the adrenal
glands did not differ from the control group. Absolute and relative weights of the adrenal glands did
not differ statistically significantly from those of controls. It was concluded by JECFA that nitrate does
not play a role in the aetiology of hypertrophy of the zona glomerulosa of the adrenal glands in rats.
A study in Wistar rats (10 per group per sex not stated, age not specified) investigated the effects
of potassium nitrate intake on thyroid function (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2005). One test group was fed a
diet containing 3% potassium nitrate (equivalent to 1500 mg/kg bw per day) and one control group
was fed standardised normal diet, both for 28 days. Blood samples and thyroid glands were collected
for analysis of thyroid hormones and to assess thyroid peroxidase (TPO) activity. No effect was noted
on body weights at the end of the study. Statistically significant increases were reported in thyroid
gland weight and urinary iodine concentration, and TPO activity and serum thyroid-stimulating
hormone (TSH) were also reported to be higher in the treated group. In those animals, T4 and T3
levels were reported to be decreased.
In another study with Wistar rats (12 males per group, age not specified), four groups received
drinking water containing 50, 100, 150 or 500 mg/L of potassium nitrate (equivalent to 4.5, 9, 13.5
and 45 mg/kg bw per day, respectively) (Zaki et al., 2004). Controls received drinking water containing
approximately 14 mg/L nitrate (equivalent to 1.3 mg/kg bw per day). It is indicated that all rats were
fed a diet containing ‘iodine nitrate’ at a concentration of approximately 22 mg/kg diet (equivalent to
1 mg/kg bw per day). Animals were sacrificed after 5 months of treatment. A significant dose-
dependent decrease in body weight gain was reported (p < 0.001). At the two highest doses group,
the decrease was reported to be 16% and 25%, respectively. Total plasma proteins were decreased in
all treated groups, whereas the plasma urea concentration was increased. Thyroid weight was
increased at all doses, becoming statistically significant for the 13.5 mg/kg bw per day group. Mean
plasma thyroid T3 hormone was statistically significantly decreased in the 13.5 and 45 mg/kg bw per
day groups, whereas T4 hormone was decreased statistically significantly only in the highest dose
group animals (45 mg/kg bw per day). Upon microscopic examination, thyroid samples from the two
highest dose groups showed vacuolisation and increased colloidal volume of the follicles and the two
lower doses were not reported to show microscopic changes. The Panel noted that no measurements
of plasma nitrate levels to confirm nitrate exposure at the doses tested were carried out and that other
studies testing much higher concentrations of potassium nitrate (up to 3,636 mg/L) did not report any
effects on the thyroid functions (Boink et al., 1995). The Panel also noted that the description of the
iodine source in this study is not clear because ‘iode nitrate’ is not a compound with a CAS number.
Sodium nitrate was administered in the drinking water to four groups of female rats (n = 10 per
group, strain not specified) for 30 weeks at doses of 0, 50, 100, 250 or 500 mg nitrate/L (equivalent
to 0, 2.5, 5, 12.5 or 25 mg/kg bw per day) (Eskiocak et al., 2005). In all dose groups, thyroid weights
increased. Other effects varied between doses; for example, iodine uptake was decreased in dose
groups 2.5 and 5 mg/kg bw per day, and increased in dose groups 12.5 and 25 mg/kg bw per day.
TSH was decreased in dose groups 2.5, 12.5 and 25 mg/kg bw per day and did not change in dose
group 5 mg/kg bw per day.
Potassium nitrate was administered in the drinking water to four groups of female Wistar rats
(n = 12 per group) at doses of 50, 150 and 500 mg/L (equivalent to 2.5, 7.5 or 25 mg/kg bw per day)
for 5 months to assess potential effects on the morphology and physiology of the thyroid (Chaoui
et al., 2004). Control animals consumed ad libitum tap water containing approximately 13 mg nitrate/L
(equivalent to 0.7 mg/kg bw per day). At the end of the study, animals were killed and their T3 and
T4 total levels were measured by radioimmunology. Thyroid glands were collected and processed to
microscopic analysis. Thyroid absolute weight and T3 levels increased significantly in animals from the
two highest dose groups not in the 50 mg/L group. T4 levels also increased significantly but only in
animals from the 500 mg/L group. Microscopically, thyroid follicles from the two highest dose groups
showed an increased size and a flat epithelium shape.
Studies in volunteers
Human studies with nitrate exposure and effects on the thyroid are summarised in Appendix E,
Table E.3.
In a study in 10 volunteers, oral intake of 15 mg/kg nitrate for 28 days did not lead to changes in
iodine uptake and thyroid hormone levels (T3, rT3, T4, TSH), indicating that a dose largely exceeding
the ADI had no influence on thyroid function (Hunault et al., 2007).
In 69 subjects, van Maanen et al. (1994) observed a difference in the volume of the thyroid
between low and medium vs high nitrate exposure groups, showing development of thyroid

hypertrophy at nitrate water levels in the highest exposure group (N = 7) with 109.5 68.1 mg/L and
a total daily nitrate intake of 245 92 mg. There was a significant correlation between thyroid volume
and nitrate concentration (p = 0.008) in drinking water and thyroid volume and thyroglobulin
(p = 0.004) and an inverse correlation between thyroid volume and serum TSH (p = 0.0001). The
increased in thyroid volume in the high nitrate exposure group is accompanied by a tendency towards
a decrease in TSH levels but free T4 was not increased. (van Maanen et al., 1994).
A study in Slovak children (10–13 years old) showed a slightly higher thyroid volume in children
(n = 324) from a region with high nitrate drinking water supply (51–274 mg/L) compared to children
from two regions with low nitrate drinking water supply (n = 168 and 596). In 13 of 324 (4.0%) of the
children with high exposure, TSH level in blood was elevated (Tajta kova
et al., 2006). In a group of
10-year-old children, the frequency of hypoechogenicity in the high nitrate area was higher (13.7%)
than in the low nitrate area (4.7%) (p < 0.01). Thyroid volume assessed by ultrasound was
significantly higher in children with a high nitrate intake in comparison with children with a low nitrate
intake.
In a cross-sectional study from Bulgaria (Gatseva and Argirova, 2008), clinical examination of the
thyroid status of children chronically exposed to high levels of nitrate (78 mg/L in drinking water)
(n = 156) revealed that 13.5% had goitre, whereas, in the group with low exposure (8 mg/L in
drinking water) (n = 163), 4.9% of the children had goitre. The difference was statistically significant.
In a study from Slovakia (Ra dikova
et al., 2008), goitre grade 1 was more frequent in pregnant
women (n = 26) living in a village with high-nitrate levels in drinking water (93 mg/L) compared to
pregnant women (n = 22) in a village with a low-nitrate level in drinking water (8 mg/L) (odds ratio
(OR) = 5.294, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.003–27.939, p = 0.0454). In children aged 3–6 years
from the two villages, no difference in thyroid status was observed.
In a population-based cross-sectional epidemiological survey (n = 3,772 participants, 20–79 years),
the mean nitrate excretion in urine was 53.1 0.8 mg/L. The proportion of goitre in subjects with and
without high urine nitrate concentrations and no iodine deficiency was not different (35.5% and
34.7%, p = 0.69) (Below et al., 2008).
Within the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) that assess the health and
nutrition status of adults and children across the United States, a representative sample of the
participants with laboratory results was extracted across all age group to study the association
between nitrate and free T4. Multivariate regression models by iodine status were conducted. After
controlling for sample weights and stratum age, race/ethnicity, BMI, serum cotinine, estimated total
caloric intake, post-menopausal status, premenarche status, oestrogen use, serum C-reactive protein,
and hours of fasting before sample collection, urine nitrate was a significant predictor of free T4 for
both non-pregnant (n = 307) with urinary iodine of less than 100 lg/L (coefficient for log
nitrate = 0.0368, p = 0.03) and non-pregnant women (n = 564) with urinary iodine of 100 lg/L or
more (coefficient for log nitrate of 0.0259, p = 0.02). No association between urinary nitrate and
serum free T4 was found for pregnant women (n = 48) with urinary iodine of less than 100 lg/L
(Suh et al., 2014).
A large cohort study (n = 21.977 women) showed that increasing intake of nitrate from dietary
sources (estimated from a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ)) was associated with an increasing
occurrence (ever) of self-reported hypothyroidism. Subjects in the highest quartile of dietary nitrate
intake had a 24% increased risk of hypothyroidism (odds ratio (OR) = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.10–1.40,
ptrend = 0.001) in comparison with subjects in lowest quartile of nitrate intake (41.1 mg nitrate-N per
day, corresponding to 2.6 mg/kg bw per day vs Q1 ≤ 17.4 mg nitrate-N per day), corresponding to
1.1 mg/kg bw per day, after controlling for age, total calories, body mass index (BMI), residence,
education and smoking status. The ORs in quartiles 2 and 3 were 1.13 (95% CI 1.01–1.27) and 1.19
(95% CI 1.06–1.33). The association was possibly stronger among those with intakes of vitamin C
below the median compared to those with a higher intake. No association was found for drinking
water and hypothyroidism (Ward et al., 2010). Intake of iodine was not assessed, but is considered to
be adequate in the US population.
Overall, there was some evidence to relate exposure towards nitrate in drinking water with the
development of an enlarged thyroid, and goitre. One study found a slight, but statistically significant
association between self-reported hypothyroidism and estimated dietary nitrate intake.
3.6.7.4. Cardiovascular system and haematology
Webb et al. (2008) report the results of a study, separated in three phases with distinct recruitment
for each phase, assessing the effects of dietary nitrate on lower arterial blood pressure, supplement

endothelial function during ischaemia and inhibit platelet aggregation. In the blood pressure (BP)
study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to drink 500 mL of either beetroot juice or water,
within a 30-min period. The mean concentration of nitrate in the beetroot juice was 45.0 2.6 mM/L
(2.79 g/L; initial study) and 34.0 0.1 mM/L (2.11 g/L; spitting study). Nitrite concentrations in the
juice were below the LOD (< 50 nM/L). The BP was measured every 15 min for 1 h pre- and 3 h post-
ingestion of the beetroot juice, then hourly for up to 6 h, with a final measurement at 24 h (a mean of
three readings was calculated for each time interval). Blood samples were collected every 30 min for
2 h, then hourly up to 6 h, with a final sample collected at 24 h, to determine plasma nitrate and
nitrite concentrations. In the interruption of enterosalivary circulation study, the effect of spitting out
all saliva during, and for 3 h following juice ingestion on blood pressure and changes in plasma nitrate/
nitrite concentrations, was also investigated in a separated crossover study in six healthy volunteers.
For the assessment of platelet aggregation, blood was collected at baseline and at 2.5 h after
ingestion of the beetroot juice. In the second phase of this study, endothelial function was assessed in
10 healthy subjects by measuring brachial artery diameter in the non-dominant arm of the study in
response to the endothelium-dependent reactive hyperaemia response before and after an ischaemic
insult. In this open-label crossover study, healthy subjects were randomised to 500 mL of beetroot
juice 2 h before the ischaemia–reperfusion (I/R) sequence. Plasma nitrate concentration rapidly
(~30 min) increased (approximately 16-fold) after 1.5 h and remained at the same level up to 6 h.
Blood pressure was affected only after 1 h of treatment, and especially the systolic blood pressure
remained unchanged after 24 h. Overall, the mean heart rate was not altered by the treatment.
Interrupting the enterosalivary circulation blocked the rise in plasma nitrite concentration, and blocked
the reduction of systolic blood pressure but had no effect on platelet aggregation. Platelet aggregation
was inhibited 2.5 h after beetroot ingestion. Beetroot juice did not alter pre-ischaemic branchial
dilation but completely prevented ischaemia-induced endothelial dysfunction (p < 0.05).
3.6.7.5. Allergy and immunotoxicity
A case-study of a 56-year-old man with no family history of atopic diseases presenting severe
pruritus on the trunk, upper limbs and head, with no concomitant rash, was reported by Asero (2005).
After elimination of the likelihood of known skin diseases associated with itching by appropriate
investigations, an elimination diet excluding food additives was initiated. By the fifth day of the diet, a
significant improvement in pruritus was noted. After 3 weeks of no symptoms, a more detailed study
to identify the causative agent was undertaken 4 h after ingestion of 10 mg sodium nitrate, the onset
of pruritus was recorded again, thus identifying sodium nitrate as the causative agent of the condition.
The effects of nitrate on immunological parameters were investigated in peripheral mononuclear
blood cells (PBMCs) from healthy volunteers aged 18–55 years old (Ustyugova et al., 2002). PBMCs
were cultured for 72 h in 10 ppm sodium nitrate and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was
performed to assess the cytokines interleukin (IL)-2, interferon-c, tumour necrosis factor-b and IL-10.
No clear trend in cytokine production was evident in response to sodium nitrate.
3.6.8. Epidemiological studies on cancer

Human carcinogenicity of nitrate and nitrite has been extensively reviewed by the IARC (2010), and
the studies discussed in the IARC report have therefore not been included in this review. The
interested reader is invited to consult the IARC report for details of all studies evaluated. The overall
evaluation of the IARC (2010) was that there is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity
of nitrate in foods and there was inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity in experimental animals.
The overall conclusions in this opinion are based on the evaluation of publications by the Panel that
appeared subsequent to this previous review by IARC on nitrate, nitrites and cancer (IARC, 2010),
which considered publications until 2006, combined with the publications evaluated by IARC (2010).
Only original studies that have data on nitrate or dietary NOCs intake (reviews were not included) and
studies that have not been included in the IARC (2010) report were reviewed, and retrieved according
to the protocol agreed by the Panel presented in Appendix G. It was found that a paper, already
described in the IARC (2010) comprising a review of Knekt et al. (1999) (on head and neck cancer, as
well as colorectal cancer (CRC)), was no described in terms of NDMA results, and thus it appears in
the current review as well.
The epidemiological studies per cancer site were ranked according to study design as: cohort,
case–control and ecological studies. Study descriptions were extended with information on processed
meat items or specific animal foods, if possible. The evaluation of cancer in the different organs

follows the ordering of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10, WHO): head and neck,
oesophagus, stomach, colorectal, liver, pancreas, lung, breast, ovarian, prostate, renal, bladder, urinary
tract, thyroid, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukaemia, brain/glioma.
The evidence for human cancer from these studies was categorised as: (i) there was no evidence,
if studies indicate no association with a specific cancer; (ii) there was insufficient evidence, to
(unequivocally) link to a cancer (e.g. few studies, contradictory results, etc.); (iii) there was some
evidence, for an association with a specific cancer (e.g. inconsistent results between cohort studies
and case–control studies); and (iv) there was evidence, for an association with a specific cancer (e.g.
consistent results from cohort studies and case–control studies).
In the protocol, all necessary items to for the risk assessment (causal inference) were listed to be
included in the description of studies. In brief, while evaluating the studies it was taken into
consideration the type of study (ecological, case–control, cohort), giving more weight to cohort
studies; the quality of the exposure assessment, the power of the study, the presence of dose–
response (e.g. by evaluating p for trend) and the good control for confounding factors. Study-specific
limitations were also taken into account in the evaluation. For cohort studies, the number of cases
identified during the follow-up and the time of follow-up and number of participants lost to follow-up
were also considered.
From the literature search, 95 studies on nitrate, nitrite and/or NOC intake by oral route and head
and neck, oesophageal, stomach, colorectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, breast, ovarian, prostate, renal,
bladder, urinary tract, thyroid, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukaemia, brain/glioma and total cancer
were selected and screened for detailed evaluation. In total, 49 epidemiological studies were critically
reviewed. The reasons of exclusion are summarised in Appendix G.
3.6.8.1. Head & neck cancer
No new data were found subsequent to the IARC evaluation (2010). For head and neck cancer, no
conclusions can be drawn on nitrate because of lack of data.
3.6.8.2. Oesophageal cancer
Cohort studies
Cross et al. (2011) studied the relationship between intake of meat, meat components and meat
cooking by-products and risk of oesophageal cancer subtypes. The National Institutes of Health-American
Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study (NIH-AARP) Diet and Health Study recruited men
and women, aged 50–71 years, from six states in the United States. At baseline (1995–1996),
participants completed self-administered demographic and lifestyle questionnaires, including a 124-item
FFQ. Approximately 6 months later, cancer-free participants were mailed a risk factor questionnaire,
which elicited detailed information on meat intake and cooking preferences. A total of 566,402
participants returned the baseline questionnaire and 337,074 of these also returned the risk factor
questionnaire. They estimated nitrate and nitrite intake from processed meats using a database of
measured values from 10 types of processed meats (bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, red
and white luncheon meats, red and white cold cuts, ham, hot dogs), which represent 90% of
processed meats consumed in the United States; these meats were also measured for NOCs, although
they were all below the detectable limit. After excluding prevalent cancer cases and those with
implausible nutrient values, the baseline analytical cohort consisted of 494,979 persons (295,305 men
and 199,674 women), and the risk factor questionnaire cohort consisted of 303,156 persons (176,842
men and 126,314 women). During 10 years of follow-up, they accrued 215 ESCC and 630 EAC. In the
subcohort of participants who returned the risk factor questionnaire (126,314 females and 176,842
males), there were 128 incident cases of ESCC and 377 EAC. Cox PH modelling was used as analysis
technique. After controlling for age, race, total energy intake, smoking, family history of cancer, family
history of diabetes, BMI, physical activity, alcohol, saturated fat, fruits and vegetables intake, red meat
intake was positively associated with ESCC (RR Q5 vs Q1: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.07–3.01, ptrend = 0.019)
but not with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. The malignancies investigated in this study were not
found to be associated with white or processed meat. Heterocyclic amine intake was seen to be
positively associated with malignancies. A borderline statistically significant increased risk for EAC was
identified for those in the high quintile intake of heterocyclic amines (HR = 1.35, 95% .97–1.89,
ptrend = 0.022; HR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.99–2.12, ptrend = 0.463, respectively). A positive association was
also present for haem iron intake and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (HR for top vs bottom
quintile = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.99–2.2, ptrend = 0.063). No association was found between nitrate or nitrite

intake from meat and oesophageal cancer subtypes. Comparing highest vs lowest quintile of intake,
the results for nitrate from meat and ESCC risk were: RR Q5 (median 0.298 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1
(0.024) = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.72–2.35, ptrend = 0.153; and for nitrate and EAC were: RR = 1.10, 95% CI:
0.75–1.60, ptrend = 0.350. Comparing highest vs lowest quintile of intake, the results for nitrite from
meat and ESCC risk were: RR Q5 (med 0.199 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1 (0.012) = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.67–2.20,
ptrend = 0.651; and for nitrite and EAC were: RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.84–1.68, ptrend = 0.029. None of
the quintile HR estimates were significantly different from one, nor were continuous analyses.
Strengths of the study include the large size enabling the investigation of tumour subtypes. The study
lacked information on nitrate and nitrite intake from other foods, and nitrate intake from drinking
water.
Keszei et al. (2013) studied the relationship between risks of oesophageal cancer subtypes and
intake of NDMA, ENOC, haem iron, nitrite and nitrate in the Netherlands Cohort Study. This prospective
cohort study started in September 1986; at baseline, 58,279 men and 62,573 women aged 55–69 years
were recruited from 204 municipal population registries throughout the Netherlands. At baseline
(1986), a self-administered questionnaire was completed by study participants on dietary habits and
other risk factors of cancer. The dietary part consisted of a validated 150-item food frequency
questionnaire. The cohort was followed for 16.3 years and 110 ESCC and 151 EAC were analysed
along with 4,032 subcohort members in a case–cohort analysis. To calculate intakes, food composition
values for nitrate and nitrite were obtained from analyses conducted by Dutch institutes in the period
1984–1989. Information about nitrate content in drinking water from all pumping stations in the
Netherlands in 1986 was used to determine the nitrate concentration in drinking water for each home
address by postal code, and to calculate nitrate intake from water (in fact water, coffee, tea and soup
combined). Nitrite intake was assessed solely on the intake of processed meat as the nitrite content of
vegetables and cheese was considered negligible in comparison with processed meat. Considered
processed meat items were: all types of sausages, bacon, ham, cold cuts, croquettes and frankfurters.
NDMA values in food items were initially extracted from published measurements in Dutch foods in the
1970s and 1980s. For food items for which NDMA values were not available from Dutch sources,
although non-zero content was indicated in a comprehensive food composition database of
nitrosamines (Jakszyn et al., 2004a,b), measurements made in food sources from Western or Northern
Europe in the 1980s were used. An index of ENOC was calculated, as previously determined by
Jakszyn et al. (2006) based on the haem iron intake. The correlation between ENOC and haem iron
was 0.97. In the sex-specific statistical analyses, Cox PH modelling was used, controlling for age,
smoking, BMI, educational level, energy intake, vegetable and fruit intake, total alcohol intake; in
NDMA analyses, adjustment was made for alcoholic beverages excluding beer because beer was an
important source of NDMA. The estimated mean (SD) values of intake in the subcohort (a random
sample of the Netherlands Cohort Study) were for men and women, respectively: nitrate: 108 (SD 45)
and 106 (44) mg/day, nitrite: 0.12 (0.16) mg/day and 0.08 (0.12) mg/day, NDMA (median): 0.084 and
0.044 lg/day, ENOC: 102 (25) and 93 (23) lg/day. When comparing men in the highest vs lowest
tertile of intake, the results for nitrite and ESCC risk were: HR T3 (median 0.28 mg/day) vs T1
(0.03) = 1.92, 95% CI: 0.94–3.89, ptrend = 0.06; and for nitrite and EAC were: HR = 0.74, 95% CI:
0.43–1.28, ptrend = 0.30. Although none of the tertile HR estimates were significantly different from
one, nor were any tests for trend, in continuous analyses, there was a significant association between
nitrite and ESCC: HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.05–1.36 per 0.1 mg/day increment. In nitrite analyses in
women, none of the tertile HR estimates were significantly different from one, nor were any tests for
trend, or continuous analyses. For nitrate, in both men and women, none of the tertile HR estimates
were significantly different from one, nor were any tests for trend, or continuous analyses. For NDMA
intake, when comparing men in the highest vs lowest tertile of intake, the results for ESCC risk were:
HR T3 (med 0.25 lg/day) vs T1 (0.04) = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.13–5.23, ptrend = 0.01; and for NDMA and
EAC were: HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.52–1.45, ptrend = 0.63. For ESCC, HR estimates were significant in
continuous analyses: HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05–1.25 per 0.1 lg/day increment. In women, when
comparing the highest vs lowest tertile of NDMA intake, the results for ESCC risk were: HR T3
(0.07 lg/day) vs T1 (0.03) = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.56–2.62, ptrend = 0.57; and for NDMA and EAC were:
HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.40–2.14, ptrend = 0.90. For ESCC, there was a significant association with NDMA
in continuous analyses (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.04–1.71 per 0.1 lg/day increment). A combined
analysis of men and women showed a significant positive association with ESCC (HR T3 vs T1 = 1.76,
95% CI: 1.07–2.90, ptrend = 0.01). Haem iron intake, and thus ENOC because of the high correlation,
was also positively associated with ESCC men (HR T3 vs T1 = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.05–4.75, ptrend = 0.03)
but not in women (HR T3 vs T1 = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.34–1.51, ptrend = 0.40). For other cancer subsites,

no significant associations were seen in men or women in multivariate analyses. These results suggest
that NOCs may influence the risk of ESCC, especially in men, although there are no clear associations
for EAC. Strengths of the study include the large size and long follow-up enabling the investigation of
tumour subtypes. A potential weakness is the single measurement of diet, only at baseline. Nitrite
intake was assessed solely on the intake of processed meat but nitrite content of vegetables and
cheese was considered negligible in comparison with processed meat.
Case–control studies
Ward et al. (2008) conducted a population-based case–control study of adenocarcinoma of the
oesophagus in Nebraska, United States. Cases were white men and women aged 21 years or older,
newly diagnosed between 1988 and 1993, identified from the Nebraska Cancer Registry and confirmed
by histological review. Controls were selected from a previous population-based case–control study of
lymphatic and haematopoietic cancers in Nebraska, and were re-interviewed at the time of this study
(1992–1994). Response rates were between 79% and 88%. Telephone interviews were conducted
with subjects or their proxies for those who were deceased or too ill to participate. Proxy interviews
were conducted for 76% and 61% of oesophagus cancer cases and controls, respectively. Nitrate
concentrations in public drinking water supplies were linked to residential water source histories.
Among those using private wells at the time of the interview, they measured nitrate levels in water
samples from wells. Dietary nitrate and nitrite were estimated from a FFQ. They estimated OR and
95% CI using unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for gender, year of birth, and risk factors for
oesophagus cancer (smoking, alcohol, BMI). Among those who primarily used public water supplies
(84 oesophagus cancer cases, 321 controls), average nitrate levels were not associated with risk
(highest vs lowest quartile: oesophagus OR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.6–3.1, ptrend = 0.519). Increasing intake
of nitrate plus nitrite from animal sources (details NA) was associated significantly with oesophagus
cancer (OR Q4 (> 8.3 mg) vs Q1 (< 3.8) = 2.2, 95% CI 0.9–5.7, ptrend = 0.015) but not with nitrite
from plant sources (median intake 0.52 mg/day). Increasing intake of nitrate from plant sources
(median intake NO3: 116.1 mg/day) was not associated with oesophagus cancer (OR Q4 (> 171.9 mg)
vs Q1 (< 74.9) = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.3–1.8, p-trend = 0.121). The number of cases is small in this study.
Although there was a relatively high response rate, percentage of proxy interviews is high, which could
have led to information bias.
Liao et al. (2013) explored whether Mg levels in drinking water modified the effects of nitrate on
oesophageal cancer mortality. A matched cancer case–control study was used to investigate the
relationship between the risk of death from oesophageal cancer and exposure to nitrate in drinking
water in Taiwan. All oesophageal cancer deaths of Taiwan residents from 2006 through 2010 were
obtained from the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the Taiwan Provincial Department of Health. Controls
were deaths from other causes and were pair-matched to cancer cases by gender, year of birth and
year of death. In total, there were 3,024 cases and 3,024 controls. Information on the levels of nitrate
and Mg in drinking water was collected from Taiwan Water Supply Corporation. The municipality of
residence for cancer cases and controls was presumed to be the source of the subject’s NO3 and Mg
exposure via drinking water. In the analysis, the subjects were categorised into tertiles of NO3
exposure. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate associations, adjusting for age, gender,
marital status and urbanisation level of residence. Relative to individuals whose NO3 exposure level was
≤ 1.68 mg/L, the adjusted OR (95% CI) for oesophageal cancer death was 1.05 (95% CI :0.91–1.19,
ptrend = 0.79) for individuals who resided in municipalities served by drinking water with a NO3 exposure
> 2.92 mg/L. Evidence of an interaction was noted between drinking water NO3 and Mg intake: the OR
for those with highest tertile of nitrate and lowest half of Mg intake was 1.27 (95% CI : 1.03–1.57)
compared to those in the lowest tertile of nitrate and highest half of Mg intake. Although including a large
number of cases and controls, the study lacked information on nitrate intake from food, and the
consumption volume of water was also not known in this study.
Ecological studies
Zhang et al. (2012) investigated, in China, the association between nitrogen compounds in drinking
water with the incidence of ESCC in an ecological study by geographical spatial analysis. The incidence
of ESCC is high in Shexian county, China. The study focuses on three nitrogen compounds in drinking
water, namely nitrate, nitrite and ammonia, all of which are derived mainly from domestic garbage and
agricultural fertiliser. The study surveyed 48 villages in the Shexian area with a total population of
54,716 subjects (661 ESCC cases). Logistic regression analysis was used to detect risk factors for ESCC
incidence. Most areas with high concentrations of nitrate nitrogen in drinking water had a high

incidence of ESCC. Correlation analysis revealed a significant relationship between nitrate concentration
and ESCC (r = 0.38, p = 0.01), but not with nitrite.
Summary
In a previous review, which considered publications until 2006 (IARC, 2010), one case–control
study was described (Rogers et al., 1995) that reported a significantly inverse association between
oesophageal cancer and ingested nitrate. Subsequently, two new cohort studies, two case–control
studies, and one ecological study were published, often on oesophageal cancer subtypes. The cohort
and case–control studies generally used multivariable analyses to adjust for confounders. Two cohort
studies looked into histological subtypes. For ESCC and EAC, no significant associations were found
with total nitrate (food, drinking water) (Keszei et al., 2013), nor with nitrate intake from meat (Cross
et al., 2011). The two case–control studies did not find a significant association with nitrate from food
or drinking water. The ecological study in China (Zhang et al., 2012) reported a statistically significant
positive association between ESCC incidence and nitrate levels in drinking water.
Overall, the Panel noted that the information is still sparse for oesophageal cancer but, based on
the stronger study designs, there was no evidence for an association with ingested nitrate and
oesophageal cancer or its subtypes, oesophageal squamous cell carcinomas and oesophageal
adenocarcinoma (ESCC and EAC).
3.6.8.3. Gastric cancer
Cohort studies
Cross et al. (2011) studied the relationship between intake of meat, meat components, and meat
cooking by-products and risk of gastric cancer subtypes. The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study recruited
men and women, aged 50–71 years, from six states in the United States. At baseline (1995–1996),
participants completed self-administered demographic and lifestyle questionnaires, including a 124-
item FFQ. Approximately 6 months later, cancer-free participants were mailed a risk factor
questionnaire, which elicited detailed information on meat intake and cooking preferences. A total of
566,402 participants returned the baseline questionnaire and 337,074 of these also returned the risk
factor questionnaire. They estimated nitrate and nitrite intake from processed meats using a database
of measured values from 10 types of processed meats (bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, red
and white luncheon meats, red and white cold cuts, ham, hot dogs), which represent 90% of
processed meats consumed in the United States; these meats were also measured for NOCs, although
they were all below the detectable limit. After excluding prevalent cancer cases, and those with
implausible nutrient values, the baseline analytical cohort consisted of 494,979 persons (295,305 men
and 199,674 women), and the risk factor questionnaire cohort consisted of 303,156 persons (176,842
men and 126,314 women). During 10 years of follow-up, they accrued 454 gastric cardia
adenocarcinomas, and 501 gastric non-cardia adenocarcinomas. In the subcohort of participants who
returned the risk factor questionnaire (126,314 females and 176,842 males), there were 255 gastric
cardia cancers and 277 gastric non-cardia cancers. Cox PH modelling was used as analysis technique.
After controlling for age, race, total energy intake, smoking, family history of cancer, family history of
diabetes, BMI, physical activity, alcohol, saturated fat, fruits and vegetables intake, red meat intake
was not associated with gastric (cardia or non-cardia) cancer. The malignancies investigated in this
study were not found to be associated with white or processed meat. Heterocyclic amine intake was
seen to be positively associated with malignancies; when individuals in the high quintile were
compared with the low quintile, an increased risk for cardia cancer (HR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.01–2.07)
was found. No association was found between nitrate or nitrite intake from meat and gastric cancer
subtypes. Comparing highest vs lowest quintile of intake, the results for nitrate from meat and gastric
cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) were: RR Q5 (median 0.298 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1 (0.024) = 0.81, 95%
CI: 0.52–1.25, ptrend = 0.259; and for nitrate and gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma (GNCA) were:
RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.69–1.55, ptrend = 0.578. Comparing highest vs lowest quintile of intake, the
results for nitrite from meat and GCA were: RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47–1.08, ptrend = 0.250; and for
nitrite and GNCA were: RR Q5 (med 0.199 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1 (0.012) = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.63–1.37,
ptrend = 0.615. None of the quintile HR estimates were significantly different from one, nor were any
tests for trend, or continuous analyses. Strengths of the study include the large size enabling the
investigation of tumour subtypes. The study lacked information on nitrate and nitrite intake from other
foods, and nitrate intake from drinking water.

Keszei et al. (2013) studied the relationship between risks of gastric cancer subtypes and intake of
NDMA, ENOC, haem iron, nitrite and nitrate in the Netherlands Cohort Study. This prospective cohort
study started in September 1986; at baseline, 58,279 men and 62,573 women aged 55–69 years were
recruited from 204 municipal population registries throughout the Netherlands. At baseline (1986), a
self-administered questionnaire was completed by study participants on dietary habits and other risk
factors of cancer. The dietary part consisted of a validated 150-item food frequency questionnaire. The
cohort was followed for 16.3 years, and 166 GCA and 497 GNCA cases were analysed along with
4,032 subcohort members in a case–cohort analysis. To calculate intakes, food composition values for
nitrate and nitrite were obtained from analyses conducted by Dutch institutes in the period 1984–1989.
Information about nitrate content in drinking water from all pumping stations in the Netherlands in
1986 was used to determine the nitrate concentration in drinking water for each home address by
postal code, and calculate nitrate intake from water (i.e. water, coffee, tea and soup combined). Nitrite
intake was assessed solely on the intake of processed meat as the nitrite content of vegetables and
cheese was considered negligible in comparison with processed meat. Considered processed meat
items were: all types of sausages, bacon, ham, cold cuts, croquettes, and frankfurters. NDMA values in
food items were initially extracted from published measurements in Dutch foods in the 1970s and
1980s. For food items for which NDMA values were not available from Dutch sources, but nonzero
content was indicated in a comprehensive food composition database of nitrosamines (Jakszyn et al.,
2004a,b), measurements made in food sources from Western or Northern Europe in the 1980s were
used. An index of ENOC was calculated, as previously determined by Jakszyn et al. (2006), based on
the haem iron intake. The correlation between ENOC and haem iron was 0.97. In the sex-specific
statistical analyses, Cox PH modelling was used, controlling for age, smoking, BMI, educational level,
energy intake, vegetable and fruit intake, total alcohol intake; in NDMA-analyses, adjustment was
made for alcoholic beverages excluding beer, because beer was an important source of NDMA. The
estimated mean (SD) values of intake in the subcohort (a random sample of the Netherlands Cohort
Study) were for men and women, respectively: nitrate: 108 (SD 45) and 106 (44) mg/day, nitrite: 0.12
(0.16) and 0.08 (0.12) mg/day, NDMA (median): 0.084 and 0.044 lg/day, ENOC: 102 (25) and 93
(23) lg/day. When comparing men in the highest vs lowest tertile of intake, the results for nitrite and
GCA were: HR T3 (median 0.28 mg/day) vs T1 (0.03) = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.75–1.86, ptrend = 0.34; and
for nitrite and GNCA were: HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.89–1.70, ptrend = 0.20. None of the tertile HR
estimates were significantly different from one, nor were any tests for trend, or continuous analyses.
In nitrite analyses in women, none of the tertile HR estimates were significantly different from one, nor
were any tests for trend, or continuous analyses. For nitrate, in both men and women, none of the
tertile HR estimates were significantly different from one, nor were any tests for trend, or continuous
analyses. For NDMA intake, when comparing men in the highest vs lowest tertile of intake, the results
for NDMA and GCA were: HR T3 (med 0.25 lg/day) vs T1 (0.04) = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.59–1.49,
ptrend = 0.75; and for NDMA and GNCA were: HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.95–1.81, ptrend = 0.09. For GNCA,
HR estimates were significant in continuous analyses: HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01–1.10 per 0.1 lg/day
NDMA increment. In women, when comparing the highest vs lowest tertile of NDMA intake, the results
for GCA were: HR T3 (0.07 lg/day) vs T1 (0.03)= 1.02, 95% CI: 0.33–3.14, ptrend = 0.96; and for
NDMA and GNCA, these were: HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.58–1.42, ptrend = 0.49. For gastric cancer
subsites, no significant associations were seen with haem iron or ENOC in men or women in
multivariate analyses. These results suggest that NOCs may influence the risk of GNCA in men,
although there are no clear associations for GCA. The strengths of the study include the large size and
long follow-up enabling the investigation of tumour subtypes. A potential weakness is the single
measurement of diet, only at baseline. Nitrite intake was assessed solely on the intake of processed
meat, but nitrite content of vegetables and cheese was considered negligible in comparison with
processed meat.
Ward et al. (2008) conducted a population-based case–control study of adenocarcinoma of the
distal stomach in Nebraska, US. Cases were white men and women aged 21 years or older, newly
diagnosed between 1988 and 1993, identified from the Nebraska Cancer Registry and confirmed by
histological review. Controls were selected from a previous population-based case–control study of
lymphatic and haematopoietic cancers in Nebraska, and were re-interviewed at the time of this study
(1992–1994). Response rates were between 79% and 88%. Telephone interviews were conducted
with subjects or their proxies for those who were deceased or too ill to participate. Proxy interviews
were conducted for 80%, and 61% of stomach cancer cases and controls, respectively. Nitrate

concentrations in public drinking water supplies were linked to residential water source histories.
Among those using private wells at the time of the interview, they measured nitrate levels in water
samples from wells. Dietary nitrate and nitrite were estimated from a food-frequency questionnaire.
They estimated ORs and 95% CI using unconditional logistic regression, adjusting for gender, year of
birth, and risk factors for oesophagus cancer (smoking, alcohol, BMI). Among those who primarily
used public water supplies (79 distal stomach cancer cases, 321 controls), average nitrate levels were
not associated with risk (highest vs lowest quartile: stomach OR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.5–2.7,
ptrend = 0.946). They observed the highest ORs for distal stomach cancer among those with higher
water nitrate ingestion and higher intake of processed meat compared with low intakes of both;
however, the test for positive interaction was not significant (p = 0.213). Increasing intake of nitrate
plus nitrite from animal sources (details NA) was associated with elevated ORs for stomach cancer, but
not significantly (OR Q4 (> 8.3 mg) vs Q1 (< 3.8): 1.6, 95% CI: 0.7–3.7, ptrend = 0.352) and not with
nitrite from plant sources (median intake 0.52 mg/day). Increasing intake of nitrate from plant sources
(median intake NO3 = 116.1 mg/day) was not associated with stomach cancer (OR Q4 (> 171.9 mg)
vs Q1 (< 74.9) 1.6, 95% CI: 0.7–3.6, ptrend = 0.266). The number of cases is small in this study.
Although there was a relatively high response rate, the percentage of proxy interviews is high, which
could have led to information bias.
Kim et al. (2007) studied whether the intake of nitrate relative to antioxidant vitamin rather than
absolute intake of nitrate affects the risk of gastric cancer. In a case–control study in Korea using a
84-item FFQ, trained dieticians interviewed 136 gastric cancer cases (1997–98) and an equal number
of hospital controls. Controls were selected from patients who had visited one of the clinics of
orthopaedic surgery, ophthalmology, dermatology, plastic surgery or family medicine by matching sex
and age ( 2 years) in the same hospital. To avoid a biased control selection, they also used
gastrofiberscopy to confirm that the controls had no severe stomach problems. They estimated the
individual daily nitrate intake from foods using the nitrate database reported recently for Korea. As an
index of nitrate intake relative to antioxidant vitamins intake, they calculated the nitrate:antioxidant
vitamin consumption ratio. Unconditional logistic regression was used to calculate ORs and the
corresponding 95% CIs, adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, family history of gastric cancer,
duration of refrigerator use, and H. pylori infection, several foods, such as charcoal grilled beef,
spinach, garlic, mushrooms, and a number of types of kimchi, which had exhibited a significant
association with gastric cancer risk in their previous studies. The median daily nitrate intake from foods
was very high: 458 mg/day in controls. Higher absolute intake of nitrate was not associated with
gastric cancer risk (OR T3 (811 mg) vs T1 (240 mg) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.42–3.06, ptrend = 0.842).
However, the gastric cancer risk increased as the nitrate: antioxidant vitamin consumption ratio
increased, particularly with a higher nitrate:vitamin E ratio and nitrate:folate ratios. It was concluded
that gastric cancer risk was influenced by the intake of nitrate relative to antioxidant vitamins. The
number of cases is small in this study. Response rates among cases and controls were not given, and
so selection bias is not unlikely. Nitrate intake seems to be extremely high, but based on only an
84-item FFQ.
Herna ndez-Ramırez et al. (2009) conducted a case–control study in Mexico on gastric cancer in
relation to the individual and combined consumption of polyphenols and NOC precursors (nitrate and
nitrite). A population-based case–control study was carried out in Mexico City from 2004 to 2005
including 257 histologically confirmed gastric cancer cases and 478 controls, who were at least
20 years old. Cases were recruited in nine of the main tertiary care hospitals in Mexico City, where
60% of the GC cases are diagnosed; response rate was 97.7%. For each case, up to two healthy
controls without a history of cancer, who resided in the same geographical area as the cases, were
selected and matched to the cases by age ( 5 years) and gender; response rate was 94.3%. Intake
of polyphenols, nitrate and nitrite were estimated using a 127-item FFQ. The nitrate and nitrite content
for foods in this study was obtained from several non-Mexican sources (Europe, Korea). ORs and 95%
CIs were estimated using unconditional logistic regression analysis, adjusting for age, gender, energy,
schooling, H. pylori CagA status, chilli consumption, salt consumption, alcohol intake and, in additional
models, vitamin C, vitamin E, fruits and vegetables, and polyphenols. Total nitrate was significantly
inversely associated with gastric cancer risk (OR T3 (> 141.7 mg/day) vs T1 (< 90.4): 0.61, 95% CI:
0.39–0.96, ptrend = 0.035). Total nitrite was borderline significantly associated with gastric cancer risk
(OR T3 (> 1.2 mg/day) vs T1 (< 1.0): 1.52, 95% CI 0.99–2.34, ptrend = 0.052). However, both nitrate
from animal (not specified) sources (OR T3 (> 3.9 mg/day) vs T1 (< 1.7): 1.92, 95% CI 1.23–3.20,
ptrend = 0.004) and nitrite from animal (details NA) sources (OR T3 (> 0.4 mg/day) vs T1 (< 0.2):
1.56, 95% CI: 1.02–2.4, ptrend = 0.030) were positively associated with gastric cancer risk. ORs around

two-old were observed among individuals with both low intake of cinnamic acids, secoisolariciresinol or
coumestrol and high intake of animal-derived nitrate or nitrite, compared to high intake of the
polyphenols and low animal nitrate or nitrite intake, respectively. Results were similar for both the
intestinal and diffuse types of gastric cancer. The response rates among cases and controls are high,
but the study lacked information on nitrate and nitrite in Mexican foods, and lacked information on
nitrate from water, and did not present information on which animal foods the nitrate and nitrite
estimates are based on.
Chiu et al. (2012) explored whether Ca and Mg levels in drinking water modified the effects of
nitrate on gastric cancer mortality. A matched cancer case–control study was used to investigate the
relationship between the risk of death from gastric cancer and exposure to nitrate in drinking water in
Taiwan. All gastric cancer deaths of Taiwan residents from 2006 through 2010 were obtained from the
Bureau of Vital Statistics of the Taiwan Provincial Department of Health. Controls were deaths from
other causes and were pair-matched to cancer cases by gender, year of birth and year of death. In
total, there were 2,832 cases and 2,832 controls. Information on the levels of nitrate (NO3) and Ca
and Mg (water hardness) in drinking water were collected from the Taiwan Water Supply Corporation.
The municipality of residence for cancer cases and controls was presumed to be the source of the
subject’s NO3 and Mg exposure via drinking water. In the analysis, the subjects were categorised into
tertiles of NO3 exposure. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate associations, adjusting
for age, gender, marital status and urbanisation level of residence. Relative to individuals whose NO3
exposure level was < 1.68 mg/L (median), the adjusted OR (95% CI) for gastric cancer death was
1.16 (95% CI: 1.05–1.29) for individuals who resided in municipalities served by drinking water with a
NO3 exposure > 1.68 mg/L. Evidence of an interaction was noted between drinking water NO3 and Ca
and Mg intake: the OR for those with highest half of nitrate and lowest half of Ca intake was 1.70
(95% CI: 1.43–2.03) compared to those in the lowest half of nitrate and highest half of Ca intake
(Pinteraction < 0.05). The OR for those with highest half of nitrate and lowest half of Mg intake was 1.49
(95% CI: 1.24–1.80) compared to those in the lowest half of nitrate and highest half of Mg intake
(Pinteraction < 0.05). Thus, effect of nitrate seems higher in softer drinking water. Although a large
number of cases and controls, the study lacked information on nitrate intake from food, and the
consumption volume of water was also not known in this study.
Ecological studies
No studies available.
Summary
In a previous review, which considered publications until 2006 (IARC, 2010), one cohort study, two
case–control studies and 15 ecological studies were described on nitrate in drinking water and gastric
cancer. There was no clear evidence for an association from these studies. Two cohort studies and
seven case–control studies were described on nitrate from food and stomach cancer risk. None of
these studies found a positive association; one study reported an inverse association.
Subsequently, two new cohort studies, and four case–control studies were published, often on
gastric cancer subtypes. The cohort and case–control studies generally used multivariable analyses to
adjust for confounders. Two cohort studies looked into histological subtypes. For GCA and GNCA, no
significant associations were found with total nitrate (food, drinking water) intake (Keszei et al., 2013;
total 663 cases), nor with nitrate intake from meat (Cross et al., 2011; total 955 cases).
Although one case–control study in the United States found no association between distal stomach
cancer and nitrate in drinking water or food, or nitrite (Ward et al., 2008), a Mexican case–control
study reported significant positive associations with nitrate from animal foods (Hernández-Ramírez,
2009); these foods were not specified and therefore it is difficult to interpret this. In a Korean case–
control study with very high nitrate intakes, no association was found with gastric cancer, although the
risk increased with increasing ratios of nitrate to antioxidant vitamins (Kim et al., 2007). For gastric
cancer death, a positive association with drinking water nitrate levels was reported in Taiwan (Chiu
et al., 2012), but there was little control of confounders, the study had no information on total nitrate
intake, and water consumption volumes are also unknown.
Overall, the Panel concluded based on the stronger study designs that there was no evidence from
cohort studies for a positive association between ingested nitrate and gastric cancer or it subtypes
gastric cardia and non-cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA and GNCA).

3.6.8.4. Colorectal cancer (CRC)

Cohort studies
Cross et al. (2010) conducted a large prospective study on colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and meat
consumption, investigating several underlying mechanisms. The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study
recruited men and women, aged 50–71 years, from six states in the United States. At baseline (1995–
1996), participants completed self-administered demographic and lifestyle questionnaires, including a
124-item FFQ. Approximately 6 months later, cancer-free participants were mailed a risk factor
questionnaire, which elicited detailed information on meat intake and cooking preferences. A total of
566,402 participants returned the baseline questionnaire and 337,074 of these also returned to risk
factor questionnaire. After excluding prevalent cancer cases, and those with implausible nutrient
values, the baseline analytical cohort consisted of 494,979 persons (295,305 men and 199,674
women) and the risk factor questionnaire cohort consisted of 303,156 persons (175,369 men and
125,579 women). The meat and CRC study was limited to the latter group. With the FFQ, meat type
(white/red/processed), meat cooking methods and doneness levels were monitored and recorded.
Nitrate and nitrite intake from processed meats was estimated based on a database of previously
measured content, representing 90% of available processed meats in the United States (bacon, red
meat sausage, poultry sausage, red and white luncheon meats, red and white cold cuts, ham, hot
dogs). A follow-up period of 7.2 years identified 2,719 incident cases of CRC. In Cox PH models,
adjustment was made for gender, education, BMI and smoking, as well as intake of total energy, fibre
and dietary Ca. Risk of CRC was positively related to intake of red meat (HR Q5 vs Q1 = 1.24, 95%
CI: 1.09–1.42, ptrend < 0.001) and processed meat intake (HR Q5 vs Q1 = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.01–1.32,
ptrend = 0.017) but inversely with white meat (HR Q5 vs Q1 = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76–0.97,
ptrend = 0.017). Furthermore, nitrate intake from processed meats had a significant positive association
with CRC (HR Q5 (median 289.2 lg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1 (23.9) = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.02–1.32,
ptrend = 0.001), whereas nitrite from processed meats did not (HR Q5 (median 194.1 lg/1,000 kcal) vs
Q1 (11.9) = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.97–1.25, ptrend = 0.055). Assessment of combined intake of nitrate and
nitrite from processed meat was associated with a higher risk for CRC (1.14, 95% CI: 1–1.3,
p = 0.019), although the data were not shown. Total dietary nitrate intake revealed an inverse
association in the highest quintile (data not shown) of dietary nitrate (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71–0.95,
ptrend = 0.111) but no association for total nitrite (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.92–1.21, ptrend = 0.316) and
CRC.
Ferrucci et al. (2012) investigated the relationship between meat consumption and the risk of
incident distal colon and rectal adenoma in the United States. Among male and female participants in
the screening arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial who
underwent baseline and follow-up sigmoidoscopy (n = 17,072), they identified 1,008 individuals with
incident distal colorectal adenoma. All participants completed a self-administered baseline
questionnaire on demographics, personal and family cancer history, medical history, and lifestyle
habits. Participants in the screening arm also completed a 137-item FFQ on usual intake of foods and
beverages during the past year. Nitrate and nitrite intake from processed meats was calculated using a
database of laboratory measured values of these compounds in 10 types of processed meats
representing 90% of processed meats assessed by a typical FFQ in the United States (bacon, red meat
sausage, poultry sausage, red and white luncheon meats, red and white cold cuts, ham, hot dogs).
They calculated ORs and 95% CIs for associations between meat and meat-related components and
incident distal colorectal adenoma using multivariate logistic regression, controlling for age at baseline,
study centre, gender, ethnicity, education, family history of CRC, BMI, use of non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs, physical activity and smoking status, as well as intakes of alcohol, dietary Ca,
supplemental Ca, dietary fibre, and total energy. They observed suggestive positive associations for
red meat, processed meat, haem iron, and nitrate/nitrite with distal colorectal adenoma. Comparing
the highest intake of nitrate plus nitrite from processed meat compared with the lowest, they observed
a nonsignificant positive association (OR Q4 (median 0.84 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1 (0.06) = 1.22, 95%
CI: 0.94–1.53, ptrend = 0.14). This is one of the few studies on colorectal adenoma, although total
dietary intake of nitrate and nitrite was not evaluated, and the study lacked information on nitrate
from water.
Dellavalle et al., (2014) investigated the association between dietary nitrate and nitrite intake and
risk of CRC in the Shanghai Women’s Health Study, a cohort of 73,118 women ages 40–70 years,
residing in Shanghai. Nitrate, nitrite and other dietary intakes were estimated from a 77-item FFQ
administered at baseline. Over a mean of 11 years of follow-up, they identified 619 CRC cases (383

colon and 236 rectum). HR and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression,
adjusting for age, total energy intake, education, physical activity, dietary vitamin C intake, carotene
and folate. The median daily intakes of dietary nitrate and nitrite were 300.7 mg (interquartile
range = 214.5–412.5 mg) and 1.4 mg (interquartile range = 1.1–1.8 mg), respectively. The majority of
dietary nitrate intake (median 298.6 mg/day) and nitrite intake (median 1.2 mg/day) was from plant
sources. Total nitrate intake was not associated with CRC risk (HR Q5 (median 313.2 mg/day) vs Q1
(98.7) = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.73–1.59, ptrend = 0.39). Also, total nitrite intake was not associated with CRC
risk (HR Q5 (median 1.23 mg/day) vs Q1 (0.56) = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.77–1.42, ptrend = 0.78). Among
women with vitamin C intake below the median (83.9 mg/day), and hence a higher potential exposure
to NOCs, the risk of CRC increased with increasing quintiles of nitrate intake (HR Q5 vs Q1 = 2.45,
95% CI: 1.15–5.18, ptrend = 0.02). There was no association with nitrate among women with a higher
vitamin C intake (HR Q5 vs Q1 = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.44–1.96, ptrend = 0.69). They found no association
between nitrite intake and risk of CRC overall or by intake level of vitamin C. The findings suggest that
a high dietary nitrate intake among subgroups expected to have higher exposure to endogenously
formed NOCs increases risk of CRC. This Chinese population seems to be exposed to much higher
nitrate intake levels than in Europe or North America. Nitrate intake from drinking water sources was
not considered in their assessment of exposure because they determined that exposures from tap
water in Shanghai were low.
Yang et al. (2007) investigated the relationship between nitrate in the public water supply and
colon cancer mortality in a case–control study. Data on all deaths of Taiwan residents between 1999
and 2003 was provided by the provincial health department statistics bureau. The case group
consisted of all eligible colon cancer deaths occurring in individuals between 50 and 69 years of age.
In total, 2,234 cases were included; of the 2,234 cases, 1,310 were males and 924 were females. The
control group consisted of all other deaths, excluding those deaths that were associated with
gastrointestinal disease, head and neck cancer, lung, bladder and NHL. Controls were pair-matched to
the cases by gender, year of birth and year of death. Detailed demographic information and residential
district were recorded. Information on the levels of nitrate (NO3) in drinking water was collected from
the Taiwan Water Supply Corporation. The municipality of residence for colon cancer cases and
controls was presumed to be the source of the subject’s NO3 exposure via drinking water. Controls had
a mean NO3 exposure of 1.95 mg/L (SD 1.95). In the analysis, the subjects were categorised into
tertiles of NO3 exposure. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate associations, adjusting
for age, gender, Ca levels in drinking water and urbanisation level of residence. Relative to individuals
whose NO3 exposure level was ≤ 0.97 mg/L (median 0), the adjusted OR (95% CI) for colon cancer
death was 0.98 (0.83–1.16, ptrend = 0.22) for individuals who resided in municipalities served by
drinking water with a NO3 exposure > 2.13 mg/L (median 3.19, highest tertile). However, the study
lacked information on nitrate intake from food, and the consumption volume of water was also not
known.
Ward et al. (2007a) studied the associations of processed meat intake and associated compounds
and risk of colorectal adenoma. They conducted a case–control study of 146 cases of colorectal
adenoma, diagnosed at sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, and 228 polyp-free controls in Maryland.
Response rates were 84% for cases and 74% for controls. Using unconditional logistic regression
(adjusting for age, gender, pack-years of smoking and total caloric intake), they calculated ORs and
found a positive association with processed meat (bacon, breakfast sausage, hot dogs/other sausage,
ham steaks/pork chops, ham, bologna, salami and other luncheon meats and liverwurst) intake (OR
Q4 vs Q1 = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0–4.0, no ptrend). They estimated nitrate and nitrite intake from meat using
published data from the literature as well as from actual measurements of meats analysed recently. No
significant associations were found for nitrite from meats (OR Q4 (> 0.16 mg/day) vs Q1
(< 0.02) = 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9–3.2, no ptrend) but, for nitrite plus nitrate from meats, it reached
significance (OR Q4 (> 0.48 mg/day) vs Q1 (< 0.09) = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0–3.9, no ptrend). Additional
adjustment for the heterocyclic amine (HCA), 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQx)
attenuated the association (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.8–3.2) but other HCA and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) had minimal effect. Higher CYP2A6 activity was not associated with risk and
there was no evidence of an interaction of CYP2A6 activity with nitrate and nitrite intake. The results
suggest that nitrite and nitrate intake from processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal
adenoma after accounting for HCA and PAH. Response rates for cases and controls were relatively
high, reducing the likelihood of selection bias. However, retrospective information was used for dietary

intake. The study lacked information on total nitrate and nitrite intake from food, and the consumption
volume of water was also not known.
Kuo et al. (2007) investigated the relationship between nitrate in the public water supply and risk
of death due to rectal cancer in a case–control study. Data on all deaths of Taiwan residents between
1999 and 2003 was provided by the provincial health department statistics bureau. The case group
consisted of all eligible rectal cancer deaths occurring in individuals between 50 and 69 years of age.
In total, 1,118 cases were included (456 females and 662 males). The control group consisted of all
other deaths, excluding those deaths that were associated with gastrointestinal disease, head and
neck cancer, lung, bladder and NHL. Controls were pair-matched to the cases by gender, year of birth,
and year of death. Detailed demographic information and residential district were recorded.
Information on the levels of nitrate (NO3) in drinking water was collected from the Taiwan Water
Supply Corporation. The municipality of residence for CBT cases and controls was presumed to be the
source of the subject’s NO3 exposure via drinking water. In the analysis, the subjects were categorised
into tertiles of NO3 exposure. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate associations,
adjusting for age, gender, Ca levels in drinking water and urbanisation level of residence. Relative to
individuals whose NO3 exposure level was ≤ 0.80 mg/L (median 0), the adjusted OR (95% CI) for
rectal cancer death was 1.36 (1.08–1.70, ptrend = 0.02) for individuals who resided in municipalities
served by drinking water with a NO3 exposure > 2.13 mg/L (median 3.19, highest tertile). However,
the study lacked information on nitrate intake from food, and the consumption volume of water was
also not known.
McElroy et al. (2008) investigated the association between nitrate exposure from drinking water
and CRC risk in a population-based case–control study of 475 women aged 22–74 years with CRC, and
1,447 community controls (source: list of motor vehicle drivers and Medicare beneficiaries) living in
rural Wisconsin, United States. Response rates among cases were 80% and 85% among controls.
Drinking water nitrate exposure levels were interpolated to subjects’ residences based on
measurements that had taken place as part of a separate water quality survey in 1994. Information on
selected risk factors for CRC was collected in a structured telephone interview. Logistic regression
models were used to estimate the risk of CRC in the study, after adjusting for age, family history of
CRC, CRC screening, smoking status and interview period. In the statistical analysis, there was no
significant positive association between overall CRC and nitrate concentration in water: OR highest
(> 44.3 mg/L) vs lowest (< 2.21 mg/L) category was 1.57 (95% CI: 0.97–2.52, no ptrend). However,
for proximal colon cancer, this association was significant (OR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.42–5.38, no ptrend).
No significant association was observed for distal colon (OR = 1.23) or rectal cancer risk (OR = 1.26).
A weakness of the study is the limited control for confounders; dietary nitrate or nitrite was not
considered, and the consumption volume of water was also not known.
Chiu et al. (2010) explored whether Mg levels in drinking water modify the effects of nitrate on
colon cancer mortality. A matched case–control study was used to investigate the relationship between
the risk of death from colon cancer and exposure to nitrate in drinking water in Taiwan. All colon
cancer deaths (n = 3,707) of Taiwan residents from 2003 to 2007 were obtained from the Bureau of
Vital Statistics of the Taiwan Provincial Department of Health. Controls (n = 3,707) were deaths from
non-gastrointestinal diseases, and were pair-matched to the cases by gender, year of birth and year of
death. Information on the levels of nitrate (NO3) and Mg in drinking water was collected from the
Taiwan Water Supply Corporation. The municipality of residence for cases and controls was assumed
to be the source of the subject’s NO3 and Mg exposure via drinking water. In the analysis, the subjects
were categorised into three categories of NO3 exposure (bottom two quartiles combined (low); 3rd
quartile (medium); 4th quartile (high). Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate
associations, adjusting for age, gender, marital status and urbanisation level of residence. Relative to
individuals whose NO3 exposure level was < 1.67 mg/L, the adjusted OR (95% CI) for colon cancer
death was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.04–1.30) for individuals who resided in municipalities served by drinking
water with a NO3 exposure > 2.67 mg/L. There was a suggestion of interaction between drinking
water nitrate and Mg intake, in that individuals with the highest NO3 exposure and low Mg intake from
drinking water had a 1.47-fold increased risk (95% CI: 1.21–1.47) of colon cancer, whereas those with
the highest NO3 exposure whose drinking water Mg intake was above the median had no statistically
significant increased risk (OR = 1.04). Although the study has a large number of cases and controls,
the study lacked information on nitrate intake from food, and the consumption volume of water was
also not known.
Miller et al. (2013) studied associations between meat-related compounds and CRC risk by subsite
in a population-based case–control study in Pennsylvania. All newly diagnosed cases, identified within

15 months of diagnosis, with histologically confirmed colon or rectal cancers were identified between
June 2007 and May 2011 from the Pennsylvania State Cancer Registry. Controls residing in the same
19 county region were identified by random digit dialling. Of those contacted, 57% of eligible cases
and 51% of eligible controls participated in the study. Participants (989 cases and 1,033 healthy
controls) completed a 137-item FFQ with a meat-specific module. Within this module, the processed
red meat category included bacon, sausage, cold cuts (ham, bologna, salami, pepperoni, beef
luncheon meat, dried or chipped beef), beef jerky, corned beef, hot dogs, ham, and processed meat
added to mixed dishes such as pizza. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations
between meat variables and CRC, adjusting for age, sex, total energy intake, BMI, fruit and vegetable
intake, and past regular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Among other compounds (meat
mutagens), significant positive associations were observed for the intake of nitrites plus nitrate and
proximal colon cancer (OR Q5 (> 496.6 lg/kcal) vs Q1 (< 114.6) = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.06–2.34,
ptrend = 0.023). For CRC, this was not significant (OR Q5 vs Q1 = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.87–1.61,
ptrend = 0.189), nor for total colon, rectal and distal rectal cancer. The response rates among case and
controls were low, total dietary intake of nitrate and nitrite was not evaluated, the study lacked
information on nitrate from water, and no separate data on nitrate and nitrite are presented.
Retrospective information was used for dietary intake, increasing the likelihood of recall bias.
Zhu et al. (2014) examined the association between nitrate, nitrite and NOC intake, and CRC risk
and possible effect modification by vitamins C and E and protein in a case–control study carried out in
Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario, Canada. Cases (identified from familial CRC registries in
Newfoundland and Ontario) were diagnosed from 1999 to 2003 and were aged 20–74 years. Controls
consisted of a random sample of each provincial population aged between 20 and 74 years who were
selected using random digit dialling. Controls were frequency-matched with cases on sex and 5-year
age strata. The overall response rates for the study were 65.0% for cases and 53.5% for controls. A
total of 1,760 cases with pathologically confirmed adenocarcinoma and 2,481 population controls were
asked to complete a 170-item self-administered FFQ to evaluate their dietary intakes 1 year before
diagnosis (for cases) or interview (for controls). Median daily intake (among controls) was 124.8 mg for
nitrate, 1.12 mg for nitrite and 0.20 lg for NDMA. Adjusted OR and 95% CI were calculated across the
quintiles of nitrate, nitrite and NDMA intake and relevant food items using unconditional logistic
regression. Multivariate adjustment was made for age, sex, total energy intake, BMI, cigarette smoking,
alcohol consumption, physical activity, education attainment, household income, reported colon
screening procedure, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, multivitamin supplement use, folate
supplement use and province of residence. NDMA intake was found to be associated with a higher risk
of CRC (OR Q5 (median 2.29 lg/day) vs Q1 (0.03) = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.03–1.96, ptrend = 0.005),
specifically for rectal carcinoma (OR Q5 vs Q1 = 1.61, 95% CI 1.11–2.35, ptrend = 0.01). Nitrate intake
was not associated with CRC (OR Q5 (median 264.14 mg/day) vs Q1 (56.94) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.68–1.16,
ptrend = 0.43), nor was nitrite (OR Q5 (median 1.92 mg/day) vs Q1 (0.65) = 1.09, 95% CI 0.77–1.54,
ptrend = 0.66), or with subsites. There was evidence of effect modification between dietary vitamin E
and NDMA. Individuals with high NDMA and low vitamin E intakes had a significantly higher risk
compared to those with both low NDMA and low vitamin E intakes (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 1.43–6.51,
Pinteraction = 0.017). There was no interaction with vitamin C. The present results support the
hypothesis that NOC intake may be positively associated with CRC risk in humans. Vitamin E, which
inhibits nitrosation, could modify the effect of NDMA on CRC risk. The response rates among controls
were low, the study lacked information on nitrate from water. Retrospective information was used for
dietary intake, increasing the likelihood of recall bias.
Summary
In a previous review, which considered publications until 2006 (IARC, 2010), two cohort studies
(Knekt et al., 1999; Weyer et al., 2001) and one case–control study (de Roos et al., 2003) on nitrate
from diet and drinking-water were described. No association was found with dietary or drinking water
nitrate in the Finnish and US cohort studies, or with dietary nitrate in the US case–control study,
whereas, in the case–control study, a positive association with average nitrate levels in drinking water
was only found among those with relatively low vitamin C intake.
Subsequently, three new cohort studies and seven case–control studies were published on
colorectal carcinoma or adenoma. The cohort and case–control studies generally used multivariable
analyses to adjust for confounders. One US cohort study (Cross et al., 2010) found that total dietary
nitrate intake was significantly inversely associated with CRC risk. Nitrate from processed meats was
significantly positively associated with CRC risk. In a cohort study among women from China, total

nitrate intake was not associated with CRC risk (Dellavalle et al., 2014). Among those with vitamin C
intake below the median, there was a significant positive association between nitrate intake and CRC.
However, it must be noted that the nitrate intake in the Chinese cohort was much higher than seen in
Western cohorts: a median of around 300 mg/day in China vs values of around 100 and lower in
European and American cohorts. In a US cohort study on risk of colorectal adenoma, no association
was found with nitrate plus nitrite from processed meat (Ferrucci et al., 2012).
For total dietary nitrate, no association with CRC risk was seen in a case–control study (Zhu et al.,
2014). One case–control study reported a statistically significant positive association between proximal
colon cancer and nitrate plus nitrite from meats but not for other subsites; however, the response
rates were low (Miller et al., 2013). One case–control study reported a significant positive association
between colorectal adenoma and nitrate plus nitrite from meats but not for nitrite from meats (Ward
et al., 2007a). Regarding drinking water nitrate levels, three case–control studies on CRC deaths were
reported from Taiwan; for colon cancer death, one found no association (Yang et al., 2007), whereas
another reported a statistically significant positive association (Chiu et al., 2010); for rectal cancer
death, a significant positive association with drinking water nitrate was found (Kuo et al., 2007).
However, these studies have no information on total nitrate intake, and water consumption volumes
are also unknown. In a US case–control study on drinking water nitrate levels with limited control for
confounders, a significant positive association was found with proximal colon cancer, but not with
rectum cancer or CRC overall (McElroy et al., 2008). Dietary nitrate was not measured.
Overall, the Panel concluded based on the cohort studies that: there was no evidence for a positive
association between dietary nitrate and colorectal cancer (CRC) or its subtypes; there was insufficient
evidence that ingested nitrate from processed meat is associated with increased risk of CRC or its
subtypes based only on one large cohort study; there was insufficient evidence for an association
between drinking water nitrate and CRC.
3.6.8.5. Liver cancer
Cohort studies
Freedman et al. (2010) investigated the relationship between meat and associated exposures with
hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence (n = 338) in 495,006 men and women of the NIH-AARP Diet
and Health Study (295,332 men and 199,674 women). At baseline (1995 to 1996), participants
completed self-administered demographic and lifestyle questionnaires, including a 124-item FFQ.
Approximately 6 months later, cancer-free participants were mailed a risk factor questionnaire that
elicited detailed information on meat intake and cooking preferences. A total of 566,402 participants
returned the baseline questionnaire and 337,074 of these also returned the risk factor questionnaire.
Follow-up ended on 31 December 2003). They estimated nitrate and nitrite intake from processed
meats using a database of measured values from 10 types of processed meats, which represent 90%
of processed meats consumed in the United States. HRs and 95% CIs for the fifth (Q5) vs the first
(Q1) quintile were estimated from multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models,
adjusting for age, sex, total energy, BMI, education, ethnicity, alcohol, cigarette smoking, diabetes,
physical activity, and fruit and vegetable intake. They reported inverse associations between white
meat and risk of HCC (HR Q5 vs Q1 = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36–0.77, ptrend < 0.001). Red meat was
associated with a higher risk of HCC (HR Q5 vs Q1 = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.16–2.61, ptrend = 0.024). Nitrate
intake from meat was not associated with risk of HCC (HR Q5 (> 0.22 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1
(< 0.05 mg/1,000 kcal) = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.67–1.84, ptrend = 0.81), nor was nitrite from meat (HR Q5
(> 0.14 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1 (< 0.02) = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.55–1.71, ptrend = 0.15). Strengths of the
study include the large size enabling the investigation of liver cancer as one of the very few cohorts.
The study lacked information on nitrate and nitrite intake from other foods, and nitrate intake from
drinking water.
Summary
One cohort study has investigated the association between intake of nitrate and nitrite from
processed meats and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (Freedman et al., 2010). No significant
associations were seen for both nitrate and nitrite in this large study with 338 HCC cases. The study
lacked information on nitrate and nitrite intake from other foods, and nitrate intake from drinking
water; thus, no definitive conclusions can be drawn because of lack of data. Overall, the
Panel concluded that there was no evidence for an association between ingested nitrate and liver
cancer, but there are insufficient data to draw conclusions.

3.6.8.6. Pancreatic cancer

Cohort studies
Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al. (2011), investigated dietary exposure to nitrate and nitrite in relation to the
risk of pancreatic cancer in a prospective cohort study (NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study). Participants
with no previous diagnosis of cancer (303,156), aged 50–71 years, completed a 124-item food
frequency. In addition to the main questionnaire, after 6 months, a risk factor questionnaire, which
elicited information on intake of meat, meat products and food rich in vitamin C, was mailed to
participants. After a follow-up of 10 years, 1,728 incidence cases were identified via linkage to state
cancer registries. The mean dietary nitrate intake in the cohort was 88 mg/day (SD 65), and the mean
nitrite intake was 1.2 mg/day (SD 0.6). After controlling for age, race, total energy intake, smoking,
family history of cancer, family history of diabetes, BMI, saturated fat, folate and vitamin C, no
association was found for total intake of nitrate (Q5 median value = 94.8 mg/1,000 kcal vs Q1 median
value = 19.3 mg/1,000 kcal), HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.85–1.20, ptrend = 0.58) and nitrite (Q5 median
value = 0.90 mg/1,000 kcal vs Q1 median value = 0.45 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78–1.08,
ptrend = 0.31) and pancreatic cancer in both man and women. However, among men, an increased
risk was observed for nitrate plus nitrite intake from processed meat sources (Q5 median
value = 1.43 mg/1,000 kcal vs Q1 median value = 0.11 mg/1,000 kcal; HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.95–1.47,
ptrend = 0.11), although it did not reach statistical significance. Because vitamins C and E and red
meat intake affect endogenous formation of NOCs, a stratified analysis by vitamin C intake was
conducted in men in the highest quintile of nitrate and nitrite from processed meat who also had a low
vitamin C intake and had a higher risk of pancreatic cancer compared to those with a higher vitamin C
intake, although these associations were not statistically significant (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.92–1.80)
and (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.83–1.51). When the analysis was conducted separately for dietary sources,
no increased risk was observed for plant (Q5 median value = 0.68 vs Q1 median value 0.25
mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76–1.09, ptrend = 0.32) and animal sources (Q5 median
value = 0.36 vs Q1 median value 0.10 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.82–1.13, ptrend = 0.41).
In a sensitivity analyses, participants who resided in areas with high nitrate levels in drinking water
(≥ 10 mg/L) were excluded from the analysis (2.4% of the study population) and the results did not
changed. Regarding nitrate plus nitrite intake during adolescence in man, an increased risk was found
for the quintile 2 (median value = 0.65 mg/1,000 kcal) (HR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10–1.76), quintile 3
(HR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.97–1.60), quintile 4 (HR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.13–1.87) quintile 5 (Q5 = 3.33
mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.32, 95% CI: 0.99–1.76, ptrend = 0.11) vs Q1 (0.21 mg/1,000 kcal). The
strength of the study is the good control for confounding factors and the subdivision of nitrate and
nitrites by sources (animal and plants) and the limitations of the study are the high levels of missing
information for meat exposure during adolescence leading to information bias (61%). Out of the 1,728
pancreatic cases identified, only 658 men out of 1,055 cases and 397 women out of 625 cases
completed a risk factor questionnaire. This could be another limitation of the study.
Ecological
Yang et al. (2009) conducted an ecological study to investigate the relationship between nitrate
levels in drinking water and risk of pancreatic cancer in Taiwan. The case group consisted of all eligible
pancreatic cancer deaths occurring in individuals between 50 and 69 years of age (mean age
61.2 years) (n = 2,412). The control group consisted of all other deaths excluding those deaths
attributed to by malignant neoplasms of stomach, bladder, colon and rectum, lung, oesophagus, head
and neck and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), and matched to cases by sex, year of birth and year of
death (n = 2412). Information on the levels of NO3N in each municipality’s treated drinking-water
supply was obtained from the Taiwan Water Supply Corporation. The mean nitrate concentration in the
drinking water of the pancreatic cancer cases was 0.44 and 0.43 mg/L among the controls. No
association was found for levels of nitrate exposure (≥ 0.48 mg/L) and pancreatic cancer death
(OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.96–1.27), after adjusting for age, sex and urbanisation. The limitation of the
study is the study design (ecological), which does not allow the assessment of whether there was a
true exposure–outcome relationship because there was no individual exposure data (e.g. family history
of cancer, dietary nitrate intake). Death by diabetes was included in the control series that might
flatten risk estimates towards the null. Moreover, death as an outcome has many limitations (e.g.
access to medical care).

Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), one cohort study (Weyer et al., 2001) and three case–control
studies (Howe et al., 1990; Baghurst et al., 1991; Coss et al., 2004) were described regarding the
association between nitrate intake and pancreatic cancer. No association was reported between dietary
intake of nitrate and pancreatic cancer in all four studies. Subsequently, a cohort study conducted in
the USA (Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al., 2011) and an ecological study conducted in Taiwan (Yang et al.,
2009) were published. No association was found between pancreatic cancer and ingested nitrate from
both diet and drinking water. Overall, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence for an
association between ingested nitrate and pancreatic cancer.
3.6.8.7. Lung cancer
No studies on nitrate and lung cancer available.
Summary
One cohort study has investigated the association between intake of nitrate from food and drinking
water and the risk of lung cancer (Weyer et al., 2001) and found no association, as was described in
the IARC 2010 review. Subsequently, no new studies have been reported.
Overall, the Panel considered that, for lung cancer, information is still too sparse to draw
meaningful conclusions, although there was no evidence that nitrate intake is associated with
increased risk of lung cancer.
3.6.8.8. Breast cancer
Cohort studies
Inoue-Choi et al. (2012) evaluated in a prospective cohort study (22 years) the interaction of
dietary and water nitrate intake with total folate intake on breast cancer risk in the Iowa Women’s
Health Study. A self-administered FFQ (127 items) and a health and lifestyle questionnaire were
completed by 34,388 post-menopausal women (mean age 61.6 years, SD 4.2 years). Nitrate intake
from public water was assessed using a historical database on Iowa municipal water supplies. In total,
2,875 incident breast cancers were identified by record linkage with the State Health Cancer Registry
of Iowa. The average dietary intakes of nitrate and nitrite were 123.5 and 1.2 mg/day, respectively. No
increased risk was found for nitrate (Q5 ≥ 165.6 mg/day vs ≤ 65.2 mg/day; HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74–
1.01, ptrend =0.31) or nitrite intake (Q5 ≥ 1.5 mg/day vs ≤ 0.8 mg/day; HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.86–
1.29, ptrend = 0.28) and cancer risk. A protective effect was found for nitrate-folate ratio (Q5
≥ 0.47 mg/day vs ≤ 0.17 mg/day, HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74–1.03; ptrend = 0.04) and cancer risk, after
controlling for age, total energy intake, education, BMI, WHR, smoking, physical activity, alcohol
intake, family history of breast cancer, age of menopause, age at first live birth, oestrogen use, total
folate intake (except for nitrate:folate ratio), vitamin C, E, flavonoids, intake of cruciferous and red
meat. A statistical interaction was seen between water nitrate intake and total folate intake (p = 0.05).
Among women with adequate or higher total folate intake (≥ 400 lg/day), breast cancer risk was
statistically significantly increased in women using public water with the highest quintile of nitrate (Q5
≥ 33.5 mg/2 L vs Q1 ≤ 2.8 mg/day, HR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.05–1.87, ptrend = 0.04) and in those using
private wells (HR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.05–1.82) compared to those using public water with the lowest
quintile of water nitrate intake; whereas, such an association was not observed among women with
low total folate intake (< 400 lg/day). A major strength of this study is the large sample size and the
number of confounding factors taken into account in the analysis. Limitations are the lack of data
regarding individual water consumption and the fact that total folate was given by the summed of diet
plus vitamins supplements (70% of people used dietary supplementation).
Case–control
Yang et al. (2010) conducted a hospital case–control study to investigate the relationship between
dietary intake of nitrate relative to antioxidant vitamins is associated with breast cancer in women from
South Korea. Cases (n = 362) were histologically confirmed and matched to controls (n = 362) by age
and menopausal status. Health questionnaires on the family history of cancer, menstrual and
reproductive history, exercise, smoking and drinking habits were filled in by all participating patients
aged 30–65 years, mean age 46.1 years (SD 8.5) among cases and 46.0 years (SD 8.6) among

controls. In addition, a 121-item quantitative FFQ was used by trained interviewers to assess nutrient
intake over the past 12 months. Daily nitrate intake was thereafter estimated by using available nitrate
databases of a total of 137 items commonly consumed in Korea, based on the National Survey Report.
The mean intakes of nitrate for cases and controls were 421 and 424 mg/day, respectively. In the
multivariable analysis, an increased risk was found for high dietary intake of nitrate (Q5 ≥ 578 vs
Q1 ≤ 234.2 mg/day, OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.88–2.70, ptrend = 0.265), although with wide CIs. High ratio
between nitrate and folate intakes (Q5 ≥ 1.79 vs Q1≤ 1.0, OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.16–3.54,
ptrend = 0.052) was associated with twice the risk of breast cancer, after controlling for education,
parity, oral contraceptive use, multivitamin supplement use, number of children, breast feeding,
menopause, soy protein, mushroom and dietary fat. The limitation of the study is the lack of data on
nitrate from different dietary sources (animal, plants) and water sources and the low response rate of
controls (60%) in comparison with cases (85%). The strength of the study is the good control for
confounding factors.
Brody et al. (2006) conducted a study on 824 Cape Cod (Massachusetts) women diagnosed with
breast cancer in 1988–1995 and 745 controls who lived in homes served by public drinking water
supplies and never lived in a home served by a Cape Cod private well. Women who were permanent
residents of Cape Cod for at least 6 months at the time of an invasive breast cancer diagnosis in
1988–1995 and whose diagnosis was reported to the MCR were eligible cases. Controls were selected
from women who were permanent residents of Cape Cod for at least 6 months in 1988–1995. They
were frequency matched to cases on date of birth in decades and vital status. Residential nitrate
exposure was assessed by using nitrate nitrogen (nitrate-N) levels measured in public wells and
pumping volumes for the wells. After controlling for diagnosis/reference year, age at diagnosis/
reference year, birth decade, study, vital status, previous breast cancer diagnosis, age at first birth,
family history of breast cancer and education, an increased risk, although not statistically significant,
was found between breast cancer and average annual excess nitrate-N in drinking water (≥ 1.2 vs
0.3 mg/L, OR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.5–3.1). No increased risk was observed for the number of years
exposed to nitrate-N over 1 mg/L (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.5–1.5 for ≥ 8 vs 0 years). The main
limitations of the study are as following: the exposure (individual volume of water consumption), the
lack of data on dietary intake of nitrate and the low response rate of cases (74%) and controls (68%).
Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), one cohort study (Weyer et al., 2001) conducted in Iowa was
evaluated concerning breast cancer. No association between high levels of nitrate in both drinking
water and nitrate from dietary intake was observed. After the IARC evaluation, one cohort study
(Inoue-Choi et al., 2012) and two case–control studies (Brody et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2010) were
published. In the cohort study conducted by Inoue-Choi et al. (2012), no association was found for
breast cancer and total nitrate intake. However, among women with adequate or high folate intake, a
positive association was found for high nitrate levels and breast cancer (Inoue-Choi et al., 2012). In
both case–control studies, a non-statistically significant positive association was found between dietary
nitrate (Yang et al., 2010) and nitrate from drinking water and breast cancer (Brody et al., 2006).
Overall, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence for an association between dietary nitrate
and breast cancer or nitrate in drinking water and breast cancer.
3.6.8.9. Ovarian cancer
Cohort studies
Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al. (2012b) conducted a large US cohort study (NIH-AARP Diet and Health
Study) among 617,119 women aged 50–71 years to investigate dietary nitrate and nitrite and epithelial
ovarian cancer. After exclusions, 151,316 subjects were included in the study. A total of 709 epithelial
ovarian cases cancer were identified through Cancer Registries during a 10-year follow-up. A baseline
questionnaire and a FFQ that included 124 food items were mailed to all participants. At baseline, the
mean dietary intake of nitrate and nitrite was 91.9 mg/day (SD 68.6) and 1.1 mg/day (SD 0.5),
respectively. Women in the highest intake quintile of dietary nitrate had an increased risk (Q5
median = 126.5 vs Q1 median = 22.2 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01–1.68, ptrend = 0.06) of
epithelial ovarian cancer, after controlling for age, education, total energy intake, cigarette smoking
status, race, family history of cancer, BMI, parity, menopausal status, age at menarche and vitamin C
intake. Although total nitrite intake was not associated with risk (Q5 median = 0.93 vs 0.47
mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 1.50–1.18, ptrend = 0.31), a positive association between high

nitrite from animal sources and epithelial ovarian cancer risk (Q5 median = 0.33 vs 0.09
mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.05–1.69, ptrend = 0.02) was observed. In contrast, neither nitrite
from plants (Q5 median = 0.73 vs 0.27 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.81–1.32, ptrend = 0.93),
nor processed meat sources (Q5 median = 0.14 vs Q1 median = 0.01 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.97, 95%
CI: 0.76–1.23, ptrend = 0.63) was associated with ovarian cancer risk. Residential nitrate estimates for
drinking water were also taken into account in the analysis but the results did not change. The
strength of the study is its prospective design and control of many possible confounders. The limitation
of the study is the lack of control for family history of ovarian cancer.
Inoue-Choi et al. (2015) conducted a study to evaluate the association between nitrate and nitrite
intake and postmenopausal ovarian cancer risk in the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Among 28,555
postmenopausal women and after 14 years of follow-up, 315 epithelial ovarian cancers were identified
through the State Health Registry. However, only 190 cases were included in the water nitrate analysis
(145 using public water supplies and 45 using private wells). Dietary intake at baseline was assessed
using a food frequency questionnaire (126 food items). Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and total
trihalomethane levels for Iowa public water utilities were linked to residences and average levels were
computed based on each woman’s duration at the residence. Median NO3-N levels for women drinking
from public water supplies were 1.08 mg/L (range 0.01–25.34 mg/L). Mean dietary nitrate and nitrite
intake was 123.3 mg/day (Sd 83.4) and 1.2 mg/day (SD 0.5), respectively. After adjusting for age,
BMI, family history of ovarian cancer, number of live births, age at menarche, age at menopause, age
at first live, oral contraceptive use, oestrogen use and history of unilateral oophorectomy and total
trihalomethane levels, an increased risk was found for ovarian cancer among women with high
exposure of NO3-N (≥ 2.98 vs ≤ 0.472 mg/L, HR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.22–3.38, ptrend = 0.003) from
public drinking water. The risk associated with high nitrate levels was lower among women with high
vitamin C intake. Higher dietary nitrate intake was associated with lower ovarian cancer risk
(Q5 ≥ 165.54 vs Q1 ≤ 65.43 mg/day, HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40–0.95, ptrend = 0.02), whereas dietary
nitrite intake was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (Q5 ≥ 1.537 vs Q1 ≤ 0.80 mg/day,
HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.58–1.84, ptrend = 0.50). However, an increased risk, although not statistically
significant, was found for high nitrite intake from processed meats (Q5 ≥ 0.2 vs Q1 = 0 mg/day,
HR = 1.65, 95% CI: 0.93–2.94, ptrend = 0.04). The strength of the study is its prospective design and
control of many possible confounders. The limitation of the study is the small number of cancer cases
included in the analysis (after exclusions) that could have led to selection bias.
Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), one cohort study on ovarian cancer and nitrate intake was
described. No association was observed for levels of nitrate from dietary intake, but a non-statistically
significant positive association was observed for nitrate in drinking water. After the IARC evaluation,
two cohort studies in USA were conducted to investigate dietary nitrate and ovarian cancer
(Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al., 2012b; Inoue-Choi et al., 2015). In one of the cohort studies, a statistically
significant positive association was found between dietary nitrate intake and ovarian cancer
(Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al., 2012a,b), whereas, in the other one, a negative association was found
(Inoue-Choi et al., 2014).
Overall, information is still sparse and results contradictory. The Panel concluded that there was
insufficient evidence for an association between nitrate and ovarian cancer.
3.6.8.10. Prostate cancer
Cohort studies
Sinha et al. (2009) investigated the relationship between meat consumption, PAHs, haem iron,
nitrite, nitrate and the risk of prostate cancer in a cohort of 175,343 US men aged 50–71 years. Self-
administrated risk factors questionnaires, including a FFQ (124-item) and information on cooking
methods used for different meats, were filled by participants mailed to 196,851 subjects. After 9 years
of follow-up, 10,313 incident cases and 419 fatal cases of prostate cancer were identified through
cancer registries. Levels of HCAs (2-amino-3,4,8 trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (DiMeIQx), MeIQx
and 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo [4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP)), levels of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) and
mutagenic activity (a measure of total mutagenic potential incorporating all meat-related mutagens)
were measured from meats with known cooking details. After adjusting for age, total energy intake,
ethnicity, education, marital status, family history of prostate cancer, undergoing prostate-specific
antigen testing in the past 3 years, history of diabetes, BMI, smoking history, physical activity, alcohol,

Ca, tomatoes, a-linolenic acid, vitamin E, zinc and selenium, elevated risks were associated with red
meat (Q5 median = 66.1 g/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04–1.21, ptrend = 0.002) and processed
meat (Q5 median = 24.6 g/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00–1.14, ptrend = 0.040) and haem iron
(Q5 median = 336.8 lg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.17, ptrend = 0.003). No increased risk
were found for nitrite (Q5 median 0.215 vs Q1 median 0.017 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.05, 95% CI:
0.99–1.12, ptrend = 0.14) and nitrate from meat (Q5 median 0.314 vs 0.032 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.06,
95% CI: 0.99–1.13, ptrend = 0.11). However elevated risk were observed for advanced prostate cancer
for both high nitrite (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02–1.51, ptrend = 0.03) and nitrate intake (HR = 1.31, 95%
CI: 1.07–1.61, ptrend = 0.03), haem iron (HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.03–1.58, ptrend = 0.02) and red meat
intake (HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.05–1.65, ptrend = 0.04). The strength of the study is the prospective
design and the large size. The limitation of the study is the lack of adjustments for other dietary
factors (nitrosation inhibitors) that may also influence the risk of prostate cancer.
Case–control
Wu et al. (2013) conducted a nested case–control study within the Health Professionals Follow-up
Study (n = 51,529 men) to investigate whether plasma nitrate levels were associated with risk of
prostate cancer. Baseline blood samples were collected among 18,018 participants who provided blood
specimens and incident cases of prostate cancer were identified (n = 630). The eligibility criteria for a
control was to be alive and free of cancer at the date that the matched case was diagnosed and to
have had a prostate-specific antigen test after the date of the blood draw and before the matched
case was identified. Each case was matched with one control by age, the time of the blood draw, the
season of the blood draw and the year of the blood draw. Baseline plasma levels of nitrate were
measured in the 630 cases and 630 matched controls. Questionnaires on anthropometric variables,
medical conditions, lifestyle factors and a FFQ (131-item) were administered. The median values for
cases and controls of nitrate and nitrate were 37.71 lmol/L (interquartile range = 29.39–51.47) and
39.01 lmol/L (interquartile range = 30.10–49.77) respectively. Baseline levels of plasma nitrate were
not associated with risk of prostate cancer (Q5 RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.65–1.44, ptrend = 0.9) after
adjustment for family history of prostate cancer, history of smoking, hypertension, BMI, history of
diabetes, vigorous physical activity, total calorie intake, hours since last meal, intake of vegetables, red
and processed meat and history of vasectomy. When analyses were restricted to men fasting more
than 6 h, the trend was similar. Furthermore, plasma nitrate was inversely associated with advanced-
stage prostate cancer (RR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.09–0.99, ptrend = 0.05) for the fasting data set. No effect
modification was observed by smoking. Some sensitivity analysis were conducted such as exclusion of
cases and matched controls identified in the first 5 years after blood draw to exclude the possibility of
reverse causation and also a stratified analysis according to smoking status. Among non-smokers, a
similar association was found. The limitation of this study is that it did not into consideration the
disease status of controls except for diabetes and hypertension and/or drug use that could have
affected nitrate plasma levels and values for quintiles are not provided. The strength of the study is
the study design and statistical analysis, including the sensitivity analysis.
Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), two ecological studies were reviewed in relation to nitrate and
prostate cancer. A study in Spain, examined mortality rates for prostatic cancer and nitrate levels and
found a positive non-statistically significant association for high nitrate levels in drinking water
(> 50 mg/L) (Morales et al., 1993), whereas the ecological study conducted in Germany showed no
association between prostate cancer and nitrate from drinking water (Volkmer et al., 2005). After the
IARC report, one cohort study (Sinha et al., 2009) and a case–control study (Wu et al., 2013) were
conducted. Sinha (2009) investigated the relationship between meat consumption, PAHs, haem iron,
nitrite, nitrate and the risk of prostate cancer. No association was found for nitrate from meat and
prostate cancer. However, a positive association, with a statistically significant trend in risk across
quintiles, was found for advanced prostate cancer. Wu et al. (2013) conducted a nested case–control
study within the ‘Health Professionals Follow-up and showed no association between levels of plasma
nitrate and prostate cancer.
Overall, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence for an association between nitrate
intake and prostate cancer.

3.6.8.11. Renal cancer

Cohort studies
Daniel et al. (2012b) investigated the risk of renal cell cancer in relation to meat, nitrate, nitrite and
meat mutagens intake such as HCA and PAHs, in a prospective study (NIH-AARP Diet and Health
study). Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire about demographics, diet, and
lifestyle (n = 492,186). A 124-item FFQ was used to assess dietary intake. Cancer cases were
ascertained through linkage with the cancer registries. After 6 months, a second self-administrated
questionnaire with queries for meat cooking methods and doneness levels was sent to all participants.
Meat cooked by methods such as grilling or pan-frying results in the formation of HCA and PAHs (e.g.
PhIP; BaP). Haem iron (pro-oxidant involved in carcinogenesis) in red and processed meats may
further increase endogenous NOC formation. After a mean follow up of 9 years, a total of 1,814 cases
of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were identified. In the multivariable analysis, an increased risk was
observed for participants in the highest compared with the lowest quintiles of total red meat intake
(Q5 median = 62.2 g/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.01–1.40, ptrend = 0.06). No association was
identified between combined nitrate and nitrite intake and risk of renal cell cancer (Q5
median = 0.29 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.78–1.12) after adjusting for age, sex, total
energy intake, other types of meat intake, education, marital status, family history of cancer, race,
BMI, smoking status, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, and intakes of alcohol, fruit and
vegetables. Meat intake was significantly correlated with intake of haem iron (r = 0.82), PhIP
(r = 0.42), MeIQx (r = 0.52) and BaP (r = 0.36). Intake of BaP (Q5 median = 44 ng/1,000 kcal,
HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.01–1.48, ptrend = 0.03) and PhIP (Q5 median = 123.6 ng/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.30,
95% CI: 1.07–1.58, ptrend = 0.04) was associated with elevated risk of RCC. The strength of the study
was the large sample and the assessment of other known carcinogens present in meat. The limitation
of the study is that the intake of nitrate and nitrite was combined and based on estimates from only
10 types of processed meats (e.g. bacon, cold cuts, ham, hot dogs and sausage) instead of the whole
diet including fresh meat and milk and milk products. The latter could have led to a possible
information bias.
Dellavalle et al. (2013) prospectively investigated the association between nitrate and nitrite intake
from dietary sources and the risk of RCC within the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Among 491,841
participants (293,248 men and 198,593 women, mean age 50–71 years), 1,816 RCC cases were
identified after a mean follow up of 9 years. The study was an expansion of the study conducted by
Daniel et al. (2012b) to include nitrate and nitrite from a variety of dietary sources (e.g. fresh meat
and dairy products). RCC cases were identified via linkage with state cancer registries. Nitrate and
nitrite intake was estimated from a semi-quantitative 124-item FFQ and intake was calculated for
animal and plant sources separately. Daily mean dietary nitrate intake in the study population was
51.0 mg/1,000 kcal (SD 36.3). Mean daily dietary nitrite intake was 0.7 mg (SD 0.2). Nitrite from
animal sources accounted for 33% of daily mean intake of nitrite (0.2 mg/1,000 kcal), with the
remainder of nitrite intake derived from plant sources. Approximately 40% of nitrite from animal
sources was derived from processed meats (0.1 mg/1,000 kcal). The daily average combined nitrate
and nitrite intake from processed meat sources was 0.7 mg/1,000 kcal. No increased risk was found
for total nitrate (Q5 ≥ 70.94 vs Q1 ≤ 24.9 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.84–1.14,
ptrend = 0.98) and nitrite intake (Q5 ≥ 0.82 vs Q1 ≤ 0.52 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87–1.19,
ptrend = 0.47). No increased risk was found for nitrate from plant sources (Q5 ≥ 0.58 vs Q1 ≤ 30
mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.76–1.04, ptrend = 0.44). An increased risk (Q5 ≥ 0.31 vs
Q1 ≤ 0.13 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.10–1.49, ptrend < 0.01) of RCC among participants was
found for the highest quintile of nitrite from animal sources intake compared with those in the lowest
quintile after controlling for age, sex, caloric intake, race, smoking status, family history of cancer, BMI,
alcohol intake, education, history of hypertension and history of diabetes. Similar associations were
observed when nitrite (from processed meat (Q5 ≥ 0.16 vs Q1 ≤ 0.03 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.16, 95%
CI: 1.00–1.35, ptrend = 0.04) and nitrite, from other animal sources excluding processed meat
(Q5 ≥ 0.19 vs Q1 ≤ 0.08 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.06–1.43, ptrend = 0.02). A sensitivity
analyses that excluded participants who resided in areas with high nitrate levels was conducted but the
risk did not change. No association was observed between nitrite intake from plant sources or total
nitrite intake and risk of total RCC. No statistical interaction was observed for vitamin C and/or vitamin
E. The strength of the study is the large sample and the good control for confounding factors, as well as
the number of stratified analysis conducted.

Case–control
Ward et al. (2007b) conducted a population-based case–control study (201 cases and 1,244
controls) to evaluate drinking water and dietary sources of nitrate and nitrite as risk factors for RCC.
Eligible cases were white residents of Iowa aged 40–85 years who were newly diagnosed with
histologically confirmed RCC. Of 463 eligible RCC cases, only 201 cases participated and had complete
information on nitrate from drinking water and diet. Controls were frequency matched by gender, race
and 5-year age groups to the distribution of the six cancers combined (bladder, brain, colon, kidney,
rectum and pancreas), resulting in a matching ratio for the RCC cases of approximately 6:1. The
mailed questionnaire assessed major RCC risk factors, including demographics, height and weight,
smoking history, and questions about physician diagnosed hypertension and bladder or kidney
infections. Dietary intake was assessed by a 55-item FFQ. There was no association of RCC with high
nitrate level in drinking water from public supplies (> 2.78 vs< 0.62 mg/L, OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.57–1.39)
after controlling for age, gender, BMI and average population size. No increased risk was found for neither
high intake of dietary nitrate (Q4 ≥ 122.01 vs Q1 < 59.32 mg/day, OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28–0.60),
nor high intake of nitrites (Q4 ≥ 1.26 vs Q1 < 0.70 mg/day, OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.50–1.33) after
controlling for age, sex, sodium, total calories. High intake of nitrites from animal source was also not
associated with an increased risk (Q4 ≥ 0.48 vs Q1 < 0.18 mg/day, OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.63–1.59)
after controlling for age, sex, sodium and total fat. However, high nitrate exposure from water
(> 5 mg/L) was associated with an increased risk among subgroups with above the median red meat
intake (≥ 1.2 vs < 1.2 servings per day, OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.04–3.51) or below the median vitamin C
intake (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.01–3.56) after controlling for age, gender, average population size of
residences, BMI and total calories. The strength of the study was the information regarding individual
consumption of drinking water plus nitrate and nitrite from dietary sources. The limitation of the study
is the high number of subjects excluded from the analysis such as subjects with 10 mg/L of nitrate
and with greater than five missing food items. The imputation method they used for missing
information on foods or levels of nitrate may be also a limitation.
Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), one ecological study was reported on nitrate and renal cancer
mortality and found no association between renal cancer and nitrate from drinking water (Volkmer,
2005). After the IARC report, a case–control study (Ward et al., 2007b) and two cohort studies (Daniel
et al., 2012b; Dellavalle et al., 2013) were conducted. Ward et al. (2007b) conducted a population-
based case–control study to evaluate drinking water and dietary sources of nitrate and nitrite as risk
factors for RCC and found no association. Daniel et al. (2012b) found no association between
combined nitrate and nitrite intake and the risk of renal cell cancer. Dellavalle et al. (2013) investigated
the association between nitrate and nitrite intake from dietary sources and the RCC within the
NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study and found no association.
Overall, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence for an association between dietary nitrate
and nitrate in drinking water and renal cancer.
3.6.8.12. Bladder cancer
Cohort studies
Ferrucci et al. (2010) investigated the association between meat and meat components (nitrate,
nitrites, heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and bladder cancer, within a large
prospective NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study (n = 300,933). Each participant, at baseline, completed a
self- administrated questionnaire on demographic, lifestyle, including a 124-item FFQ and medical data.
Six months after the baseline questionnaire, participants completed a mailed risk-factor questionnaire
with questions on meat cooking methods (grilled, pan-fried, microwaved and broiled) and doneness
levels (well done/very well done, and medium/rare) for a total of 125,574 females and 175,359 males
(50–71 years). Computerized Heterocyclic Amines Resource for Research in Epidemiology of Disease
(CHARRED) was used to estimate HCAs: DiMeIQx, MeIQx and PhIP. BaP, a marker of overall PAH
exposure, was also estimated for each participant. After 8 years of follow-up, 854 bladder cancers
were identified through record linkage with state cancer registries. An increased risk, although not
statistically significant (Q5 median 61.6 vs Q1 median 9.5 g/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.96–
1.54, ptrend = 0.07), was observed for high meat consumption of red meat, after controlling for age,
sex, smoking, intake of fruits, vegetables, beverages and total energy intake. High nitrate intake
(Q5 = median 95.4 vs 19.7 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.58–1.10, ptrend = 0.28) was not

associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. A 28% increased risk (Q5 median = 0.91 vs Q1
median 0.46 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.02–1.61, ptrend = 0.06) was observed for high
nitrite intake. When nitrites was divided by dietary sources, no increased risk was found for nitrites
from animal (Q5 median 0.36 vs Q1 median 0.10 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.87–1.36,
ptrend = 0.21) plant sources (Q5 median 0.69 vs Q1 median 0.25 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.16, 95% CI:
0.90–1.50, ptrend = 0.18) or (Q5 median 0.19 vs Q1 median 0.10 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.07, 95% CI:
0.85–1.36, ptrend = 0.79). Nevertheless, an increased risk was also observed for combined nitrate and
nitrite levels from processed meat (Q5 median 0.95 vs Q1 median 0.06 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.29,
95% CI: 1.00–1.67, ptrend = 0.11) but not for nitrite alone (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.85–1.36,
ptrend = 0.79). A suggestive increased risk was seen for nitrate from processed meat (Q5 median 0.29
vs Q1 median 0.02 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.95–1.51, ptrend = 0.06), although it did not
reached statistical significance. Adjustment for other possible confounders and excluding individuals,
who may high nitrate intake from drinking, did not alter risk estimates. DiMeIQx, MeIQx and BaP were
not associated with bladder cancer. However, an, increased risk, although not statistical significant, was
observed for high levels of PhIP (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.95–1.48, ptrend = 0.06). No association was
seen for doneness and white meat. The strength of this study is its large size and the good control for
confounders. No values for mean nitrate or nitrite in the population were provided.
Catsburg et al. (2014) examined the role of dietary sources of NOCs and NOC precursors as
potential bladder cancer risk factors using data from the Los Angeles Bladder Cancer Study, a
population-based case–control study (1,660 bladder cancer cases and 1,586 controls). Bladder cancer
cases were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program, the population-
based Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry of Los Angeles County.
Controls were frequency matched by age (within 5 years), gender and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic
white, Hispanic, African American). In-person structured interviews were conducted in participants’
homes. The questionnaire included information on demographic characteristics, height, weight, lifetime
use of tobacco and alcohol, usual adult dietary habits, lifetime occupational history, prior medical
conditions and prior use of medications. Forty food groups were included in the dietary section of the
structured questionnaire. Mean age of cases and controls was 54.4 years. In the multivariate analysis,
weekly intake of salami/pastrami/corned beef (rich in amines and nitrosamines), was associated with a
30% increased risk (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.02–1.74, ptrend = 0.008) of risk of bladder cancer after
adjusting for smoking, race, BMI, education, food servings, history of diabetes, vegetable intake and
intake of vitamin A, C and carotenoid. Among non-smokers the risk was even stronger (OR = 1.95,
95% CI: 1.10–3.46, ptrend = 0.006). No association was found for nitrate intake (Q5 ≥ 148.4 vs
Q1 ≤ 64.3 mg/day, OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.60–1.35, ptrend = 0.598) or nitrite intake (Q5 ≥ 533 vs
Q1 ≤ 234 lg/day, OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.66–1.20, ptrend = 0.921) or nitrosamine (Q5 ≥ 54.5 vs Q1
14.6 ng/day, OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.78–1.36, ptrend = 0.984). An increased risk, although not
statistically significant, was found for nitrites (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.85–2.87, ptrend = 0.063) and
nitrosamine (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.86–2.66, ptrend = 0.281) among non-smokers. No increased risk
was found for nitrate (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.60–1.54, ptrend = 0.759) nitrites (OR = 0.77, 95% CI:
0.54–1.08, ptrend = 0.341) and nitrosamines (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.69–1.33, ptrend = 0.701) in ever
smokers. High intake of haem iron (≥ 5.2 mg) was also associated with an increased risk of bladder
cancer among non-smokers (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.16–3.33, ptrend = 0.010). When considering NOC
precursors, risk was consistently higher among subjects with concurrent high intake of nitrate
(≥ 103 mg/day) and high intake of the different meats, known as sources of amines and nitrosamines,
such as liver (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.09–2.01, ptrend = 0.001), salami/pastrami/corned beef (OR = 1.37,
95% CI: 0.94–2.00, ptrend = 0.035) and hot-dogs/polish sausage (OR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.91–2.04,
ptrend = 0.06). The strength of this study is the study design: a population case–control study with the
control of many confounders. No data regarding the response rate among controls was provided.
Case–control
Zeegers et al. (2006) conducted a case-cohort study within the Netherlands Cohort Study (58,279
man and 62,573 women 55–69 years of age), to evaluate the association between nitrate exposure
and bladder cancer. After 9.3 years, 955 cases were identified by computerised record linkage with the
cancer registries in the Netherlands and the Dutch national database of pathology reports (PALGA).
Because of incomplete or inconsistent dietary data or missing data on nitrate exposure in drinking
water, only 871 cases were included in the analysis. A subcohort sample of 4,359 members was
randomly selected after identification of all cohort members. All participants completed a mailed
questionnaire on risk factors for cancer, including a FFQ (150-item). Nitrate intake from water was

calculated from the amount of water consumed derived from the questionnaire combining information
from nitrate content in drinking water from all 364 pumping stations in the Netherlands. Mean total
nitrate among cases was 109.8 mg/day (SD 43.4) and 109.4 mg/day (SD 44.3) among controls. No
increased risk (Q5 ≥ 140.8 vs≤ 72.7 mg, RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.84–1.42, ptrend = 0.77) was found for
total nitrate intake after adjusting for sex, age and smoking. No increased risk was found for nitrate in
drinking water (Q5 > 7.7 vs ≤ 0.9 mg, RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.82–1.38, ptrend = 0.24) and nitrate in
food (Q5 > 135.3 vs Q1 ≤ 69.0 mg, RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.80–1.36, ptrend = 0.96), after controlling for
sex, age, smoking and nitrate exposure from food (for drinking water analyses only) or nitrate
exposure from drinking water (for food analyses only). Dietary intake of vitamins C and E and cigarette
smoking status was not effect modifiers. The limitations of the study were that food nitrate content
was not sub-divided by plant and animal foods and there was a lack of control for some food items
such as animal food products in the analysis. The strength of the study is the study design that
decreases the possibility of information bias. It is superior to a simple case–control study.
Ecological
Chiu et al. (2007) conducted an ecological study to investigate the association between bladder
cancer death and nitrate exposure from drinking water in Taiwan. Records of all deaths from bladder
cancer (n = 513 cases; 339 males, 174 females; 62.7 years) between 1999 and 2003 were obtained
from the Taiwan provincial health department. Controls consisted of all deaths, excluding death from
genitourinary diseases, gastric, oesophageal, head and neck cancer, and NHL. Cases were matched to
controls by sex, year of birth and year of death. Data on nitrate levels in 252 municipalities were
obtained from the Taiwan provincial drinking water supplier. The mean concentration of nitrate in the
drinking water for individuals that died from bladder cancer was reported to be 0.52 mg/L (SD 0.47)
and, for those that died from other causes (controls), the nitrate concentration in drinking water was
reported to be 0.43 mg/L (SD 0.45). Each subject’s source of nitrate exposure was presumed to arise
exclusively from the water supplied by the municipality of residence. Under these conditions, after
controlling for age, gender, urbanisation and level of residence, an increased risk of death from
bladder cancer was observed for high nitrate levels in drinking water (Q3 ≥ 0.48 vs ≤ 0.18 mg/L,
OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.41–2.72, ptrend < 0.001). The limitation of the study is the study design
(ecological), which does not allow assessment of whether there was a true exposure-outcome
relationship because there was no individual exposure data. There is no control for confounding factors
such as smoking and diet.
Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), five studies, conducted in different geographic areas (Denmark,
Spain, Slovakia, USA, Canada) in relation to drinking water and/or diet in relation to bladder cancer
were reported. Among those, three ecological studies showed no association between bladder cancer
and nitrate in drinking water (Gulis et al., 2002; Jensen, 1982; van Leeuwen et al., 1999) and one
reported a non-statistically significant positive association (Morales et al., 1992). A cohort study (IOWA
Health Study) that evaluated nitrate in both the diet and drinking water in relation to the incidence of
bladder cancer showed a twofold increased risk for nitrate in drinking water and a non-statistically
significant positive association with dietary nitrate (Weyer et al., 2001). After the IARC report, one
ecological study (Chiu et al., 2007), two cohort studies (Zeegers et al., 2006; Ferrucci et al., 2010) and
one case–control study (Catsburg et al., 2014) were conducted. Chiu et al. (2007) conducted an
ecological study to investigate the association between bladder cancer death and nitrate exposure
from drinking water and found a positive association. Ferrucci et al. (2010) investigated the association
between meat and meat components (nitrates, nitrite, heterocyclic amines and PAHs) and bladder
cancer, within a large prospective NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. In this study, high nitrate intake
was not associated with bladder cancer. However, a non-statistically significant positive association was
seen for nitrate from processed meat (Ferrucci et al., 2010). Zeegers et al. (2006) conducted a cohort
study within the Netherlands Cohort Study to evaluate the association between nitrate exposure in
both diet and drinking-water and bladder cancer, and found no association. A population-based case–
control study showed no association between dietary nitrate intake and bladder cancer (Catsburg
et al., 2014).
Overall, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence of an association between dietary
nitrate and nitrate in drinking water and bladder cancer.

3.6.8.13. Thyroid cancer

Cohort studies
Ward et al. (2010) investigated the association between nitrate intake and the risk of developing
thyroid cancer in a cohort of women in Iowa (aged 55–69 years). Initially, a total of 41,836 women
participated in the initial survey, constituting the study cohort. After excluding women who had used
multiple sources of water or used their public or private well supply for 10 years or less and women
living in communities for which no nitrate measurement data and women with missing dietary data,
the cohort numbered 20,631. Data on demographics, anthropometry, reproductive history, hormone
use, family history of cancer, residence location, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption,
medical conditions and the primary source of their drinking water, as well as how long they drank that
type of water. FFQs were employed to assess dietary intake (126 items). After 19 years of follow-up,
45 women were diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The cohort was traced annually for cancer incidence by
linkage of personal identifiers to the State Health Registry of Iowa’s cancer database. After adjusting
for age, total calories, vitamin C intake and residence, women with longer consumption of water
(≥ 5 years) exceeding 5 mg/L nitrate-N had 2.5-fold increased risk of thyroid cancer (HR = 2.59, 95%
CI: 1.09–6.19, ptrend = 0.04) in comparison with women with less than 1 year of exposure of water
exceeding 5 mg/L nitrate-N. High intake of nitrate from dietary sources (Q4 > 41.1 vs Q1 ≤ 17.4 mg/day,
HR = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.00–8.11, ptrend = 0.046) was also associated with an increased risk. The
strength of this study was the large sample size, the long follow-up time and the nitrate data in both
drinking water and diet. The limitation of this study was the large number of subjects excluded from
the analysis (around 50%) and the lack of control for occupation. No mean or median values for
nitrate were given for the whole study population.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al. (2013b) evaluated nitrate and nitrite intake and the risk of thyroid cancer in
the Shanghai Women’s Health Study (SWHS) (n = 73,317 women, aged 40–70 years). In-person
interviews were used to collect information on demographic characteristics, medical information,
lifetime residential and occupational history, life-style and dietary habits. Dietary intake was assessed
using a food frequency questionnaire (77 food items). After approximately 11 years of follow-up, 164
incident thyroid cancer cases were identified through the Shanghai Cancer Registry. The mean age
was 52.0 years, the median daily nitrate was 309 mg/day and median nitrite was 1.4 mg/day,
respectively. Nitrate intake was not associated with thyroid cancer risk (Q4 median = 251 vs Q1
median 109 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.42–2.07, ptrend = 0.40). A twofold increased risk
was found for total dietary nitrite intake (Q4 median 1.1 vs Q1 median 0.6 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 2.05,
95% CI: 1.20–3.51, ptrend = 0.36), after adjusting for age, education, history of thyroid diseases,
vitamin C, carrot and folate intake. An increased risk was found for nitrite from animal sources (Q4
median 0.2 vs Q1 median 0.1 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.00–2.52, ptrend = 0.02). An
increased risk, although not statistically significant, was seen for nitrite from plant sources (Q4 median
1.0 vs Q1 median 0.5 mg/1,000 kcal, HR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.76–2.4, ptrend = 0.7). The risk was
stronger for nitrite from processed meats (Q4 median 0.1 vs Q1 median 0.0 mg/1,000 kcal,
HR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.28–2.99, ptrend < 0.01). To evaluate the consistency of the results found
regarding total nitrate and nitrite, they were stratified by age, BMI, education, red meat intake and
vitamin C. However, no interaction was seen and the results did not change. The strength of the study
is the nature of the study (cohort), the high level of complete baseline and the completeness of follow-up
(92% of the initial sample). Although the study controlled for many confounders, smoking was
collected but not considered while running the models and that could be a great limitation.
Kilfoy et al. (2011) conducted a cohort (NIH-AARP) Diet and Health Study and evaluated dietary
nitrate and nitrite intake and thyroid cancer risk overall and for subtypes. In total, 490,194 men and
women aged 50–71 years were included in the study. During an average of 7 years of follow-up, 370
incident cases were identified through cancer registries and the US National Death Index Plus. A
baseline questionnaire ascertained information on possible risk factors, including dietary intake (food
frequency questionnaire of 124 items and the use of individual and multivitamin supplements). Mean
dietary intake of nitrate was 88 mg/day (SD 65) and nitrite was 1.2 mg/day (SD 0.6). An interaction
between nitrate intake and sex was observed. Among men, a twofold increased risk was observed in
the highest quintile of nitrate intake (Q5 median 94.8 vs Q1 median 19.4 mg/day, RR = 2.28, 95% CI:
1.29–4.04, ptrend < 0.01). An increased risk, although not statistically significant was found for nitrite
intake among men (Q5 median 0.9 vs Q1 median 0.5 mg/day, RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.78–2.37,
ptrend = 0.26), after controlling for age, smoking status, race, calories, alcohol, family history cancer,
physical activity, education, BMI, vitamin C, beta-carotene and folate consumption. Among women,

nitrate intake was not associated with thyroid risk (Q5 median 94.8 vs Q1 median 19.4 mg/day,
RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.42–1.15, ptrend = 0.61), but an increased risk, although not statistical significant,
was found for nitrite (Q5 median 0.9 vs Q1 median 0.5 mg/day, RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.71–1.98,
ptrend = 0.40). The strength of the study is the prospective design, the large sample size and the high
number of confounding factors taken into consideration. The limitation is the lack of information of
nitrites by different dietary sources and the lack of control for other potential environmental and
dietary risk factors for thyroid cancer.
Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), no study was described on nitrate and thyroid cancer. After The
IARC report, three cohort studies were conducted. Ward et al. (2010) investigated the association
between nitrate intake and the risk of developing thyroid cancer in a cohort of women in Iowa and
showed a positive association between dietary nitrate and nitrate in drinking water and thyroid cancer
with a trend in risk across quartiles. Kilfoy et al. (2011) conducted a cohort study (NIH-AARP) to
evaluate dietary nitrate and nitrite intake and thyroid cancer risk. Among men, but not among women,
a positive association was observed for high nitrate intake with a trend in risk across quintiles.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al. (2013b) evaluated nitrate and nitrite intake and the risk of thyroid cancer in
the Shanghai Women’s Health Study (SWHS) and found no association for nitrate intake.
Overall, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence to link dietary nitrate and thyroid
cancer.
3.6.8.14. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL)
Cohort studies
Daniel et al. (2012a) investigated meat intake in relation to NHL risk in a large US cohort (NIH-
AARP Diet and Health Study, n = 567,169). Participants completed a food frequency (124-items) and a
lifestyle questionnaire (n = 492,186) and a subcohort (n = 302,162) also completed a questionnaire on
meat-cooking methods and doneness levels. Over a mean of 9 years of follow-up, 3,611 incident cases
of NHL were identified through original state cancer registries. Intake of nitrate and nitrite was
estimated by using a database of measured values from 10 types of processed meat, constituting 90%
of the processed meat types consumed in the United States. Nitrate and nitrites intake from processed
meat sources were not associated with total NHL risk, after controlling for age, sex, education, family
history of any cancer, race, BMI, smoking status and physical activity, as well as intake of alcohol, fruit,
vegetables, and total energy (Q5 median value = 0.47 vs Q1 median value = 0.04 mg/1,000 kcal,
HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88–1.18, ptrend 0.68). Haem iron, heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic
compounds were not associated with an increased risk of NHL. The strength of the study is the large
sample and the assessment of other known carcinogens present in meat. The limitation of the study is
the estimates of nitrites and nitrate that were based only on processed meat instead of the whole diet
including fresh meat and milk and milk products.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al. (2012a) conducted a prospective study among 832 female cases of NHL
identified between 1996 and 2000 through the Connecticut Tumour Registry to test the hypothesis
that nitrate and nitrite intake affects NHL survival. After exclusions for missing data, 568 patients
(mean age 61.6 years) with NHL were included in the study and followed-up until 2008 (mean follow-
up 4.06 years). The median daily intake of nitrate (95.9 mg/day) and nitrite (1.1 mg/day) were used
as the cut-off points for high and low intake. During the follow-up time, 250 patients died. A FFQ (120
foods) was used to assess dietary intake. No association was found for high nitrate intake (Q4 ≥ 141.0
vs Q1 < 62.8 mg/day; HR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.7–1.5 ptrend = 0.88) and NHL mortality and nitrites
(Q4 ≥ 1.4 vs Q1 < 0.8 mg/day; HR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.6–1.6, ptrend = 0.69) and NHL mortality, after
controlling for age, caloric intake, family history of cancer and vitamin C. The limitation of the study is
the study design that does not allow assessment of whether there was a true exposure–outcome
relationship. There is a lack of control for important confounders in the multivariate analysis such as
staging, comorbidities and therapy.
Case–control
Kilfoy et al. (2010) investigated the association between nitrate and nitrite intake and the risk of
NHL in a population case–control study of women from Connecticut. Out of 832 eligible patients, a
total of 594 patients with histological confirmed NHL cases, aged 21–84 years (mean age 62 years)
were included in the study. Population-based controls (710 individuals) from the same area were

recruited, and matched by age ( 5 years). In-person interviews were conducted to assess health
behaviour and history, and all participants were sent a 120-item FFQ to assess dietary intake. Intake of
nitrate and nitrite was divided into high and low intake according to the median consumption. The
median intake in their study was similar to the NCI-SEER (Ward et al., 1996) (median nitrate intake
114 mg/day, median nitrite intake 0.91 mg/day). The mean nitrate intake among cases and controls
were 116.5 mg/day (SE 83.0) and 112.1 mg/day (SE 75.1) and the mean dietary nitrite was 1.2 mg/
day (SE 0.6) and 1.1 mg/day (SE 0.5), respectively. An increased risk of NHL was found for higher
dietary nitrite intake (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.04–1.79) after adjusting for age, family history of NHL,
total daily energy intake, vitamin C, vitamin E and protein intake. No association was found between
dietary nitrate and NHL risk, after controlling for potential confounders (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.86–
1.39). After stratifying for NHL histological type, a particular increased risk was observed for T-cell
lymphoma (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.12–5.06) and nitrites. After stratification by sources of nitrites, the
increased risk remained only for nitrites from animal sources (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.05–1.75) but not
from nitrites from plants (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.86–1.44). No effect modification was observed for
vitamin C, vitamin E and protein intake and risk of overall NHL. The strength of the study was the
sample size. The limitation of the study is the low response rate among cases (71%) and controls
(69% < 65 years and 47% for subjects ≥ 65 years) and the lack of control for other potential
confounding factors. Low and high nitrate and nitrite levels of intake were based on median
consumption however the median values were not given in the manuscript.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al. (2013a) conducted a case–control study (348 cases and 470 controls) in
Nebraska to investigate the association between dietary nitrate and nitrite intake and risk of NHL.
Information on demographic, medical, environmental and lifestyle factors was collected by telephone
interviews. A self-administrated FFQ was sent by post (117 food items). The mean nitrate intake
among cases was 100.3 mg/day (SD 70.6 mg/day) and the mean nitrite intake was 1.4 mg/day (SD
0.7). The mean nitrate intake among controls was 103.0 mg/day (SD 68.0) and the mean nitrite intake
was 1.3 mg/day (SD). No increased risk of NHL was found for high intake of total nitrate (Q4 median
88.3 vs Q1 22.2 mg/1,000 kcal, OR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.5–1.3, ptrend = 0.6). A non-significant increased
risk of NHL was found for high intake of total nitrite (Q4 median 0.86 vs Q1 22.2 mg/1,000 kcal,
OR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8–1.9, ptrend = 0.4) and the increased risk seems to be related to nitrites from
animal sources (Q4 median 0.41 vs Q1 0.16 mg/1,000 kcal, OR = 1.3, 95% CI: 0.8–1.9, ptrend = 0.3)
but not from plant sources (Q4 median 0.53 vs Q1 0.26 mg/1,000 kcal, OR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.6–1.4,
ptrend = 0.9). Among women but not among men, a statistical significant increased risk was observed
for high intake of nitrites from animal sources (Q4 median 0.41 vs 0.16 mg/1,000 kcal, OR = 1.9, 95%
CI: 1.0–3.4), after controlling for age, BMI, education, family history of cancer, vitamin C and total
daily energy intake. No increased risk was found for either nitrite (Q4 median 0.21 vs Q1 0.02 mg/
1,000 kcal, OR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.6–1.5, ptrend = 0.9) or nitrite plus nitrate (Q4 median 1.51 vs Q1
median 0.14 mg/1,000 kcal, OR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.7–1.6, ptrend = 0.9) from processed meats. Other
potential confounding factors (farming status, physical activity, alcohol consumption and the use of
hair dyes) were also taken into consideration in the analysis but they did not change risk estimates.
The response rate among cases and controls were 73.2% and 76.8%, respectively. No significant
associations were observed for nitrate or nitrite by NHL subtype. The limitation of the study is the low
response rate among cases and controls and the strength of the study is the good control for
confounding factors and the risk estimates shown by different dietary sources.
Ecological
Chang et al. (2009) investigated the relationship between nitrate exposure from drinking water in
Taiwan and mortality attributed to NHL. Data on all death of Taiwan from 2000 to 2006 were obtained
from the Taiwan Provincial Department of Health. Death from NHL (cases) were compared with death
from all other causes of death (controls). In total, 1,716 NHL were matched by sex, age and year of
death with controls. Data on the nitrate–nitrogen concentration in water was obtained from Taiwan
Water Supply Corporation. Nitrate intake was assumed to occur via the water supply of the
municipality of residence of each participant. The levels of nitrate of each municipality were used as an
indicator of exposure to nitrate for an individual residing in that municipality. The mean nitrate
concentration in the drinking water of the NHL cases and controls was 0.45 mg/L (SD 0.47) and 0.41
(SD 0.41), respectively. No association was found between nitrate exposure and increased risk (≥ 0.48
vs≤ 0.18 mg/L; OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.89–1.24, ptrend = 0.75) of death from NHL, after controlling for
sex, age and urbanisation level of residence. The limitation of the study is the study design
(ecological) which does not allow us to assess whether there was a true exposure–outcome

relationship because there was no individual exposure data. There is no control for confounding
factors.
Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), five ecological studies (Weisenburger et al., 1987; Law et al.,
1999; van Leeuwen et al., 1999; Gulis et al., 2002; Cocco et al., 2003), three case–control studies
(Ward et al., 1996, 2006; Freedman et al., 2000) and one cohort study were described in relation to
nitrate and NHL (Weyer et al., 2001). Out of the five ecological studies two studies, one in Europe
(Gulis et al., 2002) and one in USA (Weisenburger et al., 1987) showed a positive association between
nitrate levels in drinking water and NHL. Out of the three case–control studies reported in the IARC
review (Ward et al., 1996, 2006; Freedman et al., 2000) one study conducted in Nebraska observed a
positive association between NHL and nitrate in drinking water. In the cohort study, no association was
observed for dietary nitrate (Weyer et al., 2001). After the IARC report, two cohort studies, two case–
control studies and one ecological study were conducted to investigate the relationship between
nitrate and NHL. Daniel et al. (2012a) showed no association between nitrate and nitrite from
processed meat sources and NHL risk. In another cohort study in which the outcome was mortality for
NHL, no association was observed for dietary nitrate (Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al., 2012a). Two case–
control studies conducted in the United States reported no association between NHL and dietary
nitrate (Kilfoy et al., 2010; Aschebrook-Kilfoy et al., 2013a). An ecological study conducted in Taiwan,
found no association between NHL death and nitrate in drinking water (Chang et al., 2009).
Overall, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence of an association between dietary nitrate
and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and insufficient evidence to associate nitrate from drinking water
and NHL.
3.6.8.15. Leukaemia
No new studies were found since IARC, 2010.
Summary
In a previous report (IARC, 2010), two ecological studies (Wu et al., 1993; Foster et al., 1997) and
one cohort study (Weyer et al., 2001) were reviewed in relation to nitrate and the risk of leukaemia
(Wu et al., 1993; Foster et al., 1997; Weyer et al., 2001). The ecological study conducted in the UK
showed no association between levels of nitrate in public water supplies and incidence of leukaemia
(Foster et al., 1997), whereas the study conducted in China showed a positive association between
urinary levels of nitrate and mortality for leukaemia (Wu et al., 1993). In the cohort study, a
non-statistically significant positive association was observed for dietary nitrate (Weyer et al., 2001).
No other studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between nitrate and risk of leukaemia.
Overall, the Panel, based on the IARC 2010 evaluation, considered that there was insufficient evidence
that dietary nitrate and nitrate in drinking water are associated with leukaemia.
3.6.8.16. Brain cancer
Adult glioma
Cohort studies
Michaud et al. (2009), conducted a prospective study of meat intake and dietary nitrates, nitrites
and nitrosamines and risk of adult glioma in the United States. They examined the relationship
between intakes of meats, nitrate, nitrite and two nitrosamines (NDMA and NPYR) and glioma risk in a
prospective analysis. Data from three US prospective cohort studies (Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) I,
NHS II, and male Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS)) were combined for this analysis. In
total, 335 glioma cases were diagnosed during 24 years of follow-up. Habitual dietary intake was
assessed with FFQs; these were initially collected in 1986 for 49,935 men (HPFS), in 1980 for 92,468
women (NHS I), and in 1991 for 95,391 women (NHS II), and diet was generally updated every
4 years. For the NHS I, they used a 61-item semiquantitative FFQ (including dietary items and vitamin
use) at baseline in 1980, which was expanded to 130 items (including food, beverages and vitamin
use) in 1984, 1986 and every 4 years thereafter. For the HPFS and NHS II cohorts, baseline dietary
intake was assessed by using a 131-item FFQ. The questions on meat intake (other than fish) were
very similar on the 61-item FFQs and the 131-item FFQs; both had the same number of questions with
similar meat items included in each. Considered processed meat items were: bacon, hot dogs,

sausage, salami and bologna. Nitrate, nitrite and nitrosamine values were calculated based on the
published values of these nutrients in various foods over different periods in time, preferably from US
data, and from Europe otherwise. The median daily intake of nitrate was around 150 mg in HPFS,
96 mg in NHS I and 137 mg in NHS II. The median daily intake of nitrite was around 1.6 mg in HPFS,
1.4 mg in NHS I and 2.0 mg in NHS II. The median daily intake of NDMA was around 0.07 lg in
HPFS, 0.06 lg in NHS I and 0.06 lg in NHS II. Cox proportional hazards models were used to
estimate incidence RRs and 95% CIs. Estimates from each cohort were pooled by using a random
effects model, and only combined effects were presented. After controlling for age, calendar period
and caloric intake (and additionally vitamin C and E, coffee and tea), the risk of glioma was not
elevated among individuals in the highest intake category of red meat (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.62–1.93,
ptrend = 0.57), total processed meats (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.48–1.77, ptrend = 0.99), nitrate (RR Q5 vs
Q1 (cut-offs are not presented because these vary for the three cohorts) = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.66–1.58,
ptrend = 0.81), nitrite (RR Q5 vs Q1 = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.89–1.79, ptrend = 0.23), NDMA (RR Q5 vs
Q1 = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.57–1.36, ptrend = 0.73) or NPYR (RR T3 vs T1 = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.62–1.05,
ptrend = 0.93) compared with the lowest category. No effect modification was observed by intake of
vitamins C or E or other antioxidant measures. It was concluded there was no suggestion that the
intake of meat, nitrate, nitrite or nitrosamines is related to the risk of glioma. Other factors typically
considered as potential confounders in cancer analyses (e.g. smoking, BMI, and fruit and vegetables)
were not included in the models because they were not considered as risk factors for glioma in these
cohorts. The strengths of this study are the inclusion of three large prospective cohort studies among
men and women, with multiple measurements of dietary intake per person, coupled with a long
follow-up. The study lacked information on nitrate intake from drinking water.
Dubrow et al. (2010) studied adult glioma risk relative to endogenous N-nitroso compound (NOC)
formation in the prospective NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study
recruited men and women, aged 50–71 years, from six states in the United States. At baseline (1995–
1996), participants completed self-administered demographic and lifestyle questionnaires, including a
124-item FFQ. A total of 566,402 participants returned the baseline questionnaire. After excluding
prevalent brain cancer cases, those who had questionnaires completed by proxy respondents and
those with implausible nutrient values, the final analytical cohort consisted of 545,770 participants
(322,347 men and 223,423 women). The FFQ was used in association with published information
(from United States and Canada preferably) on nitrate content of various foods to estimate daily
nitrate intake. The daily median intake of nitrate was estimated to be 40.95 mg/1,000 kcal, for nitrite
this was 0.65 mg/1,000 kcal. Daily intake of vitamins C and E was also estimated. After a mean follow-
up of 7.2 years, they identified 585 incident glioma cases. Cox proportional hazards models were used.
After controlling for age, race, total energy intake, education, height and family history of cancer
(smoking was not associated with glioma), they found significant positive trends for nitrite intake from
plant sources (HR for quintile 5 (med 0.68 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1 (0.25) = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.20–2.10,
ptrend = 0.028) and total nitrite intake (HR Q5 (med 0.90 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1 (0.45) = 1.32, 95% CI:
1.01–1.71, ptrend = 0.089) and, unexpectedly, for fruit and vegetable intake (HR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.08–1.86,
ptrend = 0.0081). Processed meat consisted of red and white meat sources of bacon, sausage, luncheon
meats, cold cuts, ham and hot dogs. No significant trend in glioma risk for consumption of processed
red meat (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.80–1.37, ptrend = 0.44), nitrate (HR Q5 (94.85 mg/1,000 kcal) vs Q1
(19.35) = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.97–1.70, ptrend = 0.14) or vitamin C or E was detected. Examination of
interactions between dietary intakes (e.g. nitrite and vitamin C) and a limited analysis of diet at ages
12–13 years provided no support for the NOC hypothesis. Accordingly, the study suggests that the
consumption of processed or red meat, nitrite or nitrate does not meaningfully increase adult glioma risk
and that the consumption of fruit and vegetables, fruit and vegetable subgroups, vitamin C or vitamin E
does not meaningfully protect against adult glioma risk. The strength of this study is the inclusion of a
large cohort of men and women. The study lacked information on nitrate intake from drinking water.
Childhood brain tumours
Weng et al. (2011) investigated the relationship between nitrate in the public water supply and the
risk of childhood brain tumours in a case–control study. Data on all deaths of Taiwan residents
between 1999 and 2008 was provided by the provincial health department statistics bureau. All eligible
individuals with malignant tumours of the brain or cranial nerves between 0 and 19 years old were
included in the cancer group. In total, 457 deaths (cases) in accordance with the criteria were included

(190 females and 267 males). Controls were deaths from other causes and were pair-matched to the
cases by gender, year of birth and year of death. Detailed demographic information and residential
district were recorded. Information on the levels of nitrate, Ca and Mg in drinking water was collected
from the Taiwan Water Supply Corporation. The municipality of residence for childhood brain tumours
cases and controls was presumed to be the source of the subject’s NO3, Ca and Mg exposure via
drinking water. In the analysis, the subjects were categorised into one of the two NO3 exposure
categories: low (less than or equal to median among controls; ≤ 1.37 mg/L) and high (greater than
median among controls; > 1.37 mg/L). Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate
associations, adjusting for age, gender and urbanisation level of residence. Relative to individuals
whose NO3 exposure level was ≤ 1.37 mg/L, the adjusted OR (95% CI) for childhood brain tumour
occurrence was 1.4 (1.07–1.84) for individuals who resided in municipalities served by drinking water
with a NO3 exposure > 1.37 mg/L. No significant effect modification was observed by Ca and Mg
intake via drinking water. These data suggest that exposure to NO3 in drinking water is associated with
a higher risk of childhood brain tumour development in Taiwan. However, the study lacked information
on nitrate intake from food, and the consumption volume of water was also not known.
Summary
Adults
In a previous review, which considered publications until 2006 (IARC, 2010), six case–control
studies on adult brain cancer (often glioma) and nitrate in food or drinking water were reviewed. No
associations were found with nitrate. Subsequently, two cohort studies were published. Michaud
(2009) found no significant associations with adult glioma (335 incident cases) in three cohorts of men
and women with dietary nitrate, with no effect modification by vitamin C or E or other antioxidants. In
the other cohort study (with 585 incident cases), no association was found with glioma risk for dietary
nitrate, nor was there any interaction with vitamin C or E (Dubrow, 2010). According to Dubrow et al.
(2010), their study suggests that the consumption of nitrate does not meaningfully increase adult
glioma risk.
Overall, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence that nitrate intake is associated with
increased glioma in adults.
Childhood brain tumours
In a previous review, which considered publications until 2006 (IARC, 2010), four case–control studies
on childhood brain tumours and nitrate in drinking water were reviewed. No associations were found with
nitrate. Subsequently, only one case–control study has been reported; this was based on 457 deceased
childhood brain tumour cases in Taiwan in relation to nitrate levels in drinking water (Weng, 2011). This
study reported a statistically significant positive association with nitrate, although the consumption
volume of water was not known, and the study lacked information on nitrate intake from food.
Overall, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence that nitrate intake is associated with
increased risk of childhood brain tumours.
3.7. Discussion
Nitrates are used together with nitrites in the curing mixtures for meat processing to produce and fix
the colour, to inhibit microbial growth and to develop characteristic flavours. Potassium or sodium nitrate
is also used in the manufacture of certain types of cheeses for the prevention of blowing defect by
microorganisms (Korenekova et al., 2000). Regarding stability in food, most information is related to
vegetables, where nitrate naturally occur, in which the decrease observed during storage is mainly due to
its conversion to nitrite. Washing and thermal treatment of vegetables in water can also cause a
reduction of nitrate concentration (Tamme et al., 2009). When used as an additive, nitrate is reduced by
microorganisms during processing and storage to nitrite that forms nitrous anhydride, which participates
in the nitrosamine formation. Nitrate also contributes to the characteristic pink colour of cured meat
products by its conversion to nitrite and the reaction of the formed nitric acid and NO with myoglobin.
In humans, dietary nitrate is rapidly and extensively absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract
(Iijima et al., 2002). Absorbed nitrate is recirculated through the salivary glands where bacterial
metabolism converts the secreted nitrate into nitrite. Some gastric nitrite is absorbed into the general
circulation where it can oxidise haemoglobin to form methaemoglobin while being reduced to nitric
oxide. Nitrate biotransformation comprises nitrate reduction, nitrite formation, nitrite reoxidation to
nitrate, and formation of methaemoglobin or NO, in a dynamic equilibrium (Gladwin et al., 2005;

Lundberg et al., 2008). Due to the very low gastric pH, very little further reduction of nitrate to nitrite
occurs in man (Mirvish, 1975). It has been shown that nitrate is nearly all excreted by the kidneys.
The acute toxicity of nitrate observed in the available studies was low. The main acute toxicological
effect of nitrate intoxication is secondary to nitrite-dependent formation of methaemoglobin.
Individuals with a deficiency in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, a common trait among some
Asian populations, might be at higher risk of developing methaemoglobinaemia. Examples of acutely
induced methaemoglobinaemia have been described in Section 3.6.2. Another population subgroup
that is more susceptible to the effects of methaemoglobin formation is infants under 3 months of age.
Short-term and subchronic toxicity studies in rats showed, overall, that nitrate intake of up to 5% in
the diet (equivalent to 4,500 mg sodium nitrate/kg bw per day) did not result in adverse effects in rats. At
higher dose levels, animals showed signs of methaemoglobinaemia leading to the death of the animals.
In vitro studies on sodium and potassium nitrate in bacteria and mammalian cells did not provide
evidence of a genotoxic potential. In mammals, no reliable indication of genotoxicity was obtained in
mice and rats exposed to nitrate by the oral route, both in somatic and in germ cells. Although the
database was limited, the Panel concluded that the available experimental data indicated that nitrate
salts do not raise concern for genotoxicity.
Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies with sodium and potassium nitrate were available. In
studies with mice, sodium nitrate did not show any difference in tumour incidences compared to
controls. Four non-standard studies in rats and pigs assessed haematological parameters or effects on
thyroid and thyroid-related hormones (Boink et al., 1995; JECFA, 1996; Zaki et al., 2004;
Mukhopadhyay et al., 2005; Azeez et al., 2011). Overall, the Panel considered that nitrate did not
affect adrenal and thyroid glands function in animals and it was not carcinogenic in animal studies.
The more recent toxicity study, addressing carcinogenicity aspects, was a non-standard study by
Del Negro et al. (2008). The study investigated the carcinogenic potential of hydrochloric acid, pepsin
and sodium nitrate on oropharyngeal mucosa in rats. The study has been included for completeness
and supported the lack of carcinogenicity of nitrate itself; however, due to the combined treatment and
subchronic duration of the study, it could not be considered for ADI determination.
No effects were observed in a reproductive/developmental toxicity screening study (OECD TG 422) in
rats administered potassium nitrate by gavage at doses up to 1,500 mg/kg bw per day. No
developmental toxicity was observed in mice, rats, hamsters or rabbits receiving doses up to 400, 1,980,
280 or 206 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per day by gavage, respectively. In a reproductive toxicity study
in mice given potassium nitrate in drinking water, effects were observed on sperm count and testicular
enzymes at the highest dose tested, at which also sperm abnormalities were observed; the NOAEL in this
study was 122 mg potassium nitrate/kg bw per day. Histopathological changes in testis, epididymis and
other sex organs were reported in this study. A conclusion could not be reached since the duration of the
dosing in males in this screening study was limited and the number of animals tested was low.
Overall, the Panel noted that although some effects were observed in sperm analysis and
reproductive organs in this limited study in mice, no indications of reproductive toxicity were observed
at higher doses in a rat study conducted according to OECD guideline TG 422.
Human non-cancer effects were observed in the thyroid in several studies, suggesting that nitrate
exposure altered human thyroid gland function by competitively inhibiting thyroidal iodide uptake. A
large cohort study (n = 21,977 women) showed that increasing intake of nitrate from dietary sources
was associated with an increasing occurrence of hypothyroidism (Ward et al., 2010). In addition, in
several studies, an enlarged thyroid or even goitre was observed when the intake of nitrate via
drinking water was high. Other studies, however, showed no effects. Overall, there was some evidence
to relate exposure to nitrate with the development of enlarged thyroid, goitre and hypothyroidism. The
exposure levels were in the same range as that within which methaemoglobinaemia was observed.
Another non-cancer effect in humans was the lowering of blood pressure, which was due to the
conversion of nitrate to vasoactive nitric oxide (NO). IARC (2010) reported epidemiological studies on
type I diabetes mellitus and exposure to nitrates and/or nitrites. In most of the studies reported by
IARC, exposure to nitrates in children or the mothers was associated with a decreased risk of type I
diabetes or no significant effects were identified in children. IARC (2010) also reported epidemiological
studies suggesting association between exposure to nitrates in drinking-water and spontaneous
abortions, intrauterine growth restrictions and birth effects. However, IARC noticed that those ‘studies
have uncertainties or limitations such as the lack of individual exposure assessment, the inability to
rule out confounding factors or the small size of the study populations’.
The methaemoglobin formation reported in animal studies can also be observed in humans. This
effect occured both, upon acute exposure as well as after chronic exposure, to nitrate. The effect was

a consequence of the endogenous production of nitrite from ingested nitrate as described in the ADME
section (Section 3.6.1).
Potential carcinogenicity of nitrate and nitrite in humans has been extensively reviewed by IARC
(2010), and the epidemiological studies discussed in the IARC report have therefore not been
described in this opinion. The interested reader is invited to consult the IARC report for details of all
these studies. The overall conclusions of the Panel were based on IARC evaluation of the
epidemiological studies on nitrate, nitrite and cancer published until 2006 (IARC, 2010) and on the
evaluation of epidemiological studies published subsequently.
The summary evidence for an association between nitrate exposure and each type of human
cancer was categorised by the Panel as: (i) there was no evidence for an association, if studies
indicate no association with a specific cancer; (ii) there was insufficient evidence, to (unequivocally)
link to a cancer (e.g. few studies, contradictory results, etc.); (iii) there was some evidence for an
association with a specific cancer (e.g. inconsistent results between cohort studies and case–control
studies); (iv) there was evidence, for an association with a specific cancer (e.g. consistent results from
cohort studies and case–control studies).
The Panel concluded that there was no evidence for a positive association between: ingested
nitrate and oesophageal cancer and its subtypes oesophageal squamous cell carcinomas and
oesophageal adenocarcinoma (ESCC and EAC); ingested nitrate and gastric cancer or its subtypes
gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) and gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma (GNCA); dietary nitrate
and colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon or rectum cancer; ingested nitrate and pancreatic cancer;
ingested nitrate and lung cancer; dietary nitrate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); ingested nitrate
and breast cancer; ingested nitrate and renal cell cancer; and ingested nitrate and adult glioma or
childhood brain tumours.
There was insufficient evidence for a positive association between: nitrate from processed meat
and colorectal cancer (CRC) or its subtypes; drinking water nitrate and CRC or its subtypes; drinking
water nitrate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); ingested nitrate and leukaemia; ingested nitrate and
ovarian cancer; ingested nitrate and bladder cancer; ingested nitrate and prostate cancer; and
ingested nitrate and thyroid cancer.
There were insufficient data to draw conclusions on: ingested nitrate and head and neck cancer
and ingested nitrate and liver cancer.
In its 1990 evaluation, the SCF established an ADI of 5 mg/kg bw per day for sodium nitrate (SCF,
1992) based on the NOAEL of 2,500 mg sodium nitrate/kg bw per day the highest dose tested in a
long-term rat study by Maekawa et al. (1982) and using a safety factor of 500 (SCF, 1992, 1997). The
SCF justification of the safety factor was based on the fact that the rat was not considered a good
model for man due to the absence of salivary secretion of nitrate and its oral conversion to nitrite. In
1995, the SCF set an ADI of 0–5 mg/kg bw per day for sodium nitrate (equivalent to 0–3.7 mg/kg bw
per day as nitrate ion) based on the same study (SCF, 1997). However, the Panel noted the high
incidence of tumours in all groups within the study, including the controls, and considered that this
could have affected the sensitivity of the study to detect adverse effects attributable to nitrate.
In its evaluation, JECFA commented that, in the two separate long-term feeding studies in rats, doses
of 370 and 1,820 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as nitrate ion, failed to produce any adverse effects
(JECFA, 1996). JECFA considered, however, that the study in which a dose of 1,820 mg/kg bw per day
was reported was solely a carcinogenicity study and could not be considered for deriving a NOEL.
Overall, JECFA considered that ‘on the basis of the NOEL of 370 mg of nitrate ion/kg bw per day in the
long-term study in rats and a safety factor of 100, an ADI of 0–5 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as
sodium nitrate, or 0–3.7 mg/kg bw per day expressed as nitrate ion, could be allocated’. JECFA further
did a back calculation from nitrite to nitrate and concluded that ‘if the proportion of nitrate converted to
nitrite in humans is taken as 5% (mol/mol) for normally responding individuals and 20% for those
showing a high level of conversion and the NOEL for nitrite (6 mg/kg bw/day expressed as nitrite ion) is
used, the “transposed” NOELs for nitrate, expressed as nitrate ion, would be 160 and 40 mg/kg bw/day,
respectively. As these figures are derived in part from human pharmacokinetic data, the use of a safety
factor of less than 100 is justified. If the data on individuals showing a high level of conversion are used,
a safety factor of 10 would be justified because intraindividual differences have already been taken into
account. On the basis of the “transposed” NOEL for nitrate of 160 mg/kg bw per day for normally
responding persons (5% rate of conversion) and a safety factor of 50, an ADI of 0–3.2 mg/kg bw,
expressed as nitrate ion, could be allocated. These two methods of deriving the ADI for nitrate thus
resulted in similar figures, and the Committee at its forty-fourth meeting therefore retained the
previously established ADI of 0–3.7 mg/kg bw, expressed as nitrate ion’ (JECFA, 1996).

The Panel noted that the study on which the original JECFA ADI of 3.7 mg nitrate ion/kg bw per
day was established using the NOEL of 370 mg nitrate ion/kg bw per day and an uncertainty factor of
100 was probably the study of Lehman from 1958, the full report of which was not available to the
Panel. Summarised information obtained by the Panel (Documentation provided to EFSA n.6) on the
Lehman’s study lead to the conclusion that sodium nitrate at doses up to 10% in the feed (equivalent
to 5,000 mg/kg bw per day) did not induce tumour increases related to the treatment. However, the
Panel was not able to independently evaluate the full study and therefore considered that there was
uncertainty about the basis for this ADI. The Panel noted that in 1996, JECFA itself appeared to have
reservations concerning the evidence underlying the ADI and also used an indirect derivation from
nitrite with a 5% conversion of the nitrate dose to nitrite and an uncertainty factor of 50 to derive an
ADI of 3.2 mg nitrate ion/kg bw per day. JECFA (1996) concluded that the existing ADI of 3.7 mg
nitrate ion/kg bw per day should be retained since the values obtained in its two evaluations were
similar. The Panel noted that the rationale for using an uncertainty factor of 50 was not explicitly
stated but the Panel presumed that the uncertainty factor incorporated kinetic variability, meaning this
component of the uncertainty factor was not required. However, the Panel could not exclude that
JECFA has modified the uncertainty factor because of smaller dynamic variability in the response. The
Panel noted that using the current WHO/IPCS CSAF approach this uncertainty factor would be modified
by a factor 2.5 and 4, depending on the basis of these corrections which would give a total uncertainty
factor between 25 and 40 rather than 50 (resulting in potential ADI values of 4 to 6 mg/kg bw per
day). The Panel agreed with JECFA view that the values obtained by either approach were essentially
identical since they were derived from empirical NOELs which were determined by the doses
independently chosen for each study (nitrate and nitrite) and which were not designed to be identical.
Despite the reservations expressed above over, the reliability of study used to derive an ADI by the
SCF, the Panel noted that the numerical values of the SCF and JECFA ADIs were broadly comparable.
The human studies on goitre and the single study on hypothyroidism were considered not sufficient
for deriving reference points for a health-based guidance value.
Hence, in the absence of other adverse effects and the unavailability of the original 1958 study
used by JECFA and the database currently available, the Panel decided that the most relevant
approach for assessing the toxicity of nitrate would be methaemoglobinaemia induced by nitrite
formed from nitrate excreted in the saliva, once absorbed. The Panel review the reported information
on secretion estimates of nitrate into the mouth in humans and observed that most estimates available
varied between 20% and 25% of the dose (Spiegelhalder et al., 1976, Bartholomew and Hill, 1984).
Additionally, the Panel noted that these studies were quite old and had limitations (it might be possible
to obtain more accurate estimates nowadays). The Panel therefore considered that adequate, well
conducted modern studies might decrease the uncertainty associated with this estimate.
The Panel noted that available estimates of the ratio of concentrations of nitrite to nitrate varied
within and between individual subjects. The nitrate-to-nitrite conversion was estimated to range from
5% to 36% (e.g. Spiegelhalder et al., 1976; Wagner et al., 1983; Bartholomew and Hill, 1984; Bos
et al., 1988; Granli et al., 1989; Shapiro et al., 1991; Jin et al., 2013; Bondonno et al., 2015; Hohensin
et al., 2016; Montenegro et al., 2016; Woessner et al., 2016). The Panel noted that the available
studies were carried out in diverse and differing populations. The Panel considered that to reflect the
uncertainties in the underlying data and interindividual variability in conversion, it was appropriate to
use a range of values for the conversion percentage of nitrate to nitrite in the saliva.
The Panel considered that any single estimate of the overall conversion of ingested nitrate to nitrite
would not be reliable. The Panel did not consider it was possible to derive a single value as ADI from
the data available.
Based on the secretion rates of nitrate (20–25%) into the saliva and the range of conversion rates
of nitrate to nitrite (5–36%) in the mouth, a range for the overall conversion percentage between 1%
and 9% would be estimated. Using this range and considering the ADI of nitrite (0.07 mg nitrite ion/kg
bw per day), the ADI values estimated for nitrate would be between 1.05 and 9.4 mg nitrate ion/kg bw
per day. The current ADI established by the SCF (1997) (3.7 mg nitrate ion/kg bw per day) falls within
those estimates. The Panel considered that, as a point estimate, the current ADI was likely to be as
accurate as this range.
The Panel also took into consideration the lack of overt toxicity data reported in the available
studies in animals and that there was no cancer concerns overall from epidemiological studies in
humans. Despite the uncertainty associated with the ADI set by the SCF (1997) due to the inability to
examine its basis thoroughly, the Panel considered that currently there was insufficient evidence to
withdraw this ADI.

The Panel recognised that further data from human studies were warranted. These studies could
target the secretion of nitrate in the saliva and the conversion of nitrate to nitrite in the mouth, as well
as the subsequent effect of increased nitrite blood concentrations, namely increase in
methaemoglobinaemia, or assess the effects of nitrate on thyroid function in a well conducted study.
Since these data might also affect evaluations in other areas of EFSA’s remit, the Panel recognised that
an integrated risk assessment would be required to best define further data requirements.
The Panel noted that nitrates (E 251–E 252) were authorised for use in a wide range of foods and
it was therefore not expected that brand-loyalty would result in higher exposure in the general
population. The Panel therefore selected the non-brand loyal scenario refined scenario as the most
relevant exposure scenario for the safety evaluation of these food additives.
From its refined estimated exposure scenario considering concentration levels not exceeding the
MPLs for food categories listed under Annex II to Regulation No 1333/2008, in the non-brand-loyal
scenario, mean exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) from their use as food additives (E 251–
E 252) ranged from 0.01 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 0.09 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th
percentile of exposure to nitrates (expressed as nitrate ion) ranged from 0.05 mg/kg bw per day in the
elderly to 0.22 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers.
From these exposure scenarios considered for exposure assessment of nitrates (E 251–E 252) from
their use as food additives, the most important contributors to the total mean exposure for all
fishery products contributed less.
sources (food additives, natural presence and contamination), applying reduction factors for
vegetables, mean exposure ranged from 0.97 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 4.15 mg/kg bw per
day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure to nitrates ranged from 1.59 mg/kg bw per day in the
elderly to 8.73 mg/kg bw per day in children.
additives, natural presence and contamination across surveys and population groups, range min–max),
were vegetables and vegetable-based foods for all population groups (0–29%). In particular, the main
contributing food categories were starchy roots and tubers in infants, toddlers and children (4–35%),
whereas the leafy vegetables (0.4–47%) and prepared salads (0–44%) were the main contributors in
children, adolescents, adults and the elderly. In infants, also foods for infants and toddlers (4–33%)
made an important contribution to the total mean exposure to nitrates from all sources.
(E 251–E 252) from their use as food additives is less than 5% of contribution to the overall exposure
to nitrates from all sources in any scenario and for any population group (approximately 2% in
average, range 0.4–4.4%).
The Panel noted that exposure to nitrates from their use as food additives was below the ADI of
3.7 mg/kg bw per day by using the most appropriate refined exposure scenario (non-brand loyal). The
estimates for the high level consumers in all population groups were approximately 15% or less of the
current ADI. As such, there would not be a safety concern from the current uses and use levels of
nitrate as a food additive.
overestimation of the exposure to nitrates (E 251–E 252) as a food additive in European countries for
Based on a refined estimated exposure scenario, the exposure to nitrate resulting from its use as a
food additive does not lead to an exceedance of the ADI of nitrates.
The Panel noted that total dietary exposure to nitrate from all sources exceeded the current ADI in
all populations considered. Assessing whether or not the total dietary intake of nitrate was a safety
concern was outside the scope of this re-evaluation and beyond the remit of the ANS Panel.
The formation of NOCs is a key step when considering the carcinogenic risk of nitrites (EFSA ANS
Panel, 2017). In order to be able to estimate the amount of nitrosamines formed from nitrate, its
conversion to nitrite needs to be quantifiable. In view of the large variability observed among the
populations on the proportion of nitrite that can be formed from nitrate in the mouth, the Panel was
unable to derive a point estimate for nitrates with sufficient reliability as a starting point for the
calculation of the amount of endogenously formed nitrosamines from this source.

4. Conclusions
The available data did not indicate genotoxic potential for sodium and potassium nitrate.
Furthermore, carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats were negative. Therefore, the Panel concluded
that an ADI for nitrate per se could be derived from general toxicity data.
The Panel concluded that, although there was some evidence that nitrate intake from drinking water
was associated with goitre, the single study on the association between self-reported hypothyroidism
and estimated dietary nitrate intake (Ward et al., 2010) was considered insufficient for deriving a
reference point for an ADI.
The Panel considered the derivation of an ADI for nitrate based on the formation of
methaemoglobin, following the conversion of nitrate, excreted in the saliva, to nitrite. However, there
were large variations in the data available on the conversion of nitrate to nitrite in the saliva in humans,
making any estimate of the overall conversion of ingested nitrate to nitrite unreliable. Therefore, the
Panel did not consider it was possible to derive a single value from the data available.
The range of ADI values that could be derived from the range of values for conversion of ingested
nitrate to nitrite would also cover the existing ADI set by the SCF (1997) (0–3.7 mg nitrate ion/kg bw
per day). The Panel considered that even using the highest nitrate-to-nitrite conversion factor of 9% a
dose corresponding to the ADI of 3.7 mg/kg bw per day will be converted into 0.25 mg nitrite ion/kg
bw per day. With this dose, the methaemoglobin levels will increase above background levels (1–3%)
which is measurable, but not clinically significant. Furthermore, ingestion of 0.25 mg/kg bw per day
nitrite ion would lead to endogenous N-nitroso compounds (ENOCs) production of 8.22 9 107 mg/kg
bw per day calculated using the formula given in the Guideline for Canadian Drinking Water (Health
Canada, 2013). Then, the MoE between the produced amount of ENOCs and the BMDL10 of N-nitroso-
dimethylamine (NDMA) (0.027 mg/kg bw per day) would be 3.2 9 104 which is still above the MoE of
10,000 considered by the Scientific Committee as of low concern from a public health point of view
(EFSA, 2005; EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012b).
In concluding this, the Panel also took into consideration the lack of overt toxicity reported in the
available studies in animals and that there was no cancer concerns overall from epidemiological studies
in humans. Despite the uncertainty associated with the ADI set by the SCF (1997), the Panel concluded
that currently there was insufficient evidence to withdraw this ADI.
The Panel concluded that exposure to nitrate resulting solely from its use as a food additive,
estimated to be less than 5% of the overall exposure to nitrate in food based on the refined estimated
exposure scenario, did not lead to an exceedance of the ADI. However, if all sources of dietary nitrate
exposure are considered (food additive, natural presence and contamination), the ADI will be
exceeded for all age groups at the mean and highest exposure.
5. Recommendations
The Panel recommended further human studies with a better control of confounding factors (e.g.
radiation exposure dietary iodine intake and other anions that compete with iodide uptake in the
thyroid) are needed to confirm the findings in thyroid gland.
The Panel recommended that additional experimental studies in humans measuring the excretion of
nitrate into the saliva and its conversion to nitrites and the consequent methaemoglobin formation
should be conducted in order to reduce uncertainties.
The Panel recommended that further studies on the levels of nitroso compounds formed in different
meat products with known ingoing amounts of nitrates/nitrites added, with appropriate controls and
with specified levels of detection (LOD) and levels of quantification (LOQ) for potentially formed
nitroso- compounds would be necessary.
The Panel recommended that the European Commission considers lowering the current limits for
toxic elements (lead, mercury and arsenic) in the EU specifications for nitrates (E 251–E 252) in order
to ensure that nitrates (E 251–E 252) as a food additive will not be a significant source of exposure to
those toxic elements in food.
Documentation provided to EFSA

1) MARS Chocolate UK. Data submitted to EFSA on 23 April 2010.
2) BASF. Characterisation and particle size distribution of Natriumnitrat E 250 mit SiO2. Data
submitted to EFSA on 21 June 2010.

3) FDA, 2010. Potassium Nitrate PAFA.

4) FDA, 2010. Sodium Nitrate PAFA.
5) FDA, 2010. FAP3T2840.
6) FDA, 2017. Pathological study of rats fed up to 10% sodium nitrate in the diet for 2 years,
January 2017.
7) FDE (Food Drink Europe), 2013. Data on usage levels of nitrates (E 251- E 252) in foods in
response to the EFSA call for food additives usage level and/or concentration data in food
and beverages intended for human consumption (2013). Submitted to EFSA on 29 November
2013.
References

Alavantic D, Sunjevaric I, Pecevski J, Bozin D and Cerovic G, 1988a. In vivo genotoxicity of nitrates and nitrites in
germ cells of male mice. I. Evidence for gonadal exposure and lack of heritable effects. Mutation Research/
Genetic Toxicology, 204, 689–695.
Alavantic D, Sunjevaric I, Cerovic G, Bozin D and Pecevski J, 1988b. In vivo genotoxicity of nitrates and nitrites in
germ cells of male mice. II. Unscheduled DNA synthesis and sperm abnormality after treatment of spermatids.
Mutation Research, 204, 697–701.
Andrade R, Viana CO, Guadagnin SG, Reyes FGR and Rath S, 2003. A flow-injection spectrophotometric method
for nitrate and nitrite determination through nitric oxide generation. Food Chemistry, 80, 597–602.
AOAC, 2005. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD.
Armenteros M, Aristoy MC and Toldra F, 2012. Evolution of nitrate and nitrite during the processing of dry-cured
ham with partial replacement of NaCl by other chloride salts. Meat Science, 91, 378–381.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy B, Cross AJ, Rachael Z, Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ, Schatzkin A, Hollenbeck AR, Sinha R and Ward
MH, 2011. Pancreatic cancer and exposure to dietary nitrate and nitrite in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 174, 305–315.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy B, Ward MH, Zheng T, Holford TR, Boyle P, Leadere B and Zhang Y, 2012a. Dietary nitrate and
nitrite intake and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma survival. Nutrition and Cancer, 64, 488–492.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy B, Ward MH, Gierach GL, Schatzkin A, Hollenbeck AR, Sinha R and Cross AR, 2012b. Epithelial
ovarian cancer and exposure to dietary nitrate and nitrite in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. European
Journal of Cancer Prevention, 21, 65–72.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy B, Ward MH, Dave BJ, Smith SM, Weisenburger DD and Chiu BC, 2013a. Dietary nitrate and
nitrite intake and risk of non- Hodgkin lymphoma. Leukemia and Lymphoma, 54, 945–950.
Aschebrook-Kilfoy B, Shu XO, Gao YT, Ji BT, Yang G, Li HL, Rothman N, Chow WH, Zheng W and Ward MH, 2013b.
Thyroid cancer risk and dietary nitrate and nitrite intake in the Shanghai women’s health study. International
Journal of Cancer, 132, 897–904.
Asero R, 2005. Food additive-induced chronic pruritus: further evidence. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology,
30, 719–720.
Azeez OH, Mahmood MB and Hassan JS, 2011. Effect of nitrate poisoning on some biochemical parameters in rats.
Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 25, 47–50.
Baghurst PA, McMichael AJ, Slavotinek AH, Baghurst KI, Boyle P and Walker AM, 1991. A case-control study of diet
and cancer of the pancreas. American Journal of Epidemiology, 134, 167–179.
Bako IG, Mabrouk MA and Abubakar A, 2009. Antioxidant effect of ethanolic seed extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa
Linn (Malvaceae) alleviate the toxicity induced by chronic administration of sodium nitrate on some
haematological parameters in Wistar rats. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology, 1, 39–42.
Bartholomew B and Hill MJ, 1984. The pharmacology of dietary nitrate and the origin of urinary nitrate. Food and
Chemical Toxicology, 22, 789–795.
Bartos HR and Desforges JF, 1966. Red blood cells DPNH-dependent diaphorase levels in infants. Pediatrics, 37,
991–993.
Below H, Zo €llner H, Vo
€lzke H and Kramer A, 2008. Evaluation of nitrate influence on thyroid volume of adults in a
previously iodine-deficient area. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 211, 186–191.
Bernini R, Picconi F, Iacovacci V and Abballe F, 2001. Analisi di salumi mediante cromatografia ionica – II: nitrito e
Nitrato. Industrie Alimentari, XL, 741–746.
Boink BTJ, Dormans JAMA and Speijers GJA, 1995, The role of nitrite and/or nitrate in the etiology of the
hypertrophy of the adrenal zona glomerulosa of rats. Health aspects of nitrates and its metabolites (particularly
nitrite). Proceedings International Workshop. Bilthoven, Netherlands, 8–10 November 1994. Council of Europe
Press, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, pp. 213–227.
Boink ABTJ, Beekhof PK, Dormans JAMA and Speijers GJA, 1996. On the etiology of nitrite-induced hypertrophy of
the zona glomerulosa of rats: I. The possible role of nitrate. Report No. 235802003 of the National Institute of
Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands, pp. 1–19, as referred to in JECFA, 2005.
Boink ABTJ, Dormans JAMA, Speijers GJA and Vleeming W, 1999. Effects of nitrates and nitrites in experimental
animals. Special Publication-Royal Society of Chemistry, 237, 317–326.

Bondonno CP, Liu AH, Croft KD, Ward NC, Puddey IB, Woodman RJ and Hodgson JM, 2015. Short-term effects of
a high nitrate diet on nitrate metabolism in healthy individuals. Nutrients, 7, 1906–1915.
Bos PMJ, Van Den Brandt PA, Wedel M and Ockhuizen T, 1988. The reproducibility of the conversion of nitrate to
nitrite in human saliva after a nitrate load. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 26, 93–97.
Bouchikhi B, Mavelle T and Debry G, 1999. Effect of the addition of nitrate to milk on the formation of volatile N-
nitrosamines and apparent total N-nitroso compounds. European Food Research and Technology, 209, 88–92.
Brody JG, Aschengrau A, McKelvey W, Swartz CH, Kennedy T and Rudel RA, 2006. Breast cancer risk and drinking
water contaminated by wastewater: a case control study. Environmental Health, 6, 28.
Butt SB, Riaz M and Iqbal MZ, 2001. Simultaneous determination of nitrite and nitrate by normal phase ion-pair
liquid chromatography. Talanta, 55, 789–797.
Casanova JA, Gross LK, Mcmullen SE and Schenck FJ, 2006. Use of Griess reagent containing vanadium(III) for
post-column derivatization and simultaneous determination of nitrite and nitrate in baby food. Journal of AOAC
International, 89, 447–451.
Catsburg CE, Gago-Dominguez M, Yuan JM, Castelao JE, Cortessis VK, Pike MC and Stern M, 2014. Dietary sources
of N-nitroso compounds and bladder cancer risk: findings from the Los Angeles bladder cancer study.
International Journal of Cancer, 134, 125–135.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization), 1997. Foodstuffs – Determination of nitrate and/or nitrite content.
Part 1: General considerations. EN 12014-1:1997.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization), 2005a. Foodstuffs – Determination of nitrate and/or nitrite
content. Part 3: Spectrometric determination of nitrate and nitrite content of meat products after enzymatic
reduction of nitrate to nitrite. EN 12014-3:2005.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization), 2005b. Foodstuffs – Determination of nitrate and/or nitrite
contentPart 4: Ion-exchange chromatographic (IC) method for the determination of nitrate and nitrite content
of meat products. EN 12014-4:2005.
Chang CC, Tsai SS, Wu TN and Yang CY, 2009. Nitrates in municipal drinking water and non-Hodgkin lymphoma:
an ecological cancer case-control study in Taiwan. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 73,
330–338.
Chaoui A, Zaki A, Talibi A, Chait A, Derouiche A, Aboussaouira T, Benabdjlil F and Himmi T, 2004. Effets des
nitrates inorganiques sur l’aspect morphofonctionnel de la glande thyroide chez le rat femelle. Therapie, 59,
471–475.
Chasco J, Lizaso G and Beriain MJ, 1996. Cured colour development during sausage processing. Meat Science, 44,
203–211.
Chiu HF, Tsai SS and Yang CY, 2007. Nitrate in drinking water and risk of death from bladder cancer: an ecological
case-control study in Taiwan. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A, 70, 1000–1004.
Chiu HF, Tsai SS, Wu TN and Yang CY, 2010. Colon cancer and content of nitrates and magnesium in drinking
water. Magnesium Research, 23, 81–89.
Chiu HF, Kuo CH, Tsai SS, Chen CC, Wu DC, Wu TN and Yang CY, 2012. Effect modification by drinking water
hardness of the association between nitrate levels and gastric cancer: evidence from an ecological study.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A, 75, 684–693.
Chow CK, Chen CJ and Gairola C, 1980. Effect of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water on rats. Toxicology Letters, 6,
199–206, as referred to in JECFA, 1996.
Chung JC, Chou SS and Hwang DF, 2004. Changes in nitrate and nitrite content of four vegetables during storage
at refrigerated and ambient temperatures. Food Additives & Contaminants, 21, 317–322.
Chung SWC, Tran JCH, Tong KSK, Chen MYY, Xiao Y, Ho YY and Chan CHY, 2011. Nitrate and nitrite levels in
commonly consumed vegetables in Hong Kong. Food Additives & Contaminants, 4, 34–41.
Cocco P, Broccia G, Aru G, Casula P, Muntani S, Cantor KP and Ward MH, 2003. Nitrate in community water
supplies and incidence of non Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Sardinia, Italy. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 57, 510–511.
Cortas NK and Wakid NW, 1991. Pharmacokinetic aspects of inorganic nitrate ingestion in man. Pharmacology and
Toxicology, 68, 192–195.
Coss A, Cantor KP, Relf JS, Lynch JS and Ward MH, 2004. Pancreatic cancer and drinking water and dietary
sources of nitrate and nitrite. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159, 693–701.
Croitoru MD, 2012. Nitrite and nitrate can be accurately measured in samples of vegetal and animal origin using
an HPLC-UV/VIS technique. Journal of Chromatography B, 911, 154–161.
Cross AJ, Ferrucci LM, Risch A, Graubard BI, Ward MH, Park Y, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A and Sinha R, 2010. A
large prospective study of meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: an investigation of potential
mechanisms underlying this association. Cancer Research, 70, 2406–2414.
Cross AJ, Freedman ND, Ren J, Ward MH, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Sinha R and Abnet CC, 2011. Meat
consumption and risk of esophageal and gastric cancer in a large prospective study. American Journal of
Gastroenterology, 106, 432–442.
Czarniecka-Skubina E and Gołaszewska B, 2001. Wpływ procesu kulinarnego na jakos0 c0 wybranych warzyw.
Z˙ ywnos0 c0 , 2, 102–115.

Daniel CR, Sinha R, Park Y, Graubard BI, Hollenbeck AR, Morton LM and Cross AJ, 2012a. Meat intake is not
associated with risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a large prospective cohort of U.S. men and women. Journal
of Nutrition, 142, 1074–1080.
Daniel CR, Cross AJ, Graubard BI, Park Y, Ward MH, Rothman N, Hollenbeck AR, Chow WH and Sinha R, 2012b.
Large prospective investigation of meat intake related mutagens and risk of renal cell carcinoma. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 95, 155–162.
Del Negro A, Arau jo MR, Tincani AJ, Meirelles L, Martins AS and Andreollo NA, 2008. Experimental carcinogenesis
on the oropharyngeal mucosa of rats with hydrochloric acid, sodium nitrate and pepsin. Acta Cirurgica
Brasileira, 23, 337–342.
Dellavalle CT, Daniel CR, Aschebrook-Kilfoy B, Hollenbeck AR, Cross AJ, Sinha R and Ward MH, 2013. Dietary
intake of nitrate and nitrite and risk of renal cell carcinoma in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. British
Journal of Cancer, 108, 205–212.
DellaValle CT, Xiao Q, Yang G, Shu XO, Aschebrook-Kilfoy B, Zheng W, Li HL, Ji B, Rothman T, Chow T, Gao Y and
Ward MH, 2014. Dietary nitrate and nitrite intake and risk of colorectal cancer in the Shanghai Women’s Health
Study. International Journal of Cancer, 134, 2917–2926.
De Mey E, Drabik-Markiewicz G, Peeters C, Derdelinckx G, Paelinck H and Impens S, 2009. Impact of cadaverine in
volatile N-nitrosamine formation during the heating of a lean meat model. In Communications in agricultural
and applied biological sciences (Vol. 4, No. 74, pp. 127-132). Universiteit Gent.
De Mey E, De Maere H, Goemaere O, Steen L, Peeters MC, Derdelinckx G, Paelinck H and Fraeye I, 2014.
Evaluation of N-nitrosopiperidine formation from biogenic amines during the production of dry fermented
sausages. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7, 1269–1280.
Drabik-Markiewicz G, Van den Maagdenberg K, De Mey E, Deprez S, Kowalska T and Paelinck H, 2009. Role of proline
and hydroxyproline in N-nitrosamine formation during heating in cured meat. Meat Science, 81, 479–486.
Drabik-Markiewicz G, Dejaegher B, De Mey E, Impens S, Kowalska T, Paelinck H and Vander Heyden Y, 2010.
Evaluation of the influence of proline, hydroxyproline or pyrrolidine in the presence of sodium nitrite on N-
nitrosamine formation when heating cured meat. Analytica chimica acta, 657, 123–130.
Drabik-Markiewicz G, Dejaegher B, De Mey E, Kowalska T, Paelinck H and Vander Heyden Y, 2011. Influence of
putrescine, cadaverine, spermidine or spermine on the formation of N-nitrosamine in heated cured pork meat.
Food chemistry, 126, 1539–1545.
Dubrow R, Darefsky AS, Park Y, Mayne ST, Moore SC and Kilfoy B, 2010. Dietary components related to N-nitroso
compound formation: a prospective study of adult glioma. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 19,
1709–1722.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2003. The effects of nitrites/nitrates on the microbiological safety of meat
products. BIOHAZ Panel. EFSA Journal 2003;2(3):14, 1–31 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2004.14
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA related
to harmonised approach for risk assessment of substances which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. EFSA
Journal 2005;3(10):282, 31 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2005.282
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007. Scientific opinion of the Scientific Committee related to
uncertainties in dietary exposure assessment. EFSA Journal 2007;5(1):438, 54 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/
j.efsa.2007.438
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009. Guidance of the Scientific Committee on transparency in the
scientific aspects of risk assessments carried out by EFSA. Part 2: general principles. EFSA Journal 2009;7
(5):1051, 1–22 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1051
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010a. Management of left-censored data in dietary exposure assessment
of chemical substances. EFSA Journal 2010;8(3):1557, 96 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1557.
Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010b. Statement on possible public health risks for infants and young
children from the presence of nitrates in leafy vegetables. EFSA Journal 2010;8(12):1935, 42 pp. https://
doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1935
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011a. Use of the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption
Database in Exposure Assessment. EFSA Journal, 2011;9(3):2097, 34 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.
2097
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011b. Evaluation of the FoodEx, the food classification system applied to
the development of the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database. EFSA Journal 2011;
9(3):1970, 27 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.1970
EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food), 2012. Guidance for
submission for food additive evaluations. EFSA Journal 2012;10(7):2760, 60 pp. https://doi.org/
10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2760. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food), Mortensen A, Aguilar F,
Crebelli R, Di Domenico A, Dusemund B, Frutos MJ, Galtier P, Gott D, Gundert-Remy U, Lambre C, Leblanc J-C,
Lindtner O, Moldeus P, Mosesso P, Oskarsson A, Parent-Massin D, Stankovic I, Waalkens-Berendsen I,
Woutersen RA, Wright M, van den Brandt P, Fortes C, Merino L, Toldra F, Arcella D, Christodoulidou A, Barrucci F,

Garcia A, Pizzo F, Battacchi D and Younes M, 2017. Re-evaluation of potassium nitrite (E 249) and sodium nitrite
(E 250) as food additives. EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4786, 155 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4786
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2008. Scientific opinion nitrates in
vegetables. EFSA Journal 2008;6(6):689, 79 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.689
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2009a. Scientific Opinion on arsenic in
food. EFSA Journal 2009;7(10):1351, 199 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1351
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2009b. Scientific opinion on nitrite as
undesirable substances in animal feed. EFSA Journal 2009;7(4):1017, 47 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.
2009.1017
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2010a. Scientific Opinion on lead in food.
EFSA Journal 2010;8(4):1570, 151 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1570
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2010b. Statement on possible public health
risks for infants and young children from the presence of nitrates in leafy vegetables. EFSA Journal 2010;8
(12):1935, 1–42 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1935
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2012a. Scientific Opinion on the risk for
public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food. EFSA Journal 2012;10(12):2985,
241 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2985
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2012b. Scientific Opinion on lead dietary
exposure in the European population. EFSA Journal 2012;10(7):2831, 59 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.
2012.2831
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2012c. Scientific Opinion on cadmium
dietary exposure in the European population. EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2551, 59 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/
j.efsa.2012.2551
EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain), 2014. Scientific Opinion on dietary
exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European population. EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597, 68 pp. https://doi.
org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3597
EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012a. Guidance on selected default values to be used by the EFSA Scientific
Committee, Scientific Panels and Units in the absence of actual measured data. EFSA Journal 2012;10(3):2579,
32 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2579. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu
EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012b. Scientific Opinion on the applicability of the Margin of Exposure approach for
the safety assessment of impurities which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic in substances added to food/
feed. EFSA Journal 2012;10(3):2578. 5 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2578. Available online: www.
efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
Ensafi AA, Reazei B and Nouroozi S, 2004. Simultaneous spectrophotometric determination of nitrite and nitrate by
flow injection analysis. Analytical Sciences, 20, 1749–1753.
Eskiocak S, Dundar C, Basoglu T and Altaner S, 2005. The effects of taking chronic nitrate by drinking water on
thyroid functions and morphology. Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 5, 66–71.
Fang YJ, Gao ZX, Yan SL, Wang HY and Zhou HY, 2005. A dip-and-read test strip for the determination of nitrite in
food samples for the field screening. Analytical Letters, 38, 1803–1811.
FDRL (Food and Drug Research Laboratories), 1972a. Teratologic evaluation of FDA 71-7 (sodium nitrate). Report
nr. FDABF-GRAS-042. Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc., Maspeth, NY.
FDRL (Food and Drug Research Laboratories), 1972b. Teratologic evaluation of FDA 71-8 (potassium nitrate).
Report nr. FDABF-GRAS-041. Food and Drug Research Laboratories, Inc., Maspeth, NY.
Ferrucci LM, Sinha R, Ward MH, Graubard BI, Hollenbeck AR, Kilfoy BA, Schatzkin A, Michaud DS and Cross AJ,
2010. Meat and components of meat and the risk of bladder cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.
Cancer, 116, 4345–4353.
Ferrucci LM, Sinha R, Huang WY, Berndt SI, Katki HA, Schoen RE, Hayes RB and Cross AJ, 2012. Meat
consumption and the risk of incident distal colon and rectal adenoma. British Journal of Cancer, 106, 608–616.
Fitzhugh OG and Nelson AA, no date. Unpublished report.
Foster AM, Prentice AG, Copplestone JA, Cartwright RA and Ricketts C, 1997. The distribution of leukaemia in
association with domestic water quality in South West England. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 6, 11–19.
Freedman DM, Cantor KP, Ward MH and Helzlsouer KJ, 2000. A case-control study of nitrate in drinking water and
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Minnesota. Archives of Environmental Health, 55, 326–329.
Freedman ND, Cross AJ, McGlynn KA, Abnet CC, Park Y, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Everhart JE and Sihna R,
2010. Association of meat and fat intake with liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma in the NIH-AARP
cohort. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102, 1354–1365.
FSANZ, 2011. Survey of nitrates and nitrites in food and beverages in Australia. Food Standards Australia New
Zealand, available online: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/nitrate/documents/Survey%
20of%20nitrates%20and%20nitrites%20Attach%201.pdf
Gangolli SD, Van Den Brandt PA, Feron VJ, Janzowsky C, Koeman JH, Speijers GJA, Spiegelhalder B, Walker R and
Wishnok JS, 1994. Nitrate, nitrite and N-nitroso compounds. European Journal of Pharmacology, 292, 1–38.
Gao Q, 2002. Uric acid-hexacyanoferrate (III)-luminol chemiluminescence system for the determination of trace
nitrite. Chinese Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 30, 812–814.

Gao F, Zhang L, Wang L, Shike She S and Zhu C, 2005. Ultrasensitive and selective determination of trace
amounts of nitrite ion with a novel fluorescence probe mono[6-N(2-carboxy-phenyl)]-b-cyclodextrin. Analytica
Chimica Acta, 533, 25–29.
Gatseva PD and Argirova MD, 2008. Iodine status and goitre prevalence in nitrate-exposed schoolchildren living in
rural Bulgaria. Public Health, 122, 458–461.
Ghasemi J, Jabbari A, Amini A, Oskoei AG and Abdolahi B, 2004. Kinetic spectrophotometric determination of nitrite
based on its catalytic effect on the oxidation of methyl red by bromate. Analytical Letters, 37, 2205–2214.
Girard JP, 1991. El ahumado. In: Girard JP (ed.). Tecnologiu de la came y de 10s productos crirnicos. Zaragoza,
Acribia. pp. 183–229.
Gladwin MT, Schechter AN, Kim-Shapiro DB, Patel RP, Hogg N, Shiva S, Cannon RO, Kelm M, Wink DA, Espey MG,
Oldfield EH, Pluta RM, Freeman BA, Lancaster JR, Feelisch M and Lundberg JO, 2005. The emerging biology of
the nitrite ion. Nature Chemical Biology, 1, 308–314.
Gloria MBA, Vale SR, Vargas OL, Barbour JF and Scanlan RA, 1997. Influence of nitrate levels added to cheesemilk
on nitrate, nitrite, and volatile nitrosamine contents in Gruyere cheese. Journal of agricultural and food
chemistry, 45, 3577–3579.
Gorsdorf S, Appel EK, Engeholm C and Obe G, 1990. Nitrogen dioxide induces DNA single-strand breaks in
cultured Chinese hamster cells. Carcinogenesis, 11, 37–41.
Govoni A, Jansson EA, Weitzberg E and Lundberg JO, 2008. The increase in plasma nitrite after a dietary nitrate
load is markedly attenuated by an antibacterial mouthwash. Nitric Oxide, 19, 333–337.
Granli T, Dahl R, Brodin P and Bockman OC, 1989. Nitrate and nitrite concentrations in human saliva: variations
with salivary flow-rate. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 27, 675–680.
Green LC, Tannenbaum SR and Fox JG, 1982. Nitrate in human and canine milk. The New England Journal of
Medicine, 306, 1367–1368.
Greenblatt M and Mirvish SS, 1973. Dose-response studies with concurrent administration of piperazine and
sodium nitrite to strain A mice. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 50, 119–124, as referenced by JECFA,
1995 and IARC, 2010.
Gulis G, Czompolyova M and Cerhan JR, 2002. An ecologic study of nitrate in municipal drinking water and cancer
incidence in Trnava District, Slovakia. Environmental Research, 88, 182–187.
Haynes WM, 2010. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 91st Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 4-83–4-90.
Haynes WM, ed., 2015. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 95th Edition (2014), Internet version. CRC Press,
Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton. Available online: http://www.hbcpnetbase.com/
He D, Zhang ZW, Huang Y and Hu Y, 2007. Chemiluminescence microflow injection analysis system on a chip for
the determination of nitrite in food. Food Chemistry, 101, 667–672.
Health Canada, 2011. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Guideline Technical Document. N-
Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Available online: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/
pubs/water-eau/ndma/ndma-eng.pdf
Health Canada, 2013. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document – Nitrate and
Nitrite. Water and Air Quality Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario (Catalogue No H144-13/2-2013E-PDF).
Herna ndez-Ramırez RU, Galva n-Portillo MV, Ward MH, Agudo A, Gonza lez CA, On~ate-Ocan~a LF, Herrera-Goepfert R,
Palma-Coca O and Lo pez-Carrillo L, 2009. Dietary intake of polyphenols, nitrate and nitrite and gastric cancer
risk in Mexico City. International Journal of Cancer, 125, 1424–1430.
Herrmann SS, Granby K and Duedahl-Olesen L, 2015. Formation and mitigation of N-nitrosamines in nitrite
preserved cooked sausages. Food Chemistry, 174, 516–526.
Hohensinn B, Haselgru €bler R, Mu €glinger O and Weghuber J, 2016.
€ller U, Stadlbauer V, Lanzerstorfer P, Lirk G, Ho
Sustaining elevated levels of nitrite in the oral cavity through consumption of nitrate-rich beetroot juice in
young healthy adults reduces salivary pH. Nitric Oxide, 60, 10–15.
Honikel K-O, 2008. The use and control of nitrate and nitrite for the processing of meat products. Meat Science,
78, 68–76.
Hord NG, Ghannam JS, Garg HK, Berens PD and Bryan NS, 2011. Nitrate and nitrite content of human, formula,
bovine, and soy milks: implications for dietary nitrite and nitrate recommendations. Breastfeeding Medicine, 6,
393–399.
€ring H, 1985. Sum Einfluss von subchronischer Nitratapplikation mit Trinkwasser auf die Schilddru
Ho €se der Ratte
(Radio jod test). Gesundheit und Urnwelt, 4, 1–15, as referred to in JECFA, 1996.
€ring H, Dobberkay HJ and Seffner W, 1988. Antithyreoidale Umweltchemikalien [Environmental antithyroid
Ho
€r die gesamte Hygiene und ihre Grenzgebiete, 34, 170–173, as referred to in JECFA,
chemicals]. Zeitschrift fu
1996.
Howe GR, Jain M and Miller AB, 1990. Dietary factors and risk of pancreatic cancer: results of a Canadian
population-based case-control study. International Journal of Cancer, 45, 604–608.
Hsu J, Jayashree A and Lee NA, 2009. Nitrate and nitrite quantification from cured meat and vegetables and their
estimated dietary intake in Australians. Food Chemistry, 115, 334–339.
Huang L, Borniquel S and Lundberg JO, 2010. Enhanced xanthine oxidoreductase expression and tissue nitrate
reduction in germ free mice. Nitric Oxide, 15, 191–195.

Hunault CC, Lambers AC, Mensinga TT, van Isselt JW, Koppeschaar HP and Meulenbelt J, 2007. Effects of sub-
chronic nitrate exposure on the thyroidal function in humans. Toxicology Letters, 175, 64–70.
Hunault CC, van Velzen AG, Sips AJ, Schothorst RC and Meulenbelt J, 2009. Bioavailability of sodium nitrite from
an aqueous solution in healthy adults. Toxicology Letters, 190, 48–53.
Iammarino M and Di Taranto A, 2012. Nitrite and nitrate in fresh meats: a contribution to the estimation of
admissible maximum limits to introduce in directive 95/2/EC. International Journal of Food Science &
Technology, 47, 1852–1858.
Iammarino M, Di Taranto A and Cristino M, 2013. Endogenous levels of nitrites and nitrates in wide consumption
foodstuffs: results of five years of official controls and monitoring. Food Chemistry, 140, 763–771.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), 1998. Some N-nitroso Compounds. Vol. 17, IARC, Lyon.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), 2010. Ingested Nitrate and Nitrite, and Cyanobacterial
Peptide Toxins. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol. 94. IARC, Lyon.
Iijima K, Henry E, Moriya A, Wirz A, Kelman AW and McColl KE, 2002. Dietary nitrate generates potentially
mutagenic concentrations of nitric oxide at the gastroesophageal junction. Gastroenterology, 122, 1248–1257.
Inoue-Choi M, Ward MH, Cerhan JR, Weyer PJ, Anderson KE and Robien K, 2012. Interaction of nitrate and folate
on the risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Nutrition and Cancer, 64, 685–694.
Inoue-Choi M, Jones RR, Anderson KE, Cantor KP, Cerhan JR, Krasner S and Ward MH, 2015. Nitrate and nitrite
ingestion and risk of ovarian cancer among postmenopausal women in Iowa. International Journal of Cancer,
137, 173–182.
Inui N, Nishi Y, Taketomi M and Mori M, 1979. Transplacental action of sodium nitrite on embryonic cells of Syrian
golden hamster. Mutation Research, 66, 149–158.
Ishidate M Jr, Sofuni T, Yoshikawa K, Hayashi K, Hayashi M, Nohmi T, Sawada M and Matsuoka A, 1984. Primary
mutagenicity screening of food additives currently used in Japan. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 22, 623–636.
ISO (International Standard Organization), 2004a. ISO 14673-1:2004 (IDF 189-1: 2004) Milk and milk
products – Determination of nitrate and nitrite contents – Part 1: Method using cadmium reduction and
spectrometry.
ISO (International Standard Organization), 2004b. ISO 14673-2:2004 (IDF 189-2: 2004) Milk and milk
products – Determination of nitrate and nitrite contents – Part 2: Method using segmented flow analysis
(Routine method).
ISO (International Standard Organization), 2004c. ISO 14673-3:2004 (IDF 189-3: 2004) Milk and milk
products – Determination of nitrate and nitrite contents – Part 3: Method using cadmium reduction and flow
injection analysis with in-line dialysis (Routine method).
Jahreis G, Schone F, Ludke H and Hesse V, 1987. Growth impairment caused by dietary nitrate intake regulated via
hypothyroidism and decreased somatomedin. Endocrinologia Experimentalis, 21, 171–180, as referred to in
JECFA 1996.
Jakszyn P, Agudo A, Ibez R, Garc¡a-Closas R, Pera G, Amiano P and Gonzalez CA, 2004a. Development of a food
database of nitrosamines, heterocyclic amines, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Journal of Nutrition, 134,
2011–2014.
Jakszyn P, Iba n
~ez R, Pera G, Agudo A, Garcıa-Closas R, Amiano P and Gonza lez CA, 2004b. Food Content of Potential
Carcinogens. Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona. Available online: http://epic-spain.com/libro.html
Jakszyn P, Bingham S, Pera G, Agudo A, Luben R, Welch A, Boeing H, Del Giudice G, Palli D, Saieva C, Krogh V,
Sacerdote C, Tumino R, Panico S, Berglund G, Sima n H, Hallmans G, Sanchez MJ, Larra¤aga N, Barricarte A,
Chirlaque MD, Quir¢s JR, Key TJ, Allen N, Lund E, Carneiro F, Linseisen J, Nagel G, Overvad K, Tjonneland A,
Olsen A, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Ock MO, Peeters PH, Numans ME, Clavel-Chapelon F, Trichopoulou A, Fenger
C, Stenling R, Ferrari P, Jenab M, Norat T, Riboli E and Gonzalez CA, 2006. Endogenous versus exogenous
exposure to N-nitroso compounds and gastric cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer
and Nutrition (EPIC-EURGAST) study. Carcinogenesis, 27, 1497–1501.
Jansson EA, Huang L, Malkey R, Govoni M, Nihle n C, Olsson A, Stensdotter M, Petersson K, Holm L, Weitzberg E
and Lundberg JO, 2008. A mammalian functional nitrate reductase that regulates nitrite and nitric oxide
homeostasis. Nature Chemical Biology, 4, 411–417.
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 1965. Specifications for the identity and purity of
food additives and their toxicological evaluation: Food colours and some antimicrobials and antioxidants. Eighth
Report of JECFA. WHO Technical Report Series No. 309.
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 1974. Toxicological evaluation of certain food
additives with a review of general principles and of specifications. Seventeenth report of JECFA. WHO Technical
Report Series No. 539. FAO Nutrition meetings Report Series No. 53.
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 1995. Evaluation of certain food additives and
contaminants. Forty-fourth report of JECFA. WHO Technical Report Series 859.
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 1996. Nitrate. Safety Evaluation of Certain Food
Additives (Food additives Series 35). World Health Organization, Geneva. Available online: http://www.inchem.
org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v35je14.htm
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 2000. Guidelines for the preparation of toxicological
working papers for the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Geneva, Switzerland.

JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 2002. Evaluation of certain food additives and
contaminants. Fifty-ninth report of JECFA. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, WHO Technical
Reports Series 913. 20–32. Available online: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_913.pdf
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 2003a. Nitrate (and potential endogenous formation
of N-nitroso compounds). WHO Food Additives Series, 50. Available online: http://www.inchem.org/docume
nts/jecfa/jecmono/v50je06.htm
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 2003b. Nitrate and Nitrite (Intake assessment).
WHO Food Additive series, 50. Available online: http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v50je07.htm
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 2003c. Nitrite (and potential endogenous formation
of N-nitroso compounds). WHO Food Additives Series, 50. Available online: http://www.inchem.org/docume
nts/jecfa/jecmono/v50je05.htm
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 2006a. Sodium nitrate. Joint FAO/WHO
ExpertCommittee on Food Additives. Available online: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/jecfa_additive
s/docs/Monograph1/Additive-416.pdf
JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives), 2006b. Potassium nitrate. Joint FAO/WHO
ExpertCommittee on Food Additives Available online: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/jecfa_additive
s/docs/Monograph1/Additive-416.pdf
Jensen OM, 1982. Nitrate in drinking-water and cancer in Northern Jutland, Denmark, with special reference to
stomach cancer. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 6, 258–267.
Jhiang SM, Cho JY, Ryu KY, DeYoung BR, Smanik PA, McGaughy VR, Fischer AH and Mazzaferri EL, 1998. An
immunohistochemical study of Na+/I symporter in human thyroid tissues and salivary gland tissues.
Endocrinology, 139, 4416–4419.
Jin L, Qin L, Xia D, Liu X, Fan Z, Zhang C, Gu L, He J, Ambudkar I, Deng D and Wang S, 2013. Active secretion
and protective effect of salivary nitrate against stress in human volunteers and rats. Free Radical Biology and
Medicine, 57, 61–67.
Jones JA, Ninnis JR, Hopper AO, Ibrahim Y, Merritt TA, Wan KW, Power G and Blood AB, 2014. Nitrite and nitrate
concentrations and metabolism in breast milk, infant formula, and parenteral nutrition. Journal of Parenteral
and Enteral Nutrition, 38, 856–866.
Joshi CS, Shukla MR, Patel K, Joshi JS and Sahu O, 2015. Environmentally and economically feasibility
manufacturing process of potassium nitrate for small scale industries: a review. International Letters of
Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, 41, 88–99.
Kazemzadeh A, 2005. Development of new optical nitrite detector. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 17, 767–773.
Keszei AP, Goldbohm RA, Schouten LJ, Jakszym P and van den Brandt PA, 2013. Dietary N-nitroso compounds,
endogenous nitrosation, and the risk of oesophageal and gastric cancer subtypes in the Netherlands Cohort
Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 97, 135–146.
Kilfoy BA, Ward MH, Zheng T, Holford TR, Boyle P, Zhao P, Dai M, Leaderer B and Zhang Y, 2010. Risk of non-Hodgkin
lymphoma and nitrate and nitrite from the diet in Connecticut women. Cancer Causes and Control, 21, 889–896.
Kilfoy BA, Zhang Y, Park Y, Holford TR, Schatzkin A, Hollenbeck A and Ward MH, 2011. Dietary nitrate and nitrite and
the risk of thyroid cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. International Journal of Cancer, 129, 160–172.
Kim HJ, Lee SS, Choi BY and Kim MK, 2007. Nitrate intake relative to antioxidant vitamin intake affects gastric
cancer risk: a case-control study in Korea. Nutrition and Cancer, 59, 185–191.
Kirk-Othmer, 2006a. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 5th Edition, Vol. 20. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New
York. pp. 939–950.
Kirk-Othmer (2006b). Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 5th Edition, Vol. 22. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New
York. pp. 843–862.
Knekt P, Ja €rvinen R, Dich J and Hakulinen T, 1999. Risk of colorectal and other gastro-intestinal cancers after
exposure to nitrate, nitrite and N-nitroso compounds: a follow up study. International Journal of Cancer, 80, 852–
856.
Korenekova B, Kottferova J and Korenek M, 2000. The fate of added nitrate used in the manufacture of Emmental
cheese. Food Additives & Contaminants, 17, 373–377.
Kuo HW, Wu TN and Yang CY, 2007. Nitrates in drinking water and risk of death from rectal cancer in Taiwan.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A, 70, 1717–1722.
Lacroix L, Mian C, Caillou B, Talbot M, Filetti S, Schlumberger M and Bidart JM. Na(+)/I(-) symporter and Pendred
syndrome gene and protein expressions in human extra-thyroidal tissues. European Journal of Endocrinology
144, 297–302. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11248751
Lambers AC, Kortboyer JM, Schothorst RC, Sips AJAM, Cleven RFMJ and Meulenbelt J, 2000. The oral
bioavailability study of nitrate from vegetables in healthy volunteers. Report No. 235802014 from the National
Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Law G, Parslow R, McKinney P and Cartwright R, 1999. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and nitrate in drinking water: a
study in Yorkshire, United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 383–384.
van Leeuwen JA, Waltner-Toew D, Abernathy T, Smit B and Shoukri M, 1999. Association between stomach cancer
incidence and drinking water contamination with atrazine and nitrate in Ontario (Canada) agroecosystems,
1987–1991. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28, 836–840.

Ledward DA, 1984. In: Hudson BJF (ed.). Developments in Food Proteins-3. Elsevier, London, UK. 33 pp.
Lehman AJ, 1958. Quarterly report to the Editor on Topics of Current Interest. Nitrates and nitrites in meat
products. Quarterly Bulletin – Association of Food & Drug Officials, 22, 136–138.
Leszczyn ska T, Filipiak-Florkiewicz A, Cieslik E, Sikora E and Pisulewski PM, 2009. Effects of some processing
methods on nitrate and nitrite changes in cruciferous vegetables. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis,
22, 315–321.
Leth T, Fagt S, Nielsen S and Andersen R, 2008. Nitrite and nitrate content in meat products and estimated intake
in Denmark from 1998 to 2006. Food Additives & Contaminants Part A, 25, 1237–1245.
Li JS, Wang H, Zhang X and Zhang HS, 2003. Spectrofluorimetric determination of total amount of nitrite and
nitrate in biological sample with a new fluorescent probe 1,3,5,7-tetramethyl-8-(3’,4’-diaminophenyl)-
difluoroboradiaza-s-indacence. Talanta, 61, 797–802.
Liao YH, Chen PS, Chiu HF and Yang CY, 2013. Magnesium in drinking water modifies the association between
nitrate ingestion and risk of death from esophageal cancer. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A,
76, 192–200.
Lijinsky W, 1999. N-Nitroso compounds in the diet. Mutation Research, 443, 129–138.
Lijinsky W, Greenblatt M and Kommineni C, 1973. Brief communication: feeding studies of nitrilotriacetic acid and
derivatives in rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 50, 1061–1063. as referred to in JECFA 2006.
Lindsay RC, 1996. Food Additives. In: Fennema OW (ed). Food Chemistry, 3rd Edition. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
Liu C and Russell RM, 2008. Nutrition and gastric cancer risk: an update. Nutrition Review, 66, 237–249.
Luca D, Raileanu L, Luca V and Duda R, 1985. Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei induced in rat and
mouse bone marrow cells by sodium nitrate. Mutation Research, 155, 121–125.
Lundberg JO, Weitzberg E and Gladwin MT, 2008. The nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide pathway in physiology and
therapeutics. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 7, 156–167.
van Maanen JMS, Van Dijk A, Mulder K, De Baets MH, Menheere PC, Van Der Heide D, Mertens PL and Kleinjans
JCS, 1994. Consumption of drinking water with high nitrate levels causes hypertrophy of the thyroid.
Toxicology Letters, 72, 365–374.
Maekawa A, Ogiu T, Onodera H, Furuta K, Matsuoka C, Ohno Y and Odashima S, 1982. Carcinogenicity studies of
sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate in F-344 rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 20, 25–33.
Mascher F and Marth E, 1993. Metabolism and effect of nitrates. Central European Journal of Public Health, 1, 49–52,
as referred to in JECFA, 1995 and IARC, 2010.
McElroy JA, Trentham-Dietz A, Gangnon RE, Hampton JM, Bersch AJ, Kanarek MS and Newcomb PA, 2008.
Nitrogen-nitrate exposure from drinking water and colorectal cancer risk for rural women in Wisconsin, USA.
Journal of Water Health, 6, 399–409.
McMullen SE, Casanova JA, Gross LK and Schenck FJ, 2005. Ion chromatographic determination of nitrate and
nitrite in vegetable and fruit baby foods. Journal of AOAC International, 88, 1793–1796.
Menard C, Heraud F, Volatier J-L and Leblanc J-C, 2008. Assessment of dietary exposure of nitrate and nitrite in
France. Food Additives & Contaminants, 25, 971–988.
Michaud DS, Holick CN, Batchelor TT, Giovannucci E and Hunter DJ, 2009. Prospective study of meat intake and
dietary nitrates, nitrites, and nitrosamines and risk of adult glioma. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90,
570–577.
Millar SJ, Moss BW and Stevenson MH, 1996. Some observations on the absorption spectra of various myoglobin
derivatives fond in meat. Meat Science, 42, 277–288.
Miller PE, Lazarus P, Lesko SM, Cross AJ, Sinha R, Laio J, Zhu J, Harper G, Muscat JE and Hartman TJ, 2013. Meat-
related compounds and colorectal cancer risk by anatomical subsite. Nutrition and Cancer, 65, 202–226.
Mirvish SM, 1975. Formation of N-nitroso compounds: chemistry, kinetics and in vivo occurrence. Toxicology and
Applied Pharmacology, 31, 325–351.
Mirvish SS, 1991. The significance for human health of nitrate, nitrite and N-nitroso compounds. In: Boga rdi I,
Kuzelka RD and Ennenga WG (eds.). Nitrate Contamination: Exposure, Consequence, and Control. Springer-
Verlag, New York, New York. pp. 253–266.
Møller JK and Skibsted LH, 2002. Nitric oxide and myoglobins. Chemical Reviews, 102, 1167–1178.
Montenegro MF, Sundqvist ML, Nihle n C, Hezel M, Carlstro€m M, Weitzberg E and Lundberg JO, 2016. Profound
differences between humans and rodents in the ability to concentrate salivary nitrate: implications for
translational research. Redox Biology, 10, 206–210.
Morales SVM, Llopis GA, Tejerizo PM and Ferrandiz FJ, 1992. Concentration of nitrates in drinking water and its
relationship with bladder cancer. Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology, 12, 229–236.
Morales SVM, Llopis GA, Tejerizo PM and Ferrer CE, 1993. Chlorination of drinking water and cancer incidence.
Journal of Environmental Pathology, Toxicology and Oncology: Official Organ of the International Society for
Environmental Toxicology and Cancer, 13, 39–41.
Mpountoukas P, Vantarakis A, Sivridis E and Lialiaris T, 2008. Cytogenetic study in cultured human lymphocytes
treated with three commonly used preservatives. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46, 2390–2393.
Mukhopadhyay S, Ghosh D, Chatterjee A, Sinha S, Tripathy S and Chandra AK, 2005. Evaluation of possible
goitrogenic and anti-thyroidal effect of nitrate, a potential environmental pollutant. Indian Journal of Physiology
and Pharmacology, 49, 284–288.

Munksgaard L and Werner H, 1987. Fate of nitrate in cheese. Milchwissenschaft, 42, 216–219.
Nighat S, Nawae M and Nawae U, 1981. Induced nitrate poisoning in rabbits. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 1, 10–12.
NMKL (Nordic Committee on Food Analysis), 2013. Nitrate and nitrite. Determination of nitrate and/or nitrite in
foodstuffs and water by spectrophotometry after zinc reduction and Griess reaction. Pohjoismainen
elintarvikkeiden metodiikkakomitea No 194. Available online: http://www.nmkl.org/dokumenter/fi/194fi2013.pdf
NTP (National Toxicology Program), 2011. Report on Carcinogens. 12th Edition. Department of Health and Human
Services, USA. 302 pp. Available online: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2007. OECD SIDS dossier for sodium nitrate
(CAS No.7631-99-4).
OECD, 2014. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4 / Test No. 473: In Vitro Mammalian
Chromosomal Aberration Test.
€
Oztekin N, Nutku MS and Erim FB, 2002. Simultaneous determination of nitrite and nitrate in meat products and
vegetables by capillary electrophoresis. Food Chemistry, 76, 103–106.
Pannala AS, Mani AR, Spencer JPE, Skinner V, Bruckdorfer KR, Moore KP and Rice-Evans CA, 2003. The effect of
dietary nitrate on salivary, plasma and urinary nitrate metabolism in humans. Free Radical Biology & Medicine,
34, 576–584.
Pant N and Srivastava SP, 2002. Testicular and spermatotoxic effect of nitrate in mice. Human and Experimental
Toxicology, 21, 37–41.
Pegg RB and Honikel KO, 2015. Principles of curing. Handbook of Fermented Meat and Poultry, 19–30.
Pegg RB and Shahidi F, 2004. Introduction, in Nitrite Curing of Meat: The N-Nitrosamine Problem and Nitrite
Alternatives. Food & Nutrition Press, Inc., Trumbull, Connecticut, USA. doi: 10.1002/9780470385081.ch1
rez-Rodríguez ML, Garcia Mata M and Bosch-Bosch N, 1998. Effect of adding smoke flavouring to frankfurters
Pe
on nitrite and nitrate levels. Food Chemistry, 62, 201–205.
Radikova Z, Tajtakova M, Kocan A, Trnovec T, Sebo €kova E, Klimes I and Langer P, 2008. Possible effects of
environmental nitrates and toxic organochlorines on human thyroid in highly polluted areas in Slovakia.
Thyroid, 18, 353–362.
Ramarathnam N and Rubin LJ, 1994. The flavour of cured meat. In: Shahidi F (ed). Flavor of Meat and Meat
Products. Blackie, London. pp. 174–198.
Rasheva S, Yantochev I, Boshiolova N and Panova M, 1990. Cytogenetic and pathological changes in mice treated
with sodium nitrate: dynamics of the changes for 5 to 15 days. C R Acad Bulg Sci, 43, 93–94.
Riedel C, Doha n O, De la Vieja A, Ginter CS and Carrasco N, 2001. Journey of the iodide transporter NIS: from its
molecular identification to its clinical role in cancer. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 26, 490–496. Available
online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11504625
RIVM, 1989. Integrated Criteria Document Nitrate. Report no. 758473012. Van Duijvenbooden W, Matthijsen AJCM
(eds.). National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Rogers MA, Vaughan TL, Davis S and Thomas DB, 1995. Consumption of nitrate, nitrite, and nitrosodimethylamine
and the risk of upper aerodigestive tract cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 4, 29–36.
de Roos AJ, Ward MH, Lynch CF and Cantor KP, 2003. Nitrate in public water supplies and the risk of colon and
rectum cancers. Epidemiology, 14, 640–649.
Ross JD, 1963. Deficient activity of DPNH-dependent methemoglobin diaphorase in cord blood red blood cells.
Blood, 21, 51–62.
Sarikaya R and Cakir S, 2005. Genotoxicity testing of four food preservatives and their combinations in the
Drosophila wing spot test. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 20, 424–430.
Scanlan RA, 2003. Nitrosamines. In: Trugo L, Finglas PM (eds.). Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 2nd
Edition, Vol. 1–10, pp. 4142–4147.
SCF (Scientific Committee for Food), 1992. Food – science and techniques. Reports of the Scientific Committee for
Food (Twenty-sixth series). Nitrates and nitrites (opinion expressed on 19th October 1990).
SCF (Scientific Committee for Food), 1997. Reports of the Scientific Committee for Food (38th series). Opinions of
the Scientific Committee for Food on: nitrates and nitrite, draft Commission Directive laying down specific
purity criteria on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, cyclamic acid and its sodium and calcium
salts, the safety in use of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane as a solvent for flavour extraction and Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy. Opinion on nitrates and nitrite expressed on 22 September 1995) report dated 1997.
SCF (Scientific Committee for Food), 2001. Guidance on Submissions for Food Additive Evaluations by the
Scientific Committee on Food, opinion expressed on 11 July 2001, SCF/CS/ADD/GEN/26 Final.
Seffner W, 1985. Sum Einfluss von subchronischer Nitratapplikation mit Trinkwasser auf die Schilddriise der Ratte
(Morphologische Untersuchungen). Gesundheit und Urnwelt, 4, 16–30, as referred to in JECFA, 1996.
Sen NP, Baddoo PA and Seaman SW, 1986. N-Nitrosothiazolidine and N-Nitrosothiazolidine-4-Carboxylic acid in
smoked meats and fish. Journal of Food Science, 51, 821–825.
Shahidi F, Pegg RB and Sen NP, 1994. Absence of volatile N-nitrosamines in cooked nitrite-free cured muscle
foods. Meat Science, 37, 327–336.
Shapiro KB, Hotchkiss JH and Roe DA, 1991. Quantitative relationship between oral nitrate-reducing activity and
the endogenous formation of N-nitrosoamino acids in humans. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 29, 751–755.

Simko P, 2011. Heat and processing generated contaminants in processed meats. In: Kerry JP, Kerry JF (eds.).
Processed Meats – Improving Safety, Nutrition and Quality. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
Sindelar JJ and Milkowski AL, 2012. Human safety controversies surrounding nitrate and nitrite in the diet. Nitric
Oxide, 26, 259–266.
Sinha R, Park Y, Graubard BI, Leitzmann MF, Hollenbeck A and Schatzkin A, 2009. Meat and meat-related
compounds and risk of prostate cancer in a large prospective cohort study in the United States. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 170, 1165–1177.
Smiechowska M, Przybylowski P and Kowalski B, 1994. Study of formation of volatile N-nitrosamines in Zulaw,
Gouda and Edam cheese. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 3, 71–80.
Spiegelhalder B, Eisenbrand G and Preussmann R, 1976. Influence of dietary nitrate on nitrite content of human
saliva: possible relevance to in vivo formation of N-nitroso compounds. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology, 14, 545–
548.
Spitzweg C, Joba W, Eisenmenger W and Heufelder AE, 1998. Analysis of human sodium iodide symporter gene
expression in extrathyroidal tissues and cloning of its complementary deoxyribonucleic acids from salivary gland,
mammary gland, and gastric mucosa. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 83, 1746–1751.
Spitzweg C, Joba W, Schriever K, Goellner JR, Morris JC and Heufelder AE, 1999. Analysis of human sodium iodide
symporter immunoreactivity in human exocrine glands 1. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism,
84, 4178–4184.
Stalikas CD, Konidari CN and Nanos CG, 2003. Ion chromatographic method for the simultaneous determination of
nitrite and nitrate by post-column indirect fluorescence detection. Journal of Chromatography A, 1002, 237–241.
Stasiuk E and Przybyłowski P, 2006. The impact of the modified method of using KNO3 on the formation of volatile
N-nitrosamines in Gouda cheese. Bromatologia i Chemia Toksykologiczna, 39.
Sugiyama K, Tanaka T and Mori H, 1979. Gifu Daigaku Igakubu Kiyo, 27, 1–6, as referenced by JECFA, 1995 and
IARC, 2010.
Suh M, Abraham L, Hixon JG and Proctor DM, 2014. The effects of perchlorate, nitrate, and thiocyanate on free
thyroxine for potentially sensitive subpopulations of the 2001–2002 and 2007–2008 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Surveys. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 24, 579–587.
kova
Tajta M, Semanova Z, Tomkova Z, Szo
€keova E, Majoros J, Radikova
Z, Sebo€kova
E, Klimes I and Langer P,
2006. Increased thyroid volume and frequency of thyroid disorders signs in schoolchildren from nitrate polluted
area. Chemosphere, 62, 559–564.
Tamme T, Reinik M, Roasto M, Merema €e K and Kiis A, 2009. Impact of food processing and storage conditions on
nitrate content in canned vegetable-based infant foods. Journal of Food Protection, 72, 1764–1768.
Tamme T, Reinik M, Pussa T, Roasto M, Meremae K and Kiis A, 2010. Dynamics of nitrate and nitrite content
during storage of home-made and small-scale industrially produced raw vegetable juices and their dietary
intake. Food Additives & Contaminants Part A, 27, 487–495.
Tanzi E and Saccani G, 2005. Nitrati in carni e prodotti stagionati. Laboratorio, 2000, 44–47.
TemaNord, 2002. Food additives in Europe 2000 – Status of safety assessments of food additives presently
permitted in the EU.
Theiler R, Sato K, Aspelund T and Miller A, 1984. Inhibition of N-Nitrosamine formation in a cured Ground Pork
Belly Model System. Journal of Food Science, 49, 341–344.
Thomson B, 2004. Nitrates and nitrites dietary exposure and risk assessment. Prepared as a part of a New
Zealand Food Safety Authority contract for scientific services.
Thomson BM, Nokes CJ and Cressey PJ, 2007. Intake and risk assessment of nitrate and nitrite from New Zealand
foods and drinking water. Food Additives and Contaminants, 24, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02652030600934206
Til HP, Kuper CF and Falke HE, 1985a. Short-term (4 week) oral toxicity in rats with nitrate added to a cereal basal
diet. Interim Report V85.288/250458.
Til HP, Kuper CF and Falke HE, 1985b. Short-term (4 week) oral toxicity in rats with nitrate added to a semi-
purified basal diet. Interim Report V85.289/250458.
Toldra F, 2002. Manufacturing of Dry-cured Ham, in Dry-cured Meat Products. Food & Nutrition Press, Trumbull,
CT, pp. 27–62.
Tompkin RB, 2005. “6 Nitrite”. Antimicrobials in Food, 169.
Tonacchera M, Pinchera A, Dimida A, Ferrarini E, Agretti P, Vitti P, Santini F, Crump K and Gibbs J, 2004. Relative
potencies and additivity of perchlorate, thiocyanate, nitrate, and iodide on the inhibition of radioactive iodide
uptake by the human sodium iodide symporter. Thyroid, 14, 1012–1019.
Tricker AR and Kubacki SJ, 1992. Review of the occurrence and formation of non-volatile N-nitroso compounds in
foods. Food Additives and Contaminants, 1, 39.
Tsezou A, Kitsiou-Tzeli S, Galla A, Gourgiotis D, Papageorgiou J, Mitrou S, Molybdas PA and Sinaniotis C, 1996.
High nitrate content in drinking water: cytogenetic effects in exposed children. Archives of Environmental
Health, 51, 458–461.
Ustyugova IV, Zeman C, Dhanwada K and Beltz LA, 2002. Nitrates/nitrites alter human lymphocyte proliferation
and cytokine production. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 43, 270–276.

van Velzen AG, Sips AJ, Schothorst RC, Lambers AC and Meulenbelt J, 2008. The oral bioavailability of nitrate from
nitrate-rich vegetables in humans. Toxicology Letters, 181, 177–181.
Vitturi DA and Patel RP, 2011. Current perspectives and challenges in understanding the role of nitrite as an
integral player in nitric oxide biology and therapy. Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 51, 805–812.
Volkmer BG, Ernst B, Simon J, Kuefer R, Bartsch G, Bach D and Gschwend JE, 2005. Influence of nitrate levels in
drinking water on urological malignancies: a community-based cohort study. BJU International, 95, 972–976.
Wagner DA, Schultz DS, Deen WM, Young VR and Tannenbaum SR, 1983. Metabolic fate of an oral dose of
15
N-labeled nitrate in humans: effect of diet supplementation with ascorbic acid. Cancer Research, 43, 1921–1925.
Walters CL, 1992. Reactions of nitrate and nitrite in foods with special reference to the determination of N-nitroso
compounds. Food Additives and Contaminants, 9, 441–447.
Ward FW, Coates ME and Walker R, 1986. Nitrate reduction, gastro-intestinal pH and N-nitrosation in gnotobiotic
and conventional rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 24, 17–22.
Ward MH, Mark SD, Cantor KP, Weisenburger DD, Correa-Villasenor A and Zahm SH, 1996. Drinking water nitrate
and the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Epidemiology, 7, 465–471.
Ward MH, Cerhan JR, Colt JS and Hartge P, 2006. Risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and nitrate and nitrite from
drinking water and diet. Epidemiology, 17, 375–382.
Ward MH, Cross AJ, Divan H, Kulldorff M, Nowell-Kadlubar S, Kadlubar FF and Sinha R, 2007a. Processed meat
intake, CYP2A6 activity and risk of colorectal adenoma. Carcinogenesis, 28, 1210–1216.
Ward MH, Rusiecki JA, Lynch CF and Cantor KP, 2007b. Nitrate in public water supplies and the risk of renal cell
carcinoma. Cancer Causes and Control, 18, 1141–1151.
Ward MH, Heineman EF, Markin RS and Weisenburger DD, 2008. Adenocarcinoma of the stomach and oesophagus
and drinking water and dietary sources of nitrate and nitrite. International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 14, 193–197.
Ward MH, Kilfoy BA, Weyer PJ, Anderson KE, Folsom AR and Cerhan JR, 2010. Nitrate intake and the risk of
thyroid cancer and thyroid disease. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 21, 389.
Webb AJ, Patel N, Loukogeorgakis S, Okorie M, Aboud Z, Misra S, Rashid R, Miall P, Deanfield J, Benjamin N,
MacAllister R, Hobbs AJ and Ahluwalia A, 2008. Acute blood pressure lowering, vasoprotective, and antiplatelet
properties of dietary nitrate via bioconversion to nitrite. Hypertension, 51, 784–790.
Weisenburger DD, Schmidt H, Steele SJ, Babbit PR and Armitage JO, 1987. Environmental epidemiology of non-
Hodgkins-Lymphoma (NHL) in Eastern Nebraska. Laboratory Investigation, 56, A85.
Weng HH, Tsai SS, Wu TN, Sung FC and Yang CY, 2011. Nitrates in drinking water and the risk of death from
childhood brain tumors in Taiwan. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 74, 769–778.
Weyer PJ, Cerhan JR, Kross BC, Hallberg GR, Kantamneni J, Breuer G, Jones MP, Zheng W and Lynch CF, 2001.
Municipal drinking water nitrate level and cancer risk in older women: the Iowa Women’s Health Study.
Epidemiology, 12, 327–338.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2007. Nitrate and nitrite in drinking-water. Background document for
development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. WHO/SDE/WSH/07.01/16.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2009. Dietary Exposure Assessment of Chemicals In Food. Available online:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44065/9/WHO_EHC_240_9_eng_Chapter6.pdf
WHO (World Health Organization), 2011. Guidelines for drinking water quality v4. Available online: http://apps.
who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44584/1/9789241548151_eng.pdf
Wind M and Stern A, 1977. Comparison of human adult and fetal hemoglobin: aminophenol-induced
methemoglobin formation. Experientia, 33, 1500–1501.
Wisniak J and Garce s I, 2001. The rise and fall of the salitre (sodium nitrate) industry. Indian Journal of Chemical
Technology, 8, 427–438.
Witter JP and Balish E, 1979. Distribution and metabolism of ingested NO3 and NO2 in germ free and
conventional-flora rats. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 38, 861–869.
Woessner M, Smoliga JM, Tarzia B, Stabler T, Van Bruggen M and Allen JD, 2016. A stepwise reduction in plasma and
salivary nitrite with increasing strengths of mouthwash following a dietary nitrate load. Nitric Oxide, 54, 1–7.
Wright RO, Lewander WJ and Woolf AD, 1999. Methemoglobinemia: etiology, pharmacology, and clinical
management. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 34, 646–656.
Wu Y, Chen J, Ohshima H, Pignatelli B, Boreham J, Li J, Campbell TC, Peto R and Bartsch H, 1993. Geographic
association between urinary-excretion of N-nitroso compounds and esophageal cancer mortality in China.
International Journal of Cancer, 54, 713–719.
Wu T, Wang Y, Ho SM and Giovannucci E, 2013. Plasma levels of nitrate and risk of prostate cancer: a prospective
study. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 22, 1210–1218.
Yang CY, Wu DC and Chang CC, 2007. Nitrate in drinking water and risk of death from colon cancer in Taiwan.
Environment International, 33, 649–653.
Yang CY, Tsai SS and Chiu HF, 2009. Nitrate in drinking water and risk of death from pancreatic cancer in Taiwan.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 72, 397–401.
Yang YJ, Hwang SH, Kim HJ, Nam SJ, Kong G and Kim MK, 2010. Dietary intake of nitrate relative to antioxidant
vitamin in relation to breast cancer risk: a case-control study. Nutritionand Cancer, 62, 555–566.

Zaki A, Ait Chaoui A, Talibi A, Derouiche AF, Aboussaouira T, Zarrouck K, Chait A and Himmi T, 2004. Impact of
nitrate intake in drinking water on the thyroid gland activity in male rat. Toxicology Letters, 147, 27–33.
Zeegers MP, Selen RF, Kleinjans JC, Goldbohm RA and van den Brandt PA, 2006. Nitrate intake does not influence
bladder cancer risk: the Netherlands cohort study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114, 1527–1531.
Zeilmaker MJ, Bakker MI, Schothorst R and Slob W, 2010. Risk assessment of N-nitrosodimethylamine formed
endogenously after fish-with-vegetable meals. Toxicological Sciences, 116, 323–335.
Zeman CL, Kross B and Vlad M, 2002. A nested case–control study of methemoglobinemia risk factors in children
of Transylvania, Romania. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, 817–822.
Zhang N, Yu C, Wen D, Chen J, Ling Y and Terajima K, 2012. Association of nitrogen compounds in drinking water
with incidence of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Shexian, China. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental
Medicine, 226, 11–17.
Zhu Y, Wang PP, Zhao J, Green R, Sun Z, Roebothan B, Squires J, Buehler S, Dicks E, Zhao J, Cotterchio M, Campbell
P, Jain M, Parfrey P and Cotterchio M, 2014. Dietary N-nitroso compounds and risk of colorectal cancer: a case-
control study in Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario, Canada. British Journal of Nutrition, 111, 1109–1117.
Abbreviations
17-bHSD 17-b-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase
c-GT c-glutamyl transpeptidase
AARP American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study
ADI acceptable daily intake
ANS Scientific Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food
AUC area under the curve
BaP benzo(a)pyrene
BMD benchmark dose
BMI body mass index
BP blood pressure
bw body weight
CAS Chemical Abstract Service
CEN European Committee for Standardization
CI confidence interval
CONTAM The EFSA Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food chain
CRC colorectal cancer
DiMeIQx 2-amino-3,4,8 trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline
DM dry matter
EAC oesophageal adenocarcinoma
ECHA European Chemicals Agency
EINECS European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances
ENOC Endogenous N-nitroso compounds
EPIC European Prospective Investigation of Cancer
ESCC oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FCS Food Classification System
FFQ food frequency questionnaire
c-GT c-glutamyl transpeptidase
GCA gastric adenocarcinoma
GD gestational day
GI gastrointestinal
GLP good laboratory practice
GNCA gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma
GNPD Global New Products Database
GSH glutathione
HCA heterocyclic amine
HCC hepatocellular carcinoma
HPLC high performance liquid chromatography
HR hazard ratio
I/R ischaemia–reperfusion
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICD International Classification of Diseases

JECFA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives

LD50 lethal dose, 50% (i.e. dose that causes death among 50% of treated animals)
IL interleukin
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LOD limit of detection
LOQ limit of quantification
MB middle-bound
Mb myoglobin
MeIQx 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline
MetMb metmyoglobin
MoE margin of exposure
MPL maximum permitted level
NDBA N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
NDEA N-nitrosodiethylamine
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
NHL non-Hodgkin lymphoma
NHPRO N-nitrosohydroxyproline
NIH National Institutes of Health
NIS Na+/I symporter
NMKL Nordic Committee of Analysis of Food
NMTCA N-nitroso-2-methyl-thiazolidine 4-carboxylic acid
NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level
NOC N-nitroso compound
NOEL no-observed-effect level
NOMb nitric oxide myoglobin
NOMetMb nitrosometmyoglobin
NPIC N-nitrosopipecolic acid
NPIP N-nitrosopiperidine
NPRO N-nitrosoproline
NPYR N-nitrosopyrrolidine
NSAR N-nitrososarcosine
NTCA N-nitroso-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OR odds ratio
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PBMC peripheral blood mononuclear cell
PHIP 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo [4,5-b]pyridine
RCC renal cell carcinoma
REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals
RH relative humidity
RR relative risk
SCE sister chromatic exchange
SCF Scientific Committee for Food
SIDS Substance Information Data Set
SMART somatic mutation and recombination test
TemaNord Nordic Council of Ministers
TPO thyroid peroxidase
TSH thyroid-stimulating hormone
UDS unscheduled DNA synthesis
UV ultraviolet
VIS visible
WHO World Health Organization

Appendix A – Summary of the reported use levels (mg/kg or mg/L as

appropriate) of sodium and potassium nitrate (E 251–252) provided by
industry
Appendix A can be found in the online version of this output (‘Supporting information’ section):
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4787

Appendix B – Summary of analytical results (mg/kg) of sodium and

potassium nitrate (E 251–252) provided by Members States
Appendix B can be found in the online version of this output (‘Supporting information’ section):

Appendix C – Concentration levels of sodium and potassium nitrate (E

251–252) used in the refined exposure scenarios (mg/kg or mL/kg as
appropriate)
Appendix C can be found in the online version of this output (‘Supporting information’ section):

Appendix D – Summary of total estimated exposure of sodium and

potassium nitrate (E 251–252) from their use as food additives for the
maximum level exposure scenario and the refined exposure assessment
scenarios per population group and survey: mean and 95th percentile
(mg/kg bw per day)
Appendix D can be found in the online version of this output (‘Supporting information’ section):

Appendix E – Toxicological studies and human studies on thyroid reviewed

Table E.1: List of the toxicological studies reviewed
Strain
Compound
experimental Duration Equivalent doses NOAEL Main observed effects Reference
tested
animals
Subchronic toxicity studies
Sodium Rats, strain not 4 weeks Sodium NI ♂ ➚ Methaemoglobin Til et al.
nitrate and specified nitrite = 4,500 mg/kg from 2,700 onwards; (1985a,b)
potassium bw per day ➚ kidney relative weights
nitrate Potassium from 2,700
nitrite = 900, 1,800, ♀+♂➘ Mean body
2,700, 3,600, weights from 2,700
5,400 mg/kg bw per onwards
day ♀ ➚ Methaemoglobin at
3,600; ➚ kidney relative
weights from 1,800
Sodium F-344 rats 6 weeks 1,125, 2,250, 4,500, Maximum All ♀ and 7♂ died at Maekawa et al.
nitrate 9,000, 18,000 mg/kg tolerable dose 18,000 (1982)
bw per day by authors = ♂➘ body weight gain at
4,500 mg/kg 18,000; ♀ at 9,000
bw per day ♀+♂ Abnormal colour of
blood and spleen ‘due to
metheamoglobin’
Potassium Wistar male 6 weeks 1,800 mg/kg bw per NI ➚ serum glucose, Azeez et al.
nitrate rats day alone or + 900 mg cholesterol, ALAT, ASAT. (2011)
ascorbic acid/kg bw/ Effects reversed upon
day ascorbic acid added
Sodium Wistar rats 2 weeks 25 mg/kg not clear if NI ➘ Total serum protein, Bako et al.
nitrate it is per diet or per bw white blood cells, (2009)
alone or + 10 mg/kg haemoglobin
day vit C or 100 and
200 mg/day ethanolic
extract of Hibiscus
sabdariffa Linn.
Potassium Rabbits, strain 4 weeks 200, 400, 600 mg/kg NI ➚ Weight reduction, Nighat et al.
nitrate not specified bw per day by doses tachycardia, weakness, (1981)
in capsules polyuria
Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies
Sodium Mice (strain not 1 year 3,750, 7,500 mg/kg NI No effects Greenblatt and
nitrate specified) bw per day Mirvish (1973);
Sugiyama et al.
(1979)
Sodium Mice, strain A 25 weeks + 13 weeks 1,267 mg/kg bw per NI No effects Greenblatt and
nitrate recovery follow-up day Mirvish (1973)
Sodium Mice ICR 2 years 3,750, 7,500 mg/kg NI No effects Sugiyama et al.
nitrate bw per day (1979), and as
described by
IARC (2010)
Calcium Mice ♀ 18 months 30, 300 mg/kg bw per NI ➚ Weight loss and death Mascher and
nitrate day at 30; not at 300 Marth (1993)
Sodium Rats, strain not 14 months 400 mg/kg bw per day NI No effects Chow et al.
nitrate specified (1980)
Sodium Wistar rats 6 months Equal to 1,333 mg/kg NI ➚ Inflammatory Del Negro et al.
nitrate bw per day + 0.1 N histopathological (2008)
HCl applied into changes
laryngopharyngeal
mucosa

Strain
Compound
experimental Duration Equivalent doses NOAEL Main observed effects Reference
tested
animals
Sodium F344 rats 2 years (104 weeks 1,250, 2,500 mg/kg NI ➚ Tumours incidences in Maekawa et al.
nitrate treatment + 19 weeks bw per day all groups including (1982)
follow-up) controls
Sodium Rats (strain not 2 years Equal to 250, 500, 500 mg/kg bw No effects Lehman (1958)
nitrate specified) 2,500, 5,000 mg/kg per day and as described
bw per day by JECFA
(1996)
Sodium Rats (strain not 104 weeks (84 weeks Equal to 2,500 mg/kg NI No effects Lijinsky et al.
nitrate specified) treatment + 20 weeks bw per day (1973)
follow-up)
Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies
Potassium Wistar rats 2 weeks premating, 0, 250, 750 or 1,500 mg/kg No effects (OECD, 2007)
nitrite mating, gestation and 1,500 mg/kg bw per bw per day
lactation period until day
day 4
Sodium CD-1 mice Gestational day (GD) 0, 4, 20, 100 or 400 mg/kg bw No effects FDRL (1972a)
nitrate 6–15 400 mg/kg bw per day per day
Potassium CD-1 mice GD 6–15 0, 4, 20, 100 or 400 mg/kg bw No effects FDRL (1972b)
nitrate 400 mg/kg bw per day per day
Sodium Wistar rats GD 6–15 0, 2.5, 12, 54 or 250 mg/kg bw No effects FDRL (1972a)
nitrate 250 mg/kg bw per day per day
Potassium Wistar rats GD 6–15 0, 2, 9, 20, 180 mg/kg 180 mg/kg bw No effects FDRL (1972b)
nitrate bw per day per day
Sodium Golden GD 6–10 0, 4, 20, 100 or 400 mg/kg bw No effects FDRL (1972a)
nitrate Hamsters 400 mg/kg bw per day per day
Potassium Golden GD 6–10 0, 3, 20, 70 or 280 mg/kg bw No effects FDRL (1972b)
nitrate Hamsters 280 mg/kg bw per day per day
Sodium Dutch belted GD 6–18 0, 2.5, 12, 90, NI No effects FDRL (1972a)
nitrate rabbits 250 mg/kg bw per day
Potassium Dutch belted GD 6–18 20, 2, 10, 50, 206 NI No effects FDRL (1972b)
nitrate rabbits mg/kg bw per day
Potassium Swiss mice 35 days 15.7, 34.8, 87, 121.8, NI ♂➘ Sperm count, sperm Pant and
nitrate 156.6 mg/kg bw per mobility, ➚ Sperm Srivastava
day abnormalities, (2002)
histopathological
changes, 17-b-HSD; ➘ c-
GT at 156.6
7♀
NI: not indicated.
Table E.2: Animal studies with nitrate exposure and effects on the thyroid
Nitrate in
Duration
Animal study Type Nitrate intake drinking NOAEL Reported effect
of study
water
Ho€ring (1985), Rats 3.6–360 mg/kg bw 40–4,000 NI Minor changes in 131I uptake in
Ho€ring et al. per day mg/L thyroid, thyroid weight, thyroid
(1988), Seffner histology seen at all doses
(1985) all as
referred by JECFA
(1996)

Nitrate in
Duration
Animal study Type Nitrate intake drinking NOAEL Reported effect
of study
water
Jahreis et al. Pigs 2 days or 730 mg potassium NI After 6 weeks ➘ T4 levels, serum
(1987) as 6 weeks nitrate/kg bw per somatomedin, body weight gain
referred by JECFA day
(1996)
Mukhopadhyay Wistar rats 28 days 1,500 mg/kg bw NI ➚ Thyroidal weight, urinary iodine
et al. (2005) per day concentration, TPO activity, TSH
hormone; ➘ plasma T4 and T3
levels
Zaki et al. (2004) Wistar male 5 months 4.5, 9, 13.5, 45 mg NI ➘ Body weight gain at two highest
rats potassium nitrate/ doses; plasma urea; thyroid weight
kg bw per day; statistical significant at 13.5;
controls 1.3 mg plasma T3 statistical significant at
potassium nitrate/ 13.5 and 45; plasma T4 statistical
kg bw per day significant at 45. No
histopathological changes at two
lowest doses
Eskiocak et al. Female rats 30 weeks 2.5, 5, 12.5, 25 mg NI ➚ Thyroid weights at all doses;
(2005) sodium nitrate/kg iodine ➚ iodine uptake at 12.5 and
bw per day 25; ➘ Iodine uptake at 2.5 and 5;
TSH at 2.5, 12.5, 25
Chaoui et al. Wistar rats 5 months 2.5, 7.5, 25 mg/kg 0.7 mg/kg NI ➚ Thyroid absolute weight, plasma
(2004) bw per day bw per day T3 at 7.5 and 25, plasma T4 at 25;
size thyroid follicles at 7.5 and 25
and flat epithelium shape reported
Table E.3: Human studies with nitrate exposure and effects on the thyroid
Nitrate in
Human Nitrate Nitrate intake in Nitrate in
Type drinking Reported effect
Studies intake food restricted urine
water
Hunault Interventional, 15 mg/kg bw Low Yes Not measured None
et al. (2007) 28 days (n = 20) per day
van Maanen Cross-sectional Nitrate water No, measured, Not measured Enlarged thyroid if
et al. (1994) (n = 70) levels total nitrate intake water
mean 109.5 68.1 mg/L
245 92 mg/day and total intake
245 92 mg/day
kova
Tajta Cross-sectional No Not measured Enlarged thyroid in
et al. (2006) (n = 1,088) high exposure group,
children TSH level in blood
elevated
Below et al. Cross-sectional Not known No High No effect
(2008) (n = 3,772) (> 69.0 mg/L)
adults and low
(≤ 69.0 mg/L
Gatseva and Cross-sectional High: 75 mg/L No Not measured High: 13.9% goitre,
Argirova (n = 319) low: 8 mg/L low: 4.9% goitre
(2008) children
dikova
Ra Cross-sectional High: 93 mg/L No Not measured Goitre grade 1 more
et al. (2008) Pregnant women low: 8 mg/L frequent in high
(n = 48) exposed women

Nitrate in
Human Nitrate Nitrate intake in Nitrate in
Type drinking Reported effect
Studies intake food restricted urine
water
Suh et al. Cross-sectional Not known No Measured Urine nitrate was a
(2014) significant predictor of
free T4 for both non-
pregnant (n = 307)
with urinary iodine of
less than 100 lg/L and
non-pregnant women
(n = 564) with urinary
iodine of 100 lg/L or
more
Ward et al., Cohort study Not known 41.1 mg nitrate-N Not measured Associated with
2010 per day vs increased prevalence
Q1 ≤ 17.4 mg of hypothyroidism
nitrate-N per day
TSH: thyroid-stimulating hormone; NI: not indicated.

Appendix F – Report on the systematic review on the types and levels of

nitrosamines and nitrosamides produced in food products from the use of
nitrates and nitrites as food additives
F.1. Objective of the Report

This report illustrates the results obtained from the Systematic Review conducted in order to gather
evidence on nitrosamines and nitrosamides types and levels in the EU authorised products containing
nitrates and/or nitrites.
The systematic review process has been already described in detail in the Protocol (see Annex A of
this report).
F.2. Review question

The objective of this systematic review was to select reliable studies performed to identify the type
of nitrosamines and nitrosamides and to measure their respective levels in food products found in the
European market to which specified amounts of nitrates/nitrites have been added with the aim to
investigate any quantitative relation between such nitrosamine and nitrosamides formation and the
levels of nitrate and nitrite added.
F.3. Search strings

Two different search strings were developed for the systematic review (please see details in the
Protocol in Annex A and in Table F.1).
Table F.1: Search strings for conducting the systematic review
N° Search strategy details

(1) NDMA OR DMNA OR “N-nitrosodimethylamine$” OR “Dimethylnitrosamine$” OR NMOR OR “N-
nitrosomorpholine$” OR NMEA OR “N-nitrosomethylethylamine$” OR “N-Methyl-N-nitrosoethanamin$” OR
“1-Ethyl-1-methyl-2-oxohydrazine$” OR “Methylaethylnitrosamin$” OR “N-ethyl-N-methyl-nitrous$” OR
NPYR OR “N-nitrosopyrrolidine$” OR NDEA OR DENA OR “N-nitrosodiethylamine$” OR “diethyl-2-
oxohydrazine$” OR “N-Ethyl-N-nitrosoethanamin$” OR NPIP OR “N-nitrosopiperidine$” OR NDPA OR “N-
nitrosodi-n-propylamine$” OR “N-Nitroso-N-propyl-1-propanamin” OR Oryzalin OR NHPRO OR “N-
nitrosohydroxyproline$” OR NPRO OR “N-nitrosoproline$” OR NSAR OR “N-nitrososarcosine$” OR “N-
Nitrosomethylglycine” OR NMA OR “N-nitrosomethylaniline$” OR “Phenylmethylnitrosamine” OR NDBA OR
DBNA OR “N-nitrosodibutylamine$” OR NDiBA OR “N-nitrosodiisobutylamine$” OR NDBzA OR “N-
nitrosodibenzylamine$” OR NHMTCA OR “N-nitroso-2-hydroxymethyl-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic$” OR NTCA
OR “N-Nitroso-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic$” OR NMTCA OR “N-Nitroso-2-methyl-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic$”
OR NDPhA OR “N-nitrosodiphenylamine$” OR NPIC OR “N-nitrosopipecolic$” OR nitrosamine$ OR
nitrosamide$ OR NOC$
AND
(Lomo OR “cerdo adobado” OR “Pincho moruno” OR “Careta” OR “cerdo adobada” OR “Castilla” OR
“cerdo adobada” OR Kasseler OR Bra slo
€te OR Surfleisch OR Toorvorst OR Sa ~kk OR Ahjupraad OR
“Kiełbasa surowa biała” OR “Kiełbasa surowa metka” OR “Tatar wołowy” OR “danie tatarskie” OR “Dried
ham” OR “dried sausage” OR salami OR “Cooked ham” OR “Emulsified sausages” OR “Filet d Ardenne” OR
“Swedish Christmas Ham” OR Papillotes OR “Blinde vink” OR meat OR fish OR cheese OR “non-heat
treated processed meat” OR “heat-treated processed meat” OR “Filet d Ardenne” OR “ripened cheese” OR
“whey cheese” OR “beverage whiteners” OR “Wiltshire bacon” OR “Wiltshire ham” OR Entremeada OR
entrecosto OR chispe OR orelheira OR cabeca OR salgados OR “toucinho fumado” OR “cured tongue” OR
kylma^savustettu poronliha OR “kallro€kt renko
€tt” OR bacon OR “filet” OR “bacon” OR rohschinken OR
nassgepo €kelt OR “dry cured bacon” OR “dry cured ham” OR “jamon curado” OR “paleta curada” OR “lomo
embuchado” OR cecina OR presunto OR “jambon” OR rohschinken OR trockengepo €kelt OR saucisson* OR
salchichon OR chorizo OR curacion OR rohwu €rste OR salami OR kantwurst OR brisket OR rohschinken OR
trockennassgepo €kelt OR nassgepo
€kelt OR meat OR cheese OR fish OR dairy OR “pickled herring” OR sprat
OR offal OR pa ^ te
s OR terrine OR poultry OR game animals OR milk OR whey)
(2) (Nitrate$ OR Nitrite$) AND (nitrosamine$) OR (nitrosamide$) OR (NOC$) AND (meat OR cheese OR fish
OR dairy OR milk OR whey)

F.4. Results from literature searches and screening of papers

Inclusion and exclusion criteria pre-defined in the Protocol were used to select and screen papers.
In total, 1,861 papers were retrieved from literature searches. After screening process, 33 papers were
selected for data extraction and critical appraisal.
(a): Results from the different steps of literature searches and screening
Title and abstract screening 1,861 articles
Full-text screening 123 articles
Data extraction &

33 articles
critical appraisal

(b): Results from the different steps of literature searches and screening including the number of
excluding papers
Records identified through

database searching Additional records identified
N = 2,329 through other sources
N=0
Records after duplicates removed

N = 1,872
Records screened Records excluded

N = 1,861 N = 1,739
Full-text articles assessed Full-text articles excluded,

for eligibility with reasons
N = 123 N = 90
Studies included for data extraction

and critical appraisal
N = 33
:
F.5. Results from data extraction and critical appraisal of studies
The data extraction form contained 124 questions (see Protocol Annex A). The results from the
critical appraisal of studies are presented in Table F.2.
The system for the classification of selected papers into ‘tiers of reliability’ (presented in the
Protocol) was designed as follows:
Tier 1– ‘good quality’ papers – the answers to the first three questions were yes. These questions
have been considered as crucial in order to retrieve studies of good quality.
Tier 2- ‘low quality’ papers – one or more of the answers to the first three questions was/were no.
Out of 33 articles, 23 of them were considered of ‘low quality’ (tier 2) and 10 papers were
considered ‘good quality’ papers (tier 1). The papers included in tier 1 were used to produce data
synthesis and conclusions for the Opinion.

Table F.2: Results from the implementation of a Critical Appraisal Tool

Does the
treatment
Were the
described in the Was the design
Were methods used for Were
text reflect the of experiments
appropriate the measurement important Was the
recent practises and the
Refid control of nitrates/ additional variability
used to prepare methodology
samples nitrites and factors reported?
meat products as adequately
used?(b) nitrosamines considered?
available on the reported?
appropriate?(c)
European
market?(a)
3672 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3722 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
3816 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
3843 No No Yes No Yes Yes
3919 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
4089 No No No No Yes Yes
4170 No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
4220 Yes Yes YES Yes No No
4272 No No Yes Yes Yes No
4355 No Yes No No Yes No
4378 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
4385 No No No No Yes No
4386 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
4440 Yes Yes no No Yes Yes
4574 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
4637 No No Yes No Yes No
4666 No No No Yes Yes No
4727 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
4731 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
4776 No No Yes Yes No Yes
4796 No No Yes No Yes Yes
4820 No No Yes No No Yes
4870 Yes No Yes No No No
4872 Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
(a): In this question, ‘treatment/s’ refer to sample preparation appropriateness including sample manipulation and addition of
compounds such as nitrates, salt and others.
(b): Although the use of controls in the studies was not an inclusion criteria, the use of controls in experimental studies was
considered important for the quality assessment of the studies included in the review.
(c): Although the reference to LOD in the studies was an inclusion criterion, studies suggesting the availability of LOD were also
considered.
(a),(b),(c): These criteria have been considered important for the selection of acceptable quality studies.

F.6. Studies selected for narrative appraisal

Meat products
Regarding studies on meat products six articles were identified fulfilling the criteria a, b and c, e.g.
using appropriate meat products, including appropriate controls and presenting limit of quantitation
(LOQ) values. Below there is the detailed narrative appraisal of these studies. In these studies, added
amounts of nitrites are reported. None of them included the addition of nitrates in the meat products.
De Mey et al. (2014)
This study was carried out in raw fermented sausage, for the determination of the
N-nitrosopiperidine (NPIP) formation, in relation to the addition of nitrite, ascorbic acid, biogenic amine
(cadaverine) and its precursor (piperidine). The effect of pH on NPIP formation has been also
investigated.
The ingredients were pork meat, pepper, salt and nitrite, ascorbic acid, piperidine and cadaverine
depending on the experiment. The raw fermented sausages were produced with a standard process in
a fermentation during 3 days at 24°C and 94% relative humidity (RH) of the mixed ingredients stuffed
in casings, followed by a ripening during 21 days at 15°C and 85% RH. During fermentation, the
sausages were smoked. The reported limit of detection (LOD) and LOQ were 0.9 lg/kg dry matter
(DM) and 2.7 lg/kg DM, respectively, for NPIP analysis, and 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg for nitrite
determination. The amount of nitrite added was 150 mg/kg. When sodium ascorbate (500 mg/kg) was
added, the concentration of nitrite decreased immediately after stuffing under the LOQ. When ascorbic
acid was not added, an average concentration of nitrite of 37 mg/kg was detected after stuffing,
meaning that only a 10% of the nitrite added was left in this initial step before fermentation. It was
also demonstrated that NPIP formation was not affected by pH difference and that cadaverine, the
biogenic amine added as a precursor for NPIP formation, did not have any effect. Only for the
formulation with added PIP, the maximum level of NPIP reported was 2.9. It was also observed that
the formation of nitrosamines occur mainly at the beginning of the production before fermentation.
The Panel noted that for control samples with or without nitrite added, NPIP was not detected
except for the samples with nitrite added with maximum level of 1.2 lg/kg that is below the
quantification level. It is also noted that the basic formulation contained white pepper (2 g/kg) and
eventually PIP is also present. The levels of NPIP in the final product are very low and in most cases
below the LOQ even when piperidine is added. The Panel indicates that only minimum and maximum
data are reported. No mean values are provided and the smoking process is not described. Given the
properties of the smoke as an antioxidant due to its phenolic content, it is not clear if the observed
effect of nitrate reduction at the beginning, could be due in part to this treatment.
Drabik-Markievicz et al. (2011)
The study has been made in a meat model corresponding to the raw cooked meat product type.
The nitrosamines analysed were N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR). The
effect of temperature and the amount of nitrate and some biogenic amines (putrescine, cadaverine,
spermidine and spermine) in the nitrosamines formation have been studied. The LOD and LOQ were
0.125–0.136 lg/mL (add LOD in lg/kg) and 0.375–0.408 lg/mL, respectively. This shows that there is
a clear increasing effect of temperature only for NDMA, when the amount of nitrite is > 120 mg/kg
and temperature > 120°C. The maximum level of NDMA reported is 0.375 lg/mL for 220°C when
120 mg/kg of nitrite is added. The Panel noted that when the amount of nitrite added is 300% higher
(480 mg/kg), there is no proportional increase in NDMA because there is an increase of only 18%. The
type of biogenic amine present in food has an influence on the final amount of nitrosamines. Among
several biogenic amines added, only the addition of spermidine, resulted in higher amounts of NDMA
formed, under conditions of amounts above the legal limits of nitrite is added.
In the case of NPIP, the nitrite and high temperatures had no role in the formation of this
nitrosamine, with levels found below the LOQ with the higher temperatures. However, biogenic amines
caused a significant increase in the concentration of NPIP reaching values of 0.491 and 0.747 lg/mL
when cadaverine and spermidine were added, respectively.
De Mey et al. (2009)
The study reports the impact of heating on nitrosamine formation in a lean meat model
corresponding to the ‘raw cooked meat products’ category. The impact of a biogenic amine,

cadaverine, has been also studied. Cadaverine can be present in fresh meat and could be very high in
low quality meat due to the growth of bacteria.
The heat treatments simulated were pasteurisation (85°C), sterilisation (120°C), baking and
roasting (160 and 220°C). The levels of NDMA, N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), N-nitroso-di-n-
propylamine (NDBA), NPIP and NPYR have been measured.
The amounts of nitrite used in the experiments were 120 and 480 mg/kg, with appropriate controls
included without nitrite.
The LODs and LOQs are reported for each of the nitrosamines analysed (Table provided). NDEA
and NDBA were not detected, and NPIP was only found when cadaverine was added. NPYR was
detected in meat products processed at 220°C. Cadaverine had no impact on NPYR. NDMA was only
detected above LOQ (0.2 lg/kg) when amounts of nitrite above the legal limits were added (480 mg/kg)
and meat samples processed at 220°C.
Shahidi and Pegg (1994)
In this research, an alternative to the use of nitrite is tested to avoid the formation of nitrosamines.
The raw materials used were pork, cod and cod surimi, and mixtures of pork with 15% or 50% of cod
or surimi, and were tested with (156 mg/kg NaNO2) and without the addition on nitrites. The samples
were heat treated (85°C).
The only nitrosamine measured was NDMA, and it was not found in any meat sample even those
with 156 mg/kg NaNO2 added. Only in cod, levels of NDMA were reported from 0 to 9 lg/kg when
mixtures were used, but levels were 0–3 lg/kg when nitrite was added to pork and cod mixtures and
for the others 0–2 lg/kg. The LOD reported was 2 lg/mL. LOQ is not provided.
The Panel commented that
• fish products have higher contents of biogenic amines that are necessary as substrate for the
formation of nitrosamines.
• ascorbate is present in all samples as an additive. This means that ascorbate could have an
influence as nitrite or N-nitrosamine scavenger modifying the results.
• the levels of nitrate or nitrites in control samples should have been measured. Also the residual
levels in the final product.
• comminuted mixtures of meat and fish are used for the production of some types of sausages,
in which the nitrites might be present due to their permission in meat. In these products, the
risk of formation of nitrosamines is higher due to the higher content of biogenic amines that
are the N-nitrosamines precursors.
• the temperature of treatment (85°C) is very low for N-nitrosamines formation. In other studies,
temperatures up to 220°C are required for the formation of NOCs, even with very high
amounts of nitrite added (ca 400 mg/kg), for raw cooked products.
• biogenic amines are formed from amino acids. Surimi can be a source of biogenic amines.
• if LOQ is considered three times the LOD, then only the levels of 9 lg/kg reported are above
the LOQ.
Drabik-Markievicz et al. (2010)
In this research, the influence of pyrrolidine on N-nitrosamine formation in a raw cooked meat
product and the effect of processing temperatures were studied, and controls with the presence and
absence of nitrites were included. The LOD for a solution containing NAs was 0.125 lg/mL and the
LOQ was 0.375 lg/mL. The volatile nitrosamines measured were NDMA and NPYR.
Different amounts (0, 120 and 480 mg/kg) of nitrate were added. Proline or hydroxyproline
(1,000 mg/kg) or pyrrolidine (10 mg/kg) were also been added.
Temperatures applied were 85°C (pasteurisation), 120°C (sterilisation) and 120–220°C (baking and
roasting).
For levels of nitrite of 480 mg/kg and temperatures up to 220°C, NDMA and NPYR were detected in
the highest amounts (0.441 and 0.523 lg/mL for NDMA and NPYR, respectively).
It was found that addition of proline did not affect the formation of NDMA, but had a significant
influence in the formation of NPYR. This is not the case of hydroxyproline, which is one of the main
constituents of collagen.

Herrmann et al. (2015)

The research in this study is focused on the effect of the amount of nitrite, storage conditions (after
preparation, after drying and refrigerated at 5°C for 24 h) and frying (10 min, internal temperature of
100°C) on the formation of volatile and non-volatile nitrosamines in raw cooked sausages. The
influence of water-soluble (erythorbic acid) and fat-soluble (ascorbyl palmitate) antioxidants, fat
content, tripolyphosphate, black pepper, haem iron and calcium carbonate were also reported.
The cooked pork sausages were prepared with 67% of meat, potato flour (4%), black pepper
(0.125% or 0.5%), paprika (0.5%), sodium chloride (2%) and nitrite (0, 60, 100, 150, 250 and
350 mg/kg), filled into sheep casings and dried for 50 min at 70°C in an oven or drying cabinet. For
other experimental setups, the sausages were prepared with 150 mg/kg of sodium nitrite, erythorbic
acid (250 or 1,000 mg/kg), ascorbyl palmitate (0 or 250 mg/kg), fat content (12% or 25%), black
pepper (1.25 or 5 g/kg), myoglobin (0 or 1.5 mg/kg), iron (III) sulfate hydrate (0 or 36 mg/kg),
calcium carbonate (0 or 6 g/kg) and tripolyphosphate (0 or 5 g/kg). Different combinations of the two
antioxidants were also tested.
The levels of non-volatile (N-nitrosohydroxyproline (NHPRO), N-nitrosoproline (NPRO), N-nitroso-
thiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid (NTCA), N-nitroso-2-methyl-thiazolidine 4-carboxylic acid (NMTCA)) and
volatile (N-nitrososarcosine (NSAR), NDMA, NPYR, N-nitrosopipecolic acid (NPIC), NPIP) nitrosamines
were measured. An increase in the level of non-volatile nitrosamines was reported with increasing
ingoing amounts of nitrite, and particularly the levels of NTMCA for concentrations of nitrite > 150 mg/kg.
Regarding the volatile nitrosamines, NSAR was only detected for nitrite > 150 mg/kg, and the levels of
NDMA and NPYR were practically not affected by the level of nitrite and remained at or below the
LOQ.
For the other factors studied, the increasing levels of antioxidants diminished the levels of
nitrosamines, except for the volatile nitrosamines (NSAR, NDMA and NPYR) that were at the LOD and
NPIP that was also not reduced. When both antioxidants are added, erythorbic acid presented the
higher effect on the reduction of nitrosamine levels, with an increase in the inhibition of nitrosamine
formation with increasing levels of erythorbic acid. This effect has been found to be counteracted with
the addition of Fe(III) that could act as a prooxidant. For different fat contents, no significant
differences were found in the levels of nitrosamines. The level of NPIP increased from 0.1 to 0.4 lg/kg
with increasing amount of black pepper, and the difference was significant when the products were
stored four days at 5°C (data not shown). This study indicates that NPIP could partly originate from
black pepper and that the levels of NPIP when no antioxidants were added were from 2 to 2.7 lg/kg.
The use of tripolyphosphate had no significant effect. No significant effect was observed for the
supplementation with myoglobin indicating that haem is not a catalyst for the formation of
nitrosamines in meat products.
The Panel noted that there is a clear positive correlation between the amount of nitrite added in
raw cooked sausages and the levels of non-volatile nitrosamines.
The Panel further noted that with thermal treatments > 120°C to the meat products, there was an
increase in the levels of NPIP and NMTCA (2, 6 and 80 lg/kg, respectively), while only a slight
increase was observed for NDMA and NPYR.
Dairy products
Regarding studies on dairy products four articles were identified fulfilling the criteria a, b and c, e.g.
using appropriate dairy products (cheeses), including appropriate controls and presenting LOQ values.
Below there is the detailed narrative appraisal of these studies. In these studies, added amounts of
nitrates are reported.
Stasiuk and Prybylowski (2006)
In this study, the effect of ingoing amounts of potassium nitrate on the formation of volatile
nitrosamines in Gouda cheese has been reported. The experimental approach consisted on cheese
prepared without the addition of KNO3 and immersed in brine for 48 h in different concentrations
(0.05%, 0.10% and 0.15%) of nitrate after pressing step, and cheese made with milk containing
0.02% KNO3. The cheeses were ripened for 6 weeks at a 10–12°C and 80–90% RH. The levels of
NDMA and NDEA were measured. The LOD was 0.01 lg/kg. The results demonstrated that the
addition of nitrate to brine instead of adding to milk did not have any impact on the levels of
nitrosamines in cheese, with values up to 0.55 lg/kg for NDMA and 1.44 lg/kg for NDEA.

It was found that there was no relationship between the level of nitrate and the amount of NDMA
and NDEA formed in Gouda cheese after ripening.
Bouchikhi et al. (1999)
The effect of the addition of nitrate to milk for the production of fresh semihard cheese (Saint-
Paulin) on the formation of volatile nitrosamines has been reported. The cheese was made with
pasteurised milk with rennet and 20 g KNO3/100 mL. A mixture of lactobacilli and streptococci was
added for the elaboration of the cheese. The period of ripening was 8 weeks and samples were taken
at 20, 40 and 60 days. It was observed that a significant decrease (56%) in the levels of NO3 during
the first 20 days of ripening, this could be explained by the reduction of some NO3 to NO2. All the
cheeses with and without added nitrate had the same nitrate levels at the end of ripening. The levels
of NDMA were very low during the ripening period in controls and experimental cheeses, and
therefore, any influence of the amount of nitrate added could not be demonstrated.
Gloria et al. (1997)
The influence of nitrate added on volatile nitrosamine content (NDMA and NDEA) in Gruye re cheese
has been studied. It should be noted that nitrate was detected in cheese where not nitrate was added
and that nitrite was in much smaller amounts than nitrate. Certain strains of lactobacilli can have a
reducing activity. There was no correlation between residual nitrite levels and nitrate levels added or
nitrate detected in Gruyere.
Even though the nitrate levels used in the experiments are much higher than the permitted legal
levels, the levels of NDMA and NDEA formed are very low.
Smiechowska et al. (1994)
The formation of volatile nitrosamines (NDMA, NDEA, NDPA, NDBA, NPYR, NPIP and NMOR) in
different types of cheese (Zulaw, Gouda and Edam) has been investigated. Cheeses were made with
pasteurised milk. Different amounts of KNO3 were added to milk (0%, 0.01% and 0.02%). The
cheeses were ripened for 14, 28 and 42 days. NDMA was found in almost all samples, with amounts
ranging from 18.94 to 168.80 lg/kg in some samples of Gouda and Edam cheeses. It should be noted
that volatile nitrosamines can be formed in cheese produced without addition of KNO3, but containing
native nitrates. The results showed a significant influence of ripening time on the amount of NDMA in
Zulaw cheese. However, the nitrate added to milk did not influence the level of NDMA (0.04–3.79 lg/
kg). NDPA was not found in all the samples. NDEA was found only in some samples after 4 or 6 weeks
of ripening in Zulaw cheese and it was occasionally found in Gouda and Edam cheeses.
It should be noted that the formation of volatile nitrosamines is not related with KNO3 but with the
degree of ripeness.
Fish products
Regarding studies on fish products, no articles were identified fulfilling the criteria a, b and c, e.g.
using appropriate fish products, including appropriate controls and presenting LOQ values.

Annex A – Protocol for the systematic review on the types and levels of
nitrosamines and nitrosamides produced in food products from the use of
nitrates and nitrites as food additives
Background
Nitrate/nitrites are naturally occurring compounds in foods, especially foods of plant origin and
vegetables, and are also used as food additives, mainly in meat products. Nitrites amounts are
reduced rapidly in meat products and monitoring residual levels of nitrite in the final product are much
lower that the nitrites amount initially added.
Under the appropriate conditions (pH, concentration of reactants), nitrites have been shown to
form N-nitroso compounds (nitrosamines and nitrosamides) from constituents in the food. Some
nitrosamines are among important potential carcinogens found in the usual diet of Western
populations. Diet is a main source of exposure to these compounds, although there are other main
sources of exposure, such as smoking and environmental pollution. Although there is extensive
evidence of their carcinogenic effects in experimental studies in animals, there are inadequate data of
their concentrations in food and of exposure in human populations. The concentration of these
compounds in foods is associated with preparation, preservation and cooking methods.
Therefore, during the re-evaluation of the nitrites and nitrates as food additives, it was considered
important to address the question of which nitrosamines and nitrosamides are produced in food
products from the use of nitrates and nitrites as food additives and at which levels they can be found
in those food products.
Review question
Which nitrosamines and nitrosamides are produced in food products from the use of nitrates and
nitrites as food additives and at which levels they can be found in those food products?
Objectives of the review

The objective of this systematic review is to select reliable studies performed to identify the type of
nitrosamines and nitrosamides and to measure their respective levels in food products found in the
European market to which nitrates/nitrites have been added with the aim to investigate any
quantitative relation between such nitrosamine and nitrosamides formation and the levels of nitrate
and nitrite added.
Eligibility Criteria for the selection of relevant studies

The criteria that will be applied to select the studies that are to be included in or excluded from the
review are described in Table 1.
Table 1: Eligibility (inclusion) criteria for studies
# Studies will be included in the review if presenting the following characteristics
1. Time frame
1.1.1990 until 31.12.2015
2. Type of studies
Experimental studies assessing the levels of nitrosamines and nitrosamides in food products to which
nitrites or nitrates have been added. Survey and reviews will be saved for comparison and source of
additional literature
3. Languages
Studies in English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and German for papers extracted from
electronic databases
4. Population
Studies that include food products to which nitrates and nitrites have been added in specified amounts
consumed in the European market (food could originate from EU or outside EU), including fish, cheese,
whey, meat preparations, non-heat treated processed meat, heat treated processed meat sterilised and
non-sterilised, other meat products)

# Studies will be included in the review if presenting the following characteristics

5. Intervention
Studies where nitrates and nitrites have been added to the products in specified amounts
6. Outcome
Studies reporting the types of nitrosamines and nitrosamides and their measured levels (nitrosamines and
nitrosamides), individually or as a combination in food products found in the European market
Main exclusion criteria

Studies before 1.1.1990
Languages excluded: non-European Union languages and European languages which cannot be
dealt with by the reviewers.
Compounds excluded: N-nitroso compounds other than nitrosamines and nitrosamides.
Studies lacking data on quality of the measurements, e.g. LOD or LOQ will be excluded.
Nitrates/nitrites amounts added per unit of weight not specified.
Method foreseen for performing the systematic review
Searching for relevant studies
The search process will aim at retrieving primary and secondary research studies relevant to the
review question as described above.
Search strategy: The search strategy is displayed in Table 2.
Information sources:
• Published reviewed scientific literature will be searched using the following two bibliographic
databases: Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed.
• Grey literature will be searched using the following databases: Syste me Universitaire de
Documentation (SUDOC), Trove, Global ETD search and OpenGREY.
Due to the limited time and resources, information sources other than the above mentioned will not
be searched.
The search will be performed by the EFSA staff that will then merge the search results using
appropriate reference management software (i.e. EndNoteâ) and remove duplicate records.
The possible studies retrieved from grey literature or received from the EU MS will be inserted into
the reference management software by the EFSA staff (FIP unit).
Table 2: Bibliographic databases and search strategy to be applied
Search strategy
Name Timespan of the database
to be applied*
Web of ScienceTM Core 1975–present (1)
Collection (Editions=SCI-
EXPANDED, SSCI. Interface=
Web of Science)
Current Contents Connectâ 1998–present (1)
(Editions= all. Interface= Web
of Science)
CABI: CAB Abstractsâ 1910–present (1)
(Interface= Web of Science)
FSTAâ - the food science 1969–present (1)
resource (Interface= Web of
Science)
Medlineâ - (Interface= Web 1946–present (1)
of Science)
me Universitaire de
Syste From inception–present (2)
Documentation (SUDOC)
http://www.sudoc.abes.fr

Search strategy
Name Timespan of the database
to be applied*
Trove Not specified (2)
http://trove.nla.gov.au
Global ETD search 1900–present (2)
http://search.ndltd.org/
OpenGREY 1990–present (2)
http://www.opengrey.eu/
N° *Search strategy details
(1) NDMA OR DMNA OR “N-nitrosodimethylamine$” OR “Dimethylnitrosamine$” OR
NMOR OR “N-nitrosomorpholine$” OR NMEA OR “N-nitrosomethylethylamine$”
OR “N-Methyl-N-nitrosoethanamin$” OR “1-Ethyl-1-methyl-2-oxohydrazine$” OR
“Methylaethylnitrosamin$” OR “N-ethyl-N-methyl-nitrous$” OR NPYR OR “N-
nitrosopyrrolidine$” OR NDEA OR DENA OR “N-nitrosodiethylamine$” OR “diethyl-
2-oxohydrazine$” OR “N-Ethyl-N-nitrosoethanamin$” OR NPIP OR “N-
nitrosopiperidine$” OR NDPA OR “N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine$” OR “N-Nitroso-N-
propyl-1-propanamin” OR Oryzalin OR NHPRO OR “N-nitrosohydroxyproline$” OR
NPRO OR “N-nitrosoproline$” OR NSAR OR “N-nitrososarcosine$” OR “N-
Nitrosomethylglycine” OR NMA OR “N-nitrosomethylaniline$” OR
“Phenylmethylnitrosamine” OR NDBA OR DBNA OR “N-nitrosodibutylamine$” OR
NDiBA OR “N-nitrosodiisobutylamine$” OR NDBzA OR “N-nitrosodibenzylamine$”
OR NHMTCA OR “N-nitroso-2-hydroxymethyl-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic$” OR NTCA
OR “N-Nitroso-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic$” OR NMTCA OR “N-Nitroso-2-methyl-
thiazolidine-4-carboxylic$” OR NDPhA OR “N-nitrosodiphenylamine$” OR NPIC OR
“N-nitrosopipecolic$” OR nitrosamine$ OR nitrosamide$ OR NOC$
AND
(Lomo OR “cerdo adobado” OR “Pincho moruno” OR “Careta” OR “cerdo
adobada” OR “Castilla” OR “cerdo adobada” OR Kasseler OR Bra €te OR Surfleisch
OR Toorvorst OR Sa slo
~kk OR Ahjupraad OR “Kiełbasa surowa biała” OR “Kiełbasa
surowa metka” OR “Tatar wołowy” OR “danie tatarskie” OR “Dried ham” OR
“dried sausage” OR salami OR “Cooked ham” OR “Emulsified sausages” OR “Filet
d Ardenne” OR “Swedish Christmas Ham” OR Papillotes OR “Blinde vink” OR meat
OR fish OR cheese OR “non-heat treated processed meat” OR “heat-treated
processed meat” OR “Filet d Ardenne” OR “ripened cheese” OR “whey cheese”
OR “beverage whiteners” OR “Wiltshire bacon” OR “Wiltshire ham” OR
Entremeada OR entrecosto OR chispe OR orelheira OR cabeca OR salgados OR
“toucinho fumado” OR “cured tongue” OR kylma ^savustettu poronliha OR “kallro
€kt
renko€tt” OR bacon OR “filet” OR “bacon” OR rohschinken OR nassgepo €kelt OR
“dry cured bacon” OR “dry cured ham” OR “jamon curado” OR “paleta curada”
OR “lomo embuchado” OR cecina OR presunto OR “jambon” OR rohschinken OR
trockengepo €kelt OR saucisson* OR salchichon OR chorizo OR curacion OR
€
rohwurste OR salami OR kantwurst OR brisket OR rohschinken OR
trockennassgepo €kelt OR nassgepo€kelt OR meat OR cheese OR fish OR dairy OR
“pickled herring” OR sprat OR offal OR pa^ te
s OR terrine OR poultry OR game
animals OR milk OR whey)
(2) (Nitrate$ OR Nitrite$) AND (nitrosamine$) OR (nitrosamide$) OR (NOC$) AND
(meat OR cheese OR fish OR dairy OR milk OR whey)
Selecting the studies

The study selection/screening process, data extraction and appraisal of the selected studies will be
performed using the systematic review system DistillerSR (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada).
The stepwise selection process and related responsibilities are described in Table 3 here below.
Additional information on how the study selection process will be undertaken:

Table 3: Study selection process

# WHAT WHO
First screening Examine titles and abstracts to remove obviously irrelevant In parallel by two mutually
step (title and citations (reviewers must be over-inclusive at this stage). In independent reviewers per
abstract cases when the reviewer cannot make a decision (“Cannot reference (by two EFSA staff)
screening) tell” in the Distiller form) and/or in case of disagreements,
the paper will proceed to full text screening
Second Retrieve full-text documents of the potentially relevant FIP staff, in case the paper is not
screening step citations. If within 15 days from the beginning of the available under current EFSA
(full text search, the full text is not found the paper will be marked subscription, a request will be sent
screening) as not available to EFSA Library to obtain the
The full text documents will be screened for exclusion article
criteria, relevance and for nitrate and nitrite measurements Screening done by two reviewers
and estimations in food products consumed in the EU (two FIP staff)
Disagreements will be solved by discussion between the
reviewers. In the case where an agreement between
reviewers cannot be reached, the opinion of one or more
experts from the WG will be sought
1) Reviewers will be domain experts and experts with broader expertise in food safety.
2) The records will not be blinded for, e.g. authors names, journal, etc. The study selection will
be performed in parallel by two mutually independent reviewers per paper (two FIP EFSA
staff).
Extracting data from included studies
The methodology that will be applied for the data extraction process is summarised as follows:
3.1) The data that will be extracted from the included studies are illustrated in Table 4.
3.2) The data extraction will be performed in parallel by three mutually independent reviewers
(three EFSA staff, one of them acting as overall reviewer).
3.3) Disagreements will be solved by discussion between the reviewers. In case of doubts, the
paper will be put to the attention of the ANS Panel working group in charge of the
assessment that will decide on the data to be extracted.
3.4) Full-text documents written in a language not readable by the reviewers will be excluded.
3.5) Studies published more than once in multiple reports will be identified and included only
once in the final review.
Table 4: Data to extract from the included studies

Question Type
1 Experiment setting (laboratory or other type)
2 Food/s category/ies?
3 Meat categories
4 Meat product origin
5 Fish categories
6 Fish treatment
7 Dairy product
8 Whey product
9 Whey product description
10 Meat product name
11 Meat product description
12 Cheese product name
13 Cheese product description
14 Method of nitrate addition in cheese
15 Time in brine
16 Time units
17 Cheese ripening

Question Type
18 Humidity
19 Temperature of ripening°C
20 Time of ripening
21 Time units
22 Curing of the meat product
23 Description of the salt preparation
24 Humidity
25 Temperature of curing°C
26 Time of curing
27 Time units
28 Precooking of the meat product
29 Temperature of precooking°C
30 Time of precooking
31 Time units
32 Heat processing of the meat product
33 Temperature of heating°C
34 Type of heating
35 Time of heating
36 Time units
37 Fermentation of the meat product
38 Fermentation mix
39 Humidity
40 Temperature of fermentation°C
41 Time of fermentation
42 Time units
43 Smoking of the meat product
44 Smoking mix
45 Temperature of smoking°C
46 Time of smoking
47 Time units
48 Drying of meat product
49 Humidity
50 Temperature of drying°C
51 Time of drying
52 Time units
53 Ripening of meat product
54 Humidity
55 Temperature of ripening°C
56 Time of ripening
57 Time units
58 Other type of processing of meat product
59 Humidity
60 Temperature of other process°C
61 Time of other process
62 Time units
63 Preservation before analysis
64 pH of the product
65 Packaging
66 Time of storage in hours
67 Temperature of storage in°C

Question Type
68 Other conditions of storage
69 Amount of ascorbates
70 Units as reported in the paper
71 Amount of erythorbates
73 Amount of polyphosphates
75 Amount of pepper
77 Amount of paprika
79 Amount of tocopherol
81 Amount of other_old
82 Amount of other_old
84 Other
85 Amount of other
87 Amount of other
89 Amount of nitrates added
91 Amount of nitrites added
93 Were residual nitrates/nitrites levels measured?
94 Extraction method used for nitrates/nitrites
95 Detection method used for nitrates/nitrites
96 LOD for nitrates/nitrites
97 LOQ for nitrates and nitrites
98 Levels of nitrates
99 Please indicate if this is the mean, median, other for the level of nitrates
100 Variability levels of nitrates
101 Measurement of variability levels of nitrates
103 Levels of nitrites
104 Please indicate if this is the mean, median, other for the level of nitrites
105 Variability level of nitrites
106 Measurement of variability levels of nitrites
108 Number of NOCs measured
109 Extraction method used for NOC
110 Detection method for NOC
111 LOD for NOC
112 LOQ for NOC
113 Number of NOC
114 Outcome: type of NOCs
115 Outcome: type of NOC SHORT NAME
116 Outcome: level of NOCs
117 Please indicate if this is the mean, median, other for the level of NOCs

Question Type
118 Min value for NOCs
119 Max value for NOCs
121 Variability levels of NOCs
122 Measurement of variability levels of NOCs
123 Number of repetitions from sample/s
124 Comments
Assessing the methodological quality of the included studies

The aim of this step is to appraise the internal validity (i.e. risk of bias) of the studies included in
the review.
The criteria that will be applied for the assessment of the methodological quality of selected papers
is summarised as follows:
1) Full-text documents that pass the eligibility criteria will be assessed using the Critical
Appraisal Form illustrated in Figure 1.
2) The methodological quality assessment will be performed by three mutually independent
reviewers (three FIP unit staff) one of them acting as overall reviewer and a WG expert will
supervise the work.
3) Disagreements will be solved by discussion between the reviewers. In case of doubts the
paper will be put to the attention of the ANS Panel working group in charge of the
assessment that will decide on the appraisal.
4) A system for categorising selected studies based on the final quality assessment will be in
place. Studies will be assigned to one of two ‘tiers of reliability’. The decision regarding
which studies to include for data synthesis (all or some of them e.g. considered of higher
quality) will be taken by the WG.

Treatments
Does the treatment described Strenghts of "treatments" Weaknesses of "treatments"
in the text reflect the recent
practises used to prepare meat
products as available on the
European market?"
yes no
Controls
1Were appropriate control samples used? Strenghts of "controls" Weaknesses of "controls"
yes no
Methods
Were the methods used for Strenghts of "methods" Weaknesses of "methods"
the measurement of
nitrates/nitrites and
nitrosamines appropriate?
yes no
Figure 1: Critical Appraisal Form which includes key questions to critically appraise and to assess the
internal validity of the studies included in the systematic review

Reporting
Was the design of experiments Strenghts of "reporting" Weaknesses of "reporting"
and the methodology (e.g.
sampling, treatments,
packaging, storage conditions,
other compounds added)
adequately reported?
yes no
Important factors considered

Were important factors Strenghts of "important factors" Weaknesses of "important factors"
(e.g. compounds added,
packaging, storage)
considered?
yes
no
Variability
Was the Strenghts of "variability" Weaknesses of "variability"
variability
reported?
yes
no
Figure 1: Continued
System for the classification of selected publications into ‘tiers of

reliability’
Selected papers will be classified into different ‘tiers of reliability’ as follows:
Tier 1 – ‘acceptable quality’ papers — the answers to the first three questions were yes. These
questions have been considered as crucial in order to retrieve studies of good quality.
Tier 2 – ‘low quality’ papers – one or more of the answers to the first three questions was/were no.

Synthesising the data from the included studies and weight of evidence
For this systematic review, a meta-analysis of the results of the experimental studies might be
feasible, and therefore, the decision for a meta-analysis or a narrative synthesis of the evidence will
not be taken a priori. In the case that a meta-analysis will not be feasible, the results will be
synthesised using tables, graphical methods (forest plot) and/or textual description. The following are
proposed outcomes for analysis: types of N-nitroso compounds most likely to be formed in the
different food products and their estimated levels reported in the literature.
The studies could be grouped (for data synthesis) based on study designs, type of compounds and/
or ‘tiers of reliability’.

Appendix G – Report on the selection of epidemiological studies
Objective
To assess, if any, the association between nitrates, nitrites and NO compounds and cancer.
Methods
Types of studies and participants
All observational studies (cohort, case–control and ecological) that investigated the association
between nitrates, nitrites and their compounds in diet (including drinking water) and cancer were
included published up to December 2014. Studies conducted before 2005 were excluded because they
were already included in the IARC report of 2010. Studies that were not included in the IARC report
but were considered informative were included. Additional articles were identified after December 2014
by PubMed and by searching in the reference lists from recent reviews (last search April 2016).
Types of outcome measures included
Primary outcome:
Incidence
Search Strategy and Data Extraction
Electronic searches
Relevant studies were located by searching PubMed. PRISMA flow diagram (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff,
Altman, & Group, 2009) helped managing search strategy and data extraction. Systematic searches
from 1980 to December 2014 were performed. No language restriction was applied.
(“nitrates”[MeSH Terms] OR “nitrates”[All Fields]) AND (“neoplasms”[MeSH Terms] OR “neoplasms”
[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields])
[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields]) AND cohort [All Fields]
[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields]) AND case-control [All Fields]
[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields]) AND ecological [All Fields]
AND
(“nitrites”[MeSH Terms] OR “nitrites”[All Fields] OR “nitrite”[All Fields]) AND (“neoplasms”[MeSH
Terms] OR “neoplasms”[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields])
(“nitrites”[MeSH Terms] OR “nitrites”[All Fields]) AND (“neoplasms”[MeSH Terms] OR “neoplasms”
[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields]) AND cohort [All Fields]
AND
[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields]) AND case-control [All Fields]
AND
[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields]) AND ecological[All Fields]
AND
noc[All Fields] AND (“neoplasms”[MeSH Terms] OR “neoplasms”[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields])
AND cohort[All Fields]
AND
noc [All Fields] AND (“neoplasms”[MeSH Terms] OR “neoplasms”[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields])
AND case-control[All Fields]
noc [All Fields] AND (“neoplasms”[MeSH Terms] OR “neoplasms”[All Fields] OR “cancer”[All Fields])
AND ecological[All Fields]
Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodology quality (bias)
Two epidemiologists identified potential studies to be added in the opinion provided by EFSA. Full-
text study reports/publications were provided by EFSA. The two epidemiologists screened the full-texts
and identified studies for inclusion, and identified and recorded reasons for exclusion of the ineligible

studies. Disagreement were solved through discussion or, if required, through consultation of the
working group. Duplicate records were identified and excluded.
The reviewers assessed the quality of a study in a narrative way. Any discrepancies were addressed
by a joint re-evaluation of the original article by the epidemiologist group.
All studies were described and appeared in the text following the ICD-10 coding ordering.
Description of studies was initiated by the name of the first author and year of publication.
The following items were included while describing each study:
1) Type of study (case–control/cohort/ecological)
2) Characteristics of the population and setting (e.g. age, sex, sample size, cases, controls)
3) Objective of the study
4) Exposure (type of dietary questionnaire and mode of assessment)
5) Type of outcome (incidence/ mortality)
6) Number of cases identified during the follow-up (cohort)
7) Time of follow-up and number of lost to follow-up
8) Results of the main findings:
8.1) ORs or hazard ratios, with their 95% confidence intervals and ptrend if present and cut-off
values associated with the risk of cancer.
8.2) Confounding factors considered by the authors (main risk factors for the specific cancer)
and included in the multivariate analysis (e.g. age, sex, smoking, helicobacter pylori (for
gastric cancer), BMI, total energy intake)
9) Subgroup analysis if conducted (e.g. sex and factors that may potentially affect nitrosation
such as vitamin C, vitamin E)
10) Strength and limitation of each study.
References
1. IARC 2010. Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, which met in
Lyon, 14–21 June 2006.
2. Higgins JPT, Green S, & Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Cochrane handbook for systematic
reviews of interventions. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, & Group P, 2009. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535. https://doi.org/10.
1136/bmj.b2535
4. http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/INeoplasms (C00-D48).

Annex 1: Article selection and studies described
396 potentially relevant published articles identified
264264 articles screened, after removing

duplicates
95 studies selected for evaluation
49 studies on nitrates were 46 studies on nitrites and/or NOCs

described according to the protocol were described according to the
agreed protocol agreed

Potussium

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Potussium

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Potussium

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCIENTIFIC OPINION

ADOPTED: 5 April 2017

Re-evaluation of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium

Requestor: European Commission

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 3 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 4 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

as the subsequent effect of increased nitrite blood concentrations, namely increase in

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 5 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 6 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 7 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

3.6.8.5. Liver cancer ............................................................................................................................. 61

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 8 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the European

1.1.2. Terms of Reference

1.1.3. Interpretation of Terms of Reference

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 9 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

1.2. Information on existing authorisations and evaluations

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 10 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 11 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

2. Data and methodologies

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 12 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

3.1.1. Identity of the substances

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 13 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 14 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

There is no corresponding JECFA speciﬁcation for this form of sodium nitrate.

3.1.3. Manufacturing process

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 15 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

3.1.4. Methods of analysis in food

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 16 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

3.1.5. Stability of the substance, and reaction and fate in food

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 17 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

Furthermore, some NO2 may be also generated in the presence of air:

In summary, the overall reaction (Pegg and Honikel, 2015) is:

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 18 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

HNO2 þ Hþ þ Cl ! NOCl þ H2 O

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 19 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

2HNO2 þ 2R-SH ! 2R-S-S-R þ 2NO þ 2H2 O

3.1.6. Technological function

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 20 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

3.2. Authorised uses and use levels

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 21 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

Food MPL (mg/L or

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 22 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

Food MPL (mg/L or

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 23 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

Food MPL (mg/L or

3.3. Exposure data

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 24 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

Summarised data on concentration levels in food submitted by Member States

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 25 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

3.3.2. Summarised data extracted from the Mintel GNPD database

3.3.3. Food consumption data used for exposure assessment

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 26 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

Countries with food consumption surveys covering

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 27 EFSA Journal 2017;15(6):4787

In particular, the following assumptions were applied: