By Eben van Tonder, 19 May 2025
Introduction
The Coalition Against Nitrites (CAN) is a pan-European initiative launched to campaign for the removal of nitrites from processed meats, a move it claims would significantly reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Its stated goal is to protect public health by advocating for regulatory change. The organisation is composed of academic scientists, clinicians, and members of parliament, and promotes its image as politically inclusive. However, a closer examination reveals that most of its political support comes from progressive and centre-left figures, including public health advocates aligned with green parties and representatives like Sharon Hodgson MP of the UK Labour Party. Despite its claims to “cross-party” collaboration, the coalition conspicuously lacks support from more centrist or right-leaning regulatory experts or parties.
This strong association with leftist politics is more than cosmetic. Contemporary leftist ideologies frequently promote meat reduction policies for both ethical and environmental reasons, often positioning meat consumption as ethically indefensible due to the killing of sentient animals and as environmentally unsustainable. Within this context, it is deeply suspicious that the coalition’s messaging makes no mention whatsoever of other sources of nitrites and nitrates, such as vegetables, beer, or human saliva. Nor is there any discussion of the scientific and regulatory measures in place, such as ppm-limited nitrite inclusion or mandatory erythorbate and ascorbate antioxidants, to mitigate nitrosamine formation. Instead, nitrites are presented as singularly dangerous, and exclusively when linked to meat.
What we are witnessing here is not simply public health advocacy! It is a politicised narrative. The coalition’s campaign displays all the hallmarks of issue framing for ideological effect: an emotive health topic leveraged to further a larger anti-meat agenda, bypassing balanced scientific analysis. In this way, the CAN initiative echoes similar trends seen in highly partisan environments, whether the distortion comes from the political right or the political left. In both extremes, facts are selected and shaped to suit ideological needs and energise a base. Scientists who choose to enter the political arena on this platform must be held to even higher standards of integrity, lest they contribute to a culture of advocacy dressed as science.
The following review analyses the scientific claims made by the Coalition Against Nitrites with a focus on academic rigour, evidentiary context, and the broader implications of politicising public health science.
Key Figures and Academic Affiliations
The Coalition Against Nitrites includes contributions from several high-profile scientists. Among the most prominent are Professor Chris Elliott OBE from Queen’s University Belfast, who leads the Institute for Global Food Security; Professor Paolo Vineis, Chair in Environmental Epidemiology at Imperial College London; Professor Walter Willett of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and Professor Robert Turesky from the University of Minnesota. Other notable figures include Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, Dean at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition, Dr. William Crowe from Queen’s University Belfast, and NHS cardiologist and public health advocate Dr. Aseem Malhotra. While their credentials are impressive, several of their public statements, as cited by CAN, fall short of academic precision and reflect a trend toward oversimplification and advocacy-driven rhetoric.
In addition to the academic cohort, the initiative is notably supported by members of various political affiliations. According to the CAN homepage, the campaign brings together a “cross-party political grouping,” though a closer look reveals that most of the declared political support comes from progressive and centre-left figures. For example, Sharon Hodgson MP from the UK Labour Party has been a vocal supporter of the ban on nitrites in processed meats. Other supporters include politicians affiliated with public health committees and green parties in Europe. The site presents this political diversity as a strength, but the overwhelming absence of right-leaning or centrist regulatory voices suggests that the initiative is not as politically balanced as claimed. This selective alliance raises questions about whether the campaign is being shaped more by ideological convictions than by holistic scientific evaluation.
Review of Website Claims
One of the most prominent assertions on the CAN homepage is that “34,000 cancer deaths per year are caused by nitrite-cured meats.” This claim is drawn from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Project, 2015, which actually refers to processed meat consumption in general, not nitrite-cured meats specifically. The original GBD analysis evaluated dietary risk patterns globally and attributed approximately 34,000 cancer deaths annually to high processed meat intake. However, CAN’s rephrasing of this data into a nitrite-specific accusation is misleading. This rhetorical reframing obscures the nuance of the source and suggests a direct causality that is unsupported by the data.
Another key claim states that “69% of Europeans support banning nitrite-cured meats.” This figure reportedly comes from a JL Partners poll involving 3,041 respondents across the UK, France, and Germany. However, the methodology behind this poll has not been made public. The lack of detail regarding sample stratification, question phrasing, and survey context renders the statistic unverifiable and therefore scientifically weak. Opinion polling is not equivalent to scientific consensus, and its inclusion as primary justification in CAN’s policy agenda reflects a political, not empirical, orientation.
The statement that “nitrites have no purpose in meat production” is scientifically inaccurate. Nitrites are essential for inhibiting Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium responsible for botulism, a potentially fatal illness. They also contribute to cured meat’s characteristic pink colour and flavour stability. These functions are not merely cosmetic but are integral to public safety. The omission of these facts in CAN’s communication is an example of advocacy rhetoric overriding balanced scientific communication.
Perhaps the most far-reaching claim is that “removing nitrites from bacon will significantly reduce cancer rates.” This assertion lacks support from rigorous epidemiological models. The increased relative risk of colorectal cancer associated with daily consumption of 50g of processed meat, as cited by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), is approximately 18%. While not negligible, this figure must be interpreted in the context of baseline risk, dietary patterns, and co-factors such as alcohol use, sedentary behaviour, smoking, and genetic predisposition. Isolating nitrites as the primary cause is an unbalanced interpretation of existing data.
Analysis of Coalition Claim: “Leading Scientists Join Forces with Cross-Party Political Grouping and Third-Sector Leaders”
This prominently displayed statement on the Coalition Against Nitrites homepage, “Leading scientists join forces with cross-party political grouping and third-sector leaders in new coalition against nitrites” is framed to imply neutrality, credibility, and broad-based legitimacy. However, this message, while rhetorically powerful, disintegrates under critical examination.
Claim of “Leading Scientists”
Yes, many of the individuals involved are highly credentialed, affiliated with prestigious institutions like Harvard University, Imperial College London, Queen’s University Belfast, and Tufts University. However, their inclusion in a political campaign does not automatically validate the message they are advancing. When scientists enter the political arena and advocate for regulatory bans based on selective data, they are no longer functioning as impartial researchers but as campaigners.
More critically, the scientific views promoted on the coalition’s site do not reflect consensus positions within toxicology, food safety, or epidemiology. Many of their claims, particularly the omission of discussions around endogenous nitrite production, vegetable-derived nitrate, nitrosamine mitigation strategies, and the physiological importance of nitric oxide, contradict or selectively ignore the broader body of peer-reviewed evidence.
“Cross-Party Political Grouping” – A Misleading Suggestion of Balance
The coalition’s statement suggests political inclusiveness. However, as demonstrated in the structure and support base, it is overwhelmingly aligned with centre-left and green political agendas. Publicly supportive politicians include members of the UK Labour Party and parties aligned with progressive and environmentalist causes across Europe.
There is no visible representation from centrist or centre-right scientific or regulatory leadership, and no involvement from the EFSA, USDA, or other conservative-leaning public health authorities. This imbalance is not problematic in itself; many good public health initiatives emerge from partisan origins, but it is disingenuous to present the group as ideologically balanced or politically representative when its actual policy goals (including implicit meat reduction) align so strongly with progressive ideology.
Third-Sector Involvement: Who Exactly?
The reference to “third-sector leaders” is vague and lacks detail. It appears to point to advocacy journalists, NGO representatives, and patient lobbying groups. These organisations often play a valuable role in public education, but they are not neutral arbiters of science. In this case, they appear to reinforce a narrative rather than interrogate it. The involvement of figures like Guillaume Coudray, a journalist known for comparing the meat industry to the tobacco industry, further reflects the emotionally charged, activist-heavy character of the campaign.
The phrase “leading scientists join forces with cross-party political and third-sector leaders” is designed to project authority, unity, and credibility. In reality, it disguises a politically and ideologically aligned campaign with little transparency, no discussion of competing evidence, and a notable absence of scientific neutrality. What we see is not a broad-based consensus; it is issue framing dressed in the language of expertise.
Scientific Integrity and Objectivity
From an academic standpoint, the CAN website demonstrates low scientific rigour. It conflates correlation with causation, omits key contextual qualifiers, and fails to provide citations for many of its strongest claims. The use of emotionally charged and absolute language, such as “dangerous” or “no purpose”, undermines objectivity and skews public perception.
Most critically, the website shows a complete omission of key scientific variables that govern nitrite safety and efficacy. There is 100% silence on how effectively controlling ingoing nitrite levels (measured in ppm) can reduce nitrosamine formation risk. It offers zero mention of the globally mandated inclusion of erythorbate or ascorbate in formulations. Antioxidants have been proven to suppress nitrosamine formation. It is extremely effective! There is also no discussion whatsoever of the physiological role or benefits of nitric oxide (NO), nitrite (NO₂⁻), or nitrate (NO₃⁻), despite their essential role in cardiovascular and immune function. This absence is not a matter of emphasis; it is a deliberate vacuum. The site presents nitrites as harmful with no reference to dose, context, co-factors, or their essential biological roles. It is irresponsible showmanship at its best!
Ethical Reflection and Historical Context
It is deeply disappointing to witness reputable scientists and institutions contribute to a public health narrative that prioritises policy impact over scientific fidelity. While public engagement is critical, advocacy should not come at the cost of precision. Oversimplified narratives erode public trust in science and set precedents for poorly evidenced policymaking.
This is not the first time health policy has been swayed by popular sentiment or incomplete data. Past controversies over dietary fat, sodium, and cholesterol have taught us that rigid positions built on weak evidence can lead to decades of confusion and unintended consequences. Institutions like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. National Academies have since cautioned against unqualified recommendations based on single-nutrient demonisation.
In this light, the singular focus on nitrites mirrors historical overreach. It simplifies a multi-factorial health issue, colorectal cancer, into a campaign against a single ingredient. This form of reductionism is scientifically irresponsible.
Regulatory Positions and Expert Consensus
Both EFSA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have consistently stated that nitrites, when used within regulated limits, do not pose a significant health risk. EFSA’s 2017 scientific opinion acknowledged that nitrite exposure from all sources—meat, vegetables, water—should be considered in aggregate, and reaffirmed current acceptable daily intake levels. Meanwhile, the USDA in 2023 proposed new labelling rules aimed at curbing misleading claims like “no added nitrites,” especially where plant-derived nitrate sources are used.
These regulatory bodies, unlike advocacy organisations, are bound by risk assessment frameworks that consider dosage, exposure routes, and cumulative effects. Their continued approval of nitrite use in meat products suggests that CAN’s alarmism is not aligned with current scientific and regulatory consensus.
Academic Reception and Publication Standards
Were the CAN website submitted as a scientific manuscript or public policy paper, it would likely be rejected outright by most peer-reviewed journals. The absence of methodological transparency, the misuse of epidemiological data, and the emotionally driven rhetoric violate basic standards of academic publication. Editors would call for major revisions, demanding citations, dose-response context, and alternative interpretations.
The simplification of risk messages for public consumption is not, in itself, objectionable. But when simplification results in distortion, particularly by omitting physiological pathways, background dietary patterns, and regulatory safety assessments, it ceases to be public education and becomes propaganda.
Conclusion
The Coalition Against Nitrites has succeeded in drawing public attention to food safety concerns. However, its core messaging falls short of the standards expected in academic and scientific communication. Its framing is politically strategic rather than scientifically rigorous. By elevating one risk factor while ignoring many others of far greater magnitude it presents a lopsided account of dietary health. It is the responsibility of the scientific community to resist such distortions and to ensure that public health policy is driven by balanced, transparent, and contextualised evidence, not advocacy alone.
References
WHO. (2015). IARC Monographs Volume 114: Evaluation of consumption of red meat and processed meat.
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., … & Straif, K. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncology, 16(16), 1599–1600.
Bryan, N. S., & Loscalzo, J. (Eds.). (2017). Nitrite and Nitrate in Human Health and Disease. Springer.
Cassens, R. G. (1997). Nitrite-Cured Meat: A Food Safety Issue in Perspective. Food & Nutrition Press.
EFSA ANS Panel (2017). Re-evaluation of sodium nitrite (E 250) and potassium nitrite (E 249) as food additives. EFSA Journal, 15(6), 4786.
EFSA Scientific Committee (2017). General principles to be considered when deriving health-based guidance values for mixed exposures to multiple chemicals. EFSA Journal, 15(5), 4782.
Global Burden of Disease Study. (2015). Processed meat and colorectal cancer data. Lancet Oncology.
Hord, N. G., Tang, Y., & Bryan, N. S. (2009). Food sources of nitrates and nitrites: the physiologic context for potential health benefits. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90(1), 1–10.
Lundberg, J. O., Weitzberg, E., & Gladwin, M. T. (2008). The nitrate–nitrite–nitric oxide pathway in physiology and therapeutics. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 7(2), 156–167.
Mirvish, S. S. (1995). Role of N-nitroso compounds (NOC) and N-nitrosation in the etiology of gastric, esophageal, nasopharyngeal, and bladder cancer and contribution to cancer of known exposures to NOC. Cancer Letters, 93(1), 17–48.
National Cancer Institute. (2022). Red and Processed Meat and Cancer Risk. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/red-meat-fact-sheet
Sindelar, J. J., & Milkowski, A. L. (2011). Human safety controversies surrounding nitrate and nitrite in the diet. Nitric Oxide, 26(4), 259–266.
Tricker, A. R., & Preussmann, R. (1991). Carcinogenic N-nitrosamines in the diet: occurrence, formation, mechanisms and carcinogenic potential. Mutation Research, 259(3–4), 277–289.
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. (2023). Labeling Guidance on Natural Sources of Nitrite. Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov
All images are from the Coalition Against Nitrites website: https://coalitionagainstnitrites.com/