Nitrates in cheese

I noticed that most "big pieces of" cheeses contain preservatives with
the codes in the range from E249 to E252. They have in common that they
are different forms of nitrates. I thought that they should be avoided
because of the cancer risk. Checking the web site of a major dairy
company, I read that "only very small or no amuonts of nitrate" remains
in the product after processing and that "cheese does not contain the
type of nitrate that may transform to nitrosamine". Do you know whether
this is correct or not? I am considering whether I need to only eat
cheeses without any preservatives. Thanks.

"H.L" wrote:

I am considering whether I need to only eat
cheeses without any preservatives.

Then nitrate free cheese is the way to go. How conservative
do you want to be about manufacturer claims? Since there
are plenty of nitrate free varieties are you limiting yourself
much by taking a conservative approach?

--
Newsoffice.de - Die Onlinesoftware zum Lesen und Schreiben im Usenet
Die Signatur läßt sich nach Belieben anpassen ;-)

H.L wrote:

I noticed that most "big pieces of" cheeses contain preservatives with
the codes in the range from E249 to E252. They have in common that they
are different forms of nitrates. I thought that they should be avoided
because of the cancer risk. Checking the web site of a major dairy
company, I read that "only very small or no amuonts of nitrate" remains
in the product after processing and that "cheese does not contain the
type of nitrate that may transform to nitrosamine". Do you know whether
this is correct or not? I am considering whether I need to only eat
cheeses without any preservatives. Thanks.

Nitrates are usually cheaper than Dayrates.

On Feb 21, 1:50 pm, Bad Ass wrote:
H.L wrote:
I noticed that most "big pieces of" cheeses contain preservatives with
the codes in the range from E249 to E252. They have in common that they
are different forms of nitrates. I thought that they should be avoided
because of the cancer risk. Checking the web site of a major dairy
company, I read that "only very small or no amuonts of nitrate" remains
in the product after processing and that "cheese does not contain the
type of nitrate that may transform to nitrosamine". Do you know whether
this is correct or not? I am considering whether I need to only eat
cheeses without any preservatives. Thanks.

Nitrates are usually cheaper than Dayrates.

Not with locksmiths.

This is not really a response to a post in the "nitrates in cheese"
thread. Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers,
it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and
cancer a few times. The abscence of cancer in several native groups with
very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection. I
don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates
from preservatives and processing techniques? Low carbers might do well
from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and
bacon.

H.L wrote:
This is not really a response to a post in the "nitrates in cheese"
thread. Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers,
it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and
cancer a few times. The abscence of cancer in several native groups with
very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection. I
don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates
from preservatives and processing techniques? Low carbers might do well
from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and
bacon.



It is useful to bear in mind the publication on false [medical] research
findings....

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0020124


Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research
findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may
depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same
question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among
the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a
research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in
a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a
greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where
there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and
analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and
prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in
chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study
designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false
than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed
research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the
prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these
problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests
exist.

Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are
False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Published: August 30, 2005

Copyright: © 2005 John P. A. Ioannidis. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abbreviation: PPV, positive predictive value

John P. A. Ioannidis is in the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology,
University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and
Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of
Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of
Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. E-mail:


Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent
evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and
controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical
trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern
molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern
research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority
of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be
surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are
false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem
and some corollaries thereof.


Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

On Feb 22, 8:57 am, "H.L" wrote:
This is not really a response to a post in the "nitrates in cheese"
thread. Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers,
it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and
cancer a few times. The abscence of cancer in several native groups with
very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection. I
don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates
from preservatives and processing techniques? Low carbers might do well
from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and
bacon.

Atkins, at least the version I own of DANDR, makes comment on this.

How about a different interpretation? It's the carbs + the red meat.

"H.L" wrote:

Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers,
it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and
cancer a few times.

Where such studies ignore carb intake.

The abscence of cancer in several native groups with
very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection.

Where such groups have very low carb traditional diets.

I
don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates
from preservatives and processing techniques?

The most obvious traditional meat diets are also ones that do not
use nitrates to preserve their meats. Sun drying, salting,
fermenting,
the array of preserving used is bewildering. But use of nitrates is
only a few centuries old.

Because of this I hesitate to blame nitrates. Those high meat diets
that are high risk appear to be "red and potatoes" folks. Blaming
the combination of high fat and high carb seems the way to go.

Low carbers might do well
from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and
bacon.

There are certain people who react poorly to nitrates. Those who
know they have such an issue should have already been avoiding
nitrates before starting to low carb. Those who follow the Atkins
process as written to include the eliminate and challenge aspect
can discover if they have problems with nitrates. Anyone with
problems should avoid nitrates.

Having everyone avoid nitrates because some have problems with
nitrates is a paleolithic approach. It's conservative and effective,
but
it is unnecessarily restrictive in some cases. Will some benefit
by avoidance? Yes. Will all benefit from avoidance? I do not think
so. How to tell if you'll benefit by avoidance? By dropping from
your
diet for at least a week then reintroducing, standard issue eliminate
and challenge from Atkins and several other plans. If you feel better
by the end of the elimination period and/or feel worse when you
reintroduce (it's easier to tell getting worse than to tell getting
better)
then you know you'll benefit from avoidance.

I don't think there's a big downside to avoiding nitrates. They
weren't
used until recent history (recent in terms of thousands of years,
not briefer centuries like refined flour and not longer tens of
millenia
like the introduction of grain agriculture).

I tried the elinimation process and discovered I don't have ill
effects,
so I don't avoid preserved meats. This might be a mistake on my part.

"Jim" wrote

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

"Including this one."

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com