In 2017, the European food safety authority EFSA published a comprehensive re-evaluation of nitrite (E249) and nitrate (E250) as food additives. That risk assessment rightly focused on the cumulative exposure of consumers through meat products, and led to concrete recommendations on maximum dosage and residual levels.

However, what is missing from this scientific analysis is attention to the realities of artisanal meat production. The models and data on which EFSA relies come exclusively from large-scale, industrial production environments. As a result, artisanal producers are faced with policies and inspection criteria that do not sufficiently recognise and even impede their own demonstrably safe practices.

An uneven playing field

The crux of the problem is simple: industrial and artisanal meat production are fundamentally different - in terms of process, dosage and risk. EFSA bases its assessment on products that:

• are packaged under protective atmosphere (MAP),
• produced through centralised lines with constant temperature and pH,
• are designed for long durability.

Artisanal butchers and sausage makers, on the other hand, work with:

• small-scale batches,
• short chains with faster consumption,
• and traditional techniques such as roasting, fermentation, drying or acidification.

These processes affect not only the taste and texture of the product, but also its chemical composition - particularly the breakdown of nitrite.

What science says about nitrite degradation

Nitrite acts in meat as a colouring and preserving agent, and is partly converted to nitric oxide (NO), which binds to myoglobin. This process is temperature- and pH-dependent. In artisanal processes, this conversion is accelerated because:

• on fermentation (24-96 hours) Lactic acid bacteria lower pH and reduce nitrite;
• when heated (70-90 °C) nitrite is chemically broken down into nitrogen oxides;
• on drying and ripening (1-8 weeks) nitrite volatilises or binds to proteins and amines.

Scientific publications confirm this. Tornberg (2005) describes that sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar proteins in meat begin to denature at temperatures above 40 °C, affecting the chemical stability of nitrite. EFSA itself acknowledges in its 2017 review that residual values in industrial products average between 10-50 mg/kg. But comparative studies, such as those published in Foods (2025), show that organic or artisanally prepared meat products show significantly lower nitrite residual values - often even below the detection limit of 0.4 mg/kg.

The table below summarises these processes.

Practice: safe use and negligible risk

In artisanal practice, a maximum of 20 grams of colorozo salt per kilogram of meat is usually added. This colorozo salt contains 0.6% of sodium nitrite, resulting in an initial nitrite dose of 120 mg per kg of meat which is the new maximum at recipe level as of October 2025. Calculation example: 20 g colorozo salt/kg meat x 0.006 = 120 mg sodium nitrite/kg meat.

But the real difference is in the end result: due to the aforementioned processes, hardly anything remains of the added nitrite. Recently conducted laboratory analyses at artisan companies show residual values of <5 mg/kg, and in some products even undetectable levels. Consumer exposure is thus negligible and well below EFSA's thresholds for acceptable daily intake (ADI).

Why this nuance is important

Despite these facts, craft firms are in practice assessed for risks that derive primarily from industrial models. This leads to:

• erroneous risk assessments;
• unnecessary inspection pressure;
• and a obstruction of traditional craftsmanship and innovation.

Instead of looking at real exposure based on residual values, the focus is still on theoretical risk models based on initial addition. This is not in line with HACCP principles, which should instead focus on real risk.

Time for tailored policy and supervision

The craft sector is not asking for exemptions, but for a fair and fact-based assessment. To keep food safety and craftsmanship in balance, it is important that there:

• Recognition comes to craft processes as a separate category in risk assessments and policy-making;
• Assessment comes on the basis of recipe, that residual content need not be measured in arguably artisanal production.

The use of sodium nitrite in craft products is technologically based, controlled and demonstrably safe. Supervision should take into account the specificities of this sector.

Risk assessment should be based on a level playing field. EFSA and national regulators have a responsibility to base regulation on the full breadth of the sector - not just the industry standard. Only then will there be room for safe, responsible and artisanally produced meat.

Source: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4786