Look at the Whole List It’s true that the WHO classifies these substances as such. They also classify aloe vera, caffeine, including coffee and tea, leather (because of manufacturing processes), Tylenol, pickled vegetables, working late, magnetic fields (which we all live in being between earth’s poles), hot chocolate, drinking water disinfectants, fried foods, hair coloring products, working as a hair dresser, glass, saw dust, fluorescent lights, oral contraceptives, dry cleaning your clothes, and hundreds of other chemical-sounding things that, if we took the time to research the use of, we would learn that we come into contact with daily. It seems like some researcher somewhere has at some point in time linked every product we own or regularly consume to cancer. I do not for a second believe that we should take on a, “Well, we can’t avoid it,” mentality, because we can always look for healthier alternatives with anything we do. However, taking on a radical lifestyle just because the WHO classifies some meats as carcinogens completely ignores the hundreds of other products the organization’s list also incriminates. Can you imagine the temper tantrum that would ensue if I told a vegan to give up coffee and hair highlights because the WHO says those things cause cancer!? Of course vegans don’t follow the WHO’s advice for these products, and they are right not to. But this goes to show that they don’t really care about preventing cancer, or even the appearance of preventing cancer--only about taking scraps of half-truths to support their trendy, self-righteous lifestyle. 95% of them probably didn’t know what the WHO is until they were fed this easily digestible talking point. And half of them likely still don’t.
What they do need some checks against, however, is stepping into public advocacy as if they were any kind of research institution. They are not. Do not be confused by the conflicting title of the arm of the organization that actually published the list, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). They are not researching cancer, but jumpstarting research collaborations between different governments through lobbying. And I’m not saying that’s delegitimate--only differentiating the materials they publish from the peer-reviewed literature encapsulating cancer research. The American Chemistry Council’s Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research responded to the IARC’s list with a compilation of quotes from actual world health researchers that really laid into the WHO’s hubris. Among my favorites is a snippet from Geoffrey Kabat, cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine: “politicization of science is a serious danger….We need to continuously strive to distinguish good — that is, reproducible — science from politics and from policy.” My hope in saying all of this is not for the main point of this article to be “don’t trust the WHO,” but instead to investigate where these claims come from. Although I’ve taken way too long to articulate this point, I hope I’ve led you to this question: And What Does the Actual Research Say? “Processed meat was significantly related to the risk of the stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, prostate, testis, kidney and bladdercancer and leukaemia.” Hu, Jinfu, et al. “Salt, Processed Meat and the Risk of Cancer.” European Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 20, no. 2, Mar. 2011, pp. 132–139. “Overall, there is no strong evidence to support the recent conclusion that red meat has a convincing role to play in colon cancer. A substantial amount of evidence supports the role of lean red meat as a positive moderator of lipid profiles with recent studies identifying it as a dietary source of the anti-inflammatory long chain (LC) n−3 PUFAs and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). In conclusion, moderate consumption of lean red meat as part of a balanced diet is unlikely to increase risk for CVD or colon cancer, but may positively influence nutrient intakes and fatty acid profiles, thereby impacting positively on long-term health.” Mcafee, Alison J., et al. “Red Meat Consumption: An Overview of the Risks and Benefits.” Meat Science, vol. 84, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–13., doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.029.
“The possible absolute effects of red and processed meat consumption on cancer mortality and incidence are very small, and the certainty of evidence is low to very low.” Han et al. “Reduction of Red and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Mortality and Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.” Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 2019. To tie all of this together, there’s no denying that the research is mixed. However, through the years, researchers have cast doubt on the evidence that links processed meat to cancer and concluded that not all red meat should raise concerns, only red meat that is processed (which is admittedly a large proportion). But it’s pretty safe to say that we should approach processed meats with caution, and it’s not unreasonable to avoid them. If you do consume processed meats, make sure to accompany them with plenty of fiber, which acts as a digestive broom, cleaning out your intestines and lowering your rate of the type of cancer most referenced, colorectal cancer. The reason for this association is often believed to be the curing methods, which use chemicals high in sodium. Medical News Today published an article that called out the definition of processed meats for being too broad, asserting that it’s actually the nitrite content in the meats that raises cancer risks, not the generalized classification of being “processed.” But There Are Other Kinds of Meat, Too! This should sound like a fairly obvious statement, but, as I mentioned earlier, those who advocate for no animal products whatsoever have used the WHO’s carcinogen list as way too big of a stepping-stone toward their lifestyle. The contrary truth is that even the researchers that warn against processed meats don’t suggest an exclusion of animal products as a cure… but instead replacement with other animal products. “There were suggestive inverse associations of poultry intake with risk of total and all-CVD mortality among men, but not among women…. Among women, poultry intake was not significantly associated with total, all-cancer, or all-CVD mortality…. Poultry is often considered one of the healthier alternatives to red meat.” Takata Y, Shu X-O, Gao Y-T, Li H, Zhang X, Gao J, et al. (2013) Red Meat and Poultry Intakes and Risk of Total and Cause-Specific Mortality: Results from Cohort Studies of Chinese Adults in Shanghai. PLoS ONE 8(2): e56963. Abid, Zaynah, et al. “Meat, Dairy, and Cancer.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 100, July 2014. “Red and processed meat intake appears to be positively associated with risk of cancer of the colon and rectum, esophagus, liver, lung, and pancreas. However, this study provided little support for an association with other cancer sites. Current dietary guidelines recommend selecting meats that are lean, low-fat, or fat-free, thus promoting limited consumption of red and processed meats. Overall, the strongest risk factors for cancer in the US are smoking and obesity.” Genkinger JM, Koushik A (2007) Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk. PLoS Med 4(12): e345. “Red meat consumption may increase the risk of invasive breast cancer, whereas poultry consumption may be associated with reduced risk. Substituting poultry for red meat could reduce breast cancer risk.” Lo, Jamie J, et al. “Association between Meat Consumption and Risk of Breast Cancer: Findings from the Sister Study.” Cancer Epidemiology, Aug. 2019.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |