The Controversial Link Between Red Meat and Cancer Risk
Written on
Chapter 1: The WHO's Classification
In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) categorized both red meat and processed meat as potential cancer risks. This article explores the implications of this classification and unveils some surprising findings from the research conducted on a significant dietary component for countless individuals worldwide.
WHO is an entity of the United Nations dedicated to global health promotion, ensuring safety, and assisting vulnerable populations. Their mission aims to provide universal health coverage, protect against health emergencies, and enhance overall well-being for billions.
The aspect concerning cancer falls under their initiative to prevent non-communicable diseases. To support these objectives, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the WHO, initiated a thorough review of red and processed meat consumption. This involved a group of 22 experts who meticulously assessed the relevant literature.
Section 1.1: Research Findings
The IARC team evaluated over 800 studies related to the consumption of meat and cancer. They classified red meat as any muscle meat derived from mammals, including beef, pork, lamb, and goat. Processed meat refers to meat that has undergone various methods like curing or smoking to enhance flavor or preservation.
The above image illustrates the 800 studies that were taken into account by the IARC team. Although they reviewed these studies, not all were deemed suitable for their final classification due to specific concerns, such as lack of clarity regarding the type of red or processed meat considered.
Subsection 1.1.1: The Exclusion Criteria
Of the 800 studies, only 56 were influential in the group’s decision to label red and processed meat as carcinogenic. This means that over 93% of the data was excluded without thorough explanations for each exclusion.
From those 56 studies, 29 focused on red meat, with 15 indicating health benefits and 14 suggesting adverse effects. In the case of processed meat, 9 studies viewed it positively, while 18 raised health concerns. This inconsistency does not convincingly advocate for the avoidance of red or processed meat, especially since none of these studies met rigorous standards for establishing causation.
The working group concluded that processed meat consumption leads to colorectal cancer, a statement attributed to them rather than the original researchers.
Section 1.2: Questioning Research Quality
The difficulties in conducting robust research on health and nutrition often lead to reliance on observational studies, which lack the necessary experimental control to draw valid causal conclusions.
The need for controlled experiments is evident, as noted by David M. Klurfeld, who formerly led the USDA's human nutrition program. He described his experience with the IARC as deeply troubling and emphasized the lack of proven causality in the link between smoking and cancer, which is often cited as a definitive example.
Chapter 2: The Evidence Gap
In the first video, "RED MEAT: The Single BEST Food for Healing and Repair," the discussion revolves around the potential health benefits of red meat, challenging the conventional narratives surrounding its risks.
Conversely, the second video, "Dangers of Eating Red Meat: Dr. Heather Fields," highlights the potential dangers associated with red meat consumption, presenting a contrasting perspective to the previous video.
The disparity in the observed rates of colorectal cancer between high and low meat consumers was merely 18%—14% for red meat—insufficient to support the idea that processed meat causes cancer.
Klurfeld also references a critical editorial published in Lancet Oncology, questioning the validity of the IARC's findings and calling for a standardized approach to evaluating potential carcinogens.
In conclusion, the biases evident in the IARC's publications are disheartening. Many in media, medicine, and nutrition may not take the time to investigate these issues thoroughly, leading to a lack of informed discourse around health recommendations.
Thank you for engaging with this article. I hope you found it enlightening!
Follow me for more insights or subscribe for updates on my future posts.