Red Meat Is Just As Likely To Give You Cancer As A Cigarette, The World Health Organization Says
Oct 23, 2015
By Ali Venosa
International health experts are set to list processed meat among the most cancer-causing substances in the world, including arsenic and asbestos. The World Health Organization (WHO) will also be listing fresh red meat in the “encyclopedia of carcinogens,” ranked as only slightly less dangerous than preserved products such as bacon, sausages, and burgers.
The report is set to release Monday and will be a shock to the meat industry – everyone, from farmers to fast food chains, will be affected by the news. The WHO issued a warning about sugar overconsumption last year, resulting in a fall in sugar sales, which could be an indicator of what?s to come for the meat industry. The ruling could lead to warning labels and altered dietary guidelines to signal the issue.
The Department of Health?s advisers said both processed and fresh red meat “probably” cause cancer, but the WHO will be placing processed meat in the “carcinogenic to humans” category, along with cigarettes and alcohol. The decision was made after scientists from around the world met up to review evidence on the matter.
The North American Meat Institute claimed the report was neither logical nor necessary.
“Red and processed meat are among 940 substances reviewed by International Agency for Research (IARC) and found to pose some level of theoretical ?hazard,?” Barry Carpenter, president of the North American Meat Institute, told the Daily Mail. “IARC says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don?t breathe air, sit near a sun-filled window, drink wine or coffee, eat grilled food, or apply aloe vera.”
Barry said that the risks and benefits of a food or behavior must be weighed together before telling everyone what to do.
Current guidelines include the recommendation that adults eat no more than 70g of red meat a day, and the World Cancer Research Fund said that processed meat should be avoided altogether.
Kerry McCarthy, Shadow Environment Secretary, Says Treat Meat Eaters Like Smokers
24/09/2015
By Ned Simons
Meat eaters should be treated like smokers, Labour’s new shadow environment secretary has said.
Jeremy Corbyn’s appointment of Kerry McCarthy, who is a vegan, to the post raised eyebrows given the job involves working with farmers.
“I really believe that meat should be treated in exactly the same way as tobacco, with public campaigns to stop people eating it,” she said.
In an interview with vegan magazine Viva!life, McCarthy added: “Progress on animal welfare is being made at EU level ? but in the end it comes down to not eating meat or dairy.”
Explaining her veganism to Sky News last week, the Bristol West MP explained: “I don?t wear leather. I think what a lot of us do is just try to do the best that we can so I don?t eat dairy products, I don?t eat eggs, that?s the most defining thing I would say.”
And she dismissed the suggestion that being a vegan made her unsuitable for the frontbench job, noting that animal welfare was of concern to farmers. “I would say actually, being a vegan, if anything that means that I care about the welfare of the cows more than some people would,” she said.
McCarthy also said that the environment brief was the shadow cabinet position she most wanted as she was “absolutely passionate about” the issues.
How valid are the studies that the WHO used to categorize processed meat as carcinogenic and red meat as probably carcinogenic?
The World Health Organization says processed meat does cause cancer and red meat is probably carcinogenic too, but It seems that the studies used are not establishing causation but just correlation, is this true? and if so, are they inferring the proper results?
How do they differentiate between red meat being a probable cause of cancer and processed meat being a sure cause? What kind of tests do they perform? As I said before, do they just test for correlation, for association, or for causality? If they test for causality, How is that possible when so little is known about that “first step” of what produces cancer?
Michael’s Answer
Michael J. McFadden
If It’s Chocolate, I’ll Eat It!
Medicine and Healthcare
You’re making an important first step in recognizing that correlation does not equal causation. The example I like to give is the way roosters crow and wake up the Sun God who then flies across the sky in his chariot dragging the sun to the Western horizon. Studies verify a VERY high correlation, so it’s obvious that the roosters are indeed the cause.
Right?
I see this sort of false causality claim all the time in “secondhand smoke” studies, but that’s largely because of the immense amount of money (400 million to 900 million dollars EVERY YEAR) being poured into Tobacco Control every year to support such nonsense. As far as I am aware however, there is no similarly immense set of funding being ladled out to researchers willing to design and interpret studies vilifying red meat… so I’d tend to trust these results a bit more.
Gonzalo, can you list two or three of the major studies that they are basing this claim on? I’d be willing to apply a skeptical eye to them and expand my answer in an EDIT.
Read More.
