Cancer and processed/red meats

'A few decades ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs. Please don't let Kevin Bacon die.' -- Bill Murray

Sorry, Bill. Looks like bacon is getting a bad rap again.

"A research division of the World Health Organization announced Monday that bacon, sausage and other processed meats cause cancer and that red meat probably does, too."

"The WHO panel cited studies suggesting that an additional 3.5 ounces of red meat everyday raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 17 percent; eating an additional 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily raises the risk by 18 percent, according to the research cited."

“Everything causes cancer,” said Caroline Rourke, an energy policy analyst, also on her way out of the grocery. “Life causes cancer. Who cares what food does? Life is terminal, isn’t it?"

I wonder how much of the problem is associated with nitrates and how much with the red meat itself. We don't eat a lot of red meat, but we do like some now and again.

Will this change how you eat?

Everything gives you cancer.
There's no cure, there's no answer

---Joe Jackson



P.S. If this study is even partially correct, then I'm a goner for sure.

I believe the study is true. Primarily because ACS has had a billboard campaign in Chicagoland addressing this for a few years if my memory is correct.

I don't know why WHO's announcement would change anything if ACS didn't.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandre ... hat-causes


Risk factors linked to things you do
Some lifestyle-related factors have been linked to an higher risk of colorectal cancer.

Certain types of diets: one that is high in red meats (beef, lamb, or liver) and processed meats (like hot dogs, bologna, and lunch meat) can increase your colorectal cancer risk.
Cooking meats at very high heat (frying, broiling, or grilling) can create chemicals that might increase cancer risk.
Lack of exercise
Being very overweight (or obese)
Smoking
Heavy alcohol use
For more information about risk factors for colorectal cancer, see our more detailed document Colorectal Cancer.


Last Medical Review: 10/15/2014
Last Revised: 12/31/2014

Hi- The ACS and the National Cancer Institute have said for years that people should eat as little red meat as possible because it may increase the possibility of getting colon cancer. I have a really strong family history of colon cancer, and I only eat red meat on rare occasion when I am someplace where it is being served, such as the LTH picnic or at a holiday dinner. Maybe once a year, I will go out an have a hamburger too. I love salmon burgers, and I would rather have one of those than a hamburger. I just went to Jewel tonight and got four packages of salmon burgers which were on sale, and I had four $1 coupons that I used when I purchased them, and so they only cost me $2.99 a package. Tomorrow is the last day for the sale. One of my Sisters is an endocrinologist who has also done a lot of nutrition research, and she does not eat a lot of red meat either. She lives in New Orleans and likes to cook, and she uses turkey sausage in her gumbo, which I am sure some people here would find intolerable. Hope this helps, Nancy

I am extremely dubious of this result that red meat causes cancer and have been every time it shows up. Recall that for decades we were told saturated fats were terrible for us and that turned out to be false and that salt caused hypertension (it is far more complicated than that).

To point out some problems with typical meat->cancer studies:
inconsistent definitions of meat categories
use of a food surveys that are notoriously inaccurate
confounding variables likely not completely eliminated, e.g. vegetarians might be more health conscious in general

Of course the biggest weakness and the one that make me suspicious of nutrition science in general is the reliance on epidemiological studies. This just looks at correlations between variables and provides little evidence of causation. It is also very vulnerable to confounding variables problem above.

Furthermore, the mechanisms by which it cause cancer are suspect. One theory I have heard is that certain foreign substances in red meat cause an autoimmune response and the resulting inflammation eventually leads to cell damage and cancer. However, inflammation is a natural process (you cause inflammation when you exercise for instance), so just going inflammation=bad is oversimplifying the case.

Also the statement says that pan frying meats may cause carcinogens to be created, but
Lee, Sang-Ah, et al. "Animal origin foods and colorectal cancer risk: a report from the Shanghai Women's Health Study." Nutrition and cancer 61.2 (2009): 194-205.

found that stir-frying had no carcinogenic risks.

I think the processed meats result is probably true and you should cut your consumption of them.

I guess in the end, just recall that everything causes cancer.

FWIW, I heard in passing on the radio this morning that while bacon et. al. have a connection to cancer, the initial WHO headline from the other day--BACON AS BAD FOR YOU AS SMOKING--is simply not true.

Hi- That is what I heard too about smoking. I don't know how it ended up in the news a few days ago that eating bacon was as bad for you as smoking. If you eat bacon maybe once a month then your risk of getting colon cancer is probably bot that much increased. Remember that about half of all Seventh Day Adventists are vegetarian, and in general they have a lower rate of colon cancer. Most Seventh Day Adventists do not drink coffee either though, and they are more likely to eat lots of produce and exercise than the average person in this country. They don't smoke either. Hope this helps, Nancy

NFriday wrote:Hi- That is what I heard too about smoking. I don't know how it ended up in the news a few days ago that eating bacon was as bad for you as smoking. If you eat bacon maybe once a month then your risk of getting colon cancer is probably bot that much increased. Remember that about half of all Seventh Day Adventists are vegetarian, and in general they have a lower rate of colon cancer. Most Seventh Day Adventists do not drink coffee either though, and they are more likely to eat lots of produce and exercise than the average person in this country. They don't smoke either. Hope this helps, Nancy

And you can say the same about illness rates in Utah.

Did you know that everyone who's had cancer has also had a drink of water during their lives? Water must cause cancer. Let's promote dry mouth, everyone.

There is a pretty good summary of some of the issues with this finding (or at least how it's presented) at The Atlantic's website.

Ed Yong wrote:Here’s the thing: These classifications are based on strength of evidence not degree of risk.

Two risk factors could be slotted in the same category if one tripled the risk of cancer and the other increased it by a small fraction. They could also be classified similarly even if one causes many more types of cancers than the other, if it affects a greater swath of the population, and if it actually causes more cancers.

So these classifications are not meant to convey how dangerous something is, just how certain we are that something is dangerous.

But they’re presented with language that completely obfuscates that distinction.

Chef Michael Symon is even more ticked about this than he is about his beloved Cleveland Browns. From his facebook page:

"Dear World Health Organization,

To say I am disappointed in your witch hunt..errr "research" would be to put it mildly a understatement. First off why wouldn't you take this opportunity to talk about the huge division of meat and meat products that are out there. To group factory farmed, mass produced products loaded with hormones, words we can't pronounce and man made nitrates with beautifully raised, produced & crafted artisan products is an incredible disservice to those who work so hard to do things the right way.
Also the media using this research as "click on my page" gimmick with headlines such as "Bacon & Beef Kills!" just makes it an even larger problem. Lets talk about a couple facts here. You never mentioned anything about anyone that was tested diet or if they are rich in fiber and balanced with grains & vegetables. Also when digging deeper in the article it mentions that a diet filled these so called deadly products effects less than 1% of people or 30,000 people WORLDWIDE ANNUALLY. To put that in perspective deaths caused by car accidents and smoking where 1.3 million and 900,000 last year.

I would hope most people understand by now life is about balance and if you ate pounds of bacon, beef and hot dogs daily that it would be bad for you. To categorize the danger of eating bacon, salami & beef in the same breath as cigarettes is a complete joke ....as is your blanket statement research.

On a happier note my 97 year grandfather called me today laughing about the article while enjoying a BLT from his couch.

Eat Real Food,
Michael Symon"

Press Release from IARC/WHO is measured. No way is this a witch hunt, nor is it an attempt to terrorize.

Just enjoy your meat and carry on if you like, or not, the choice remains yours!

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2 ... r240_E.pdf

My take away is twofold:
1. The warning for red meat consumption is very tepid, and as long as you're not eating red meat 4 or 5 times a week, and keep portions modest when you do, this statement almost confirms that there is very minimal risk involved.
2. The warning for processed meats is stronger, and I will keep an eye on our consumption rate there. As I read it, there is no need to eliminate the consumption because the increased risk was based on so much consumed per day. A few times a month in modest amounts would seem to pose minimal risk (a balanced diet, as Michael Simon suggests).

My one problem with the processed meat category is, as one expert I heard pointed out, there are many many different kinds, but the research does not indicate which of the categories pose the danger. I doubt the something as different as curing meat versus putting meat on the grill can pose the same risk, but right now, the research shows risk for the entire category. Hopefully future research will start to make some distinctions.

One thing about this that gets my antennae up re media fearmongering is that none of its particularly new. Nitrates and nitrites in meat pose some health risk, as does charred meat, as does cold-smoked fish. We knew all that.

I also agree with Matt's point and think personally that it's sloppy journalism (nothing new about that either) to read a report about equivalent strengths of evidence and report them as equivalent degrees of risk.

Hi- Michael Symon's answer is to eat minimally processed food, and not factory farmed meat, but is there such a thing as nitrite and nitrate free bacon? Factory farmed meat is all a lot of families can afford anyway. I would rather cut down on my consumption of meat and use it as a condiment in a dish, and get free range chicken, as opposed to having factory farmed red meat every night, and having it as the centerpiece of the meal. I think the paleo crazy is driving the sale of red meat. So many people are led to believe that it is okay to eat a big steak, but it is not okay to eat bread. I am amazed at how many gluten free products you see at the grocery store now. Hope this helps, Nancy

NFriday wrote:So many people are led to believe that it is okay to eat a big steak, but it is not okay to eat bread.

Now that you mention it, a nice juicy steak sounds pretty good. I'll have to pick something up for the grill in the next couple of days. I also have some great sourdough left over from my Chicken Bread experiment. I bet they'll go good together.

Hi- Did anybody else see the segment on Chicago Tonight on Thursday about this. They had a dietitian and an Animal Science professor at UI in Champaign on discussing this. The dietitian took a middle of the road approach, saying that you should cut down on your consumption of red/processed meats. The Animal science professor tried to put a positive spin on it, pointing out that processed meat is processed so it is safer to eat. He also pointed out all the attributes for red/processed meats, such as the fact that they supply lots of nutrition such as protein. You can see the segment on the Chicago Tonight website.

I also saw on the news this morning that there has been a change of face from WHO. They are now saying that people should just cut down on the amount of red/processed meat they consume. Hope this helps, Nancy

NFriday wrote:Hi- Did anybody else see the segment on Chicago Tonight on Thursday about this. They had a dietitian and an Animal Science professor at UI in Champaign on discussing this. The dietitian took a middle of the road approach, saying that you should cut down on your consumption of red/processed meats. The Animal science professor tried to put a positive spin on it, pointing out that processed meat is processed so it is safer to eat. He also pointed out all the attributes for red/processed meats, such as the fact that they supply lots of nutrition such as protein. You can see the segment on the Chicago Tonight website.

I also saw on the news this morning that there has been a change of face from WHO. They are now saying that people should just cut down on the amount of red/processed meat they consume. Hope this helps, Nancy

Most registered dietitians take a middle of the road approach. Why? Because that is a diet that MOST people can and will follow and hopefully adopt for the remainder of their life.

Years ago, I worked with a doctor who would send all of his obese patients home on a 1200 calorie diet, even if their job was physically demanding. Generally within two weeks, the patient returned to all the bad habits they had before.

Another doctor would ask the dietitian to work with the patient to develop and individualized weight plan that would involve a diet with 1800-2200 calories and include their favorite foods. He had pretty good success with his patients losing weight.

Moderation is the way to go. I think more medical professionals are heading in that direction.