Ruminations

Mired in Continued Controversy

"We suggest that individuals continue their current consumption. We cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease."
"This is not just another study of red and processed meat, but a series of high quality systematic reviews resulting in recommendations we think are far more transparent, robust and reliable."
"However, any health benefits from staying away from meat are uncertain, and, if they exist at all, are very small."
"[With cancer, for example], we see risk reductions of anywhere from one to 13 cases per 1,000 people followed over a lifetime. So, that's 0.1 percent to 1.3 percent. That's our best estimate."
"Our approach has been there is a possible reduction, that's true. But what's also true is that we're uncertain whether we can make a causal inference."
"And if that's the case people should know what their possible risk reduction is, if it exists at all, and be informed of that so they can make their own decisions."
Dr.Bradley Johnson, associate professor, community health and epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax

"We have saturated the market with warnings about the dangers of red meat. It would be hard to find someone who doesn't 'know' that experts think we should all eat less."
"[However], continuing to broadcast that fact, with more and more shaky studies touting potential small relative risks, is not changing anyone's mind."
Dr. Aaron Carroll, author, The Bad Food Bible, Indiana University School of Medicine

"They should not be making recommendations on this highly connected and sensitive issue, namely, meat consumption, linked as it is to GHGE [greenhouse gas emissions], climate change, our whole attitude to other life forms -- in short, connected to existential issues for life on this planet."
Dr.David Jenkins, nutrition scientist, University of Toronto

Image: © Shutterstock)

Heresy, nothing less, and perhaps much more. After all the prevailing advice has been dispensed, urged upon, validated, warned, and assured that red meat consumption, and processed meats in particular, will inevitably lead to a dismal health end in flirting with cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart attack, cancer, diabetes or death from any cause whatever, along comes a new team of health scientists to present us with alternate findings. A panel of international scientists led by researchers at Dalhousie and McMaster universities in Canada has published their study results in the reputable journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

And their conclusion, that lowering red or processed meat consumption turned out to have little, perhaps trivial effects in reducing the risk of serious health malfunctions goes against the popular grain with a tremendous 'thud!'. The researchers engaged in four systematic reviews to assess risk inherent in red and processed meat consumption and their conclusion is, more or less, don't bother with this concentrated avoidance, it's hardly worth the effort. They looked at the situation purely from a medical standpoint, not taking into account environmental or animal-humane impacts.

They focused on the health aspect of eating red and processed meat since most people choosing to eat otherwise such as vegetarians self-report their reasons as personal health, along with secondary influences. As far as they are concerned, blaming red and processed meat consumption with premature death is vastly overblown. In other words, the 2015 panel of experts assembled by the World Health Organization through the International Agency for Research on Cancer were precipitate in attributing bacon, sausages, biltong, beef jerky and an assortment of salted, cured, smoked meats as carcinogenic; red meat 'probably' in the same category.

Most people who understand the magnitude of the risks would say, 'Thanks very much, but I'm going to keep eating my meat,' said co-author Dr. Gordon Guyatt of McMaster University in Hamilton. (Erin Collins/CBC)

The oft-stated advice from government health agencies to select a diet high in plant proteins, not animal protein more frequently, along with the American dietary guidelines recommending red meat limits to about one weekly serving, in one fell swoop, overturned. By no means are other food scientists prepared to accept the magnitude of reversal inherent in the conclusion of this new study, citing the authors' recommendations accompanied by a "low certainty of evidence". "Because the studies themselves have low certainty of evidence", points out Dr.Joe Schwarcz of McGill.

And this rests in the face of the very unscientific aspect of observational testimonials on which nutritional studies are mostly based, since they are unable to prove cause-and-effect, relying on people's accurate reports on what they have eaten and the amounts. Researchers follow participants over time and observe what happens, but, as Dr. Schwarcz, director of McGill's Office for Science in Society observed, "People tend to claim that they eat more of what they think they should have eaten instead of what they ate".

Estimates are that North American and European populations consume red and processed meat roughly three to four times weekly on average. Researchers from Poland and Spain were also involved in the performance of five systematic reviews, one including over 100 studies involving more than six million people. Differences in red and processed meat consumption resulted in small differences in risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart attack or type 2 diabetes according to their analyses.

They found again a small link when another meta-analysis, specifically studying the risk of developing or dying from prostate esophageal, colorectal, breast or other cancers and the consumption of meat. On the other hand, it was found that people who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat weekly did slightly reduce their risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, with an uncertain association for validation.