Many of you may have seen on social media the World Health Organisation latest article - in response to this the The Paleo Mom has shared a really good post, this is her post...
27 October 2015
You've probably already heard the buzz: This morning, the World Health Organization classified processed and red meats as carcinogenic. That's one serious label!! (and the internet seems to be blowing up because of it)
Specifically, processed meat consumption was labelled as IARC Group 1 (that's the International Agency for Research on Cancer label for "carcinogenic to humans") on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer, and supported by an association with stomach cancer.
Red meat consumption was labelled as IARC Group 2A (the label for "probably carcinogenic to humans", just one notch below Group 1) on the basis of epidemiological data showing a positive association between consumption of red meat and colorectal cancer, pancreatic and prostate cancer.
So, processed meat just got put into the same category of compounds as cigarettes, benzene, and mustard gas. And red meat just got put into the same category as acrylamide, lead, and urethane. There's some colorful language in my head that I will refrain from typing.
As I watch the reactions in the media (many of which can be summarized as "since meat causes cancer, we should only eat plants!"), I feel the necessity to address this in some detail. Specifically, I think it's important to talk about exactly what this classification means. Are we throwing out our steaks? Are we safe as long as we stick with grass-fed?
First, I think it's important to state that this classification isn't because of some new revolutionary study that definitely proved how processed or red meat cause cancer--the fact is that mechanisms are still generally unknown, and animal studies fail to provide corroborating evidence or definitive mechanistic insight. Instead, these labels were assigned based the majority opinion of a panel that reviewed existing epidemiological data and population studies. Why is that important? Because cancer is much more complicated than whether or not you barbecue hamburgers on the weekends.
Just because all of the supporting evidence used by the panel came from correlative studies, this doesn't mean that there isn't a link. The fact is that recent research has started to provide some explanations for how certain compounds that are rich in red meat may, in fact, promote cancer growth in certain conditions. And, unfortunately, these are compounds that are still present even in our beloved grass-fed meat, so we can't dismiss the link between processed and red meat and cancer with the standard Paleo tagline "but they didn't look at grass-fed meat!".
I actually recently summarized the science behind how processed/red meat is currently believed to promote cancer along with what other factors play important roles: http://www.thepaleomom.com/…/the-link-between-meat-and-canc… The CliffsNotes? It isn't meat consumption itself that is carcinogenic, but rather heavy red and processed meat consumption in the absence of vegetable consumption in the diet. And it isn't just that the anti-cancer compounds in vegetables that somehow outweigh the pro-cancer compounds in meat--they actually directly interfere with the pathways through which the compounds in red meat promote cancer growth, making at least 2 out of 3 known mechanistic links between meat and cancer moot, as long as you eat some veggies too.
This is what I want to emphasize: the problem is meat-heavy diets where ketchup and fries are the vegetables, not meat itself. When red meat is consumed as part of a nutrient-dense diet simultaneously rich in vegetables (at least 5 servings a day), there's no evidence that it causes cancer. And in fact, there's plenty of nutrients that we need from animal foods that we can't even get from plant foods (summarized in this post:http://www.thepaleomom.com/…/the-diet-were-meant-to-eat-par… ) and vise versa. And red meat is especially rich in some great nutrients that our bodies need.
This is what needs to be part of the current narrative (rather than oversimplifying and just encouraging people to limit meat consumption and adopt a plant-based diet). History has already shown that swinging the diet pendulum from one extreme to the other doesn't work. Let's talk about the world in the middle: meat AND veggies, a variety of each, a focus on quality, eating snout-to-tail, eating local and organic, and don't forget seafood and fruit, which are also great.
_______
WHO's Position Paper: Bouvard, V, et al, on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group "Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat"
Lancet. Published Online: 26 October 2015 http://www.thelancet.com/…/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2900…/fulltext
You've probably already heard the buzz: This morning, the World Health Organization classified processed and red meats as carcinogenic. That's one serious label!! (and the internet seems to be blowing up because of it)
Specifically, processed meat consumption was labelled as IARC Group 1 (that's the International Agency for Research on Cancer label for "carcinogenic to humans") on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer, and supported by an association with stomach cancer.
Red meat consumption was labelled as IARC Group 2A (the label for "probably carcinogenic to humans", just one notch below Group 1) on the basis of epidemiological data showing a positive association between consumption of red meat and colorectal cancer, pancreatic and prostate cancer.
So, processed meat just got put into the same category of compounds as cigarettes, benzene, and mustard gas. And red meat just got put into the same category as acrylamide, lead, and urethane. There's some colorful language in my head that I will refrain from typing.
As I watch the reactions in the media (many of which can be summarized as "since meat causes cancer, we should only eat plants!"), I feel the necessity to address this in some detail. Specifically, I think it's important to talk about exactly what this classification means. Are we throwing out our steaks? Are we safe as long as we stick with grass-fed?
First, I think it's important to state that this classification isn't because of some new revolutionary study that definitely proved how processed or red meat cause cancer--the fact is that mechanisms are still generally unknown, and animal studies fail to provide corroborating evidence or definitive mechanistic insight. Instead, these labels were assigned based the majority opinion of a panel that reviewed existing epidemiological data and population studies. Why is that important? Because cancer is much more complicated than whether or not you barbecue hamburgers on the weekends.
Just because all of the supporting evidence used by the panel came from correlative studies, this doesn't mean that there isn't a link. The fact is that recent research has started to provide some explanations for how certain compounds that are rich in red meat may, in fact, promote cancer growth in certain conditions. And, unfortunately, these are compounds that are still present even in our beloved grass-fed meat, so we can't dismiss the link between processed and red meat and cancer with the standard Paleo tagline "but they didn't look at grass-fed meat!".
I actually recently summarized the science behind how processed/red meat is currently believed to promote cancer along with what other factors play important roles: http://www.thepaleomom.com/…/the-link-between-meat-and-canc… The CliffsNotes? It isn't meat consumption itself that is carcinogenic, but rather heavy red and processed meat consumption in the absence of vegetable consumption in the diet. And it isn't just that the anti-cancer compounds in vegetables that somehow outweigh the pro-cancer compounds in meat--they actually directly interfere with the pathways through which the compounds in red meat promote cancer growth, making at least 2 out of 3 known mechanistic links between meat and cancer moot, as long as you eat some veggies too.
This is what I want to emphasize: the problem is meat-heavy diets where ketchup and fries are the vegetables, not meat itself. When red meat is consumed as part of a nutrient-dense diet simultaneously rich in vegetables (at least 5 servings a day), there's no evidence that it causes cancer. And in fact, there's plenty of nutrients that we need from animal foods that we can't even get from plant foods (summarized in this post:http://www.thepaleomom.com/…/the-diet-were-meant-to-eat-par… ) and vise versa. And red meat is especially rich in some great nutrients that our bodies need.
This is what needs to be part of the current narrative (rather than oversimplifying and just encouraging people to limit meat consumption and adopt a plant-based diet). History has already shown that swinging the diet pendulum from one extreme to the other doesn't work. Let's talk about the world in the middle: meat AND veggies, a variety of each, a focus on quality, eating snout-to-tail, eating local and organic, and don't forget seafood and fruit, which are also great.
_______
WHO's Position Paper: Bouvard, V, et al, on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group "Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat"
Lancet. Published Online: 26 October 2015 http://www.thelancet.com/…/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2900…/fulltext
