The multiple findings can make it “difficult for people to make sense of what can seem to be conflicting messages on food”, said Duane Mellor, a dietician at Britain’s Aston University who was not directly involved with either study.

But looking at the research in the round, he and others said, moderation may be the best way forward.

“In this case eating moderate amounts of meat, including red meat (less than three ounces per day), is likely to be safe,” Mellor said.

“However, in the interest of sustainability as well as health, reducing meat intake… to the recommended less than 70 g per day would be sensible.”

An evidence review published in September 2019 found that cutting back on red and processed meat brings few if any health benefits — but those findings contradicted dietary advice of international agencies and prompted much criticism.

This latest research, conducted by scientists at the United States’ Northwestern and Cornell universities and published on Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, found that eating two servings a week of red meat, processed meat or poultry was linked to a three to seven per cent higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

It also found that eating two servings a week of red meat or processed meat — but not poultry or fish — was associated with a three per cent higher risk of all causes of death.

“It’s a small difference, but it’s worth trying to reduce red meat and processed meat,” said Norrina Allen, an associate professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern who co-led the study. She added that eating red meat “also is consistently linked to other health problems like cancer.”

The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) says red and processed meat may or can cause cancer. It advises eating only moderate amounts of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb — with an upper limit of 500 g cooked weight per week — and “little, if any” processed meat.

A panel of experts writing in The Lancet in January outlined an “ideal diet” for human health and the planet that said global average red meat consumption should be cut by 50 per cent and consumption of nuts, fruits, vegetables and legumes should double.

— Kate Kelland is a Reuters health and science correspondent in London.

The post Conflicting studies point to meat moderation as healthy diet appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Most people can continue to eat red and processed meat at current average intake, typically three or four times a week for adults in North America and Europe, said a study’s authors, who also made new recommendations based on the analysis.

“Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease,” said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Halifax’s Dalhousie University, who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal.

However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, a group of doctors from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the study authors, requested in a letter to the journal that it “pre-emptively retract publication” of the papers pending further review, and said revised guidelines that could lead to increased consumption of red and processed meats would be irresponsible.

A statement scheduled for publication by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, shared with Reuters by Dr. Frank Hu, chair of the Department of Nutrition, said, “from a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence.”

Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine, cited “grave concerns about the potential for damage to public understanding, and public health.”

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) both say red and processed meat may or can cause cancer.

The WCRF advises eating only “moderate amounts” of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb — with an upper limit of 500 grams cooked weight per week — and “little, if any” processed meat.

A panel of experts writing in The Lancet in January outlined an “ideal diet” for human health and the planet that said global average red meat consumption should be cut by 50 per cent and consumption of nuts, fruits, vegetables and legumes should double.

For the latest analysis, researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland conducted a series of reviews of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the possible health impact of eating red and processed meat.

Among the randomized trials they selected for analysis, which included around 54,000 people, they found no statistically significant link between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer.

Among the observational studies, which covered millions of people, they did find “a very small reduction in risk” in those who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but said that this association “was very uncertain.”

‘Best approach’

“Our bottom line recommendation … is that for the majority of people, but not everyone, continuing their red and processed meat consumption is the best approach,” Johnston said.

Some experts not directly involved with the reviews said the work was a comprehensive, well-conducted analysis of the available evidence on eating meat and human health.

“This study will, I hope, help to eliminate the incorrect impression… that some meat products are as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, and to discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that ‘bacon is killing us’,” said Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain’s Quadram Institute of bioscience.

Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, noted that nutrition studies are challenging as they are usually not randomized controlled trials and often depend on participants’ memories.

“There may be lots of reasons to decrease meat in your diet, but if you’re decreasing it to improve your health, we don’t have a lot of strong evidence to support that,” Laine said. “To be honest with our patients and the public, we shouldn’t be making recommendations that sound like they’re based on solid evidence.”

Quadram’s Johnson said people who choose to cut down their meat intake might still improve their health by doing so. “There are (also) strong environmental and ethical arguments for reducing meat consumption in the modern world.”

Eating more plant-based foods can help to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, scientists say.

— Kate Kelland is a Reuters health and science correspondent in London; additional reporting by Linda Carroll in Mannington, N.J.

The post Review of red meat’s risks spurs scientific food fight appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Many men would gladly embrace the health risks associated with red meat rather than taking the slightest risk of being associated with the feminine attributes of a vegetarian diet,” said lead researcher Attila Pohlmann on the online science funding site called Experiment.

“It is well documented that many chronic and fatal diseases can be prevented by reducing the consumption of red meat and processed meats,” he says in an online article seeking support for the research.

The researchers want to better understand the psychology behind why masculine people value meat dishes and how best to market more healthy alternatives.

They also plan to measure the biological and psychological processes that motivate meat preferences.

Threats to their masculinity makes men anxious. “We want to find out whether the stress triggered by a threat to masculinity during a meal persists, if not a meat dish, but a vegetarian alternative is served up instead,” the article says.

“Taken together, the results will eventually allow us to tell a more complete story of the processes that motivate meat consumption and to develop interventions that enable highly masculine persons to overcome the behavioural obstacles to healthy diets.”

The findings might be useful for marketers trying to position meatless products with consumers.

Pohlmann said in the article that his scientific curiosity was piqued by people’s reaction to his own food choices.

“I stumbled into a meatless diet by complete accident without having pondered any moral reasons or health benefits beforehand. Perhaps because I was clueless, I was so intrigued by other people’s unexpectedly strong reactions to my dietary situation,” he said.

The crowdsourcing fundraiser exceeded his fundraising goal.

The post The link between meat and manhood appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

As with any study, there needs to be some context and perspective to be more fully understood. For expanded details of the IARC evaluation click here. Here’s some background information that can help with understanding:

What is IARC and what does it do?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer is part of WHO (World Health Organization). It promotes, conducts and reviews cancer research. It classifies products (food stuff) and environmental agents in relationship to cancer (of note: it looks at ‘relationship’ not ‘cause and effect’). It looks at identifying cancer-causing hazards (not risk).

Hazard is something that can cause cancer under some circumstances. Risk is the chance you will get cancer after being exposed to this hazard. IARC identifies cancer hazards even when risks are very low at current exposure levels.

Cancer relationship classifications are based on degrees of certainty: definite, probable, possible, not classifiable and probably not.

Examples of some items classified by IARC include: coffee (possible), tea (not classifiable), alcohol (definite), sunlight (definite).

According to an article in The Globe and Mail, “Since 1971, the IARC has reviewed 982 products, substances and exposures. It found every one of them — from plutonium to sunshine, from cellphones to sawdust — posed a theoretical risk of cancer (with one exception: yoga pants).”

What IARC did in its evaluation of processed and red meat:

A 22-member working group reviewed red and processed meat evidence (studies) and discussed for eight days.

They were divided in their opinion. IARC was unable to reach a consensus and settled with a majority agreement. It announced the following classifications:

• Processed meat: carcinogenic to humans based on an association with colorectal cancer and stomach cancer.
• Red meat: probably carcinogenic to humans based on an association with colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancer.

IARC acknowledges that people who consume the most red meat are the most likely to smoke and eat fewer fruits. IARC acknowledges that red meat contains high-quality protein and important micronutrient such as B vitamins, iron and zinc plus essential nutrients to support growth, development, maintenance and repair of the body.

“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” said Dr. Kurt Straif, head of the IARC Monographs Program.

“For each 50-gram portion of pro­cessed meat eaten daily, we see an increased risk of colorectal cancer by 18 per cent (of note: a relationship not a cause and effect).

Canadians on average consume 22 grams of processed red meat per day (half the amount noted by IARC).

“We see a 17 per cent increased risk per 100 grams per day of red meat (a relationship not a cause and effect).

Canadians consume 52 grams of fresh red meat a day (half the amount noted by IARC). Beef consumption in Canada has decreased by 3000 kj per person per day over the last 30 years.

“Some foods need to be limited as part of a healthy diet but do not need to be completely eliminated. It is important not to eliminate foods but to limit and manage them correctly,” said Dr. Oleg Chestnov, assistant director general, World Health Organization.

What we know:

Based on years of scientific evidence no one single food — including red and processed meat — can cause or cure any type of cancer.

There is no causal relationship between meat (processed or fresh) and cancer.

Beef (and red meat) provides essential nutrients necessary for proper growth and development.

The best way to minimize your cancer risk is to live a healthy lifestyle.

• Do not smoke, maintain a healthy weight, be physically activity, eat plenty of vegetables and whole grains, and if you do, drink alcohol responsible.
• Genetics and aging are risk factors which we cannot control.

Canada’s Food Guide recommends one to three, 75-gram servings of meat and alternatives a day.

On average, Canadians eat 52 grams of fresh red meat and 22 grams of processed red meat a day = 1 Food Guide serving.

Men may benefit from keeping their meat portions to 225 grams a day. Children, teen girls and women of childbearing age, may benefit from an additional serving of beef.

Some suggestions for action:

Assess yourself. The best way to minimize your cancer risk is to live a healthy lifestyle.

Don’t smoke; maintain a healthy weight; enjoy regular physical activity; serve all your meals with plenty of vegetables and whole grains; and if you do, drink alcohol responsibly.

Check your grocery cart. Are most of the items whole or minimally processed foods or ultra-processed?

Is there a variety of vegetables and fruit, whole grains and fresh, high-quality proteins?

A healthy balanced diet does not include highly processed and highly refined foods, confectioneries, sugary drinks, and snack foods.

Track your food intake. Are you under, over or within Canada’s Food Guide recommendations?

Keep a food diary for a few days to track what you eat.

A dietitian’s perspective when it comes to the ‘magic bullet’ for eating well:

• There is no magic bullet;
• Make the most of food: choose fresh, unprocessed — frozen fresh foods are OK too;
• Cook from scratch and eat socially;
• Eat a variety of foods;
• Work on eating more veggies and fruits;
• Be a mindful eater: be conscious of eating — even when you’re on the run;
• Enjoy food as a ‘slice of life.’

Make it Beef is an initiative of Canadian Beef, which promotes beef consumption on behalf of producers.

The post Putting the IARC announcement on meat into context appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The hashtags #FreeBacon, #Bacongeddon and #JeSuisBacon were among the top-trending topics worldwide on Twitter for a second straight day last Wednesday.

Celebrities, politicians and ordinary consumers were reacting to the announcement by the WHO that eating processed meats including hotdogs, sausages and bacon can cause colorectal cancer in humans, and that red meat is also a likely cause of the disease.

The review by WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also said there was some link between the consumption of red meat and pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer. The IARC examined some 800 studies during a meeting of 22 health experts earlier this month.

An analysis of social media sentiment by Thomson Reuters found that social media participants were not happy about the WHO review.

Negative tweets outnumbered positive ones by a ratio of nearly 7 to 1 on Monday and 6.5 to 1 on Tuesday, according to the analysis tool that tracks and aggregates positive, neutral and negative tweets with hashtags #cancer and #bacon in order to generate a sentiment score.

Fashion designer Kenneth Cole (@mr_kennethcole) on Tuesday tweeted “Sugar is bad for you, Carbs are bad for you, and now so is #Bacon, but don’t worry about it, because that’s bad for you too. #IfTheShoeFits”

Austrian politician Andrae Rupprechter (@Andrä Rupprechter) posted a picture of himself on his Facebook page with a platter of cold cuts, calling the WHO report a “farce.”

Germany’s agriculture minister, Christian Schmidt, also said “no one should be afraid if they eat a bratwurst (sausage) every now and then.”

WHO’s initial tweet on Monday about its findings — “The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the #cancer agency of WHO, classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)” — had more than 3,040 retweets and 1,000 favourites on Tuesday.

The post Pro-bacon backlash on social media appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The inclusion of meat and processed meat on the list could reduce consumer demand, hurting major producers and processors like Hormel Foods and JBS. It could also open the door wider for litigation against meat companies from consumers diagnosed with certain types of cancer.

California has often been at the forefront of consumer-oriented initiatives, particularly regarding agriculture. It rolled out laws for larger chicken cages and restrictions on antibiotic use for livestock ahead of much of the rest of the country.

Now the meat industry is focused on what the state will do after a unit of the WHO on Monday said processed meat can cause colorectal cancer in humans. It said the risk of developing cancer is small, but increases with the amount of meat consumed. The meat industry maintains that its products are safe to eat as part of a balanced diet.

California’s Proposition 65, an initiative approved in 1986, requires that the state keep a list of all chemicals and substances known to increase cancer risks. Producers of such products are required to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings for consumers.

Some Proposition 65 experts expect California to add processed meats to the list. Typically, once an item is added, it is up to the maker to prove to the state that its product is not dangerous enough to warrant a warning label, experts say.

Starbucks is embroiled in a lawsuit filed by a non-profit group in California over whether its coffee contains enough of the carcinogen acrylamide to pose a cancer risk, and should be labeled accordingly under Proposition 65.

The meat industry is adamant it will escape having to put warning labels on packages of bacon or hot dogs. It says a 2009 California appellate court ruling confirmed federal authority over labels for meat from plants inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Meats will never have to be labeled in the state of California,” said Jim Coughlin, a consultant hired by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Still, he thinks processed meats will make it onto the Proposition 65 list.

The situation on labeling processed meats is not known, according to the state agency assessing the WHO findings, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Federal law pre-empts warnings on fresh meat, but “our understanding of how federal law governs processed meats is less clear,” Allan Hirsch, chief deputy director of the California office, told Reuters.

“We can’t tell you if Proposition 65 warnings would be pre-empted if processed meats were added to the Proposition 65 list.”

Labeling would be a bigger blow to meat companies than inclusion on the Proposition 65 list because labels could confront consumers front and center at stores and restaurants, say industry analysts. It is not known exactly what warnings might say.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer put processed meats in its “group one” category, along with tobacco and asbestos, products for which the agency says there is “sufficient evidence” of cancer links.

Any move to add red or processed meat to the Proposition 65 list would be challenged by the industry, said Mark Dopp, senior vice-president of regulatory affairs and general counsel of the North American Meat Institute (NAMI).

The institute represents companies including Cargill, Tyson Foods and Kraft Heinz.

“The state can’t force a label on federally inspected product,” said Janet Riley, president of the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council and a NAMI senior vice-president.

But a legal fight could follow. Private lawyers, or even the state of California, could file lawsuits in an attempt to overturn the 2009 ruling and force meat companies to apply labels, Coughlin said.

If that happens, NAMI “would wave the court of appeals decision. It’d be a stupid suit to even try to initiate because it’s already been decided,” he said.

Red meat is less likely to be added to California’s list because it was classified as “probably carcinogenic,” Coughlin said. That put it in the WHO unit’s “group 2A” category, joining glyphosate, the active ingredient in many weedkillers, made by Monsanto.

Since the WHO’s classification of glyphosate in March, Monsanto has faced a slew of lawsuits from personal injury law firms around the U.S. that claim the company’s Roundup herbicide has caused cancer in farm workers and others exposed to the chemical.

In September, the California environmental office gave notice that it intended to list glyphosate under Proposition 65.

Monsanto has asked state officials to withdraw the plan, arguing that California’s actions could be considered illegal because they are not considering valid scientific evidence.

— Reporting for Reuters by Tom Polansek and P.J. Huffstutter in Chicago.

The post California considers adding meat to cancer-alert list appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the WHO, put processed meat such as hotdogs and ham in its Group 1 list, which already includes tobacco, asbestos and diesel fumes, for which there is “sufficient evidence” of cancer links.

“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” Dr. Kurt Straif of the IARC said in a statement.

Red meat, under which the IARC includes beef, lamb and pork, was classified as a “probable” carcinogen in its Group 2A list that also contains glyphosate, the active ingredient in many weed killers.

The lower classification for red meat reflected “limited evidence” that it causes cancer. The IARC found links mainly with bowel cancer, as was the case for processed meat, but it also observed associations with pancreatic and prostate cancer.

The agency, whose findings on meat followed a meeting of health experts in France earlier this month, estimated each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 per cent.

The IARC, which was assessing meat for the first time and reviewed some 800 studies, does not compare the level of cancer risk associated with products in a given category, so does not suggest eating meat is as dangerous as smoking, for example.

Health policy in some countries already calls for consumers to limit intake of red and processed meat, but the IARC said such advice to consumers was in certain cases focused on heart disease and obesity.

The preparation of the IARC’s report has already prompted vigorous reactions from meat industry groups, which argue meat forms part of a balanced diet and that cancer risk assessments need to be set in a broader context of environmental and lifestyle factors.

The IARC, which does not make specific policy recommendations, cited an estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Project — an international consortium of more than 1,000 researchers — that 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

This compares with about one million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600,000 a year
due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200,000 each year due to air pollution, it said.

If the cancer link with red meat were confirmed, diets rich in red meat could be responsible for 50,000 deaths a year worldwide, according to the
Global Burden of Disease Project.

The post Processed meat causes cancer; red meat suspected appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization, on Monday published a report placing processed meats in its Group 1 category, which includes substances such as tobacco and asbestos with “sufficient evidence” of links to cancer.

The IARC on Monday also put red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb, in its Group 2A — where glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, was recently also classified as a “probable” carcinogen. (The IARC’s Group 2B, of “possible” carcinogens, recently saw 2,4-D herbicide added to the list.)

In its response Monday to the report, the Canadian Meat Council emphasized that the IARC defines an agent that “may cause cancer at some level, under some circumstance,” as a “cancer hazard.”

However, the CMC said, actual “cancer risk” gauges the likelihood of experiencing cancer after being exposed to a “cancer hazard,” and the IARC identifies such hazards even when the risks are “very low.”

Such findings aren’t unusual for the IARC, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association said in a separate release, saying the agency “has found hazards in about half of the agents it has reviewed.”

For its 2A classification for red meat, the CCA said, the IARC’s review of existing epidemiological studies “concluded that there is limited evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat,” and “no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies and residual confounding from other diet and lifestyle risk is difficult to exclude.”

Colorectal cancer was the IARC report’s “principal focus” relative to red meat, the CCA said. The report had cited 10 cohort studies with a “statistically significant dose–response relationship,” with a 17 per cent increased risk per 100 grams per day of red meat.

Given that the American Society of Clinical Oncology has estimated a person with an “average” risk of colorectal cancer has about a five per cent chance of developing colorectal cancer overall, consuming 100 g per day of red meat would increase the risk of colorectal cancer by just under one per cent in absolute terms, the CCA said.

The meat industry has previously estimated Canadians, on average, eat only about 50 g of fresh red meat per day. Thus, the CCA said, “if there is an increase in the potential risk of colorectal cancer from red meat consumption, by these estimates it is small and must be considered relative to the very significant nutritional benefits that red meat provides.”

“It is regrettable that, in arriving at its split decision, the IARC panel reportedly chose to disregard certain studies which present high quality evidence to the contrary,” CMC president Joe Reda said.

“Furthermore, the agency did not balance its verdict by taking into account either the proven benefits of meat or the substantive implications of removing meat from the diet… Risks and benefits should both be considered before recommending what people eat and drink.” — AGCanada.com Network

The post Cancer ‘hazard’ not a cancer ‘risk,’ meat industry cautions appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the WHO, put processed meat such as hot dogs and ham in its group 1 list, which already includes tobacco, asbestos and diesel fumes, for which there is “sufficient evidence” of cancer links.

“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” Dr. Kurt Straif of the IARC said in a statement.

Red meat, under which the IARC includes beef, lamb and pork, was classified as a “probable” carcinogen in its group 2A list — which also contains glyphosate, the active ingredient in many weedkillers.

The lower classification for red meat reflected “limited evidence” that it causes cancer. The IARC found links mainly with bowel cancer, as was the case for processed meat, but it also observed associations with pancreatic and prostate cancer.

The agency, whose findings on meat followed a meeting of health experts in France earlier this month, estimated each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 per cent.

The IARC, which was assessing meat for the first time and reviewed some 800 studies, does not compare the level of cancer risk associated with products in a given category, so does not suggest eating meat is as dangerous as smoking, for example.

Health policy in some countries already calls for consumers to limit intake of red and processed meat, but the IARC said such advice to consumers was in certain cases focused on heart disease and obesity.

The preparation of the IARC’s report has already prompted vigorous reactions from meat industry groups, which argue meat forms part of a balanced diet and that cancer risk assessments need to be set in a broader context of environmental and lifestyle factors.

The IARC, which does not make specific policy recommendations, cited an estimate from the Global Burden of Disease Project — an international consortium of more than 1,000 researchers — that 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

This compares with about one million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600,000 a year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200,000 each year due to air pollution, it said.

If the cancer link with red meat were confirmed, diets rich in red meat could be responsible for 50,000 deaths a year worldwide, according to the Global Burden of Disease Project.

— Gus Trompiz is a commodities correspondent for Reuters in Paris.

The post Processed meat can cause cancer, red meat probably can: WHO appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) gathered health experts in France this month to discuss available research on such meat, with a view to classifying them on its scale of cancer risks. The conclusions will be published on Monday.

The review has prompted lobbying efforts from meat industry representatives who fear a headline conclusion about a likely cancer risk could tarnish the image of certain types of meat, just as previous IARC recommendations did with diesel fumes and the common weedkiller glyphosate.

A report on Friday in Britain’s Daily Mail saying the IARC would give processed meat the highest carcinogenic risk rating and red meat the second-highest one, drew immediate criticism from such groups, in particular the U.S. livestock sector.

“If this is actually IARC’s decision it simply cannot be applied to people’s health because it considers just one piece of the health puzzle: theoretical hazards,” said Barry Carpenter, president of the North American Meat Institute.

The IARC said it would not comment on media reports, but would publish the outcome of its review on Monday at the same time as a report to be published in scientific journal The Lancet Oncology.

The American Cancer Society declined to comment on the media reports, but a spokesman told Reuters the group has long recommended that people limit their consumption of red and processed meats.

Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition research at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said the available scientific evidence does not support a causal relationship between any type of red or processed meat and any type of cancer.

“Cancer is a complex disease that even the best and brightest minds don’t fully understand,” said McNeill, who attended the IARC meetings earlier this month. “Billions of dollars have been spent on studies all over the world and no single food has ever been proven to cause or cure cancer.”

Producers says meat provides essential protein, vitamins and minerals as part of a balanced diet. Red meat includes beef, pork and lamb, but not poultry.

Total worldwide meat consumption reached 310 million tonnes in 2013. This was up more than a quarter on 2003, supported by emerging market growth, with poultry’s share increasing, data from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization show.

Business analysts said a cancer link in the scientific review may have a limited impact on industry sales and prices.

“I think people know you’re not supposed to eat as much red meat as you do,” said Liberum food industry analyst Robert Waldschmidt.

“(But) not everyone recognises that some of these smoked and cured meats are bad for you, i.e. carcinogenic. I think on smoked, cured stuff it will have some negative impact.”

The IARC already recommends avoiding processed meat and limiting red meat intake, and health experts in Britain advise limiting processed meat consumption for bowel cancer prevention.

But while there was a statistical association between eating processed meat and bowel cancer, “the size of the effect is relatively small, and the mechanism is poorly defined”, said Ian Johnson of Britain’s Institute of Food Research.

— Reporting for Reuters by Gus Trompiz in Paris, Kate Kelland, Nigel Hunt and Martinne Geller in London, and PJ Huffstutter in Chicago.

The post Meat industry braces for WHO cancer risk verdict appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.