By Lisa Haessler
For Ethical Omnivore Movement (http://www.ethicalomnivore.org/)
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.” – H. L.
Mencken
Well, there you have it folks: definitive evidence that “Processed
meats do cause cancer” (BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621).
I guess we should all toss in the hat here at Ethical Omnivore Movement, right?
We can’t argue with science: meat causes cancer! We’re informed, rational,
open-minded people; that’s how the EOM community got started: people looking at
our broken food system that is horrible to animals, people and the planet on
one side of the spectrum and the total removal of animals from the human food
chain on the other side and realizing, “there is more to the world’s Food story
than just these two perspectives”. But headline after headline is proclaiming
the new food truth:
The Telegraph : “Processed meat ranks alongside smoking as major cause of cancer, World Health Organisation says” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11954640/World-Health-Organisation-report-processed-meats.html
Except that, as it always seems to be the case on the
internet, the most popular headlines are often the most misleading. In today’s
news cycle it’s the trendy, shocking headline that gets the clicks (re: website
traffic that translates into advertising dollars for online news publishers).
What it doesn’t get is accurate information into the hands of the general
public. Take, for example, this portion of the Telegraph article cited above
(emphasis added): “Dr Ian Johnson, nutrition researcher and Emeritus Fellow,
Institute of Food Research, said: "Meat consumption is probably one of
many factors contributing to the high rates of bowel cancer seen in America,
Western Europe and Australia, but the
mechanism is poorly understood, and the effect is much smaller than, for
example, that of cigarette smoking on the risk of lung cancer. It is also worth noting that there is
little or no evidence that vegetarians in the UK have a lower risk of bowel
cancer than meat-eaters.”
The BBC article cited above, writes this in the third
sentence of the article: “The WHO did stress that meat also had health benefits. Cancer
Research UK said this was a reason to cut down rather than give up red and
processed meats. And added that an occasional bacon sandwich would do little
harm.”
And the Guardian, includes this in their write up: Prof Ian Johnson,
emeritus fellow at the Institute of Food Research, also said the effect was
small. “It is certainly very
inappropriate to suggest that any adverse effect of bacon and sausages on the
risk of bowel cancer is comparable to the dangers of tobacco smoke, which
is loaded with known chemical carcinogens and increases the risk of lung cancer
in cigarette smokers by around twentyfold.”
Okay, wait, so then what is the big deal with this WHO
report? Why is it showing up all over my social media feeds? There are two
things you should keep in mind:
1. Food-related research findings are very popular news
bites and get passed around a lot on social media, so they tend to make
headlines. Remember the old media adage: “If it bleeds, it leads”. So if the
paper can link its topic to death, it will.
Everybody eats and everybody is very worried about things that might kill you. It has
universal appeal. But before you swallow
that headline, remember: any food-related headline trend must be taken with a
grain of salt. If it sounds too simplistic, too cause-and-effect-case-closed, it's probably is.
The WHO report isn’t false, but the way its findings are being reported is very misleading. What is does tell us is not new information. It is a meta-data study of previously completed research (much of that research has already been reported in the news media over the past two decades). The American Institute for Cancer Research has been recommending the reduction of red meat intake and processed meats for some time now. We have also had health and nutrition experts warn about the possible dangers of modern preservatives (used heavily in commercially "processed meat" products) for quite some time. Nitrite in particular, seems to get most of the bad rap, even though it is naturally occurring in many vegetables. You have to dig a little further into the science to understand why certain substances can be harmful to your health in some contexts and totally harmless in others.
One facebook page, Dihydrogen Monoxide Awareness, has been having a really fun time lampooning our human tendency to react too quickly to a scary sounding headline when it's connected to products we regularly consume.
The WHO report isn’t false, but the way its findings are being reported is very misleading. What is does tell us is not new information. It is a meta-data study of previously completed research (much of that research has already been reported in the news media over the past two decades). The American Institute for Cancer Research has been recommending the reduction of red meat intake and processed meats for some time now. We have also had health and nutrition experts warn about the possible dangers of modern preservatives (used heavily in commercially "processed meat" products) for quite some time. Nitrite in particular, seems to get most of the bad rap, even though it is naturally occurring in many vegetables. You have to dig a little further into the science to understand why certain substances can be harmful to your health in some contexts and totally harmless in others.
One facebook page, Dihydrogen Monoxide Awareness, has been having a really fun time lampooning our human tendency to react too quickly to a scary sounding headline when it's connected to products we regularly consume.
2. Meat is not “bad”. Broccoli is not “bad”. Cheese is not “bad”.
Yes, even bread is not “bad”. In order for you to make that kind of broad,
universal statement you have to assume that all methods for producing that food
are equal and unchanging and that each human beings immune and digestive systems respond the same to all foods. Our complex food system refutes the ability to make
such statements. Every farm, climate, and food processing facility has unique
characteristics that could impact the food that lands on your plate. Stop
making (or accepting) blanket statements about food.
Food is not “bad”. It is fuel for your body and your brain.
It is the basis of your health. Your body may decide that bread is bad for you. But why? Is it the actual whole
ingredients that your immune system reacts to or is it the preservatives added
to the bread in the processing facility it is made in that is bad for you? Is red meat bad for your health
and the environment? Depends, like all food, on how it is grown and processed.
Locally raised, grass-fed beef on farm that rotates it’s pastures to support
soil sustainability and sequester carbon is a completely different kind of red
meat than anything that will come out of a CAFO. Unfortunately, there haven’t
been enough studies on the differences between the two for WHO to release a
report on it (yet).
The takeaway? There are no shortcuts in finding your
personal, optimal-health food balance. Hopefully, you choose a food balance
that is healthy, nutrient dense, compatible with your individual health needs,
and that has positive impacts on the environment and the economy. There is no, “one size fits all” diet solution
that will magically make you super healthy and prevent you from dying. Anyone who claims this is only telling you
what has worked for them: their biology, their digestive system, their
metabolism, their health needs. You still have to do the work and the research
to find out what is best for you.
What you do need to be aware of is how much human “intervention”
is involved in getting your food to your mouth and the effects that human intervention has on the wider world. The general concept still holds
true – the less people (and people-designed processing) involved in your
personal food chain, the better. From your own garden? Excellent. From a local
farmer who’s practices you know and trust? Awesomesauce. From an organic
grocer? Maybe not ideal, but probably better than conventional. Even so, there are many variables. So if you
aren’t sure – investigate. Was the steak I'm eating come from a cow that was given an appropriate diet and humane living conditions? How far did my food travel? Were the workers who
picked and packed it given safe work conditions and a fair wage? How will my food
dollars impact my local economy and local food chain stability? Do my food
dollars encourage sustainable business practices? At EOM, adding considerations
of humane animal husbandry practices, fair trade and labour rights for farm
workers, and environmental sustainability to your food choices also plays a big
part in finding the best food sources available to you that also have a
positive benefit on the world around us.
Your food choices have big impacts on your well-being and,
by extension, the well-being of every living thing in your food chain. Choose
wisely what food, and what headlines, you will consume.
For a well balanced article on the recent WHO report (which contains a very reasonable headline!), I recommend: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
For a well balanced article on the recent WHO report (which contains a very reasonable headline!), I recommend: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/