More skepticism greets report about link between cancer and red meat consumption

Monday, May 16, 2016

by SUSAN MANN

Dr. David Klurfeld, the national program leader for human nutrition in the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, told delegates at the Canadian Nutrition Society conference May 7 the evidence in the cancer agency’s report isn’t adequate enough to link meat consumption to causing cancer.

He adds in a meat council news release “considerable uncertainty remains about the relationship of any dietary factor with cancer.”

Klurfeld is also a member of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the group that issued the report in October 2015 placing red meat in the group of products that are probably carcinogenic to humans and processed meat in the group of products that are carcinogenic to humans. The working group, a sub section of the World Health Organization, has a mandate to review various agents to determine if they’re carcinogenic.

The meat council sponsored the session, called ‘evaluating meat and cancer risk,’ at the nutrition society conference, which was held May 5 to 7. About 400 academics, health professionals, policy makers and other nutrition professionals attended.

Ron Davidson, meat council director of international trade, government and media relations, says the council also pointed out flaws in the international cancer agency’s 2015 report when it was first released.

“We had real concerns about the way this was presented,” he says. “It was as if arsenic, cigarettes, meat, alcohol and caffeine were all exactly the same, which of course is just not accurate.”

In its report, the international cancer agency “didn’t explain the difference between hazard and risk,” he adds. “What they were actually reporting in their report (in October) was if someone consumes unlimited quantities of processed meat, maybe there is some risk to the person’s health. But it didn’t say how much risk” and the agency didn’t specify in the report how much someone needed to consume to face the risk.

“You need to take into account those two factors before coming anywhere near to considering a risk,” he adds. “To suggest eating red meat has the same risk as ingesting arsenic is illogical. You take an eighth of a teaspoon of arsenic and you’re dead.”

Arsenic is in the same group the international cancer agency placed red meat consumption. BF