Cry foul

Meat producers cry foul over cancer report

"It’s a dramatic and alarmist overreach.”

By Chase Purdy

Already reeling over a U.S. dietary report recommending reduced meat consumption, beef and pork producers struck back Monday against a damning World Health Organization report linking bacon and burgers with increased cancer risks.

"It’s a dramatic and alarmist overreach,” said Eric Mittenthal, vice president of public affairs for the North American Meat Institute. “They tortured the data to fit what their preconceived notion was.”

Unexpected support for the meat industry came from U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who downplayed the WHO report, saying it would not factor in the Obama administration’s own effort to update federal nutrition advice, which is expected to be completed by year’s end.

“Look, the Dietary Guidelines are pretty clear: Lean meat is part of a healthy diet. That’s the science that we rely on, that’s the science that’s being reviewed now as the Dietary Guidelines are being developed,” Vilsack said. “… until such time that the folks that are formulating the Dietary Guidelines tell me different, that’s the approach we’re going to take.”

But by late morning, the headlines were spreading fast and far across social media about the cancerous effects of processed meat, in particular. The stories stemmed from a WHO report by a panel of 22 experts from 10 countries, convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The panel considered more than 800 studies – including two that followed their subjects over two decades – examining the associations between more than a dozen types of cancer and consumption of red and processed meats.

The panel's report put the meat industry on the defensive. The panel classifies processed meats as carcinogenic and red meats, including beef, pork, veal and lamb, as probable carcinogens.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association pointed out that the WHO panel was not unanimous in its decision and relied on a majority opinion from the experts.

"While IARC represents a select group of opinions, it doesn’t always represent consensus in the scientific community,” the beef group said in a statement.

The National Pork Producers Council emphasized the importance of eating everything in moderation, but also challenged the science.

"IARC did note that most colorectal cancers are caused by more than one agent and that cancer trends are related to the amount of an agent or agents consumed,” the pork producers' statement said.

“We see a lot of headlines that are very scary to people and we want to explain to people what this report says and what it doesn’t,” said Mittenthal of the North American Meat Association. “There’s no new science in this," he added. "It’s not new."

In fact, since 2010, the government’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has reported a connection between red and processed meat consumption and cancer. The committee meets every five years to review the latest nutrition science and then submits to the government recommended updates to the policy.

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines report told Americans that “moderate evidence suggests an association between the increased intake of processed meats … and increased risk of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease.”

Earlier this year, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee echoed that finding, but incorporated more information about the scientific underpinnings of the recommendation.

“Moderate evidence reports inconsistent positive associations between colorectal cancer and the intake of certain animal protein products, mainly red and processed meat,” their advisory report reads. “Limited evidence shows that animal protein products are associated with prostate cancer incidence. Limited evidence from cohort studies shows there is no association between the intake of animal protein products and overall breast cancer risk.”

Vilsack did not address the possible relationship between meat consumption and cancer, specifically, but expressed confidence in the process by which the government reviews dietary guidelines. Not all lawmakers are in that camp, however, including many House Republicans who recently scrutinized not just the process but the validity of the science that informs it.

The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Mike Conaway, extended that same scrutiny to the WHO report.

“It is disappointing that the tax dollars of hard-working Americans are being used to support the activist agenda of this international agency,” Conaway said in a statement. “As USDA and HHS continue their development of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, it is my hope that their final guidelines continue to promote a balanced diet with beneficial nutrients derived from a wide variety of safe and wholesome agricultural products.”

Public health advocates lauded the announcement, however, saying it’s good that consumers are hearing that “bacon and sausage and pepperoni and hot dogs aren’t harmless,” said Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Liebman said the meat industry’s response has been predictable, and accused it of following the “playbook of the tobacco, fossil fuels and every other industry that tries to convince the public that there’s doubt behind the science.”