When the World Health Organization (WHO) classified processed meats as a group 1 carcinogen — the same category as cigarettes, asbestos and plutonium — cries from bacon lovers were heard worldwide.
As a sometimes food writer, I’ve known about this connection for at least two decades. But WHO has a certain clout that perhaps I, and other foodies, don’t have. When the organization’s report was released last week, both vegans and carnivores seemed to pay attention, even if some of their reactions were negative.
The report said consuming 50g of processed meat a day (a bit less than two slices of bacon) increased the chance of developing colorectal cancer by 18 percent. Meat that has been processed includes bacon, ham, sausage, hot dogs and just about any meat that’s salted, cured or smoked. It was unclear if preservatives such as nitrate were to blame for the increased risk, although that is my understanding.
However, this warning may include other red meats like pork, lamb and beef, which were mentioned in the report but without the group 1 classification. Charring any kind of meat over the barbecue increases the production of harmful nitrates as much as adding the chemical as a preservative.
It didn’t take long before spokespersons for the meat industry responded to the threat. In the UK, researchers said this was a reason to cut down rather than give up red and processed meats. They added that an occasional bacon sandwich would do little harm. In the UK, six out of 100 people get bowel cancer. That number would rise to seven out of 100 if the 18 percent increase in risk were substantiated.
“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small,” Dr. Kurt Straif said. “But this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed.”
Two decades ago, when I was a patient of Kaiser HMO, my primary care physician recommended a colonoscopy. I declined, sighting two facts: first, I had undergone a sigmoidoscopy, which discovered no polyps but which I found more painful than delivering twins. Secondly, I kept to a vegetarian diet and so wasn’t at risk for that cancer. He told me I was very well informed and said I could probably skip it.
So if the medical community knew the risk from red and processed meats that long ago, why has it taken so long to get the word out? Pushback from livestock industry groups would be my guess.
The North American Meat Institute, a stalwart organization that backs producers of meat and processed meat products, labeled the report “alarmist.” In a printed statement the group wrote, “Classifying red and processed meat as cancer hazards defies both common sense and numerous studies showing no correlation between meat and cancer.”
Hormel Foods, makers of Spam and other processed meats, criticized the report for not citing the benefits of eating meat, including proteins and other nutrients.
The company, however, seems to be hedging its bets, having purchased Applegate Farms, producers of organic hot dogs, bacon and deli meats that are free of chemical preservatives like nitrate.
So the writing may be on the wall. Consumers seem to be willing to spend more for less, paying higher prices for better quality while eating more fruit and vegetables and less animal protein. PETA will be pleased, although I’m not aware that the animal rights organization has weighed in on this report yet.
In his New York Times column last spring, Nicholas Kristof gave many reasons why we all should rethink our diets, none of them having to do with cancer risk. He calls the drought in California “a harbinger of water scarcity in much of the world.” In California, 80 percent of water used by humans goes to farming and ranching. Kristof calls for a fundamental rethinking of America’s food factory.
Animal products use more water than crop farming when one factors in the hay and grain the animals eat. “Plant material converts quite inefficiently into animal protein,” he wrote.
Data from the Pacific Institute and National Geographic cite these figures: a single egg takes 43 gallons of water to produce. A pound of chicken, 468 gallons; a gallon of milk, 880 gallons; and a pound of beef, 1,800 gallons of water.
Forget cancer; these numbers are simply unsustainable. Maybe we won’t all give up our morning bacon, but it’s time to rethink what Kristof calls our “irrational industrial food system.”