More Against Red And Processed Meat

By 4028mdk09 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25399566

Is enhanced mortality associated more with red meat/processed meat consumption or with saturated fatty acid (SFA) consumption?  Is it the meat or the saturated fats?  A recent study says meat:

Among highly educated persons, aged >45 years, a high consumption of red, total, and red + processed meat was related to increased all-cause mortality, compared with those with low consumption, whereas no significant associations were found for SFA intake. Dietary guidelines should specifically limit meat consumption and not relying only in limiting SFA intake.

And:

…replacing 100 g of vegetables, fruits & nuts or cereals by 100 g of red meat resulted in higher mortality risk.

For older individuals eating more meat, there was some effect of more SFA consumption:

In these participants, SFA intake was non-significantly associated with mortality. However, isocaloric replacement of monounsaturated fat or carbohydrates by SFA resulted in significantly higher mortality risk. 

But overall this particular study provides data pointing the finger at red meat/processed meat.  Given the consistency of this finding with that of previous studies, it looks for now that excessive consumption of red meat/processed meat is a major dietary health risk.  Looking at all studies, SFA risk is more equivocal; this study does not show, overall, a significant risk, but other studies have showed such a risk.

Limiting red meat/processed meat consumption would seem to be a prudent dietary priority.  Limiting SFA may be a good idea as well, depending upon context and whatever other dietary recommendations a person has from their physician, etc., but the meat situation would seem more important at this point.  Who knows what further studies will say about SFA.

Red Meat and Pancreatic Cancer

Consistent with previous concerns about red meat and cancer, a new study suggests consuming heme iron from red meat increases the risk for pancreatic cancer:
 

Several studies on pancreatic cancer have reported significant positive associations for intake of red meat but null associations for heme iron. We assessed total, red, white, and processed meat intake, meat cooking methods and doneness, and heme iron and mutagen intake in relation to pancreatic cancer...Pancreatic cancer risk significantly increased with intake of total meat (Q5 vs. Q1 HR=1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.42, p-trend=0.03), red meat (HR=1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.48, p-trend=0.02), high-temperature cooked meat (HR=1.21, 95% CI 1.00-1.45, p-trend=0.02), grilled/barbequed meat (HR=1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.50, p-trend=0.007), well/very well done meat (HR=1.32, 95% CI 1.10-1.58, p-trend = 0.005), and heme iron from red meat (Q4 vs. Q1 HR=1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.45, p-trend=0.04)...Additional studies should confirm our findings that consuming heme iron from red meat increases pancreatic cancer risk. 

Once again, we see evidence that reducing red meat consumption is likely helpful for cancer prevention.

You do not have to give up meat

To eat or not to eat, this is the question...

In fact, you should give up meat in order to prevent many diseases, including cancer. You should also give up meat to save money. But is it achievable? Is it realistic to expect that Americans will stop eating meat?
 
Let us face it, we are talking about a nation obsessed with meat, where a quick Amazon.com search for the highest ranking garden accessory products (patio, lawn, garden category) yields several barbecue items (e.g., meat thermometers, barbecue gloves, etc.), instead of shovels, hoses, or garden lights.
 
Realistic goals bring real results. Instead of trying to remove the meat from the American diet, we should try to change the way Americans eat meat.
 
We all should eat meat the way our thrifty great-grandparents used to. They needed to "stretch" each pound of meat into many, many servings. They achieved this by adding tons of vegetables and sauces to every pound of meat. Although today many can afford to skip these “additions” to meat, the new meat-dominated plate can kill. So, why not compromise and eat less meat, rather than eating only meat or trying (unsuccessfully) to give up meat?
 
Try these approaches:

• Make meat soups. This is the ultimate meat-"stretching" approach that is also good for your health and pocket. Try beef barley soup, chicken soup, or this meatball soup recipe.

• Cook meat stews. Try this beef stew with half the meat (one, instead of two pounds).

• Increase the volume of your ground meat by adding bread crumbs, minced onion, cooked lentils and rice, etc.

• Finally, if you fail to use the methods above, and you are planning on cooking huge slabs of meat and roasting whole chickens, then make sure that you prepare your favorite veggies (roasted, boiled, raw, marinated, etc.) exceeding the amount of meat by at least 2-fold.

Remember that one should eat less than 18 ounces of red meat a week. This amounts to three weekly meals of six ounces meat each. Decrease the serving size further to 3 ounces, and you can enjoy red meat six times a week. How much meat is this? Three ounces of meat look like the size of a deck of cards.

With this compromise settled, I hope that you will accept easier the news that you do need to stop consuming all processed meats (e.g., bacon, salami, hot dogs, ham, sausages, jerky, etc.). They are simply not good for you. 

In brief:

1. The "culprits" contributing to cancer can be ranked from high-risk to low-risk in the following manner:
 
processed meat > red meat > other meat (some claim that the endotoxins in any meat contribute to cancer development and other diseases through inflammation).

2. You should stop the consumption of processed meats or have them only two to three times a year (on holidays).

3. You should limit the consumption of red meat to 18 ounces a week.

4. You should be aware that too much of any other meat (turkey, chicken) may also have potential hazards (e.g., endotoxins, released from the dead bacteria in any meat).

5. To lower your meat consumption, cook meat with plenty of vegetables and sauces (e.g., soups, stews).

New News on The Red Meat/Processed Meat Cancer Risk

There is a well-established link between consumption of processed meat and cancer risk, particularly risk for colorectal cancer. Now, the link has been made more explicit, with the World Health Organization (WHO) stating that these foodstuffs can cause cancer, based on an evidence review by 22 scientists, the details of which were published in the journal, The Lancet. The link between consumption of red meat and cancer was less clear, but is considered probable.

This story has gotten a lot of press in the popular media. See here and also here and also here. A summary from these stories is:

The World Health Organization has deemed that processed meats — such as bacon, sausages and hot dogs — cause cancer.

In addition, the WHO says red meats including beef, pork, veal and lamb are "probably carcinogenic" to people.

A group of 22 scientists reviewed the evidence linking red meat and processed meat consumption to cancer, and concluded that eating processed meats regularly increases the risk of colorectal cancer. Their evidence review is explained in an article published in The Lancet.
 
The conclusion puts processed meats in the same category of cancer risk as tobacco smoking and asbestos. But this does not mean that they are equally dangerous, says the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — the agency within the WHO that sets the classifications. And it's important to note that even things such as aloe vera are on the list of possible carcinogens.

In a Q & A released by the IARC, the agency says that "eating meat has known health benefits," but also points out that the cancer risk increases with the amount of meat consumed. As we've reported, studies show that the heaviest meat eaters tend to have the highest risk.

The IARC says high-temperature cooking methods (such as cooking meat in direct contact with a flame) produce more carcinogenic compounds. However, the group says that therewere not enough data "to reach a conclusion about whether the way meat is cooked affects the risk of cancer."

Susan Gapstur of the American Cancer Society (ACS) says the society recommends "consuming a healthy diet with an emphasis on plant foods and limiting consumption of processed meat and red meat."

The recommendation, Gapstur tells The Salt, is based on research. For instance, a systematic literature review on colorectal cancer published in 2011 by the World Cancer Research Fund found a statistically significant, 16-percent increased risk of colorectal cancer associated with each 100 grams of red and processed meat consumed. As the ACS points out, this is an amount of meat roughly equivalent in size to a deck of cards.

There is of course controversy, some of which comes from groups labeled “a powerful lobbying industry.” Thus:

…the panel decision was not unanimous, and is expected to face criticism within the United States, where processed and red meat still forms the base of most meals, and is backed by a powerful lobbying industry.

The National Cattleman’s Beef Association, the national trade association that represents U.S. cattle producers, put out a press release soon after the WHO announcement that — not surprisingly — questions the findings. “Most scientists agree that it is unrealistic to isolate a single food as a cause of cancer from a complex dietary pattern further confounded by lifestyle and environmental factors,” the association says in the release.

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

In addition, more critical comments are:

"Scientific evidence shows cancer is a complex disease not caused by single foods and that a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle choices are essential to good health," writes Barry Carpenter, president of the North American Meat Institute, in a statement on the new WHO classification.

Carpenter says it's important to put this new classification in context. "IARC's panel was given the basic task of looking at hazards that meat could pose at some level, under circumstance, but was not asked to consider any off-setting benefits, like the nutrition that meat delivers or the implications of drastically reducing or removing meat from the diet altogether," the statement concludes.

I myself would trust more the scientists performing the evidence study, and the physician making the recommendations, than groups that have a vested economic interest in meat consumption, particularly consumption of red meat.

I myself eat red meat rarely, getting the vast bulk of my animal protein intake from chicken, turkey, fish, eggs, and dairy (all in moderation). As far as processed meat, I may have a breakfast sandwich a couple of times per month that has turkey sausage, but that’s it. My typical everyday diet does not include red or processed meat.

In my opinion, the wise choice is moderation. Eating red meat every day, or even multiple times per week, is in my opinion unwise given these data. Eating processed meat, such as bacon and lunch meats, more often than a few times per month is also unwise.

Note that cancer risk is directly related to the amount of these meats consumed. Keep in mind also that the definition of “processed meat” varies. Some would consider canned fish (tuna, salmon, etc.) to be “processed meat.” I eat those frequently; obviously I am not putting them in the same category as stereotypical processed meat like bacon or ham. Others specifically exclude canned tuna or salmon from the list, as I do, since the canning process, and addition of minimal amounts of salt, is not equivalent to the smoking, curing, or salting processes used for the foods typically considered “processed meats.” And of course, fish meat is not considered “meat” per se in the sense used by nutritionists, who focus on the flesh of land animals and birds.

Therefore, canned fish (in water, not oil!) should be considered different from eating a slab of bacon; eating such fish is considered healthy (but note certain types of tuna can have higher levels of mercury).

Update: list of red and processed meat.
Actionables: Eat less red meat and processed meat.