The report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) concluding that processed meat is carcinogenic drew a cascade of public attention when it was released nearly a decade ago, and it continues to resurface every so often.^[1] While this report has triggered some meaningful discussion, its message is not nearly as strong as it appears. I suspect that pressure had built to the point that the IARC felt they had to say something about food in cancer development. But, in doing so, they relied on questionable scientific evidence and sprinkled it with many caveats that ensured their message did not rock the boat too much.

Many in the plant-based world have been encouraged by this report. It is, for them, an important institution finally affirming what they have long believed (and with over 800 research reports cited, no less!). In the other corner, outspoken meat-eaters have claimed that the report resulted from a biased selection of research reports. And so the public chatter has continued, largely unchanged. I maintain that both sides have been guilty of skating on thin ice, with little evidence to support their positions. Nothing much has been gained; nothing much, lost.

An October 28, 2015, New York Times editorial titled “Meat as a Cause of Cancer” summarizes the report: “[It] provides persuasive evidence that meat can cause cancer, but the risk is very small for most people.”^[2] This idea that the risk is small for most people derives from the fact that the IARC’s message is far less than it should be. The IARC report deals in trivia while deflating its own message by largely neglecting the scientific context of consuming plant-based foods to maintain health and prevent disease. The result can keep everyone fairly happy but also confused.

In the New York Times October 26, 2015, article “Meat and Cancer: The W.H.O. Report and What You Need to Know,” Catherine Saint Louis highlighted at least three points that trivialize the impact of the WHO report:^[3]

1. The report states that consuming 50 grams per day of processed meat increases colorectal cancer risk by a relatively meager 18 percent.
2. These carcinogenic effects are reported for processed meat, thus drawing our attention to certain chemicals produced during cooking.
3. “Most of the data reviewed by the W.H.O. are drawn from population studies, and many experts question whether these risk estimates can be applied to individuals who may have other risks for colorectal cancer.”

Although these comments may be factual in a narrow sense, they ignore the larger context. The WHO does mention that there is evidence of links between red meat and pancreatic and prostate cancers, but they mostly refer only to one type of cancer while ignoring the adverse effects of animal-based foods in general on many more disease outcomes (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). And because they focus on the chemicals in processed meats (heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), they divert attention away from meat’s more fundamental unfavorable nutrient composition. Instead of Avoid meat, the message becomes Just don’t cook it so much or Cook it differently.

In a Q&A, the WHO added more comments that they may have seen as necessary for the report.^[4] In reality, I argue that their comments further minimize the findings:

1. Red meat emerged from this report mostly unscathed. Although processed meat was cited as having “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to humans” (giving it a Group 1 ranking, “carcinogenic to humans”), unprocessed red meat ranked lower (Group 2A, “probable evidence”) because of “limited evidence from epidemiological studies.” Neither do their findings apply to the consumption of fish and poultry.
2. The evidence for processed meat causing stomach cancer, although cited in some studies, was dismissed as “not conclusive.”
3. Although processed meat is ranked in the same risk group (Group 1) as alcohol consumption and air pollution, they suggest that eating a diet high in processed meat is less lethal. It is responsible, they estimate, for 34,000 cancer deaths per year (versus 200,000 for air pollution and 600,000 for alcohol). While 34,000 annual deaths is a significant number, the overarching number of premature deaths due to diet annually (not just deaths from one kind of cancer) is far beyond all three of these numbers combined.
4. Their findings do not apply to “people who have already had cancer.”

This first point illustrates an especially serious omission. My research (explained in The China Study) and the research of many others have shown that it is not only red meat but all animal-based foods that contribute to cancer risk (and the risk of developing other chronic diseases, most notably heart disease, our number one killer).

But there it is—lots of wiggle room that detracts from the main IARC message that processed meats are carcinogenic, which is itself a very thin slice of the larger message. Add to this the IARC director’s claim that “red meat has nutritional value,” and the message is diluted even more.^[1] Sure, meat may have nutritional value under some conditions, like when we are starving. However, we must recognize that whole plant-based foods can provide that same nutritional value at far less cost to our health.

If I were to come across this report totally unbiased, I could easily rationalize either eating or not eating meat, depending on my preference. But this is only because the report fails to acknowledge the bigger story. As long as we continue focusing on reductionist information that can be trivialized, we will continue arguing about minutiae that do not actually matter or result in real health improvements.

Of course, the problem of missing context goes beyond the WHO report. It infects so many other discussions of diet and health. The context missing is the whole diet, whole health, and whole mechanism perspective. I call it wholism. It is Nature, which can be illustrated by the infinitely complex systems in each of our body’s 10–100 trillion cells. It runs better than a Swiss clock. The cell’s intracellular milieu and events represent a beautiful orchestration that represents Nature at its best.

By contrast, the conclusions of this report find causes of one kind of cancer that involves one kind of food. This operates via one key rate-limiting mechanism—a causal sequence that infers that each entity acts independently. This type of linear logic lurks everywhere, and it causes incredible public confusion about nutrition.

Understanding nutrition wholistically and without worshiping so-called high-quality animal-based protein can help us profoundly restore health and prevent disease. Emphasis on animal-based protein seriously distorts the total effect of diet and our understanding of nutrition. We lose focus on the direct effects of animal protein consumption and the indirect effects of not eating whole plant-based foods that restore health and prevent disease.

This new WHO report, like the US Dietary Guidelines, also released in 2015, has shifted the conversation away from compelling evidence that we get all the nutritional value we need from whole plant-based foods.

References

1. International Agency for Cancer Research, “Press release: IARC monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat.” October 26, 2015. https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
2. The Editorial Board. Meat as a Cause of Cancer. The New York Times. October 28, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/opinion/meat-as-a-cause-of-cancer.html
3. Saint Louis, C. Meat and Cancer: The W.H.O. Report and What You Need to Know. The New York Times. October 26, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/26/health/meat-cancer-who-report.html
4. World Health Organization. Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. October 2015. http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/