Perhaps the most important take-home message from the World Health Organization’s announcement regarding potential cancer dangers posed by eating processed and red meat are the lessons the WHO itself can learn about providing proper context.
The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer last week added processed meat — bacon, cold cuts, hot dogs, sausages and their ilk — to the Group 1 classification of its five categories of carcinogens. That places it in the same category as tobacco, asbestos and ultraviolet radiation.
Red meat was added to Group 2A of probable carcinogens, putting it in the same class as glyphosate.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
The ensuing confusion and knee jerk reactions should have been predicted.
News organizations and social media streams were immediately plugged with the IARC findings, some sensationally urging consumers to stop eating all kinds of processed and red meat, while others tried to be more useful but found themselves overwhelmed by the noise in the early hours after the release.
Eventually, the context came out.
Scientists around the world had their say, many referring to the IARC anouncement as problematic and not evidence based. For example, McMaster University epidemiologist Dr. Gordon Guyatt said in media reports, that it was “considerable overcall.”
In fact, the original IARC release did contain background notes explaining that the findings did not mean people should stop eating processed and red meat, and that the risk associated is quite small, if eaten in moderation.
In the background notes, IARC also stressed that just because something is classed in the same group as tobacco, it doesn’t mean it is equally as dangerous.
IARC does not assess level of risk, it pointed out.
Which raises the question: why not?
The present process serves up more confusion than it does helpful advice, so why continue with it?
IARC now must surely be considering that very question, or at least it should be. The organization issued a follow-up statement later in the week to clarify its position: “The latest IARC review does not ask people to stop eating processed meat, but indicate that reduced consumption of these products can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.”
The WHO has a long history as a credible source.
However, background notes and follow-up statements fall well short of what’s required in a world where 24 hour news outlets and social media are delivering near instantaneous reactions.
It’s time that some kind of risk assessment advisory is built into the IARC reports, and others like them.
The practice of releasing observational findings, which address only theoretical hazards with no data on real world risk, is worse than useless; it’s counterproductive.
More contexts needs to be embedded into the reports.
The WHO’s current process accomplishes little more than would issuing a blanket statement labelling Earth and everything on it as a carcinogen or probable carcinogen.
