an red meat be eaten or is it a pure carcinogen? Scientific discussions about this have recently flared up with renewed vigor. It is not surprising that ordinary people were completely confused.
https://www.trendingnewsbeat.com/ wrote about new research on the health risks of red meat and the controversy that they caused.
Now let’s try to figure out what an ordinary person should know about this discussion. Simply put, let’s try to understand, is it possible to eat meat without fear of getting cancer?
About four years have passed since the publication of a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on the carcinogenicity of meat products. This document has been referenced thousands of times in the context of the warning “red meat is killing us!”
First of all, the risky category of ” red meat” includes only mammalian muscle.
In addition, the very riskiness of certain meat is questionable. Scientists have recorded a link (correlation) between its use and some types of cancer. However, it has not yet been possible to prove that eating, for example, pork or beef causes tumors.
Indeed, US citizens consume twice as much meat as Ukrainians. However, in Ukraine, the incidence of bowel cancer is higher . Thus, red meat, if it is a carcinogen, is definitely not the only one and definitely not the main one.
At the same time, there are many opportunities for consumers to increase the chances of getting a tumor. For example – fry cutlets instead of stewing. After all, chemical reactions that create a ruddy crust are a source of aromatic compounds that have a carcinogenic effect.
More conclusive IARC results for processed meat (Of both mammals and birds) – that which has undergone fermentation, drying, salting, smoking and other processes designed to enhance the taste of the product. Any canned meat is also included there.
Such products are classified as carcinogens of the first category. That is, it has been shown to increase the risk of cancer in humans.
Not all workers in the meat industry were enthusiastic about the information. For example, Spanish ham makers noted that eating processed meat can be part of a healthy diet and should not be demonized.
In October 2019, a group of researchers led by Bradley Johnston published their own analysis of epidemiological data and concluded that recommendations to reduce meat consumption are unfounded. But after a few days, information appeared on the network about Johnston’s preliminary financial ties with the food industry. In 2016, he tried to refute information about the dangers of excessive consumption of sugar.
It is worth recalling that in 2017, IARC itself was at the center of the scandal that erupted over the herbicide glyphosate. According to reports by Reuters, researchers have no good reasons have changes to the original text of his report. As a result, glyphosate was classified as a proven carcinogen, even though this contradicted the results of animal experiments. This information caused protest actions of farmers. But IARC members declined to comment on the incident.
Thus, many controversies remain unresolved, scientific evidence lacks credibility, and the reputation of all parties to the conflict is far from perfect.
And, although the researchers have not yet been able to dot the “meat” question, readers should at least correctly place commas in this story, consume meat in moderation, and any information – deliberately.