tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/processed-meat-20822/articlesProcessed meat – The Conversation2024-02-13T02:26:14Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2233412024-02-13T02:26:14Z2024-02-13T02:26:14ZWhy ban ham from school canteens? And what are some healthier alternatives for kids’ lunches?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575144/original/file-20240212-18-jxuhh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=37%2C37%2C4100%2C2773&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/toasted-sandwich-ham-cheese-176817788">Shutterstock/Joe Gough</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Western Australia has introduced a limit on ham in school canteens. Parents are reportedly <a href="https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/western-australia-introduces-new-limits-on-ham-at-school-canteens-banning-iconic-lunch/news-story/19b927b35e1122a01ab4539bc477a95d">confused and frustrated</a>. So what has changed and what evidence is it based on?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1756620394126082196"}"></div></p>
<h2>Reclassifying processed meats</h2>
<p>The WA Department of Health has reconfigured its system for classifying food and drink in public schools. It uses a traffic light approach, allocating green, amber or red colours to foods and drinks. </p>
<p>Ham and other processed red meats <a href="https://www.health.wa.gov.au/%7E/media/Corp/Documents/Health-for/Obesity-physical-activity-and-nutrition/WA-school-food-and-drink-criteria-FAQ.pdf">have been moved</a> from an “amber” label to a “red” label. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-we-still-need-to-cut-down-on-red-and-processed-meat-124486">Yes, we still need to cut down on red and processed meat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Each colour is <a href="https://www.health.wa.gov.au/%7E/media/Corp/Documents/Health-for/Obesity-physical-activity-and-nutrition/WA-school-food-and-drink-criteria-FAQ.pdf">associated with restrictions</a> on how food and drinks can be sold:</p>
<ul>
<li>green items must account for at least 60% of items on a menu</li>
<li>amber items must account for less than 40% of items on a menu</li>
<li>red items cannot be on the menu.</li>
</ul>
<p>There’s one catch. The new guidelines allow ham to be sold as if it is an amber item, only two days per week, if ham was already on a canteen’s menu prior to the reconfiguration. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Kids sit in a lunchroom" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575145/original/file-20240212-22-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575145/original/file-20240212-22-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575145/original/file-20240212-22-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575145/original/file-20240212-22-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575145/original/file-20240212-22-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575145/original/file-20240212-22-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575145/original/file-20240212-22-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ham can still be sold two days a week if it’s already on the canteen’s menu.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cute-schoolchildren-having-meal-canteen-452918419">Shutterstock/WBMUL</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why restrict ham?</h2>
<p>Singling out nutrients or foods as “good” or “bad” can lead to <a href="https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84907554121&partnerID=10&rel=R3.0.0">confusion and polarised views</a> on diet. Rather than focusing on individual foods, long-term health outcomes are more closely linked to overall <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7071223/">dietary patterns</a>.</p>
<p>Ham itself is not inherently considered junk food. It’s a source of protein and many other nutrients. </p>
<p>However, certain types of ham products – especially highly processed or cured hams – are less healthy options for several reasons:</p>
<p><strong>High sodium content</strong></p>
<p>Many commercially available hams, especially highly processed and cured varieties, can be <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267163/">high in sodium</a>, which is salt.</p>
<p>Excessive sodium intake is <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32992705/">associated</a> with health issues such as high blood pressure and can increase the risk of heart disease and strokes. </p>
<p>On average, Australian children <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212267218302569">consume more sodium</a> than the <a href="https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/salt">recommended upper limit</a>: 600 mg a day for children aged four to eight and 800 mg a day for those aged nine to 13. </p>
<p>The World Health Organization says reducing sodium is <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/salt-reduction#:%7E:text=Excess%20sodium%20is%20linked%20to,as%20milk%2C%20meat%20and%20shellfish.">one of the most cost-effective ways</a> nations can improve the health of their populations.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/health-check-how-much-salt-is-ok-to-eat-58594">Health Check: how much salt is OK to eat?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Additives</strong></p>
<p>Some processed hams may contain <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051227621002120">additives</a>, preservatives and flavour-enhancers we should limit.</p>
<p><strong>Saturated fat</strong></p>
<p>While ham is a good source of protein, certain cuts can be higher in saturated fat. </p>
<p>Any ham sold in canteens under the new rules (where ham is treated as an “amber” food until the canteen menu changes) must have <a href="https://www.health.wa.gov.au/%7E/media/Corp/Documents/Health-for/Obesity-physical-activity-and-nutrition/Selected-RED-items">less than 3g of saturated fat per 100g</a>. </p>
<p>Diets high in saturated fat are <a href="https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/bundles/healthy-living-and-eating/fats-oils-and-heart-health#:%7E:text=Unhealthy%20saturated%20and%20trans%20fats%20can%20heighten%20your%20risk%20of,and%20mortality%20from%20heart%20disease.">linked to an increased risk of heart disease</a>. However, not all research <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/#:%7E:text=Conclusions%3A%20A%20meta%2Danalysis%20of,risk%20of%20CHD%20or%20CVD.">supports this claim</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Processing methods</strong></p>
<p>The methods to process and cure ham may involve smoking, which can produce compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In large quantities, these <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8537007/">may cause health concerns</a>, including increasing the risk of bowel cancer.</p>
<h2>What are some ham alternatives?</h2>
<p>Lean, minimally processed ham, prepared without excessive sodium or additives, can potentially be a part of a healthy overall diet. And parents in WA can <a href="https://www.health.wa.gov.au/%7E/media/Corp/Documents/Health-for/Obesity-physical-activity-and-nutrition/WA-school-food-and-drink-criteria-FAQ.pdf">continue packing ham</a> in their child’s lunchbox. </p>
<p>When choosing ham, read the labels and select products with a lower sodium content, minimal additives and healthier preparation methods. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Girl picks up celery while shopping with her brother and dad" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575150/original/file-20240212-16-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575150/original/file-20240212-16-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575150/original/file-20240212-16-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575150/original/file-20240212-16-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575150/original/file-20240212-16-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575150/original/file-20240212-16-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575150/original/file-20240212-16-ey3jk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Involve kids in preparing their lunchboxes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-shopping-son-daughter-supermarket-149629991">sirtravelalot/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When looking for low-salt alternatives to ham, there are several options to consider: </p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>turkey breast</strong>. Turkey is a lean meat and can be a good substitute for ham. Look for low-sodium or no-salt-added varieties</p></li>
<li><p><strong>chicken breast</strong>. Skinless, boneless chicken breast is a versatile and low-sodium option. Grilling, baking or roasting can add flavour without relying on salt</p></li>
<li><p><strong>smoked salmon</strong>. While salmon naturally contains some sodium, smoked salmon tends to be lower in sodium than cured ham. Choose varieties with little or no added salt</p></li>
<li><p><strong>roast beef</strong>. Choose lean cuts of roast beef and consider seasoning with herbs and spices instead of relying on salt for flavour</p></li>
<li><p><strong>homemade roasts</strong>. Prepare your own roasts using lean meats such as pork loin, beef sirloin or lamb. This way, you have more control over the ingredients and can minimise added salt</p></li>
<li><p><strong>grilled vegetables</strong>. These can be a tasty alternative to meat. Eggplant, zucchini, capsicum and portobello mushrooms have a satisfying texture and flavour</p></li>
<li><p><strong>beans and legumes</strong>. Beans, lentils and chickpeas can be used as alternatives in various dishes. They are naturally low in sodium and high in protein and fibre.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>What are some other lunchbox tips?</h2>
<p>Packing lunchboxes can be <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10107882/">challenging and frustrating</a> for parents. </p>
<p>Consider planning ahead, involving your kids, reducing pre-packaged foods, balancing cost and convenience, and giving your kids lunchbox accountability. </p>
<p>Many websites provide <a href="https://www.bestrecipes.com.au/budget/galleries/lunch-box-recipes-kids-31-back-school-lunches/vy6bf9xp">ideas for parents</a>, including websites focused on <a href="https://www.frugalandthriving.com.au/frugal-lunchbox-ideas/">low-cost foods</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sick-of-packing-school-lunches-already-heres-how-to-make-it-easier-179675">Sick of packing school lunches already? Here's how to make it easier</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Remember to keep portions appropriate for kids and to consider any allergies or school regulations when packing lunches. </p>
<p>Making the lunch experience interactive and enjoyable can encourage kids to <a href="https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-019-0798-1">embrace healthier eating habits</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223341/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Ball works for The University of Queensland and receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.</span></em></p>Western Australia has introduced a limit on ham in school canteens. Here’s what has changed and the evidence it’s based on.Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2079272023-08-06T20:00:33Z2023-08-06T20:00:33ZIs red meat bad for you? And does it make a difference if it’s a processed burger or a lean steak?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538681/original/file-20230721-6326-7bnydt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C8%2C5742%2C3819&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A juicy burger is a staple in many Australians’ diet. Yet research shows regularly eating red meat can increase your risk of developing <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad336/7188739?searchresult=1">type 2 diabetes, heart disease</a> and <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext">certain cancers</a>.</p>
<p>But is eating a beef burger worse for your health than eating a lean grass-fed steak? And how much red meat should we really be eating?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/talking-about-eating-less-red-and-processed-meat-provokes-strong-feelings-thats-why-this-new-evidence-based-report-is-welcome-209234">Talking about eating less red and processed meat provokes strong feelings. That's why this new evidence-based report is welcome</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Types of red meat</h2>
<p>First of all, it’s good to clarify that <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240074828">red meat</a> refers to all mammalian muscle meat. So that includes beef, lamb, pork, veal, mutton and goat. </p>
<p>Then we can distinguish red meat types by how the animal has been raised and how the meat is processed. Here are some key terms to know.</p>
<p>Conventional meat, also called grain-fed, is meat from animals that are grass-fed for part of their lives and then given a grain-based diet for the remainder. Most red meat available in major supermarkets is grain-fed.</p>
<p>Grass-fed meat comes from animals that have grazed on pasture for their entire lives. This means grass-fed meat tends to have higher levels of unsaturated fats than conventional meat, and is why some <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/5/646">research</a> suggests it’s healthier. Grass-fed meat is also likely to cost more.</p>
<p>Organic meat is seen as a premium product as it has to meet <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/export/controlled-goods/organic-bio-dynamic/national-standard">government standards</a> for organic produce. For example, meat labelled as organic cannot use synthetic pesticides or use hormones or antibiotics to stimulate growth. </p>
<p>Processed meats have been preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by adding chemical preservatives. Examples include sausages, ham, bacon and hot dogs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Sausages and salamis" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Salami and other smallgoods are processed meats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is the nutritional value of red meat?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/five-food-groups/lean-meat-and-poultry-fish-eggs-tofu-nuts-and-seeds-and">Red meat</a> contains many nutrients that are important for health, including protein, vitamin B12, iron and zinc. Red meat is a good source of iron and zinc as they are more easily absorbed by the body from meat than from plant foods. </p>
<p>Red meat is often high in saturated fats, but this can <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/ausnut/ausnutdatafiles/Pages/foodnutrient.aspx">range widely</a> from less than 1% to over 25% depending on the cut and whether it’s trimmed of fat or not. Minced meat typically ranges from 2% to 9% saturated fat depending on whether its extra lean or regular.</p>
<p>To limit intake of saturated fats, opt for leaner mince and leaner cuts of meat, such as pork tenderloins or beef steak with the fat trimmed off.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5243954/">Wagyu beef</a> (which simply translates to Wa = Japanese and Gyu = cow) has been touted as a healthier alternative to conventional red meat, as it tends to be higher in unsaturated fats. But research is limited, and ultimately it still contains saturated fat. </p>
<p>Processed meats, such as bacon, salami and sausages, contain beneficial nutrients, but they are also high in saturated fat, sodium and contain preservatives.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-a-meaty-question-are-barbecues-bad-for-your-health-10685">Here's a meaty question – are barbecues bad for your health? </a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is red meat bad for your health? And does the type matter?</h2>
<p>It’s widely reported eating too much red meat is bad for your health, because it can increase your risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. </p>
<p>But most of the evidence for this comes from observational studies, which cannot determine whether red meat intake actually causes the condition. </p>
<p>Most evidence is observational because it’s simply not ethical or feasible to ask someone to eat large amounts of meat every day for many years to see if they develop cancer.</p>
<p>So let’s take a look at the evidence:</p>
<p><strong>Heart disease and type 2 diabetes</strong></p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z">review</a> of 37 observational studies, the authors found weak evidence of an association between eating unprocessed red meat and heart disease and type 2 diabetes. </p>
<p>But for processed meat, a recent <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2626/7188739">review</a> showed that for each additional 50g of processed meat consumed per day, the risk of heart disease increased by 26% and the risk of type 2 diabetes increased by 44%, on average.</p>
<p><strong>Cancer</strong></p>
<p>Leading international organisations have declared there’s strong evidence consumption of red and processed meat <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/diet-activity-and-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-and-processed-meat/">increases the risk of colorectal cancer</a>. </p>
<p>For example, in a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/1/246/5470096?">study</a> of nearly 500,000 people, each additional 50g of red meat consumed per day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. And each additional 25g of processed meat consumed per day, equivalent to a slice of ham, increased the risk by 19%.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/">research</a> has linked consumption of red and processed meat with increased risk of other types of cancer, such as lung, pancreatic and breast, the evidence is not consistent.</p>
<p>It also matters how red meat is cooked. For example, cooking a steak over a high heat, especially an open flame, chars the outside. This causes <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet">chemical compounds</a> to form that have been shown to cause cancer in very high doses in animal models, and some studies in humans have found an <a href="https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/16/12/2664/260099/Meat-and-Meat-Mutagen-Intake-and-Pancreatic-Cancer">association</a> with increased cancer rates.</p>
<p>When it comes to how the animal was raised or its breed, based on current evidence, it’s unlikely the nutritional differences will have a substantial impact on human health. But research is limited in this area. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Steak" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Roasting is better than cooking over an open flame.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">jose ignacio pompe/unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-we-still-need-to-cut-down-on-red-and-processed-meat-124486">Yes, we still need to cut down on red and processed meat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How much red meat should you eat?</h2>
<p>Our national <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55a_australian_dietary_guidelines_summary_book.pdf">dietary guidelines</a> recommend the average adult eats a maximum of 455g of cooked lean red meat per week (or less than 65g a day, equivalent to one small lamb chop). This is also what’s recommended by the national <a href="https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/diet-and-exercise/meat-and-cancer-risk">Cancer Council</a>.</p>
<p>For heart health specifically, the national <a href="https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/getmedia/d5b9c4a2-8ccb-4fe9-87a2-d4a34541c272/Nutrition_Position_Statement_-_MEAT.pdf">Heart Foundation</a> recommends eating less than 350g of cooked, unprocessed red meat per week (or less than 50g a day).</p>
<p>Many dietary guidelines around the world now also recommend limiting red meat consumption for environmental reasons. To optimise both human nutrition and planetary health, the <a href="https://eatforum.org/lancet-commission/eatinghealthyandsustainable/">EAT-Lancet commission</a> recommends consuming no more than 98g a week of red meat and very low intakes of processed meat.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-eat-red-meat-the-nutrition-and-the-ethics-47934">Should we eat red meat? The nutrition and the ethics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>So what does all of this mean for your diet?</h2>
<p>The bottom line is that red meat can still be enjoyed as part of a <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/five-food-groups/lean-meat-and-poultry-fish-eggs-tofu-nuts-and-seeds-and">healthy diet</a>, if not eaten in excess. Where possible, opt for unprocessed or lean cuts, and try to grill less and roast more. Consider swapping red meat for lean chicken or fish occasionally too.</p>
<p>If you are looking for alternatives to meat that are better for your health and the environment, minimally processed plant-based alternatives, such as tofu, beans and lentils, are great options.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-the-nutrients-you-need-without-eating-as-much-red-meat-110274">How to get the nutrients you need without eating as much red meat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207927/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Livingstone receives funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP1173803) and a National Heart Foundation of Australia Vanguard Grant (ID106800).</span></em></p>Most of us are vaguely aware we shouldn’t eat too much red meat, but why? And does the type of meat make a difference?Katherine Livingstone, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1709742021-11-10T16:02:35Z2021-11-10T16:02:35ZWhy nitrates and nitrites in processed meats are harmful – but those in vegetables aren’t<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431287/original/file-20211110-19-1jxch98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=37%2C0%2C4220%2C2804&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cancer causing molecules are abundant in processed meats.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/variety-processed-cold-meat-products-on-64617526">gresei/ Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many of us know that we should steer away from processed meats and eat more vegetables if we want to be healthier and lower our chances of developing certain types of cancers. While there are many reasons processed meats aren’t great for our health, one reason is because they contain chemicals called <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/meat-fish-and-dairy/">nitrates and nitrites</a>. </p>
<p>But processed meats aren’t the only foods that contain these chemicals. In fact, many vegetables also contain high amounts – mainly nitrates. And yet research suggests that eating vegetables <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/wholegrains-vegetables-and-fruit/">lowers</a> – not raises – cancer risk. So how can nitrates and nitrites be harmful when added to meat but healthy in vegetables? The answer lies in how nitrates and nitrites in food get converted into other molecules.</p>
<p>Nitrates and nitrites occur attached to sodium or potassium, and belong to a family of chemically related molecules that also includes the gas nitric oxide. Vegetables such as beetroot, spinach and cabbages are particularly <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19439460/">good sources</a> of nitrates. </p>
<p>When we eat something containing nitrates or nitrites, they may convert into a related molecular form. For example, nitrate in vegetables and in the pharmaceutical form nitroglycerine (which is used to treat angina), can convert in the body into <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25164923/">nitric oxide</a>. Nitric oxide dilates blood vessels, which can <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17170603/">reduce blood pressure</a>. </p>
<p>Another example is saltpetre – a naturally occurring nitrate sometimes used to cure pork. During the curing process, most of the nitrate in saltpetre converts into nitrite. It’s actually the nitrites that act as a preservative – not nitrates. They also give the meat its rosy appearance.</p>
<p>And although vegetables mainly contain nitrates, a considerable amount of the nitrate consumed in vegetables is converted into nitrite by <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28587887">bacteria in our saliva</a>. This saliva is then swallowed and so eating vegetables can expose the gut to high levels of nitrite. </p>
<h2>Cancer risk</h2>
<p>It’s actually sodium nitrite – not nitrate – that’s linked to cancer. But if consuming nitrites alone directly caused cancer, then even eating vegetables would be harmful to us. Given this isn’t the case, it shows us that cancer risk likely comes from when the sodium nitrites react with other molecules in the body. So it isn’t necessarily the nitrates and nitrites themselves that cause health issues – including cancer. Rather, it’s what form they are converted into that can increase risk – and what these converted molecules interact with in our bodies. </p>
<p>The main concern is when sodium nitrite reacts with degraded bits of amino acids – protein fragments our body produces during the digestion of proteins – forming molecules called <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28587887/">N-nitroso compounds</a> (NOCs). These NOCs have been shown to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22889895/">cause cancer</a>.</p>
<p>Cancer-causing NOCs can form either during the preparation of nitrite-containing processed meats or during their digestion in the gut. This is because both the preparation and digestion of processed meats generate plenty of protein fragments for the nitrites to react with. Research shows that the NOCs already present in the processed meats we eat (known as “preformed NOCs”) are linked with a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21430112/">greater risk</a> of developing rectal cancer than from NOCs that are subsequently formed in the body. By contrast, given that there are <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20161416/">far fewer protein fragments</a> in vegetables, these aren’t a significant source of preformed NOCs. </p>
<p>On average, though, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9306073/">more than half</a> of the NOCs people are exposed to are produced in the gut. In fact, a meal of vegetables and protein would seem to provide all the ingredients needed for NOCs to form: nitrates or nitrites from the vegetables, and protein fragments from whatever type of protein is being consumed. And yet this may not necessarily increase cancer risk.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An picture of organic beetroot, freshly harvested." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431288/original/file-20211110-23-168ls4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431288/original/file-20211110-23-168ls4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431288/original/file-20211110-23-168ls4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431288/original/file-20211110-23-168ls4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431288/original/file-20211110-23-168ls4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431288/original/file-20211110-23-168ls4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431288/original/file-20211110-23-168ls4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beetroots contain nitrates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/organic-beetroot-dark-red-451081120">TalyaAL/ Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The reason for this may be because the nitrite needs to be activated before it can react with protein fragments. This is where a molecule called <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28587887/">haem</a> comes in. Haem <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28587887/">reacts with nitrites</a>, resulting in a molecule called nitrosylated-haem. It’s this molecule – rather than the nitrite itself – that likely reacts with protein fragments to form NOCs. </p>
<p>Haem is abundant in meats – and is actually what gives meat its colour. But it’s not naturally present in vegetables. So even nitrate-rich vegetables don’t pose a risk of forming NOCs if there’s no source of haem. One brand of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453019301144">plant-based burger</a> contains a molecularly engineered form of haem, although it’s currently not known if this poses a similar health risk as the haem in processed and red meat. </p>
<p>Another relevant distinction between processed meats and vegetables is that many vegetables and other plant foods contain substances that <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28587887/">inhibit the formation</a> of NOCs in the gut. These substances include <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19548355/">different antioxidants</a> such as vitamin C, vitamin E and polyphenols. These antioxidants occur in <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15788119/">many different</a> foods in a plant-based diet and may go a long way to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32764511/">suppressing NOCs</a> from forming in the gut. But these will not necessarily offer protection against foods already containing NOCs. </p>
<p>The reason NOCs cause cancer is because they <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2547513/">damage DNA</a>. This is the first step in cancer, which is why NOCs are sometimes referred to as “tumour initiators”. But other agents, called tumour promoters, are then needed to drive the cancer process forwards. Tumour promoters are produced in high amounts when meat is <a href="https://theconversation.com/bacon-how-you-cook-it-could-partially-lower-cancer-risk-152723">fried</a>. So it may be that processed meats that are fried – such as bacon and sausages – contain more initiators and tumour promoters and may be more of a cancer risk than <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16140978/">non-fried types</a> such as hams.</p>
<p>The nutrients that we consume react together in many different ways – which is why nitrates and nitrites can be safe for us in some foods, and may be harmful when they come from others. However, some advisory bodies <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/diet-and-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/">now recommend</a> that because of their cancer risk we should eat little, if any, processed meat.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170974/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard is the author of two books: The Mediterranean Diet: Health and Science and More Healthy Years - Why a Mediterranean Diet is best for you and for the planet.</span></em></p>Whether these chemicals are harmful to our health depends a lot on what molecules they interact with in our body.Richard Hoffman, Associate lecturer, Nutritional Biochemistry, University of HertfordshireLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1686262021-10-08T08:11:47Z2021-10-08T08:11:47ZMeat eating drops by 17% over a decade in the UK – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425265/original/file-20211007-23-19wzn7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3788%2C2997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/world-vegan-day-vegetarian-sheep-cauliflower-1542201788">DOERS/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To rein in the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from livestock farming and to reduce diet-related diseases, people in the UK must eat 30% less meat by the end of the decade, according to <a href="https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/">a recent report</a> commissioned by the government. Vegan and vegetarian diets might seem more popular than ever, but is the country on track to slash meat consumption by a third?</p>
<p>To find out, we analysed trends from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey. The data we looked at came from four-day food diaries completed by around 1,000 people in each survey year.</p>
<p>Between 2008 and 2019, the average amount of meat eaten each day per person in the UK fell from 103.7g to 86.3g – a total reduction of 17.4g a day, or <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00228-X/fulltext">just under 17%</a>. This included a 13.7g drop in daily red meat consumption, a 7g reduction in processed meat, and a 3.2g increase in white meat.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Black trays containing different types of red meat." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Red meat consumption fell by the most in the new survey.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/different-types-meat-plastic-boxes-packaging-348847544">Natalia Lisovskaya/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, to meet the 30% by 2030 target, our research suggests that the rate at which people in the UK are reducing their meat consumption has to nearly double in the next ten years. Here’s what else our analysis of UK diet trends revealed about the country’s evolving relationship with meat.</p>
<h2>Trends in meat eating</h2>
<p>The National Diet and Nutrition Survey is the only survey to capture nationally representative data on the food people are eating in the UK. This means that the mix of people surveyed resembles the general population with regards to demographics such as age, gender, ethnicity, income and region.</p>
<p>To accurately estimate how much meat the survey respondents were eating, we excluded all the other components of dishes containing meat. If a person wrote that they ate beef lasagne for dinner in their food diary, for instance, we only measured the quantity of beef and excluded all other ingredients. </p>
<p>And to understand how these changes in meat consumption might affect the environment, we compared them with information on the environmental impact of rearing a gram of meat (beef, pork, lamb and poultry) from a <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaq0216%22%22">global database</a>. We estimated the consequences for six different indicators of environmental impact, including greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of land used for livestock farming.</p>
<p>Each day, people in the UK now eat 5.7g less beef, 3.9g less lamb and 4.2g less sausage. But at the same time, people are eating more white meat, mostly chicken. This <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6689198/">flight to white</a>, as food scientists are calling it, reflects similar trends seen in other countries. It could be because health guidelines tend to emphasise the risks of eating too much red and processed meat, which is linked to colorectal cancer, while offering little evidence for health problems <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2021.1949575">from eating poultry</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A partially sliced grilled chicken breast." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">White meat consumption is on the rise.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/partially-sliced-grilled-chicken-breast-black-504699331">Moving Moment/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As far back as 2010, a <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/339309/SACN_Iron_and_Health_Report.pdf">committee of scientists</a> which advises the government on nutrition recommended adults in the UK with high intakes of red and processed meat – over 90g a day – reduce their daily intake to a maximum of 70g. Our analysis suggests that in the most recent survey year (2018-19), 34% of respondents were exceeding this recommendation – 26% of women and 43% of men. But this is at least down from 53% in 2008-09.</p>
<p>The proportion of vegetarians and vegans in the UK is also increasing steadily, with 5% of respondents foregoing meat or all animal products in 2018-19, up from 2% in 2008-09. </p>
<p>White people and those born in the 1980s and 1990s ate the most meat, while the youngest (those born after 1999) and oldest (those born before 1960), and those with Asian heritage were eating the least. There was no difference in intake between genders or household income brackets.</p>
<p>We were particularly surprised to find that respondents born after 1999 (so-called Generation Z) were the only subgroup to be eating more meat over time – even though they’re still eating among the least overall. Though it’s important to note that respondents in this group were aged 19 years and younger and so their eating habits as children are more likely to reflect their household’s.</p>
<p>We estimated that the overall changes in meat intake equate to a 35% reduction in the amount of land and a 23% reduction in the amount of freshwater needed to rear livestock, as well as a 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture overall.</p>
<p>Although this seems positive, this 17% reduction in meat intake still falls short of dietary targets for a healthy and sustainable food system. Understanding these trends within sub-groups of the UK population could help public health policymakers to tailor strategies, and help researchers and public health professionals to refine messaging to accelerate this reduction in meat consumption.</p>
<p>The environmental data used here are based on averages from global food production systems, so the estimates in relation to UK consumption are approximates. We were also unable to determine from the survey data whether respondents were buying British meat, which would have a lower environmental impact than meat that has been imported from elsewhere.</p>
<h2>How to eat less meat</h2>
<p>Though <a href="https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/plant-based-push-uk-sales-of-meat-free-foods-shoot-up-40-between-2014-19">39% of people</a> in the UK are currently trying to reduce their meat intake, whether for health or environmental reasons, progress is slow. We recently developed a list of 26 daily strategies for reducing meat consumption, which we refined through focus groups with members of the public, for an <a href="https://optimisediet.org/">online programme</a>.</p>
<p>Here are six strategies which participants in the programme rated as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/jul/17/i-tried-an-app-to-reduce-my-familys-meat-consumption-and-it-worked">most effective</a> for helping them to cut meat from their diets:</p>
<ol>
<li>Make at least one of your main meals vegetarian.</li>
<li>Double the veg, halve the meat in your meals.</li>
<li>Set a maximum number of animal products to eat today and stick to it.</li>
<li>Try a new vegetarian recipe.</li>
<li>Make your lunch and dinner vegetarian.</li>
<li>Eat only plant-based snacks throughout the day.</li>
</ol><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168626/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cristina Stewart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>But the national goal of cutting meat intake by 30% over the next ten years is likely to be missed.Cristina Stewart, Health Behaviours Researcher, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1660222021-08-18T22:53:42Z2021-08-18T22:53:42ZIndividual dietary choices can add – or take away – minutes, hours and years of life<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416466/original/file-20210817-27-105w4xv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=130%2C74%2C6064%2C3130&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eating more fruits, vegetables and nuts can make a meaningful impact on a person's health – and the planet's too.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/ingredients-for-the-healthy-foods-selection-the-royalty-free-image/1179272859?adppopup=true">kerdkanno/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Vegetarian and vegan options have become standard fare in the American diet, from upscale restaurants to fast-food chains. And many people know that the food choices they make affect <a href="https://theconversation.com/confused-about-what-to-eat-science-can-help-118745">their own health</a> as well as that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth">of the planet</a>. </p>
<p>But on a daily basis, it’s hard to know how much individual choices, such as buying mixed greens at the grocery store or ordering chicken wings at a sports bar, might translate to overall personal and environmental health. That’s the gap we hope to fill with our research.</p>
<p>We are part of a team of researchers with expertise in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vVPGeT0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">food sustainability and environmental life cycle assessment</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JKdT2e0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">epidemiology and environmental health</a> and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victor-Fulgoni">nutrition</a>. We are working to gain a deeper understanding beyond the often overly simplistic animal-versus-plant diet debate and to identify environmentally sustainable foods that also promote human health. </p>
<p>Building on this multi-disciplinary expertise, we combined 15 nutritional health-based dietary risk factors with <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229466">18 environmental indicators</a> to evaluate, classify and prioritize more than 5,800 individual foods.</p>
<p>Ultimately, we wanted to know: Are drastic dietary changes required to improve our individual health and reduce environmental impacts? And <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evL7GvmaQWo">does the entire population need to become vegan</a> to make a meaningful difference for human health and that of the planet?</p>
<h2>Putting hard numbers on food choices</h2>
<p>In our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00343-4">2021 study</a> published in the research journal Nature Food, we provide some of the first concrete numbers for the health burden of various food choices. We analyzed the individual foods based on their composition to calculate each food item’s net benefits or impacts. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://myumi.ch/pdryj">Health Nutritional Index</a> that we developed turns this information into minutes of life lost or gained per serving size of each food item consumed. For instance, we found that eating one hot dog costs a person 36 minutes of “healthy” life. In comparison, we found that eating a serving size of 30 grams of nuts and seeds provides a gain of 25 minutes of healthy life – that is, an increase in good-quality and disease-free life expectancy. </p>
<p>Our study also showed that substituting only 10% of daily caloric intake of beef and processed meats for a diverse mix of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and select seafood could reduce, on average, the dietary carbon footprint of a U.S. consumer by one-third and add 48 healthy minutes of life per day. This is a substantial improvement for such a limited dietary change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Relative positions of select foods on a carbon footprint versus nutritional health map" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416694/original/file-20210818-13-1enqh5y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Relative positions of select foods, from apples to hot dogs, are shown on a carbon footprint versus nutritional health map. Foods scoring well, shown in green, have beneficial effects on human health and a low environmental footprint.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Austin Thomason/Michigan Photography and University of Michigan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How did we crunch the numbers?</h2>
<p>We based our Health Nutritional Index on a large epidemiological study called the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32366-8">Global Burden of Disease</a>, a comprehensive global study and database that was developed with the help of <a href="http://www.healthdata.org/gbd/about">more than 7,000 researchers around the world</a>. The Global Burden of Disease determines the risks and benefits associated with multiple environmental, metabolic and behavioral factors – including 15 dietary risk factors. </p>
<p>Our team took that population-level epidemiological data and adapted it down to the level of individual foods. Taking into account more than 6,000 risk estimates specific to each age, gender, disease and risk, and the fact that there are about a half-million minutes in a year, we calculated the health burden that comes with consuming one gram’s worth of food for each of the dietary risk factors.</p>
<p>For example, we found that, on average, 0.45 minutes are lost per gram of any processed meat that a person eats in the U.S. We then multiplied this number by the corresponding <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10101441">food profiles</a> that we previously developed. Going back to the example of a hot dog, the 61 grams of processed meat in a hot dog sandwich results in 27 minutes of healthy life lost due to this amount of processed meat alone. Then, when considering the other risk factors, like the sodium and trans fatty acids inside the hot dog – counterbalanced by the benefit of its polyunsaturated fat and fibers – we arrived at the final value of 36 minutes of healthy life lost per hot dog. </p>
<p>We repeated this calculation for more than 5,800 foods and mixed dishes. We then compared scores from the health indices with 18 different environmental metrics, including carbon footprint, water use and air pollution-induced human health impacts. Finally, using this health and environmental nexus, we color-coded each food item as green, yellow or red. Like a traffic light, green foods have beneficial effects on health and a low environmental impact and should be increased in the diet, while red foods should be reduced.</p>
<h2>Where do we go from here?</h2>
<p>Our study allowed us to identify certain priority actions that people can take to both improve their health and reduce their environmental footprint. </p>
<p>When it comes to environmental sustainability, we found striking variations both within and between animal-based and plant-based foods. For the “red” foods, beef has the largest carbon footprint across its <a href="https://doi.org/10.1201/b19138">entire life cycle</a> – twice as high as pork or lamb and four times that of poultry and dairy. From a health standpoint, eliminating processed meat and reducing overall sodium consumption provides the largest gain in healthy life compared with all other food types. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cattle in feedlot or feed yard" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416696/original/file-20210818-19-rjp2yz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beef consumption had the highest negative environmental impacts, and processed meat had the most important overall adverse health effects.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/feedlot-cattle-29-royalty-free-image/1303979847?adppopup=true">Clinton Austin/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Therefore, people might consider eating less of foods that are high in processed meat and beef, followed by pork and lamb. And notably, among plant-based foods, greenhouse-grown vegetables scored poorly on environmental impacts due to the combustion emissions from heating.</p>
<p>Foods that people might consider increasing are those that have high beneficial effects on health and low environmental impacts. We observed a lot of flexibility among these “green” choices, including whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and low-environmental impact fish and seafood. These items also offer options for all income levels, tastes and cultures.</p>
<p>Our study also shows that when it comes to food sustainability, it is not sufficient to only consider the amount of greenhouse gases emitted – the so-called carbon footprint. Water-saving techniques, such as drip irrigation and the reuse of gray water – or domestic wastewater such as that from sinks and showers – can also make important steps toward lowering the water footprint of food production.</p>
<p>A limitation of our study is that the epidemiological data does not enable us to differentiate within the same food group, such as the health benefits of a watermelon versus an apple. In addition, individual foods always need to be considered within the context of one’s individual diet, considering the maximum level above which foods are not any more beneficial – one cannot live forever by just increasing fruit consumption. </p>
<p>At the same time, our Health Nutrient Index has the potential to be regularly adapted, incorporating new knowledge and data as they become available. And it can be customized worldwide, as has already <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12092745">been done in Switzerland</a>.</p>
<p>It was encouraging to see how small, targeted changes could make such a meaningful difference for both health and environmental sustainability – one meal at a time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166022/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by an unrestricted grant from the National Dairy Council and the University of Michigan Dow Sustainability Fellowship. Olivier Jolliet. has received funding on unrelated projects from US EPA, USDA, American Chemistry Council Long-Range Research Initiative, and Unilever, and became part, after submission of the present manuscript of the Sustainable Nutrition Scientific Board created with the unrestricted support from Nutella. The funding organizations did not have a role in the manuscript development.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by an unrestricted grant from the National Dairy Council and the University of Michigan Dow Sustainability Fellowship.</span></em></p>A new study puts numbers to the health and environmental benefits – or impacts – of individual foods and shows how small changes can make a significant difference.Olivier Jolliet, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of MichiganKaterina S. Stylianou, Research Associate in Environmental Health Sciences, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1562002021-04-12T15:18:12Z2021-04-12T15:18:12ZA nutrition report card for Americans: Dark clouds, silver linings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393670/original/file-20210406-23-d5i4g1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C0%2C5160%2C3453&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Largely as a result of school nutrition programs, today's kids are eating more fruits and vegetables.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/school-dinners-royalty-free-image/463374569?adppopup=true">Sol Stock via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many of the latest findings on the American diet are not encouraging. Almost half of U.S. adults, or 46%, <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.7491">have a poor-quality diet</a>, with too little fish, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and beans, and too much salt, sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats.</p>
<p>Our additional research shows U.S. kids <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0878">are doing even worse</a>: More than half, or 56%, have a poor diet. Importantly, for both adults and children, most of the dietary shortcomings were from too few healthy foods, rather than too much unhealthy foods. </p>
<p><a href="https://nutrition.tufts.edu/profile/faculty/dariush-mozaffarian">I am a cardiologist</a> and professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. In a series of research papers using national data collected over the past 20 years, my colleagues and I have investigated how the dietary habits of Americans have evolved. We have assessed diets among adults and children, among women and men, and by race and ethnicity, income, education and food security status. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gmh_xMMJ2Pw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“How to Create a Healthy Plate”</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Dark clouds, silver linings</h2>
<p>The largest single category of foods is carbohydrate-rich: grains, cereals, starches and sugars. In the U.S., 42% of all calories consumed are <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2751719">carbohydrates from lower-nutritional-quality foods</a> such as refined grains and cereals, added sugars and potatoes. Only 9% of calories are from higher-nutritional-quality carbohydrates, such as whole grains, fruits, legumes and non-starchy vegetables. What’s more, the average American takes in nearly four 50-gram servings – or about 7 ounces – of processed meat per week. Processed meats include luncheon meats, sausage, hot dogs, ham and bacon. These products, preserved with sodium, nitrites and other additives, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175149">have strong links</a> to stroke, heart disease, diabetes and some cancers. </p>
<p>The news is sobering, but there are glimmers of a silver lining. Comparing trends since 1999-2000, the average American diet has actually improved over time.</p>
<p>Back then, 56% of adults and 77% of kids had poor diets. Since then, both kids and adults have increased whole grain intake. Both have also cut back on sugar-sweetened beverages – kids by half, from two daily servings to one. </p>
<p>Adults have also modestly increased consumption of nuts, seeds and legumes; and kids, of fruits and vegetables. Intakes of unprocessed red meats declined by about half a serving per week, replaced by poultry. Intakes of fish and processed meat did not appreciably change.</p>
<p>But these improvements are not equitably distributed. Comparing different races and ethnicities, or income and education levels, disparities remain. In many cases, they have widened over time. Our most recent data shows 44% of Black adults have poor-quality diets, compared with 31% of whites. Of kids whose most educated parent has a high school degree, nearly two-thirds – 63% – have a poor diet; for kids with at least one parent with a college degree, it’s 43%. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5262">our most recent, and perhaps our most compelling, research</a>, we’ve evaluated nutritional quality of the American diet according to the food source: grocery stores, restaurants, schools, work sites and other venues.</p>
<p>We found that foods eaten from fast-food or fast-casual restaurants offered the worst nutrition – 85% of foods eaten by children at these establishments, and 70% by adults, were of poor quality. At full-service restaurants and work-site cafeterias, about half the foods eaten were of poor quality. At grocery stores, we found some improvement from 2003 to 2018. The percentage of poor-quality foods eaten from grocery stores dropped from 40% to 33% for adults, and 53% to 45% for children.</p>
<p>But the largest improvements from 2003 to 2018 happened at schools. The proportion of poor-quality foods eaten from school was cut by more than half, from 56% to 24%. Nearly all this occurred after 2010, with the passage of the federal <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act">Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act</a>, which created much stronger nutrition standards for schools and early child care. Improvements we found included higher intakes of whole grains, fruits, greens and beans, and fewer sugar-sweetened beverages, refined grains and added sugars – all targets of the legislation. </p>
<p>In fact, looking across U.S. food sources, we found that schools have become the top overall source of nutritious eating in the country. As the U.S. slowly recovers from the pandemic, these results amplify the importance of reopening schools, and providing school meals, to ensure nutritious eating for kids. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R-DvZyCK6Yw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“The Impact of School Meals”</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Suggestions for change</h2>
<p>Both COVID-19 and the country’s awakening on systemic racism have raised the national consciousness on the fragmented, fragile and inequitable nature of its food system. This makes our findings of racial and ethnic nutritional disparities even more dire. To achieve true <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778232">nutrition security</a>, we need a series of <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/foodnutritionandhealth2019/">policy actions and business innovations</a> to shift our food system toward health, equity and sustainability. These include promoting <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32601089/">food as medicine</a> by integrating nutrition into health care and food assistance programs; by creating a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/112/3/721/5873352">National Institute of Nutrition</a> and new <a href="https://innovation.nutrition.tufts.edu/">public-private partnerships</a> to accelerate science, innovation and entrepreneurship; and by creating a new <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/112/3/721/5873352">Office of the National Director of Food and Nutrition</a> to coordinate the currently fragmented US$150 billion annual federal investments in diverse food and nutrition areas. </p>
<p>Policy change works, as clearly demonstrated by the dramatic impact of a single policy change – the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act – on the nutrition of millions of American children. It’s time to grasp this unique moment in the country’s history and <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/540683-biden-its-time-for-a-second-conference-on-food-nutrition-and">reimagine U.S. national food policy</a> to create a nourishing and sustainable food system for all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156200/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Mozaffarian reports research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation; personal fees from Acasti Pharma, America’s Test Kitchen, Barilla, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Danone, GOED, and Motif FoodWorks; scientific advisory board, Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, DayTwo (ended 6/20), Elysium Health, Filtricine, Foodome, HumanCo, January Inc., Season, and Tiny Organics; and chapter royalties from UpToDate.</span></em></p>New research shows both adults and kids are eating more nutritious food. But minorities and low-income populations still lag behind the rest.Dariush Mozaffarian, Dean of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1577132021-03-24T16:24:09Z2021-03-24T16:24:09ZDementia: is processed meat another risk factor?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391378/original/file-20210324-23-jiuuiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C0%2C4259%2C2845&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The equivalent of one bacon rasher was associated with 44% increased dementia risk.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cooking-great-outdoors-by-frying-sausages-130267775">stocksolutions/ Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The evidence of a link between processed meat and cancer is now strong enough for some organisations to recommend <a href="https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations">not eating any</a>. There’s also increasing evidence of a link between processed meat and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21831992/">type 2 diabetes</a>. And now, a new study has added to the list of woes for lovers of processed meat by linking it to an increased risk of dementia. But this latest association may not be quite so convincing.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqab028/6178922">new study</a>, from the University of Leeds, used data from the UK Biobank, which is a biomedical database containing detailed genetic and health information from nearly half a million people, aged 40 to 69. The researchers measured how frequently participants reported consuming processed and unprocessed meat, and then monitored cases of dementia over an eight-year period. </p>
<p>During this period, 2,896 participants developed dementia. The researchers calculated that eating 25g of processed meat per day – the equivalent of one rasher of bacon – was associated with a 44% increased risk of dementia. And for those who developed dementia, processed meat was associated with a 52% increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease - the main cause of dementia. By contrast, they found that consuming 50g a day of unprocessed red meat such as beef, pork, or veal was protective, and was associated with reducing the risk of dementia by 19% compared to people eating meat up to once a week.</p>
<p>To find opposite health effects for processed meat and unprocessed meat is unusual, especially given that <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26514947/">many studies</a> show that both processed meat and red meat increase cancer risk. So what might be going on here?</p>
<p>Studies that examine an association between the consumption of a specific food and an increased risk of a disease are not proving that there is a causal link. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32738937/">Many factors</a> are linked to an increased risk of dementia, and only a small selection of these can be evaluated in any one study. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about what may be the cause for an observed effect. </p>
<p>The Leeds study used a broad definition of processed meats. It not only included ham, bacon and sausages, but also more highly processed meat products, such as meat pies, kebabs, burgers and chicken nuggets. It’s likely that people who consume these highly processed meat products will also have a taste for other highly processed foods, such as crisps or cakes, that are part of the typical western diet. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An assortment of unhealthy foods, including a hamburger, soda, crisps, chocolate, and candy." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391460/original/file-20210324-15-12p8mie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391460/original/file-20210324-15-12p8mie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391460/original/file-20210324-15-12p8mie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391460/original/file-20210324-15-12p8mie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391460/original/file-20210324-15-12p8mie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391460/original/file-20210324-15-12p8mie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391460/original/file-20210324-15-12p8mie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An unhealthy diet may also be to blame.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/unhealthy-products-food-bad-figure-skin-1354124945">beats1/ Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So highly processed meat products may simply be a representative marker for an unhealthy diet and it may be this, rather than bacon, ham or sausages, that is increasing the dementia risk. Research shows an unhealthy western diet is linked to an <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32717151/">increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease</a>. It’s thought that the adverse effects of a poor diet on the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31837645/">gut microbiota</a> (the community of trillions of microbes in our gut which help us maintain our wellbeing) are linked with neurological disorders, including dementia.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/your-gut-microbiome-may-be-linked-to-dementia-parkinsons-disease-and-ms-144367">Your gut microbiome may be linked to dementia, Parkinson's disease and MS</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Also, the degree to which the meat was cooked was not considered in this study. A high cooking temperature can increase meat’s <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26393643/">negative impact</a> on health. Most processed meats, such as sausages and <a href="https://theconversation.com/bacon-how-you-cook-it-could-partially-lower-cancer-risk-152723">bacon</a>, are cooked at high temperatures until brown. This browning is an indicator that toxic compounds, called advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), have formed on the surface of the meat. AGEs cause neuro-inflammation in the brain. And in <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32444539/">animal models</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31561370/">human studies</a> this is strongly linked to an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20497781/">survey of 549 foods</a>, fried bacon had by far the highest levels of AGEs. Although levels were high in steak, they were still ten times lower than for bacon. Levels of AGEs were lower still in other red meats (although still high compared to most other foods) and depended on how the meats were cooked. Because the way people eat meat varies so much, it’s perhaps not surprising that at the moment there is <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32456281/">no clear consensus</a> as to whether or not there is a link between eating meat and decreased cognitive function. </p>
<p>One of the distinguishing features of the participants in the Leeds study who developed dementia was that they were more likely to be men. Although dementia is overall more common in women, among those under 65 it’s more common in men. A main cause for this so-called <a href="https://www.scie.org.uk/dementia/symptoms/young-onset/key-issues.asp">early onset dementia</a> is thought to be <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23878613/">traumatic brain injury</a>, which occurs more in men living in regions of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14511388/">socioeconomic deprivation</a>. The relatively young age of the study’s participants means that most of those with dementia would be classed as having early onset dementia, but brain injury was not assessed as a possible cause in this study.</p>
<p>As well as eating more processed meats, the participants in the study who developed dementia were also more likely to be economically deprived, less educated, smokers, less physically active, more likely to have a history of stroke, and a family history of dementia. Perhaps this is the more important finding from the study. </p>
<p>A high consumption of highly processed meats may simply be a representative marker of a less healthy lifestyle overall - something a single study cannot address in any detail. If so, then public health campaigns that address these <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24385661/">broader issues</a> are crucial for people from deprived backgrounds, to help reduce their overall risk of dementia. Merely reducing their consumption of bacon butties is likely to have far less effect.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157713/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I am the author of two books on the Mediterranean diet: The Mediterranean Diet: Health and Science (2011) and More Healthy Years - Why a Mediterranean Diet is best for you and for the planet (2020).</span></em></p>If so, it’s just one lifestyle risk among many others.Richard Hoffman, Associate lecturer, Nutritional Biochemistry, University of HertfordshireLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1246652019-10-07T15:49:26Z2019-10-07T15:49:26ZRed meat study caused a stir – here’s what wasn’t discussed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295634/original/file-20191004-118244-1202azj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/372695809?src=tZD-YpgJRwWverFANTfm4A-1-50&size=medium_jpg">Photology1971/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Accurate, consistent dietary advice seems increasingly hard to find. For instance, a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49877237">widely reported study</a> recently claimed that people don’t need to reduce their consumption of red and processed meat for health reasons. The report <a href="https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-papers-looking-at-red-and-processed-meat-consumption-and-health/">sharply divided scientific opinion</a>, with some experts praising it as a “rigorous” assessment, others <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-we-still-need-to-cut-down-on-red-and-processed-meat-124486">questioning it</a>.</p>
<p>Nutrition sceptics could cite many similar examples of conflicting opinions, such as the safety or dangers of <a href="https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/opinion/comment/saturated-fat-guidelines-to-reduce-coronary-heart-disease-risk-are-still-valid/20068191.article">saturated fat</a> or of <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/nutrition-vitamins-on-trial-1.15459">nutrition supplements</a>. Such contradictions only further deepen public mistrust in nutrition research. </p>
<p>But reliable advice matters, especially for the increasing numbers of people who respond differently from the general population. Dietary advice usually draws on scientific research that has pooled results from studies on large populations, but this can mask huge variations in risk between individuals within those populations.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-food-causes-weight-gain-firm-evidence-at-last-116980">Ultra-processed food causes weight gain – firm evidence at last</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>One size does not fit all</h2>
<p>A study that doesn’t differentiate high-risk individuals in a low-risk general population can produce a skewed overall risk estimate. It also mistakenly reassures high-risk individuals that their risk is the same as everyone else’s. But a one-size-fits-all policy in nutrition makes no more sense than calculating the average shoe size in a population and recommending that everyone wear that size. Even <a href="https://profilebooks.com/the-tiger-that-isn-039-t.html">statisticians</a> agree that “the mean is an abstraction. Reality is variation.” </p>
<p>A simple public health campaign is warranted if the strength of the association between cause and effect is high for the whole population, as it is with smoking and lung cancer. But most individual nutrients and foods have only weak associations with risk when evaluated across a whole population. It is individuals in high-risk subgroups who need to be most concerned. </p>
<p>For instance, people who are overweight or obese tend to respond differently to others. A high-carbohydrate diet <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837285">increases their risk of coronary heart disease</a>, yet is of far less concern for those who are lean.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Overweight people should avoid a high-carbohydrate diet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/205272349?src=8phDW1bX-_wzMTA4opxpLQ-1-59&size=medium_jpg">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Overweight and obese people also often have higher blood insulin levels. This is a sign of being metabolically unhealthy, increasing the risk of many chronic diseases. </p>
<p>Obesity is often considered a risk factor for colon cancer. Yet it is not obesity itself that increases a person’s risk of getting colon cancer, it is high insulin levels. There is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27046222">no increased risk</a> of colon cancer for obese people who retain normal insulin levels. So studies that only measure associations between obesity and colon cancer – without taking into account the degrees of metabolic health in these obese people – may produce lower estimates of risk for everybody, inadvertently downplaying the real dangers for some of the group studied. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/not-all-processed-meats-carry-the-same-cancer-risk-64622">Not all processed meats carry the same cancer risk</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Unfortunately, few people know their insulin status, though it is at least as important for disease risk as <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-weight/bmi-calculator/">body mass index</a> (BMI).</p>
<p>Another group whose risk from diet can be dramatically higher than average are people with pre-cancers (for example, abnormal cells that are associated with an increased risk of developing into cancer). Folic acid, for instance, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29529163">may help protect</a> against colon cancer in people free of the disease, but existing precancerous growths in the colon are more likely to become full-blown cancer with a high intake of folic acid. Yet few people know if they have a pre-cancer and so assume their risk is the same as everyone else’s. </p>
<h2>Mediterranean diet</h2>
<p>Most public health campaigns fail to take these differences between individuals into account, but <em>you</em> can take them into account – at least to some extent. Personalised nutrition programmes that include genetic screening are now available, though only a few genes are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23093344">sufficiently understood</a> to be of any real value. It may be more useful to have a basic health risk assessment that measures biomarkers for disease risk, such as cholesterol, blood sugar, insulin and inflammation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/drink-a-glass-of-olive-oil-every-day-the-mediterranean-way-to-a-long-life-48837">Drink a glass of olive oil every day – the Mediterranean way to a long life</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A more general strategy – but one supported by a huge amount of evidence – is to hedge your bets with a proven <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29898951">healthy dietary pattern</a>, such as the Mediterranean diet. Many nutrients act together in this diet and the outcome is less likely to be influenced by variations between individuals. Instead of joining the nutrition sceptics pouring scorn on contradictory advice, it is better to protect yourself by adopting a proven healthy eating pattern that has stood the test of time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124665/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Hoffman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Red meat and processed meat seemed to get the all clear in a recent study but not everyone agrees.Richard Hoffman, Lecturer in Nutritional Biochemistry, University of HertfordshireLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1200842019-09-10T03:29:13Z2019-09-10T03:29:13ZHere’s what you can eat and avoid to reduce your risk of bowel cancer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290039/original/file-20190829-106494-1end206.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's not certain why, but fibre has protective effects against bowel cancer. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia has one of the <a href="http://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/10_8_9-Colorectum-fact-sheet.pdf">highest rates of bowel cancer in the world</a>. In 2017, bowel cancer was the <a href="https://canceraustralia.gov.au/about-us/news/cancer-australia-2017">second most common cancer in Australia</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-increase-in-bowel-cancer-among-younger-australians-105484">rates are increasing</a> in people under 50. </p>
<p>Up to <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67725-2/fulltext">35% of cancers worldwide</a> might be caused by lifestyle factors such as diet and smoking. So how can we go about reducing our risk of bowel cancer?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-increase-in-bowel-cancer-among-younger-australians-105484">What's behind the increase in bowel cancer among younger Australians?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What to eat</h2>
<p>Based on <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Colorectal-Cancer-2017-Report.pdf">current evidence</a>, a high fibre diet is important to reduce bowel cancer risk. Fibre can be divided into 2 types: insoluble fibre, which creates a bulky stool that can be easily passed along the bowel; and soluble fibre, which draws in water to keep the stool soft.</p>
<p>Fibre from cereal and wholegrains is an <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22074852">ideal fibre source</a>. Australian guidelines suggest aiming for 30g of fibre per day for adults, but <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29751656">fewer than 20%</a> of Australian adults meet that target. </p>
<p>Wheat bran is one of the richest sources of fibre, and in an <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8537982">Australian trial</a> in people at high risk of bowel cancer, 25g of wheat bran reduced precancerous growths. Wheat bran can be added to cooking, smoothies and your usual cereal.</p>
<p>It’s not clear how fibre may reduce bowel cancer risk but <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29333111">possible mechanisms</a> include reducing the time it takes food to pass through the gut (and therefore exposure to potential carcinogens), or through a beneficial effect on gut bacteria. </p>
<p>Once bowel cancer is diagnosed, a high fibre diet has also been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29098294">associated with improved survival</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290467/original/file-20190902-175668-4tk10h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290467/original/file-20190902-175668-4tk10h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290467/original/file-20190902-175668-4tk10h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290467/original/file-20190902-175668-4tk10h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290467/original/file-20190902-175668-4tk10h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290467/original/file-20190902-175668-4tk10h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290467/original/file-20190902-175668-4tk10h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290467/original/file-20190902-175668-4tk10h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dairy is ‘probably’ protective against bowel cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/interactive-body-map-what-really-gives-you-cancer-52427">Interactive body map: what really gives you cancer?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Milk and dairy products are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24023767">also thought</a> to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21617020">reduce bowel cancer risk</a>. The evidence for milk is graded as “probably protective” in <a href="https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines:Colorectal_cancer/Primary_prevention_dietary_and_lifestyle#Dietary_fibre">current Australian bowel cancer guidelines</a>, with the benefit increasing with higher amounts.</p>
<p>Oily fish may also have some protective elements. In people with hereditary conditions that make them prone to developing lots of precancerous growths (polyps) in the bowel, a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=20348368">trial</a> where one group received a daily supplement of an omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (found in fish oil) and one group received a placebo, found that this supplement was associated with reduced polyp growth. Whether this is also true for people at average risk of bowel cancer, which is most of the population, is unknown. </p>
<p>And while only an observational study (meaning it only shows a correlation, and not that one <em>caused</em> the other), <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29158191">a study of bowel cancer patients</a> showed improved survival was associated with daily consumption of coffee.</p>
<h2>What to avoid</h2>
<p>It’s best to avoid large quantities of meat. International cancer authorities affirm there is <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/english.pdf">convincing evidence</a> for a relationship between high meat intake and bowel cancer. This includes red meat, derived from mammalian muscle such as beef, veal, lamb, pork and goat, and processed meat such as ham, bacon and sausages. </p>
<p>Processed meats have undergone a preservation technique such as smoking, salting or the addition of chemical preservatives which are associated with the production of compounds that <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext">may be carcinogenic</a>. </p>
<p>Evidence also suggests a “dose-response” relationship, with cancer risk rising with increasing meat intake, particularly processed meats. <a href="https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines:Colorectal_cancer/Primary_prevention_dietary_and_lifestyle#Dietary_fibre">Current Australian guidelines</a> suggest minimising intake of processed meats as much as possible, and eating only moderate amounts of red meat (up to 100g per day). </p>
<h2>What else can I do to reduce the risk of bowel cancer?</h2>
<p>The key to reducing cancer risk is leading an overall healthy lifestyle. Adequate physical activity and avoiding excess fat around the tummy area is important. Other unhealthy lifestyle behaviours such as eating lots of processed foods have been <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322">associated with</a> increased cancer risk.</p>
<p>And for Australians over 50, participating in the National Bowel Cancer Screening program is one of the most effective, and evidence-based ways, to reduce your risk. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/interactive-we-mapped-cancer-rates-across-australia-search-for-your-postcode-here-102256">INTERACTIVE: We mapped cancer rates across Australia – search for your postcode here</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120084/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Mahady does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Bowel cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer in Australia, and some cases could potentially be avoided. Here’s how.Suzanne Mahady, Gastroenterologist & Clinical Epidemiologist, Senior Lecturer, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1063992018-11-06T18:17:48Z2018-11-06T18:17:48ZMeat tax: why taxing sausages and bacon could save hundreds of thousands of lives every year<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244105/original/file-20181106-74783-9339q6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>By now you’ve probably heard that eating too much red and processed meat is bad for you. Not only is it associated with increased rates of coronary <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2017.1392288">heart disease, stroke</a>, and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11883-012-0282-8">type 2 diabetes</a>, but there is also convincing evidence that red and processed meat <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020456">can cause cancer</a>. </p>
<p>The cancer agency of the <a href="http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/">World Health Organisation</a> (WHO) classifies the consumption of red meat, which includes beef, lamb, and pork, as carcinogenic – or having the potential to cause cancer if eaten in processed form. This includes hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and beef jerky – as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces. </p>
<p>The WHO also classifies red meat as probably <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext">carcinogenic</a> – even if eaten unprocessed. There is strong mechanistic evidence for an association between eating red meat and colorectal cancer, and there is also evidence of links with pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.</p>
<p>Given the negative health impacts, there have been calls for certain types of <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/09/why-it-s-time-meat-tax">meat to be regulated</a> similar to other carcinogens – such as tobacco or asbestos – or like other foods of public health concern – such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/sugar-tax-what-you-need-to-know-94520">sugary drinks</a>. </p>
<p>Like taxes on other products that can harm health, a health tax on red and processed meat could encourage consumers to make healthier choices. And <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/health-meat-tax">our new research</a>, which looks at the benefits of a health tax on red and processed meat has found that such as tax could prevent more than 220,000 deaths and save over US$40 billion globally in healthcare costs every year.</p>
<h2>A health tax on meat</h2>
<p><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204139">In our new study</a>, colleagues from the International Food Policy Research Institute in the US, and the Oxford Martin School and the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford in the UK, analysed the impact of regulating red and processed meat consumption through a health tax on meat. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244107/original/file-20181106-74783-13a7ucj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244107/original/file-20181106-74783-13a7ucj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244107/original/file-20181106-74783-13a7ucj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244107/original/file-20181106-74783-13a7ucj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244107/original/file-20181106-74783-13a7ucj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244107/original/file-20181106-74783-13a7ucj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244107/original/file-20181106-74783-13a7ucj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s already a tax for sugar, tobacco, and alcohol, so why not sausages?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We calculated so-called optimal tax levels that would account for the health costs of red and processed meat in close to 150 countries and regions around the world. So although consumers would still have the choice to eat red and processed meat, they would have to contribute to paying for treating the chronic diseases that its consumption is assumed to cause. </p>
<p>For our study, we used estimates of how red meat and processed meat affect the risks of chronic diseases, and how much it costs to treat those. We then calculated the health and economic burden associated with one additional portion of red and processed meat, and based on that, we estimated the health taxes per portion of red and processed meat that would account for those costs. </p>
<h2>High taxes for high consumption</h2>
<p>We estimated that in 2020, there will be 2.4m deaths attributable to red and processed meat consumption globally, as well as US$285 billion in costs related to healthcare. </p>
<p>High-income countries, such as the UK and the US consume about double the global average of red and processed meat. These countries also spend more money treating the associated chronic diseases. Low-income countries consume less than half the global average and also spend less money treating meat-related diseases.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-tax-meat-that-contains-antibiotics-75721">Why we should tax meat that contains antibiotics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Because of this difference in health costs, the health taxes would need to differ by region, to factor in the health and economic burden of red and processed meat consumption in a specific region. And as a result, the health taxes we calculated are based on an economically optimal tax that is high in high-income countries and low in low-income countries.</p>
<p>The health taxes on sausages in Germany, and bacon in the US, for example would increase prices by a whopping 160%. Whereas prices for processed meat in China would have to increase by 40%, and those in Ethiopia by less than 1%. Due to its relatively modest healthcare spending the UK is somewhere in the middle with an 80% increase.</p>
<h2>The benefits</h2>
<p>The higher prices on red and processed meat encourage dietary shifts to other, less harmful foods. Our results suggest that if the health taxes were introduced, consumption of processed meat would decline by about two portions per week in high-income countries and by 16% globally.</p>
<p>Lower consumption of red and processed meat would lead to 220,000 less deaths a year from chronic disease – such as coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, and type 2 diabetes. It could also have positive knock-on <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201810_Springmann_Nature">effects on climate change</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-climate-change-will-affect-what-we-eat-in-2050-55604">body weight</a>. </p>
<p>We found that it could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by over a hundred million tonnes – mainly due to lower beef consumption. And it would also reduce levels of obesity by driving consumers to lower-calorie substitutions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-deadly-carcinogens-youve-probably-never-heard-of-49839">Ten deadly carcinogens (you've probably never heard of)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Tax revenues would amount to US$172 billion globally and cover 70% of the health costs that red and processed meat consumption puts on society. To fully cover the costs, the health taxes would have to be doubled and, in high-income countries, increase to 200% for processed meat.</p>
<p>Our findings make it clear that the consumption of red and processed meat has a cost – not just to people’s health and to the planet – but also to healthcare systems and the economy. Governments don’t need to tell people what they can and can’t eat, but they have a responsibility to encourage the adoption of healthy and sustainable diets. And making sure the health costs of foods are reflected in their prices is an important component of that.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>More articles about <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/veganism-25812?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Diet">vegetarianism and veganism</a>, written by academic experts:</em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/vegan-diet-how-your-body-changes-from-day-one-100413?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Diet">Vegan diet: how your body changes from day one</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-arent-more-people-vegetarian-58367?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Diet">Why aren’t more people vegetarian?</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-to-encourage-people-to-reduce-their-meat-intake-without-them-even-realising-105762?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Diet">5 ways to encourage people to reduce their meat intake – without them even realising</a></em></p></li>
</ul>
<p><em>For more evidence-based articles by academics, subscribe to our <a href="https://confirmsubscription.com/h/r/6F561B763B91E4C7?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Diet">newsletter</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marco Springmann receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People), award number 205212/Z/16/Z.</span></em></p>How a price-hiking “meat tax” could prevent 220,000 deaths and save more than US$40 billion in health care costs around the world every year.Marco Springmann, Senior Researcher, Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/932102018-03-14T14:32:22Z2018-03-14T14:32:22ZThree major mistakes Tiger Brands made in response to the listeriosis crisis<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210272/original/file-20180314-113469-15bxjzk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tiger Brands was thrown into the centre of the listeriosis storm.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tigerbrands</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tiger Brands, the South African food giant at the centre of the listeriosis storm engulfing the country, is facing serious brand erosion as a result of the way it handled the <a href="https://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/southern-africa/2018/03/06/south-africa-blames-food-firms-worlds-worst-listeria-outbreak/">unfolding crisis</a>. </p>
<p>It could have responded better.</p>
<p>Tiger Brands was thrown into the centre of the listeriosis storm after South Africa’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases announced that its investigation had <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/breaking-listeriosis-outbreak-traced-to-enterprise-facility-in-polokwane-20180304">traced</a> the origins of the disease to one of the company’s biggest meat processing plants. The culprit was identified as polony from the Enterprise Foods facility that produces a range of cold meats. <a href="https://www.tigerbrands.com/">Tiger Brands</a>, a $2.5 billion Johannesburg Stock Exchange listed business, owns Enterprise Foods among other continent wide popular food brands. </p>
<p>South Africa has been struggling with the listeriosis outbreak for 14 months. Unable to find the source of the affected products, the outbreak developed into the <a href="https://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/southern-africa/2018/03/06/south-africa-blames-food-firms-worlds-worst-listeria-outbreak/">worst</a> case of listeriosis in the world. By the end of February 2018, health authorities had <a href="http://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Update-on-Listeriosis-Press-Conference-Monday-04-March-2018-FINAL.pdf">confirmed</a> 948 cases with 180 fatalities.</p>
<p>The repercussion was always going to be unforgiving. But Tiger Brands has not helped the situation. It has overlooked a number of the accepted protocols of handling a crisis of this nature. As a result, the company’s brand equity is taking serious strain.</p>
<h2>The brand erosion</h2>
<p>Tiger Brands compromised its brand equity in three key areas.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210085/original/file-20180313-30989-sbf20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210085/original/file-20180313-30989-sbf20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210085/original/file-20180313-30989-sbf20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210085/original/file-20180313-30989-sbf20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210085/original/file-20180313-30989-sbf20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210085/original/file-20180313-30989-sbf20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210085/original/file-20180313-30989-sbf20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">South African retailers have had to remove processed meat from Enterprise Food to deal with the listeriosis outbreak.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Nic Bothma</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Response speed:</strong> An organisation’s survival in a crisis, particularly when lives are at risk, depends enormously on the speed of its responses.</p>
<p>Tiger Brands could have been more rapid in its responses. The source of the listeriosis outbreak was <a href="http://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Update-on-Listeriosis-Press-Conference-Monday-04-March-2018-FINAL.pdf">announced</a> by South Africa’s Health Minister, Aaron Motsoaledi, at midday on Sunday 4 March 2018. He announced that Tiger Brands had been issued with safety recall notices. But the company only held a media briefing a day later. Given that the minister would have given the company advanced warning (even before the official media briefing), its response was far too slow.</p>
<p><strong>Continued strategic engagement:</strong> Since the media conference, the company has engaged in very limited meaningful communication that would have helped it reclaim some brand equity. Organisations need to understand that in a crisis, they are competing with every form of media – including social media – to tell their story. </p>
<p>If organisations don’t keep engaging with stakeholders, others in the media fill the vacuum. It also leaves the door wide open for speculation and innuendo.</p>
<p>The lack of engagement inevitably raises concerns about how transparent the company has been in handling this crisis.</p>
<p><strong>Compassion:</strong> In its scant communication Tiger Brands failed to show compassion – an essential ingredient for navigating a crisis of this magnitude. Unless the organisation acknowledges how its audience is feeling, which Tiger Brands failed to do, any organisation in crisis is fighting an uphill battle. The company’s lack of compassion meant that the company came across as cold and unsympathetic. By showing compassion, an organisation creates a bond and puts audiences in a receptive state, key components to any successful communication.</p>
<p>Tiger Brands will be remembered for trying to deny responsibility and refusing to apologise. This impression was created by ill-advised comments made by the company’s CEO Lawrence MacDougall when he was grilled by journalists. In one response <a href="https://citizen.co.za/news/1845765/tiger-brands-ceo-denies-blame-for-listeriosis-deaths/">he said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There has been no direct correlation between our products and the deaths yet, so we are unaware of any direct link.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The fact that the crisis had led to 180 deaths called for a dose of compassion, not a defensive response.</p>
<h2>What now for Tiger Brands?</h2>
<p>Tiger Brands will have to embark on serious brand rehab. To achieve that it will have to be totally transparent in the management of the crisis, engage strategically with stakeholders and be mindful of the tone of its engagement. The company will have to become more visible and must be seen to be a critical part of solutions.</p>
<p>But it’s also important to point out that the listeriosis crisis goes beyond Tiger Brands. It isn’t just a crisis for the company. The outbreak has had a major impact on food outlets – big and small – in the country. It has also affected companies and consumers <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/africa/2018-03-13-namibia-reports-first-listeriosis-case-after-south-african-outbreak/">beyond South Africa’s borders</a>, so much so that the crisis could do long lasting damage to the country’s cold meats industry.</p>
<p>All stakeholders related to the listeriosis crisis, including the South African government, the National Institute for Communicable Diseases and the processed meat industry, should step away from trying to face the crisis on their own. They should also stop trying to shift responsibility. Instead they should think of working together. </p>
<p>This calls for a completely different approach to brand rehab after a crisis. It calls for a systems approach that envisages all the affected parties understanding that they are inter connected. In a cooperative, integrated system like this the equity of the one organisation’s brand is linked with the equity of other brands and institutions in the system.</p>
<p>South Africa needs to take a more collective approach if it’s going to deal with the crisis effectively.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93210/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ilse Struweg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>South Africa’s food making giant, Tiger Brands, could have handled the listeriosis crisis better.Ilse Struweg, Associate Professor in the Department of Marketing Management at the University of Johannesburg, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/929472018-03-12T14:39:45Z2018-03-12T14:39:45ZWhat led to world’s worst listeriosis outbreak in South Africa<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209566/original/file-20180308-30979-phyr1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A lab sample of the bacteria listeria monocytogene that causes listeriosis.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nathan Reading/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>South Africa has had the biggest listeriosis outbreak in the world that resulted in <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/development/listeriosis-flagged-food-products-still-being-sold-13713272">more than 180 deaths</a> to date. The Conversation Africa’s health editor Candice Bailey spoke to Prof Lise Korsten about the challenges around food safety in the country.</em> </p>
<p><strong>What’s challenging about the pathogen that causes listeriosis?</strong></p>
<p>The pathogen – <a href="https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/tc/listeriosis-topic-overview">listeria monocytogenes</a> – causes the deadly disease in nature and uses food as a vehicle to invade the human body. Once it enters the body it “switches gears” and becomes lethal, causing symptoms such as nausea and diarrhoea – and even death.</p>
<p>As with many other food-borne pathogens, listeria can coexist with other microorganisms in water and soil ecosystems or on plants. The bacteria can survive even under stressful conditions, such as refrigeration. It can proliferate even when other microorganisms die off. And it even competes with other microorganisms for nutrients and space.</p>
<p><strong>What does the outbreak tell us about food safety in South Africa?</strong></p>
<p>South Africa was ill prepared for this devastating food safety outbreak. It is perhaps a reflection of the weaknesses in the whole food system. </p>
<p>There are several problems. Pieces of legislation that manage how food safety is handled remain outdated. It means that the systems in place are inadequate. This includes detecting and verifying potential problems. </p>
<p>On top of this there is a critical shortage of regulators, inspectors, laboratory personnel, scientists and auditors. </p>
<p>These shortcomings were all evident in the extensive delay between the first reported case in January 2017, the announcement of the outbreak in December 2017 and the source being <a href="http://www.health.gov.za/index.php/2014-03-17-09-48-36/2014-03-17-09-49-50?download=2671:update-on-listeriosis-press-conference-sunday-04-march-2018">identified in March 2018</a>. In the intervening 14 months, more than 180 people died and close to a thousand were affected. </p>
<p>In addition to outdated legislation South Africa has been dealing with a lack of effective regulation in the food sector. Industry has relied on self regulation in the absence of an effective regulatory system. Product recall is also not common despite being a requirement in food safety systems. </p>
<p>Due to the gaps in the system companies can become complacent and provide sub-standard products if not pressured to effectively self regulate. </p>
<p>A food safety outbreak was imminent and the scientific community was aware that it could happen - but not on this scale. </p>
<p><strong>What does this mean from a food safety perspective?</strong></p>
<p>Listeria is a potential hazard in food production, processing and food handling environments all over the world. </p>
<p>The pathogen can be difficult to trace and kill, particularly if effective cleaning schedules are not followed. Once the bacteria is introduced, it is able to hide in difficult to clean places and often survives in microbial biofilms (slimy layers), where it is protected against harsh cleaning agents. It prefers to breed in wet areas, particularly near drains which are difficult to effectively manage. </p>
<p>Once introduced into a processing plant, listeria is difficult to remove and can easily spread through a factory. Effective monitoring is as important as good cleaning programmes. </p>
<p>The emphasis should be on continually improving food safety management systems. But companies can be tempted to take short cuts as they balance between consistently delivering affordable, nutritious and safe food and turning a profit. </p>
<p><strong>How do we solve the problem?</strong></p>
<p>The South African government should consider establishing a national food safety authority. The idea has been proposed with suggestions of different governing models over the past 10 years. But none of these have gained traction. </p>
<p>The fact that there is no central authority or coordinated framework is problematic as it means there is no coordinated central point or one stop shop that deals with all import, export and local food control to protect consumers. </p>
<p>A central authority would shorten the time frame between the initial outbreak, identifying the source and product recall. It could also control imports and prevent illegal dumping and movements of counterfeit goods more effectively. </p>
<p>It would mean that technical experts in food science, food microbiology, plant pathology and animal science etc. could be used more effectively to benefit a national food safety framework. </p>
<p>At the moment most commercial South African companies involved in food production and processing particularly those who export, have to go through expensive certification. This is a self-regulatory system that relies on good auditors and accredited certification bodies. The challenge is that the country has a serious shortage of competent auditors/inspectors and local certification bodies. </p>
<p>Another problem is that when there are threats of a foodborne disease, the government, industry and academia work in silos and don’t share knowledge or technologies that could benefit the whole country. </p>
<p>In addition to a centralised food safety authority, there have also been suggestions that the agricultural and food legislative framework should be revised and the fragmented and outdated regulations be amended or new legislation promulgated. </p>
<p>Lastly, certification bodies responsible for certifying food safety management systems and test laboratories must reassess their role in supporting an effective food safety system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92947/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lise Korsten receives funding from The Department of Science/ National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence Food Security and the Water Research Commission.
</span></em></p>The bacterial pathogen that is responsible for listeriosis can survive under even the toughest conditions.Lise Korsten, Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology and Co-Director at the Centre of Excellence in Food Security, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/896732018-01-08T22:47:34Z2018-01-08T22:47:34ZMeat is not the ‘new tobacco,’ and shouldn’t be taxed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200826/original/file-20180104-26169-xpun6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is meat the new tobacco? Some are suggesting it is, and urging a "sin tax" on beef, pork and other meats.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The idea of having to pay a sin tax for environmentally detrimental foods is gaining more support. For some, eating meat is a sin, and therefore meat products should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.fairr.org/resource/livestock-levy-regulators-considering-meat-taxes/">A new report published recently by a British group called Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return Initiative (FAIRR)</a> argues that a tax on meat is inevitable.</p>
<p>The meat industry, particularly beef producers, has been facing relentless criticism over the last decade. Very rarely have we seen reports encouraging consumers to eat more meat. </p>
<p>For one thing, science-based findings linking climate change and meat have been accumulating. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization <a href="http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm">has reported that livestock account for about 14.5 per cent</a> of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other surveys have suggested the sector may represent up to 18 per cent. </p>
<p>Greenhouse gas emissions produced by the livestock industry will only increase as the middle class in both India and China expand, and, as such, <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/global-meat-consumption-increasing-driven-china-india-527128">demand for animal protein is exploding.</a></p>
<p>And then there’s health.</p>
<p>In 2015, the World Health Organization <a href="https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html">linked meat consumption to cancer.</a> The report indicated that eating processed meat products increases the risk of developing cancer. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/australia-says-who-study-linking-processed-meat-to-cancer-is-a-farce">Several meat-producing countries</a>, including <a href="http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/agriculture-canada-challenged-whos-cancer-warnings-on-meat-according-to-newly-released-documents">Canada</a>, the U.S., Brazil and Australia, ridiculed the report because processed meats were added to the same category as asbestos. </p>
<h2>Meat-eating discouraged in some countries</h2>
<p>But several other governments, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/chinas-meat-consumption-climate-change">including China</a> and some European countries, have actively discouraged their citizens from consuming an unreasonable amount of meat. That’s not a signal the meat industry needs.</p>
<p>The other major headwind the industry faces is related to the ethical treatment of animals. Some believe livestock production is unethical and that the industrial production of meat <a href="http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/09/20/intensive-animal-farming-banned/#.Wk5ZIbQ-cW8">should be outlawed</a>, period. </p>
<p>The ethics narrative around meat has been gaining traction over the last decade or so.</p>
<p>Now, if you think the FAIRR initiative is some minor, under-resourced group desperately trying to seek attention, think again. It includes a portfolio of 57 investors with more than US$2.3 trillion under management.</p>
<p>This alliance clearly wants to influence the plant-based protein agenda, and has had its fair share of success in doing so. Already, agri-food giants like Tyson Foods and Cargill <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/40508181/get-ready-for-a-meatless-meat-explosion-as-big-food-gets-on-board">are looking at “beyond-meat” solutions.</a></p>
<p>Demand-focused companies are seeing the writing on the wall. Many consumers are <a href="https://theconversation.com/less-meat-more-choice-a-look-at-key-food-issues-in-2018-89489">re-evaluating their relationship with animal proteins</a>, although in cattle country, a large number remain in deep denial and blame interest groups for fear-mongering.</p>
<h2>Canadians still love their meat</h2>
<p>Statistics show that demand for meat in Canada is still stubbornly robust. The average Canadian typically consumes <a href="http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market-information-by-sector/red-meat-and-livestock/red-meat-and-livestock-market-information/protein-disappearance-and-demand-by-species/?id=1415860000022">about 87 kilograms of meat products</a> in one year, which is just slightly lower than the amount from five years ago. </p>
<p>This year, beef consumption in our country reached 25.4 kilograms per capita, and some expect demand for the product to increase to 25.5 kilograms next year. Surprising, perhaps, but beef prices have come down, making the product more attractive for the consumer on a budget. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://caes.usask.ca/members/_pdf/2017%20Canadian%20Agricultural%20Outlook.pdf">significant variations among provinces</a> should be noted, though. Alberta is by far the largest consumer of beef; the average adult Albertan male will eat 83 grams a day. That’s 53 per cent more than the average in Newfoundland, and 18 per cent more than in neighbouring British Columbia. Affordability and lifestyle are probable reasons for such a difference. </p>
<p>Canadian consumers have stayed on the side of our livestock industry, but numbers are showing signs of a change in consumer habits. </p>
<p>Demand for pork is <a href="https://www.discoverwestman.com/ag-news/39921-canadian-pork-council-discusses-strategic-planning-at-fall-meeting">expected to fall to unprecedented levels in 2018,</a> dropping 13 per cent from its 2015 level. Demand for chicken, one of the cheapest types of animal protein out there, plateaued in 2016 and has since softened.</p>
<p>Although beef could experience a rebound in 2018, expected increases aren’t spectacular given how low retail prices are these days. Canadians are not giving up on meats, but they are willing to spend more time away from the meat counter. Animal protein still has market currency, but plant-based alternatives to meat are increasingly attractive.</p>
<p>But little can be accomplished by taxing meat. Taxing food in general — any food product — is morally questionable. A retail tax on food is regressive and can potentially penalize the underprivileged who need affordable sources of protein. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200822/original/file-20180104-159080-1y8vcm3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200822/original/file-20180104-159080-1y8vcm3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200822/original/file-20180104-159080-1y8vcm3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200822/original/file-20180104-159080-1y8vcm3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200822/original/file-20180104-159080-1y8vcm3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200822/original/file-20180104-159080-1y8vcm3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200822/original/file-20180104-159080-1y8vcm3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some have floated the idea of taxing meat as a type of sin tax.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Meat the new tobacco?</h2>
<p>Some have argued that <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/animal-products-cancer_b_1316222.html">meat is the new tobacco</a>. This sensationalist parallel is unwise, since tobacco is not essential to life and food is. </p>
<p>The implementation of such a tax would also be challenging. </p>
<p>If federal or provincial governments were to tax meat, funds would likely be used to support other relevant public programs. But as with any tax, transparency on how funds are dispersed within the massive, bureaucratic governmental machinery is weak. </p>
<p>What’s more, many small businesses around the country have offered high-quality meat products to local markets. Many of them are family businesses. Taxing sausages and steaks would compromise the viability of many stores valued by communities across the country.</p>
<p>Meat has played a significant part in consumers’ lives in the Western world for centuries. Penalizing consumers for continuing a culinary tradition is unfair.</p>
<p>Taxing a food product that’s been entrenched in our culture for so long is idealistically silly. We should let the market evolve and allow consumers to make their own choices. </p>
<p>That said, the livestock industry must pore over market data and start listening to consumers in order to better appreciate their concerns. Given that they are <a href="https://www.producer.com/2017/10/who-do-consumers-trust-farmers-favoured-for-reliable-info/">one of the most trusted groups in our economy</a>, livestock producers are ideally positioned to renew their social contract with the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89673/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sylvain Charlebois does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Taxing a food product like meat, which has been entrenched in our culture for so long, is silly. We should let the market evolve and allow consumers to make their own choices.Sylvain Charlebois, Professor in Food Distribution and Policy, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/800302017-07-02T15:23:31Z2017-07-02T15:23:31ZHow Spam became one of the most iconic American brands of all time<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176273/original/file-20170629-16083-1xnit1l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C208%2C2578%2C1956&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eight billion cans sold and counting...</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/leeds-united-kingdom-july-5th-2011-171401612?src=gZRd7Ib0oHQ74_vj8wdbTw-1-8">abimages/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>While you might think of Spam as a basic canned meat, it’s actually one of the greatest business success stories of all time: Since <a href="http://www.hormelfoods.com/">Hormel Foods Corporation</a> launched the affordable, canned pork product in 1937, it’s sold over <a href="http://www.spam.com/about">eight billion cans</a> in 44 countries around the world. </p>
<p>Spam’s birthday is July 5th. It’s fitting that this comes only a day after the birthday of the United States. The product is up there with Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Pizza Hut as one of the most distinctive American brands of all time.</p>
<p>As a consumer behavior researcher, I believe Spam’s widespread success can be attributed to two factors: it addressed a real need, and also formed an emotional connection with its consumers, by tapping into American ideals like ingenuity and resourcefulness.</p>
<h2>Spam ‘hits the spot’</h2>
<p>Spam isn’t exactly the most exciting product.</p>
<p>The original recipe included chopped pork shoulder meat with ham, salt, water, sugar and sodium nitrite. (This remained unchanged until 2009, when Hormel <a href="https://www.eater.com/2014/7/9/6191681/a-brief-history-of-spam-an-american-meat-icon">added potato starch</a> in an effort to eliminate one of the product’s less attractive features: the gelatin layer created by the cooking process.) At the time it was introduced, it was the only canned meat product on the market that needed no refrigeration. This feature gave Spam a significant competitive advantage.</p>
<p>Hormel also created buzz around its new product by sponsoring a name contest to promote it. </p>
<p>The winner was an actor named <a href="https://powersbehindgr.wordpress.com/powers-theatre/stock-theatre/broadway-players/kenneth-daigneau/">Kenneth Daigneau</a>, who was awarded US$100 for coming up with the name “Spam.” (He was also the brother of Hormel’s vice president, so there may have been a bit of nepotism involved.) </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176269/original/file-20170629-28236-r06ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176269/original/file-20170629-28236-r06ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176269/original/file-20170629-28236-r06ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=867&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176269/original/file-20170629-28236-r06ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=867&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176269/original/file-20170629-28236-r06ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=867&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176269/original/file-20170629-28236-r06ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1089&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176269/original/file-20170629-28236-r06ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1089&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176269/original/file-20170629-28236-r06ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1089&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Cold or hot…Spam hits the spot!’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7368/12915784114_0d0869810f_b.jpg">Classic Film/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Anointed with its new name, the product was buoyed by a heavy advertising effort that emphasized its versatility. For example, in 1940, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=A0AEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=original+uses+of+SPAM&source=bl&ots=2dqBSMJTD7&sig=yZkNq1OG1YD2awWWDzN-8ouzLRo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje1J3a-OXUAhWDOz4KHSh0CXMQ6AEIYDAJ#v=onepage&q=original%20uses%20of%20SPAM&f=false">Hormel fielded submissions</a> from Spam fans to create a 20-page recipe book featuring 50 ways of incorporating the canned meat into meals.</p>
<p>Homemakers readily embraced Spam, and it became a popular lunch and breakfast meat. But sales really took off during World War II. Over 150 million pounds were <a href="http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/01/20/americas-miracle-meat-the-story-of-spam-3-recipes/">used in the war effort</a>, making Spam a cornerstone of troops’ diets. (Soldiers also used Spam’s grease <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=i0mAQgAACAAJ&dq=SPAM:+a+biography&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpk4SCgebUAhUEFT4KHTD9BYUQ6AEIJjAA">to lubricate their guns and waterproof their boots</a>.) In each country where they were stationed, American soldiers introduced it to the locals, giving foreigners their first taste of Spam. </p>
<p>Since then, Spam has become a sought-after product in many countries around the world, especially those that have faced economic hardship. Because it’s cheap, filling and has a long shelf life, it addresses a real need. </p>
<h2>As American as apple pie?</h2>
<p>But how did it become such a cultural icon?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.msi.org/articles/the-seven-dimensions-of-brand-love/">In a 2012 paper</a>, marketing researchers Rajeev Batra, Aaron Ahuvia and Richard P. Bagozzi developed a model of “brand love.” Based on studies on consumers’ brand attachment, they showed that in order to form meaningful attachment with brands, consumers need to experience them in ways beyond simply buying and using the product. </p>
<p>Hormel seemed to intuitively understand these ideas. Simply selling a cheap, useful product wouldn’t be enough. In creative and humorous ways that went beyond traditional advertising, they appealed to consumers by positioning the brand as a patriotic food that reflected American ingenuity – with a streak of eccentricity. </p>
<p>In the years after the war, the Hormel Girls – <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3kwbEL8LY4">a musical troupe of female World War II veterans</a> – traveled the country performing songs and promoting the product. The group even starred in a top-rated radio show on three national networks.</p>
<p>Since then, the Spamarama cooking festival (1976-2007), a Spam museum (1991), a Spam recipe contest (1991), a Spam-sponsored NASCAR race car (1995) and even a 2005 Broadway musical – “Spamalot” – all enhanced what’s called the <a href="https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/4243/Brand%20Experience%20and%20Loyalty_Journal_of%20_Marketing_May_2009.pdf">brand experience</a>, the way consumers interact and connect with a product. </p>
<p>These marketing ventures were accompanied by the introduction of new products and flavors. The Spamburger (1992), Spam Lite with 50 percent less fat (1995), Spam Hot and Spicy (2000), Spam with Bacon (2004), Spam Teriyaki and Spam Jalapeño (2012) reflected consumers’ evolving tastes and preferences. Spam Spread was even introduced just in case you’re “a spreader, not a slicer.” </p>
<h2>Refashioning Spam in the 21st century</h2>
<p>In other cultures around the world, Spam is viewed as a distinctly American product, though it’s been incorporated into local cuisine in creative ways. In Hawaii – <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/Menuism/why-do-hawaiians-love-spam-so-much_b_1901306.html">where seven million cans are sold each year</a> – McDonald’s franchises <a href="https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/spam-eggs-and-rice.html">will offer Spam-based products</a>, like Spam, eggs and rice. The <a href="http://allrecipes.com/recipe/49785/spam-musubi/">Spam Musubi</a> – Spam on rice wrapped in seaweed – is also a popular snack and lunch food.</p>
<p>In South Korea, Spam is considered a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/world/asia/in-south-korea-spam-is-the-stuff-gifts-are-made-of.html">popular holiday gift</a>, while in the U.K., the <a href="https://theenglishkitchen.blogspot.com/2011/05/spam-fritters.html">Spam fritter</a> is served with chips and mushy peas in burger bars. In the Philippines, <a href="http://www.filipinochow.com/spamsilog/">Spamsilog</a> is a common breakfast meal of Spam, fried rice and sunny-side up egg. </p>
<p>Back in the United States, restaurateurs have seized upon Spam’s place in the cultural imagination to (somewhat ironically) incorporate the product in refined dishes. At San Francisco’s <a href="http://liholihoyachtclub.com/">Liholiho Yacht Club</a>, you can get Spam fried rice with uni and mushrooms. <a href="http://www.animalrestaurant.com/">Animal</a> in Los Angeles offers foie gras and Spam, while New York City’s <a href="http://www.noreetuh.com">Noreetuh</a> serves Spam agnolotti with burgundy truffles. It was even <a href="http://ew.com/recap/top-chef-new-orleans-maui/">featured in a culinary challenge</a> on Season 11 of Top Chef. </p>
<p>When Spam was first introduced, Hormel was eager to promote the product’s versatility with <a href="http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/image/medium/0429p28--SPAM-Burns-and-Allen-2x3.jpg?1366906973">taglines</a> like “Cold or hot…Spam hits the spot.”</p>
<p>But with the canned meat moving from the front lines of World War II to $40 entrees at high-end restaurants, its various incarnations have likely surpassed its inventors’ wildest visions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80030/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ayalla A. Ruvio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Over 80 years ago, Hormel Foods introduced a simple, canned meat product called Spam. It would go on to become one of the greatest marketing success stories of all time.Ayalla A. Ruvio, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/646222016-10-12T08:51:22Z2016-10-12T08:51:22ZNot all processed meats carry the same cancer risk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139918/original/image-20160930-9928-ttye65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-264832343/stock-photo-crispy-organic-heritage-smoked-bacon-from-a-local-organic-farm.html?src=cxLLOQVdE7raMPP0ml8xrQ-1-1">farbled/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Eating processed meat can increase your risk of getting colorectal cancer. The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) says that each 50g portion of processed meat eaten daily (about two bacon rashers) <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26514947">increases bowel cancer risk by 18%</a>. But before you give up processed meats forever, read on.</p>
<p>There are three main cancer-causing agents in processed meat: iron, which occurs naturally in meat; N-nitroso, which forms when meat is processed; and MeIQx and PhIP, which are chemicals formed during cooking.</p>
<p>Iron is found in all meats. It is easily absorbed by the body and is an important part of our diets. Excess amounts, however, can increase the risk of cancer by acting as a catalyst for the formation of free radicals. As with many things – sunshine, salt, fats – the poison is the dose.</p>
<p>N-nitroso compounds only occur if the meat contains added nitrite or nitrate salts. The richest food sources of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20161416">N-nitroso compounds in the US</a> are bacon, luncheon meats, sausage and hot dogs. However, the second highest food source is from fresh and smoked seafoods. Low to moderate sources include grains, dairy, oils, liquor and wine which means we are exposed to these chemicals through many non-meat food sources as well. </p>
<p>Although MeIQx and PhIP form during cooking, the concentration of these chemicals depends on the cooking method and how well the meat is cooked. </p>
<h2>From bresaola to nitrate-filled bangers</h2>
<p>But not all processed meats are the same, so the cancer risk can vary considerably depending on which product you’re talking about. For example, dried meat products such as bresaola or biltong are simply the result of drying lean meat in natural conditions or in an artificially created environment. Many of the nutritional properties, in particular the protein content, remain unchanged through drying. </p>
<p>Compare this with precooked-cooked meat products which contain mixes of lower-grade muscle trimmings, fatty tissues, head meat, animal skin, blood, liver and other edible slaughter byproducts. The first heat treatment precooks the raw meat and the second heat treatment cooks the finished product at the end of the processing stage. As you can see, these are two very different products. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140864/original/image-20161007-8959-1i3fl8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140864/original/image-20161007-8959-1i3fl8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140864/original/image-20161007-8959-1i3fl8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140864/original/image-20161007-8959-1i3fl8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140864/original/image-20161007-8959-1i3fl8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140864/original/image-20161007-8959-1i3fl8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140864/original/image-20161007-8959-1i3fl8y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In a different class.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-235972018/stock-photo-jamon-jamon-serrano-traditional-spanish-ham-on-black-close-up-slicing-hamon-iberico.html?src=b4LFVeY37vwXPb0qu_KtPg-1-16">Subbotina Anna/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, the IARC report did not provide details of the risk of cancer associated with the different types of processed meat, as this data is not available. This important fact was either missed or deliberately under-reported by many in the media. Eating processed meat should not be considered an unhealthy pastime, but choosing the type you eat and how it is cooked is very important. </p>
<p>Some sausage manufacturers, do not include any of the nitrites or nitrates which should be avoided. Selecting products with the highest content of meat with only seasonings or plant food ingredients added (some now contain half meat, half vegetable protein) is prudent and not overcooking your meat is really important. The cancer causing chemicals formed during cooking vary dramatically depending on how well you cook your meat and the cooking method. For example, a very well done steak will contain between five and 10 times more MeIQx and PhIP than a medium cooked steak. </p>
<p>Eating processed meats which do not contain nitrates or nitrites and cooking it correctly is not the unhealthy option that some portray it to be and is fine as long as it is done in moderation (no more than <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/347871/A_quick_guide_to_govt_healthy_eating.pdf">70 grams per day</a> of red meat and processed meat), and as part of a well-balanced diet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A bit of prosciutto as part of a well-balanced diet is not going to do you much harm.Chris Elliott, Professor of Molecular Biosciences, Queen's University BelfastMarie Cantwell, Senior lecturer, Queen's University BelfastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/530872016-01-13T10:14:08Z2016-01-13T10:14:08ZIs black pudding really a superfood? Err… no!<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107947/original/image-20160112-6968-1huyhj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The fry who came in from the cold</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/black+pudding/search.html?page=2&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=26339846">Hot Property</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Long a firm favourite in the cooked breakfast, black pudding <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/06/black-pudding-praised-as-a-superfood-alongside-seaweed-and-kohlrabi">has now</a> apparently joined the likes of blueberries, quinoa and kale as a superfood. The mainstream media have picked up on a claim by online retailer Musclefood that black pudding, high in iron and protein and low in carbohydrates, is a healthy option – especially compared to its processed plate-mates <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21682779">bacon and sausages</a>. But does black pudding really deserve the superfood accolade?</p>
<p>Blood puddings are eaten in various forms in many countries – morcilla in Spain or boudin noir in France, for example. One of the best known is the Stornoway black pudding from the Isle of Lewis, off the west coast of Scotland, where it originated as a means of avoiding food waste: crofters kept only small numbers of animals, so it was essential that when one was slaughtered, every part was used. Before the days of refrigeration, the blood was immediately mixed with fat, oatmeal and seasonings, and packed into a length of the animal’s intestine. This was then boiled and could be stored for a few weeks. </p>
<p>In more recent times, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/19/offal-recipes-whittingstall">has extolled</a> the virtues of eating offal. He thinks meat eaters “ought to eat all parts of an animal, not just the pretty bits”. But the key feature that led to black pudding being named as a superfood is the blood, which makes it a rich source of iron. A portion of two slices weighs around 60g-120g. From 100g you get around 12mg of iron, whereas the needs of most adult men <a href="https://www.nutrition.org.uk/attachments/article/234/Nutrition%20Requirements_Revised%20Nov%202015.pdf">would be met by</a> 9mg a day. </p>
<p>Several population groups in the UK <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310997/NDNS_Y1_to_4_UK_report_Executive_summary.pdf">take in</a> too little iron, but it is women of childbearing age, who <a href="https://www.nutrition.org.uk/attachments/article/234/Nutrition%20Requirements_Revised%20Nov%202015.pdf">need more</a> than anyone else, who are particularly prone to deficiency. </p>
<p>Dietary iron comes in the form of “haem” from the blood and muscle in animal meats, which is well absorbed; and “non-haem”, mainly from plant foods, which is not so well absorbed. This helps to make black pudding a rich and easily absorbed source of iron for those in need of a boost, even if some of the “haem” iron is likely to be converted to “non-haem” in the cooking process. </p>
<h2>Hold the second helping</h2>
<p>Black pudding is also proposed to be a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2014/oct/07/black-pudding-must-eat-british-food">good source</a> of other minerals, such as magnesium, zinc and calcium, as well as providing protein. Having said that, obtaining enough protein and minerals is not an issue for most healthy people in developed countries. Most of us actually consume at least one-and-a-half to twice as much protein as we require.</p>
<p>Then we come to the potential downsides, the first of which is the fat content. A low-fat food is <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/Fat.aspx">usually considered</a> to contain less than 3g of fat per 100g, while a high-fat food contains more than 17.5g. The black puddings made by different manufacturers span this range, with some containing less than 3g/100g and others up to 22g. Up to half of this fat is saturated, which has long been linked to heart disease – albeit <a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/08/31/saturated-fats-heart-disease.aspx">some studies</a> have raised doubts. It also means that the calorie content varies almost threefold, from 120kcal per 100g to more than 300kcal. </p>
<p>Another ingredient of note is salt, which has been <a href="http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/less/Health/">linked with</a> high blood pressure and heart disease. The UK’s <a href="http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/salthealth/Recommendations%20on%20salt/">public-health target</a> is a maximum of 6g/day (a teaspoon), but it <a href="http://www.mrc-hnr.cam.ac.uk/research/nutrition-surveys-and-studies/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey/">has been reported</a> that intakes average around 8g, largely as a result of eating so many processed foods, which are high in salt. A high-salt food is classified as having more than 1.5g salt (or 0.6g sodium) per 100g – and black pudding has between 1.5g and 2.4g of salt per 100g. </p>
<p>Interestingly, there is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26595176">work underway</a> in Ireland to reduce the salt and fat content of black pudding. Initial testing suggested it was possible to produce a reduced-fat version containing only 0.6g salt (per 100g pudding) that still tasted acceptable. </p>
<p>But be that as it may, black pudding is also a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661797/">processed meat</a>. Like sausages and bacon, this means it is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661797/">linked to</a> bowel cancer. The exact cause is still being debated, but either the preservatives or the processes involved in smoking, curing or salting are thought to produce carcinogens. As such, the World Cancer Research Fund <a href="http://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/ways-reduce-cancer-risk">has suggested</a> we should avoid these foods altogether. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107952/original/image-20160112-6996-i9szni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107952/original/image-20160112-6996-i9szni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107952/original/image-20160112-6996-i9szni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107952/original/image-20160112-6996-i9szni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107952/original/image-20160112-6996-i9szni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107952/original/image-20160112-6996-i9szni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107952/original/image-20160112-6996-i9szni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107952/original/image-20160112-6996-i9szni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=SqWBqDYR6CMIpoW__qqu_w&searchterm=cooked%20breakfast&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=294359480">GrahamMoore999</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In truth, black pudding is perhaps less “processed” than some other meat products. Yet it has another negative, which is unfortunately linked to its claim to superfood status: haem iron is thought to promote cancer by damaging the lining of the bowel, <a href="http://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/ways-reduce-cancer-risk">particularly</a> in those with poor-quality diets who consume high quantities of meat. </p>
<p>If after weighing up the risks you decide to enjoy black pudding in moderation, there are still ways to limit the damage. Instead of serving it as an accompaniment to sausage and bacon, it could be grilled and added to a warm tomato salad or a barley risotto accompanied with seasonal greens. Alternatively you could avoid the haem and source a vegetarian black pudding – just don’t expect it to do as much to boost your iron stores.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53087/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennie Jackson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Hold the cape and leggings. The dear old blood pudding has its merits, but it’s far from perfect.Jennie Jackson, Lecturer in Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498882015-10-30T04:08:54Z2015-10-30T04:08:54ZConfused about your cancer risk from eating meat? Here’s what the figures mean<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100255/original/image-20151030-20167-1obvecl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Methods of communicating relative risk to the public are often confusing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/b-tal/163450213/in/photolist-frJ48-6jVDrj-a3eRUW-7o37h4-dF2kfy-xSKtM3-45cqRN-9btpV5-2aG48A-zDxYmj-weYd8-h4yNV6-cdx6N3-9bfGvL-5WksQ6-nGtSb-eoKTfj-bTci2-4nasi8-398sRb-D2Gaj-cvL8q1-gvMnZ-8uts1c-d48xXC-x2N2-MX2qn-8xyKpN-63UskT-6znZE-8CExD3-e1L6W4-c4Rw4G-dpHVtD-7jf2C5-nXMLQ-4vTpFL-FMNav-6LZ96M-6N51SL-7iNtsT-iqKpmj-72j5yj-dM5ip5-7rYJ5k-6M4hgW-d2LRVu-9bFkti-6N1iga-z78tQo">Brian Talbot/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">recent report</a> on processed meat and risk of bowel cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This method of communicating risk led to confusion and some <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-health-organization-so-bad-at-communicating-cancer-risk/412468/">hostile reactions</a>. Scientists can explain risks of cancer and other diseases in several ways; some are easier to understand than others.</p>
<h2>Relative risk</h2>
<p>The IARC statement is based on a summary of many epidemiological studies assessing the relationship between meat consumption and bowel cancer, including a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342453">study by one of us</a>. </p>
<p>Epidemiology is the science of studying the distribution and determinants of disease in populations. At its heart lie comparisons of the frequency of disease for people exposed or not exposed to a particular substance, environmental condition or lifestyle. </p>
<p>In this case, IARC was comparing the risk of bowel cancer for people who eat 50 grams of processed meat per day with the risk for those who don’t eat processed meat at all. </p>
<p>The 18% increase means the risk of developing bowel cancer is 1.18 times higher for those who eat 50 grams of processed meat per day compared to those who eat none. The figure 1.18 is known as “relative risk”. </p>
<p>Put this way, the increase is quite small. By contrast, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15880414">men who smoke cigarettes</a> have about 20 times the risk of developing lung cancer as men who do not smoke. Expressed as a percentage, the increase in risk due to smoking is 1,900%.</p>
<p>A potential problem with presenting relative risk in the format IARC uses is that many people will incorrectly conclude that if they ate processed meat, they had an 18% (almost one in five) chance of getting bowel cancer. Thus, they were misled.</p>
<p>Presenting relative risks to the public in any format is not very informative. A better way to communicate the effect of specific risk factors is to present what is known as the “absolute risk”.</p>
<h2>Absolute risk</h2>
<p>Australians fortunate enough to live to the age of 85 have an 8.2% chance of being diagnosed with bowel cancer over their lifetime; this is the “lifetime risk”.</p>
<p>If we assume that a quarter of the Australian population eats 50 grams per day of processed meat, then the lifetime risk for the three-quarters who eat no processed meat would be 7.9% (or about one in 13). For those who eat 50 grams per day, the lifetime risk would be 9.3% (or about one in 11). </p>
<iframe src="https://charts.datawrapper.de/TS2hV/index.html" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Although our estimate that one-quarter of the population eat 50 grams of processed meat daily is not likely to be correct, changing this proportion does not have much effect on the two absolute risks.</p>
<p>Of course, this naive calculation assumes everything else is equal; that people who eat processed meat differ in no other ways that affect risk of bowel cancer from those who do not.</p>
<p>But we know many factors contribute to risk of bowel cancer – being overweight, alcohol consumption, being physically inactive and family history, to name a few. With so many variables driving risk, it is clear no two people are likely to have exactly the same risk profile. </p>
<p>Cancer Research United Kingdom <a href="http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/">presented the risks</a> in this way. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Out of every 1,000 people in the UK, about 61 will develop bowel cancer at some point in their lives. Those who eat the lowest amount of processed meat are likely to have a lower lifetime risk than the rest of the population (about 56 cases per 1,000 low meat-eaters).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you only expect to live to 65, your chance of getting bowel cancer is 2.9% if you don’t eat processed meat and 3.4% if you eat 50 grams each day. Of course, if you indulge more, the risk increases, but to similar proportions for each additional 50 grams per day.</p>
<p>Absolute risks allow people to personalise the effects and to better compare them. Yes, calculating absolute risk requires a strong assumption that there are no other differences between people who are exposed and not exposed. But we still believe that being able to compare absolute risks is more informative and less likely to mislead than relative risks.</p>
<h2>Population attributable fraction</h2>
<p>Another useful way of communicating the burden of cancer due to a risk factor is to calculate what is known as the population attributable fraction – that is, the fraction of cancer that is due to the risk factor. </p>
<p>Researchers <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26437727">recently estimated</a> that 18% of bowel cancers in Australia could be attributed to consumption of red and processed meat (they did not have data to allow them to separate the effects of processed and red meat). This equated to about 2,600 cases in 2010.</p>
<p>The increase in risk due to red and processed meat is small, but together they account for many cases because Australians eat a lot of meat.</p>
<p>A lot of public money, via taxes or donated funds to cancer organisations, is invested in research. There is a moral imperative to report the findings of such research, but rarely is one study definitive. </p>
<p>So major reviews by IARC are vital to bring together the best assessment of the evidence about what does and does not contribute to cancer risk. And people want to know. </p>
<p>The best cancer is the one you never get. Given we know <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26437735">the cause of about one-third of cancers in Australia</a> (smoking, alcohol, lack of exercise and nutrition factors), it is not unreasonable to give the best available information to people about what we know. </p>
<p>But clearly we have a way to go in better communicating what these risks really mean and how people can use this information in their daily choices. </p>
<p>Luckily, decades of solid evidence underpins some pretty simple advice to stack the cancer odds in your favour. For most people:</p>
<p>Do more: physical activity, eating fruit and vegetables</p>
<p>Do less: drink alcohol, eat high-calorie food, processed and probably red meat, expose skin to intense sunlight</p>
<p>Don’t: smoke.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49888/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dallas English works for The University of Melbourne and the Cancer Council Victoria. He has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for research on diet and cancer.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Slevin works for the Cancer Council Western Australia and has been involved in research on the communication of cancer risk. He is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia. </span></em></p>There are several ways scientists can explain risks of cancer and other diseases; some are easier to understand than others.Dallas English, Professor at University of Melbourne and Research Fellow, Cancer Council VictoriaTerry Slevin, Adjunct Professor, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology at Curtin University. He is the Education and Research Director Cancer Council WA and Chair Occupational and Environmental Cancer Committee , Cancer Council AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/491762015-10-27T18:38:13Z2015-10-27T18:38:13ZWhy meat is important in the global battle against food insecurity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99864/original/image-20151027-4985-1ob3hq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Consumption of chicken has been rising in Africa. This is a short-term solution to improving food insecurity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/James Akena</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The increase in the world’s population has led to challenges in maintaining a balanced diet in both the developed and the developing world. More than two billion people worldwide suffer from “hidden hunger” or <a href="http://www.fao.org/post-2015-mdg/did-you-know/detail-news/en/c/211122/">micronutrient deficiency</a>. </p>
<p>The inadequate intake of essential micro-nutrients is detrimental to the mental and physical development of children and reduces the productivity and work capacity of <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209531191460753X">adults</a>. </p>
<p>Over the last two decades, there has been a significant reduction in food insecurity with the number of hungry or undernourished people decreasing from <a href="http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2014/en/">18.7% to 11.3%</a>. But, globally, food insecurity continues to be a daunting challenge. The prevalence and severity of food insecurity varies at regional, national and household levels. At least two-thirds of the world’s food-insecure households are found in developing countries.</p>
<p>The current food security threats go beyond insufficient food quality. Nutritional value, safety and the distribution of the available foods all have an impact. In addition, outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and mass food contamination have been frequently reported as threats to food safety – a consequence of the rising pressure to rapidly increase food production.</p>
<p>Good quality meat has the potential to reduce food insecurity and poverty. It should be considered a tool to eliminate “hidden hunger”. This would require making sure it is evenly distributed across the world.</p>
<p>But there are several limitations that may contribute to the slow progress of using meat to conquer food insecurity worldwide. </p>
<h2>A bad side to eating meat?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174009002514">Science</a> has shown that lean meat is good for you. This is because it <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174009001764">contains</a> properties that positively moderate lipid profiles in the body. This in turn has a positive impact on long-term health by producing polyunsaturated fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid <a href="http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=3551">(CLA)</a>. </p>
<p>Some polyunsaturated fatty acids can help <a href="http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Polyunsaturated-Fats_UCM_301461_Article.jsp#.Vi-eFG7qnIU">reduce bad cholesterol</a> levels in the blood and can lower the risk of heart disease, stroke and breast cancer. Linoleic acid contains fat fighting, insulin lowering properties which suppress the development of cancer in different areas of the body. This is the case even at relatively low dietary levels.</p>
<p>This is true of lean, unprocessed meat. <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-everything-gives-you-cancer-but-eating-too-much-processed-meat-certainly-can-49812">Processed meat</a> is a different story. A recent <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">report</a> by the World Health Organisation classifies processed meat as a carcinogen in the same category as plutonium and alcohol. It cautions that eating 50g of processed meat a day, which is the equivalent of up to two slices of bacon, increases the chance of developing colorectal cancer <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621">by 18%</a>.</p>
<p>The same report acknowledges that meat is a rich source of nutrients and that eating meat and meat products also has health benefits. The moderation of meat consumption rather than eliminating it from one’s diet remains the most reasonable recommendation.</p>
<h2>The poor can’t afford meat</h2>
<p>The biggest problems around the consumption of meat relate to, on the one hand eating too much, and on the other cost and distribution.</p>
<p>South Africa provides an interesting case study. As living standards have improved, people’s diets have got <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2013-09-13-00-growing-wealth-lets-sa-make-both-ends-meat">better</a>. This includes more meat and fruit and vegetable consumption. The increase in the amount of meat being eaten is linked to an increase in <a href="http://foodstuffsa.co.za/food-trends/food-trends-2015/4016-trends-in-the-south-african-meat-market">average income</a> over the last two decades.</p>
<p>The increased demand for meat has led had two consequences: an increase in meat-related <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet">health threats</a> such as cardiovascular diseases among the wealthy; and a rise in prices, making it less affordable for the poor.</p>
<p>South Africa, as a nation of fervent meat eaters, ranks 11 out of 15 top meat eating countries in the <a href="http://foodstuffsa.co.za/food-trends/food-trends-2015/4016-trends-in-the-south-african-meat-market">world</a>, with more than 50.7 kg of meat being consumed per capita each year. </p>
<p>At the same time, most South Africans are not eating the food-based dietary <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-as842e.pdf">recommendations</a> of 80g to 90g lean cooked meat per day. This is because just over half the South African population is <a href="https://theconversation.com/food-insecurity-is-a-reality-for-millions-of-south-africans-living-in-informal-settlements-48519">categorised</a> as food insecure or vulnerable to food insecurity and cannot achieve the recommended intake. </p>
<h2>Other factors influence meat consumption</h2>
<p>Despite its contribution as a complete nutrient source, meat has a bad reputation. Although scientific <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174009002514">research</a> has shown its multiple health benefits, consumers still question its safety. </p>
<p>And a large proportion of the worlds’ population adheres to religions with strong traditions around food consumption, especially meat. Consumption is often limited by intrinsic factors or lack of adherence to specific production, slaughter and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096399691530017X">processing methods</a>.</p>
<p>In addition, organisations have been set up to speak against meat consumption in the name of <a href="http://sayasblog.com/2015/08/12/animal-rights-and-liberation-a-christian-and-animal-lover-scientists-opinion/">animal protection</a>, declaring it more a luxury than a need.</p>
<p>It is critical to consider these perspectives in the discourse on global food security. </p>
<h2>The consumption guide</h2>
<p>It is important for consumers to pay attention to the quality and quantity of the meat they consume – and how they prepare it. Setting personal health goals, such as consuming just enough to meet the average nutrient requirements, is key.</p>
<p>Chicken as a meat source can be viewed as a short term stepping stone. <a href="http://foodstuffsa.co.za/food-trends/food-trends-2015/4016-trends-in-the-south-african-meat-market">Chicken consumption</a> has increased dramatically over the years, mostly due to its health qualities and lower cost.</p>
<p>Misconceptions about meat and its affect on health need to be tackled head on. Human beings were born omnivores. Meat has been part of their diet through the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-diets-of-early-humans-explain-our-eating-habits-46481">ages</a>. This is one of the reasons it should be considered as part of any diet, as well as part of the solution to food insecurity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49176/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Meat has health benefits. And good quality meat could also be the solution to the food insecurity problems that plague two-thirds of households in the developing world.Voster Muchenje, Professor of Meat Science and the co-host of the NRF SARChI Chair in Meat Science, University of Fort HareYonela Zifikile Njisane, PhD Student, Department of Livestock and Pasture, University of Fort HareLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498122015-10-27T11:00:41Z2015-10-27T11:00:41ZNot everything gives you cancer, but eating too much processed meat certainly can<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99804/original/image-20151027-5004-a9q5b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eating two slices of bacon every day increases your risk of bowel cancer.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yesterday, the cancer arm of the The World Health Organization <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">released its evaluation</a> on how likely red and processed meats are to cause cancer. </p>
<p>The verdict? Consumption of processed meat is classified within group 1 – alongside known carcinogens including asbestos, tobacco, arsenic and alcohol. It causes bowel cancer, and is implicated in stomach cancer. </p>
<p>Experts concluded that every 50-gram portion of processed meat daily (that’s two slices of bacon) increases the risk of bowel cancer by 18%.</p>
<p>Red meat ranked lower, in group 2A. It was evaluated as probably carcinogenic to humans, possibly causing bowel cancer. It was also implicated in pancreatic and prostate cancers.</p>
<p>Health authorities responding to these evaluations might reasonably focus their messaging on people who eat red and processed meat five or more days per week. Evidently, these are the people most at risk. </p>
<p>But the results of their efforts can be caricatured or misunderstood by the suggestion that processed meat is now ranked with tobacco smoke and asbestos.</p>
<h2>Not the same risk</h2>
<p>Placing processed meat in the same category as tobacco doesn’t mean you have the same risk of getting cancer if you eat bacon every day than if you smoke a pack of cigarettes each day. </p>
<p>The equivalence between smoking and eating processed meat exists when it comes to strength of evidence for cancer causation. But otherwise indicating similarity is a distortion, particularly because of the respective burdens of cancer. </p>
<p>Lifetime smoking increases risk of lung cancer 50-fold. But worst case scenarios in relation to processed meat or red meat rarely reach more than two-fold. The 18% increased risk means risk is multiplied by 1.18. </p>
<p>Moreover, meat is a food as distinct from a poison such as asbestos, and so these findings must be understood with the subtlety of reason.</p>
<p>In some media, the findings are already being dismissed with the commonly convenient phrase that “everything causes cancer”.</p>
<p>Authorities drawing attention to carcinogens are characterised as fanatics who believe stepping outside to be a problem, while staying indoors means you’re exposing yourself to cancer risk from every second consumer product. Not so. </p>
<p>Everything does not cause cancer. Overt hazards such as smoking, drinking alcohol, deliberate exposure to sunlight and certain types of pollution, trump all the consumer product scares the papers or the internet can provide. </p>
<h2>Rigorous evidence</h2>
<p>The WHO determination was made by an arm of the organisation headquartered in Lyon, France: the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). </p>
<p>The branch <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/">evaluates the weight of evidence</a> that an agent can increase the risk of cancer by getting together working groups of expert scientists to review published studies in the area. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Smoking and deliberate exposure to sun are overt hazards.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">fromshutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The IARC’s evaluations are referred to as monographs.</p>
<p>Twenty-two of us were invited by IARC as members of a working group to evaluate the carcinogenicity of red and processed meat. </p>
<p>I was elected Chair of the group which then had sub-groups variously addressing exposure, epidemiological data (that is, studies involving cancer in specified human populations), animal data and biological processes (“mechanisms”) mediating cancer development in particular circumstances. </p>
<p>We reviewed more than 800 epidemiological studies of the relationship between meat and cancer in several countries and continents with varying ethnicities and diets. </p>
<p>These included prospective cohort studies (in which, say, 500,000 or more people provide information about all aspects of their lifestyle whose relevant records are recovered when some are diagnosed with cancer). </p>
<p>These were seen as more informative than case-control studies (in which cancer patients and a similar group of controls are asked, in this case, what they ate 20 or more years ago). </p>
<p>There were also multiple, published meta-analyses (when multiple cohort studies are collated). </p>
<p>Red meat was defined as fresh meat from cattle, sheep, pigs and similar animals and specifically excluded poultry.</p>
<p>Processed meat was meat (most red, but sometimes including poultry) which had been cured, smoked or similarly treated to enhance preservation and/or flavour. This includes ham, bacon, frankfurts, salami, and the like.</p>
<p>The working group did not address the recognised nutrition values of meat, including its provision of protein, iron and range of micronutrients, nor, for that matter, did we address the enjoyment of eating meat.</p>
<p>All determinations of risk were adjusted for other factors, including body weight and calorie intake, and smoking and alcohol intake.</p>
<p>More than 200 publications addressed how small quantities of known carcinogens, either present in cooked meat or which are formed during the digestion of processed meat, may explain cancer causation in the present context. </p>
<p>They showed these compounds may be absorbed and metabolised to reactive intermediates able to bind to DNA and produce mutations.</p>
<p>So the data from such mechanistic studies supplemented the epidemiological studies in providing evidence of cancer causation. It also established options for prevention.</p>
<h2>A better understanding</h2>
<p>As our understanding of cancer increases, subtlety and insight – rather than elimination and prohibition – may underpin cancer prevention. The information now before us exemplifies that trend.</p>
<p>The recognised causes of cancer have now been expanded, providing a better basis for nutrition advice. Many people stand to benefit.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernard Stewart was Chair of the IARC Working Group set up to evaluate the carcinogenicity of red and processed meat.</span></em></p>The World Health Organisation has determined that eating processed meat definitely causes cancer, while eating red meat probably does.Bernard Stewart, Professor, Paediatrics, Cancer and related disorders, Epidemiology, Biochemistry and Cell Biology , UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/480072015-09-24T20:15:42Z2015-09-24T20:15:42ZExpert is as expert does: in defence of US dietary guidelines<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96033/original/image-20150924-17074-xcuzy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The main thrust of the advisory committee’s report is that diets should be focused on whole foods, not specific nutrients.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/8263905087/">U.S. Department of Agriculture/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>National dietary guidelines have become an easy target for those looking for a scapegoat for bad diets in prosperous countries. And an article just <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962">published in the BMJ</a> about the scientific evidence for the US dietary guidelines provides further needless fuel for the fire.</p>
<p>In February 2015, an advisory committee of 14 experts appointed to review research evidence and inform the government of the relevant science underpinning the US dietary guidelines issued a <a href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/">570-page report</a>. Among its conclusions, the report recommended guiding the population to dietary patterns that are:</p>
<ul>
<li>rich in vegetables, fruit, whole grains, seafood, legumes and nuts </li>
<li>moderate in low-fat and non-fat dairy products and alcohol (among adults) </li>
<li>lower in red and processed meat, and </li>
<li>low in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages and refined grains.</li>
</ul>
<p>The report also recommended limiting marketing of unhealthy foods to children, clearer food labelling, and greater consideration of sustainability issues. </p>
<p>The report generated much angst. This was not unexpected – because so many people feel they’re experts in nutrition, and because it upset many <a href="http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf">groups with vested interests</a> in maintaining the current US diet with its high levels of meat, junk foods and drinks. </p>
<p>The advisory committee received more than 29,000 written responses to its recommendations. <a href="http://www.sugar.org">The Sugar Association</a>, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Chicken Council <a href="http://union-bulletin.com/news/2015/mar/14/meat-industry-wages-war-new-guidelines/">all challenged the report</a>. </p>
<p>Senators <a href="http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-extension-public-comment-period-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee">complained directly to Congress</a>, <a href="http://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=2cbe42da-eac8-48c1-a820-44a392b57195">especially upset</a> that health and nutrition experts <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-blogs/samuel-lee-gammage/who-will-win-battle-over-sustainability-dietary-guidelines-americans">should consider sustainability</a>. <a href="http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/blog/us-dietary-guidelines-report-%E2%80%93-whats-fuss-over-sustainability">Others</a>, including <a href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/06/16/the-new-focus-on-sustainability-the-dietary-guidelines-for-americans-and-for-our-planet/">experts in the field</a>, were <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2015/03/my-plate-my-planet-support-sustainability-in-dietary-guidelines/">supportive of its inclusion</a>. </p>
<p>A congressional hearing on the report has been scheduled for October 7.</p>
<h2>People in glass houses</h2>
<p>The recommendations also met with displeasure from those who promote high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets. And this week the BMJ has unfortunately given voice to one such person. US journalist and author of <a href="http://thebigfatsurprise.com/">The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet</a> Nina Teicholz has published an “investigation” into the report and its authors.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A new advisory report on US dietary guidelines has upset many in the meat and junk food industries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/9375507295/in/photolist-fhtVFv-ff52LL-ff52BN-4z5AkF-6CMYYq-6CMZ9s-7cXRW8-4z5D48-4z5vot-4z5yqD-4z9T2w-4z9TrA-4z5za8-y4gkiG-4z9TJL-a95RFU-4z5BKM-4z5DiH-e1iERv-5kk29W-aj1328-5B1sk7-sMsxA-e1NAEK-4z9RyY-czfSzC-h">Paul Townsend/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In line with the arguments of her book, Teicholz criticises the scientific report for the 2015 guidelines. She claims the advisory committee didn’t conduct thorough reviews of recent evidence and failed to identify their conflicts of interest. </p>
<p>But, after a close look, I could find little evidence of conflict of interest among the committee members. Its members were carefully selected to provide balanced viewpoints on the scientific evidence, and to not represent the viewpoints of any specific group. They conducted public meetings and also invited various other experts to present data. </p>
<p>It’s hard to understand Teicholz’s criticism of such an extensive, systematic and practical report. The methodology <a href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/05-methodology.asp">the panel used</a> was thorough, clearly outlined and followed strict scientific guidelines.</p>
<p>Over a two-year period, the committee examined a vast amount of data in a detailed and scientifically rigorous way. Its answers to science-based research questions were published at the <a href="http://www.nel.gov/">USDA Nutrition Evidence Library</a> (NEL). The committee also used systematic reviews that pay great attention to sources and types of bias, and graded all this evidence according to strict and well-defined criteria. </p>
<p>Perhaps in keeping with her own conflict of interest in promoting the ideas in her book and the listed conflicts in the BMJ piece (honorariums from the restaurant, meat and dairy industries), Teicholz is especially critical of the advice concerning saturated fat. The US diet is high in saturated fat, with much of it coming from vegetable oils hydrogenated for use in commercial frying, pizzas, pastries, cakes and desserts, biscuits, savoury and sweet snack foods. Some of it comes from a high intake of processed and fatty meats, including burgers. And cheese is a major source. </p>
<h2>Saturated fat controversy</h2>
<p>The advisory committee’s report doesn’t ignore the recent controversy over saturated fat and heart disease. In fact, it <a href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/11-chapter-6/d6-2.asp">specifically discusses major studies</a> of randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies conducted between 2009 and 2014. The committee placed particular emphasis on reviews that looked at what <em>replaces</em> saturated fat in most diets, a move suggested by authors of recent research reviews that reported a lack of relationship between total intake of saturated fat and heart disease. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.cochrane.org/CD011737/VASC_effect-of-cutting-down-on-the-saturated-fat-we-eat-on-our-risk-of-heart-disease">best evidence</a> still points out that when saturated fats are replaced with polyunsaturated fats, cholesterol levels improve and the risk of cardiovascular disease declines. But the key is where these polyunsaturated fats come from; getting them from deep-fried foods or snack foods, for instance, won’t improve heart health.</p>
<p>The claim by some critics that the committee’s report advocates a low-fat or high-carb diet is wrong. Indeed, the report specifically notes that swapping saturated fat for sugar and refined grains is useless. Instead, it recommends foods high in unsaturated fats, echoes the recommendation from the <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/">World Health Organization</a> that added sugars be limited to no more than 10% of total daily calories, and recommends big reductions in refined grains.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The US diet is high in saturated fat, with cheese being a major source.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cogdog/8690615113/">Alan Levine/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Teicholz claims the committee ignored many studies of low-carbohydrate diets. But, as the report notes, most have been small, short-term, often pilot or case-control studies that rely on subjective recall of information (both of which rate poorly as evidence). When you look at <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652">published trials</a> of such diets being undertaken for six months, there’s little difference in weight-loss outcomes compared to more balanced approaches.</p>
<p>Teicholz accepts that effects of low-carb diets are not maintained in the long term but defends them with reference to only <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0056190/">one meta-analysis of stricter low-carb diets</a>. It’s an odd choice since the authors include “grey” literature, which is not peer reviewed, and comes from organisations outside of academic publishing channels. Her chosen study also concludes that, in the long term, and when compared with conventional therapy, results of even strict low-carb diets appear to be of little clinical significance. </p>
<p>Had the advisory report made recommendations on this basis, Teicholz would have a valid complaint.</p>
<h2>Eat food, not nutrients</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/eat-food-not-nutrients-why-healthy-diets-need-a-broad-approach-45823">food sources</a> for fats or carbohydrates matter; talking in broad terms of these macronutrients fails to distinguish between healthy foods and junk foods. The main thrust of the advisory committee’s report is that diets <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039">should be focused on whole foods</a>, not specific nutrients. And that makes a lot of sense.</p>
<p>Consider this: bacon, lard, olive oil and nuts all contain saturated fat to some extent. Dietary patterns containing plenty of the latter two are linked to health benefits. As for the first two, back slowly away from the bookshop when anyone is trying to sell you on these being the keys to good health and weight loss. The report notes evidence showing benefits for dietary patterns that favour olive oil and nuts.</p>
<p>Teicholz is not the only one to complain about the committee’s report. Nor is this anything new. Dietary guidelines produced in other countries, <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/n55">including Australia</a>, also attract mud-slinging. Sadly, this serves to confuse the public and leads some to abandon advice because “experts are always changing their minds”.</p>
<p>So it’s not surprising that lobbyists for the sugar and meat industries as well as companies marketing junk foods <a href="http://blog.aicr.org/2015/06/25/lobbyists-move-to-weaken-the-dietary-guidelines-help-us-protect-them/">have been vocal</a> about the US report. It’s just a pity that a reputable journal such as the BMJ decided to publish such an article from a journalist rather than an expert scientific appraisal.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48007/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>National dietary guidelines have become an easy target for those looking for a scapegoat for bad diets in rich countries. And a BMJ article about draft US guidelines adds further fuel for the fire.Rosemary Stanton, Nutritionist & Visiting Fellow, UNSW SydneyTim Crowe, Associate Professor in Nutrition, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.