WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) panel has classified processed meats and red meats as Group 1 and 2A carcinogens, respectively. However, still according to WHO, ranking processed meat in the same category as tobacco smoking and asbestos “does not mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk”.
What this implies is that hazards and risks mean different things. Whether a hazard translates into an actual risk will depend on many factors, including the vulnerability of the individual exposed to the hazard and the level of exposure itself, including the effect of dietary factors that may attenuate potential harmful effects. To evaluate this properly, a robust risk assessment is needed, which in the case of red meat does not turn out to be problematic for regular wholesome diets. However, in the case of unhealthful Western diets and when consumed as part of a fast food culture, it could potentially become so. This means that the entire discussion should be about the quality of diets, not about eating meat as such.
Some authors have thus questioned the methodology and usefulness of IARC-type schemes because they lead to unnecessary scaremongering and loss of benefits. In the case of red and processed meats, we need to remember that they serve as valuable sources of essential nutrients, are cherished culturally, and generate economic value. To further illustrate the problem: even the sun is to be considered as a Group 1 carcinogen, according to IARC. However, people should not avoid sunlight but should have a reasonable exposure to it. Avoidance of sun exposure, on the other hand, is a risk factor for major causes of death. Also, sunlight brings in vitamin D, a protective nutrient; the analogy with meat should be clear.
