Cancer-meat link annoys Iowa farmers

WASHINGTON - Three-plus weeks after the World Health Organization issued a report linking red and processed meat to cancer, Eastern Iowa pork producer Rob Brenneman said his operation is unfazed.

He said he expects business to continue as usual on his Washington County farm, which markets upward of 600,000 pigs a year. But that doesn't mean he isn't fired up about the report that classified processed meat in the same cancer-causing category as asbestos, coal-tars and tobacco and called red meat 'probably carcinogenic to humans.”

'I would say that, overall, I think the smoke will clear and everyone will realize it's **** **** and life will go on,” said Brenneman, questioning the science behind the report and 'hidden agenda” it might be pushing. 'If you worry about stuff like that, you literally will not get out of bed in the morning.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer - an agency under the auspices of the WHO - released findings from its evaluation of red and processed meat on Oct. 26, affirming some vegetarian and sustainable agriculture proponents and vexing many in the meat industry.

On Oct. 29, following days of backlash, the WHO released a statement distancing itself from the cancer agency and clarifying the findings.

'The latest IARC review does not ask people to stop eating processed meats but indicates that reducing consumption of these products can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer,” the statement read.

The meat publicity roller coaster has irked some industry experts and farmers in Iowa - the top pork producing and exporting state in the nation, raising nearly one-third of the country's hogs. And it's prompted some to consider the 'what if” scenarios.

'If all of a sudden eating pork and cured processed meat were identified as taboo, we could see a huge impact,” said Donald Beermann, professor and chair of Iowa State University's Department of Animal Science. 'It could create a devastating effect on the economy and agriculture in this state.”

About 75 percent of all pork production ends up as some form of processed meat - from bacon and deli meat to bratwurst, hot dogs and sausage, Beermann said.

But, Beermann said, 'My expectation is that there won't be any impact at all because this was an inappropriate use of supposition, and an inadequate assessment of scientific data used to come up with a conclusion that is very misleading.”

‘A dramatic overstatement'

The international agency decided to investigate the potential cancer link with red and processed meat after an advisory committee recommended it do so based on epidemiological studies suggesting small increases in cancer risk associated with its consumption.

'Although these risks are small, they could be important for public health because many people worldwide eat meat and meat consumption is increasing in low- and middle-income countries,” according to a WHO fact sheet on the findings.

In conducting its research, the international committee convened a working group of 22 experts from 10 countries who considered more than 800 different studies on cancer in humans.

The group defined processed meat as anything salted, cured, fermented, smoked or changed in any other way to enhance flavor or improve preservation. Its red-meat category included beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse and goat.

Although the report labeled processed meat a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning convincing evidence exists that it causes cancer, and red meat as a Group 2 carcinogen, meaning limited evidence associates it with cancer, the WHO said meat should not be considered as dangerous as things such as tobacco or asbestos.

'The (agency's) classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk,” according to the WHO.

But Beermann took issue with several aspects of the report, including the research it analyzed and past evidence it apparently ignored.

'It is a dramatic overstatement to place processed meat in the Group 1 category,” he said. 'They are basing their categorization on theoretical studies.”

That means, he said, they are based on observation and not scientific cause and effect.

'I think it's important to state the fact that no scientific evidence exists that supports the contention that any single food causes cancer,” Beermann said, adding that past research has vindicated cured meat as a cause of cancer. 'So we are really struggling to understand why this committee made this decision.”

Ruth MacDonald, chair of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State and assistant dean of graduate programs for its College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, said the WHO hasn't released the full report on the meat-cancer link and experts don't yet know what studies, specifically, were reviewed.

But, MacDonald said, the issue is not new, and experts in the past have reviewed same sets of data and drawn different conclusions.

'Some people say the correlations being found are not very strong,” she said.

Mitigating factors - such as a person's environment, age, health history, genetic disposition and the rest of his or her diet - also are hard to sort through, MacDonald said. That's why eating a balance diet with everything in moderation probably is the best bet, she said.

'You don't have to eat red meat three times a day, or even every night,” she said. 'But it's part of a healthy diet.”

Consumer shift?

MacDonald said she doesn't expect a huge shift in consumer behavior following the WHO report - especially with some of the criticism. Rather, she expects consumers to behave the way they always have.

'If it fits with what they already think, they will readily accept it,” MacDonald said. 'If they are not concerned, then they are going to dismiss it.”

She said many Iowans seem to be in the latter category - although she noted a national movement in recent years to decrease meat consumption, along with higher prices, have affected sales to some degree.

'Meat has been under attack for a while,” she said, citing environmental and animal rights concerns. 'And I think it's unjust …

. The animal industry is very aware and has worked hard to be more sustainable and reduce environmental damage.”

Ron Birkenholz, communications director with the Iowa Pork Producers Association, said his members have felt that pressure, and reports such as the one from the WHO are concerning.

'They are trying to get us to stop eating meat,” Birkenholz said of what he described as a 'very vocal minority” of activists.

If they succeed, he said, 'This state's in trouble.”

'Agriculture and livestock farming is a very lucrative industry, and it really supports our state,” Birkenholz said. 'That's what our state is based on.”

But he, too, does not think the WHO report will change consumer confidence or consumption.

'This is not the first report of this nature that has come out,” he said. 'Lots of people know it's about moderation and that lean meat is part of a healthy diet.”

Still, some Iowa farmers - such as those who run smaller organic and sustainable operations - believe the WHO recommendations could at least prompt consumers to take a closer look at where their food comes from and how the animals are raised.

Doug Darrow, who runs Rapid Creek Ranch in Oxford, said he believes grass-fed beef - such as the product he produces - is healthier and more natural, and could be the way forward for the nation and Iowa.

'I think we need to look at our entire diet and get back to eating real food rather than something invented in a lab,” he said. 'If we go as natural as possible and get away from overly processed foods, we might see a change in the health issues in this country.”