WCRF criticises meat industry over misleading public statement

World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) has today accused the British meat industry of misleading the public by making factually inaccurate and potentially defamatory comments.

In a coordinated attack, the National Beef Association (NBA), the National Sheep Association (NSA) and the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) have issued statements suggesting that WCRF has misled the public with its recommendations on meat.

But WCRF has responded by assuring people it continues to stand behind its recommendation to limit intake of red meat to 500g (cooked weight) per week and avoid processed meat. This is the conclusion of an independent panel of international scientists who judged the evidence that they increase bowel cancer risk to be convincing, following the biggest review of the evidence ever undertaken.

The UK meat lobby accuses WCRF of making mistakes in analysing the scientific literature about the link between meat and colorectal cancer and then refusing to admit to these mistakes. This is not true.

Any errors in the report were too minor to have affected the overall conclusions. These are detailed on our website and have been set out in detail in letters to the meat industry.

The NFU has also claimed: “Dr Stewart Truswell, of the University of Sydney, and Dr Dominik Alexander, of Exponent, have had their review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN).”

WCRF is not aware of any such review. It is aware of Dr Truswell publishing a letter in the AJCN, which was printed with an accompanying letter from WCRF responding to his points. Dr Alexander published a review of the evidence on whether animal fats and animal proteins affect cancer risk. But this is not the same as a review of the link between meat and cancer as much animal fat and protein is dairy. WCRF is aware he has conducted a review of the evidence on the link between meat and cancer, but because this has not been published it is not in the public domain and so cannot be commented on.

Professor Martin Wiseman, Project Director of the Report, said: “These insinuations are nothing short of outrageous. The truth is that we have had open dialogue with the meat industry for many months on exactly these issues and we have given them all the information they have requested.

“I invited them to share this information with the Food Standards Agency and others. But it appears they are only interested in creating doubt in people’s minds.

“The implication that we are somehow a tool of the anti-meat lobby is ludicrous. We say explicitly that red meat has important nutritional benefits and we do not recommend avoiding it altogether.

“This report features the judgements of an independent panel. WCRF commissioned the report with money raised from the general public and therefore it was not influenced by any vested interests.

“The fact is that our report is the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the evidence that has ever been published and it found convincing evidence that red and processed meat both increase risk of bowel cancer.”

Marilyn Gentry, Chief Executive of WCRF, said: “For many years WCRF has been dedicated to giving people the information they need to reduce their risk of cancer. The implication that we have deliberately inserted errors into the report is insulting not only to me personally but also to all the eminent scientists that produced and were associated with this report.

“I hope the good work we have done in educating the public about what they can do to reduce their cancer risk is not undone by these deliberately misleading statements from the meat lobby.”

Following the criticism, members of the independent Expert Panel who made the recommendation have also stood by the Report’s findings.

Professor Alan Jackson of University of Southampton was also a member of the WCRF Expert Panel. He said: “after examining independent systematic reviews of the relevant evidence we judged that it is best specifically to avoid processed meat. This is a relatively new finding based on consistent evidence all displayed in our Report. The evidence on red meat in general is well known and was judged to warrant public health messages to consume red meat only moderately, since the mid-1990s.”

Professor Philip James of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine was a member of the WCRF Expert Panel, and also of the earlier WCRF Panel whose Report was published in 1997. He says: ‘Attempts by the meat industry to discredit the findings of methodical analyses of the scientific evidence are very unwise and damage the credibility of the meat industry. Since we first reviewed the topic the evidence has strengthened and the conclusions are based on several different scientific approaches to the problem. Our report recognises the value of fresh meat and recommends meat-eaters to enjoy meat occasionally. The evidence also shows though, that it is best to avoid processed meats. Moderate consumption of fresh meat within a plant-based diet has other health benefits. Our 2009 Report on public policy implications of our recommendations also points out that current industrial methods for meat production are very wasteful of scarce energy and natural resources such as water and diverts grain needed for human consumption into animal feed.”

Professor Elio Riboli of Imperial College London, is also director of the European Prospective Investigation on Cancer (EPIC), the largest cohort study yet devised on food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer. He was a member of the WCRF expert Panel.

He said: “All the results considered by the scientific panel are based on very large prospective studies, involving hundreds of thousands of participants, conducted by world leading scientific institutions, with no conflict of interest on the subject matter. All the evidence that we looked at had been published in world top scientific journals, following careful scientific peer-review.  The studies on nutrition and cancer also indicate that colorectal cancer is in most instances the result of multiple risk factors, including obesity, lack of physical activity, low intake of fibre-rich cereals and vegetables and that each individual factor contributes to the risk of cancer.  Our results meant we could conclude that red and processed meats are contributing causes to cancer of the colorectum, independently from other known risk factors.”

The full report is available for download at www.dietandcancerreport.org