Reply To: Meat eating and the flexitarianism

December 26, 2018 at 2:10 am #174476

Keymaster

Christopher Wild, head of the UN agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), that provoked a massive outcry and some ridicule when it declared that bacon, red meat and glyphosate weedkiller caused cancer has defended its work, denying the announcements were mishandled and insisting on its independence.

He attacked the vested interests of its critics, many of whom are from multinational corporations.

“The science was crystal clear,” he said. “We placed quite a bit of emphasis on the dose-response, if you like – the relationship between quantities eaten and effect.”

On red and processed meat, Wild said, “a lot of the news outlets did say it’s about moderation and it’s not saying don’t eat red meat or don’t eat processed meat. But the part that was missing was something from us, together with WHO, in terms of a guideline on what this means for the public.

There is a general misunderstanding of IARC’s classification system, he acknowledged. Tobacco, ultraviolet radiation and alcohol are all grade 1 carcinogens, which would surprise nobody, because they link respectively to lung, skin and liver cancers (and others). So is processed bacon and other processed meat. That does not mean that all are equally hazardous. Grade 1 means the evidence is strong enough to be sure of the link to cancer. It is not an indication of how likely people consuming it are to get cancer. The IARC says 50g of processed meat a day raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That is still not high if you have a very low initial risk. Smoking, on the other hand, kills half of those who take it up.

The glyphosate monograph caused a different kind of storm. In January, Wild issued a rare statement attacking his critics. Since the evaluation in March 2015, it said, “the agency has been subject to unprecedented, coordinated efforts to undermine the evaluation, the programme and the organisation. These efforts have deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented the agency’s work. The attacks have largely originated from the agrochemical industry and associated media outlets.”

Major financial interests were in play, said the statement: the relicensing of glyphosate by the European commission, hundreds of lawsuits against Monsanto in the US over cancers allegedly caused by glyphosate and the decision by the Californian Environmental Protection Agency to label the herbicide as a carcinogen. IARC classified glyphosate as grade 2a – probably carcinogenic in humans (on the basis of animal studies) – satisfying nobody. There are, said Wild, “huge vested interests on all sides. Obviously, it’s a major commercial product particularly in relation to GM crops. At the same time, there’s a very strong lobby against pesticides in general.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/25/bacon-cancer-link-head-of-un-agency-at-heart-of-furore-defends-its-work

</aside>