Bloody Industry

The World Health Organisation recently released research showing that meat causes cancer, processed meat causes it more. Since publication, it has been battered by apologists for the meat industry:

"The IARC says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (class 1 carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (class 1), apply aloe vera (class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (class 1 and class 2B), or eat grilled food (class 2A). And if you are a hairdresser or do shift work (both class 2A), you should seek a new career."

Worth a snooty chortle, I suppose, if you like your humour ignorant and facetious. Boring bullshit at best (air pollution is classified as a carcinogen, not air): at worst, maliciously misleading.

Whether or not meat itself is carcinogenic, the meat industries themselves have certainly metastasised into malignant tumours within public health discourse.

Several professionals have come out against this research: some likely do not understand the research fully and are rightly skeptical; some are likely just nitwits who knee-jerk whenever anything about their personal choices is criticised. However, the sinister core of the criticism comes from professionals who purport to be dispassionate and expert, but who are paid by meat industry lobby groups.

" 'What we do know is that avoiding red meat in the diet is not a protective strategy against cancer,' said Robert Pickard, a member of the Meat Advisory Panel"

The Meat Advisory Panel claims to provide "independent and objective information about red meat and its role as part of a healthy, balanced diet."

This is an odd group for professors and doctors to belong to, unless they are being paid for it. At the bottom of the website of the Meat Advisory Panel, a subtle statement declares that the group is "... supported by an unrestricted educational grant from EBLEX and BPEX."

An unrestricted grant sounds lucrative and reminiscent of the 'educational grants' that cigarette companies were pouring into the coffers of doctors and scientists in days gone by: "90% of doctors say Camels are less irritating on the throat".

The acronyms EBLEX and BPEX stand for lobby groups that are part of an 'Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board' whose aims include "...adding value to the English meat industry."

In other words, people whose explicit financial interest lies with the nurturing of the English meat industry are arguing against a report of the World Health Organisation that shows negative health effects of meat.

To get an idea of what is meant by "independent and objective information", have a look at the website of BPEX: http://pork.ahdb.org.uk. The conflict of interests is self-evident.

"1 in 2 People Will Get Cancer" - a Sensational Headline Worthy of a Sensation

On the 4th of February (last Thursday?) the Cancer Council(?) in the UK publicised a story with the headline that '1 in 2 people will get cancer'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31096218
http://publications.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/lifetimerisk.html

Jeremy Vine interviewed the Scientific Information Office of the Cancer Research Council (name?), and attacked her for what he considered revenue-raising fear-mongering.

His argument was along the following lines: our risk of contracting cancer is increasing primarily because we are living longer lives; and although the chance of contracting cancer is increasing, so is our chance of surviving it. This, then, should have been a good news story, not a frightening cry.

This struck me as an example of relatively accurate scientific dissemination that has been unfairly vilified.

At no point in the interview was the claim at the centre of the debate disputed. The findings, it seems, are clear: half the people in Britain born after 1960 will at some point in their lives be diagnosed by cancer. There was no statistical trickery, no word-play that distorted the meaning, nor provisos about correlation vs. correlation. On the contrary: the fact is blatant, and it is shocking.

During the argument, Vine asked the CRC representative if she had a background in medicine. When she replied that she has a degree in biology, he responded condescendingly, insinuating that she had not the appropriate background to be discussing the issue. This was disingenuous: it makes no difference whether his interviewee was a medical professional or not. Cancer is ostensibly a medical topic, but the issue at stake here is a matter of the public dissemination of statistical findings, and so more related to epidemiology and public relations than to basic medicine. A degree in biology is most likely just as apt a background for this topic as a degree in medicine. Why would a doctor's title have equipped her to better understand an epidemiological finding?

We could do with more good news. We could certainly do with less fear-mongering. But the undisputed fact that half of the British population born after 1960 will at some point be diagnosed with cancer is shocking, relevant, poignant, and it is news. The headlines were in the public interest, they were concise and attention-grabbing, and they were accurate. They were exactly what one hopes a charity like the Cancer Research Council would be producing.