Howls of shock, horror and despair could be heard echoing around the world these last few weeks, as various media outlets ran with those terrible headlines: “Bacon as dangerous as smoking”, or “Red meat causes cancer”. Or did they?
It didn’t seem to me that the delicatessen at the nearest supermarket was any less crowded. People were still stocking up on arrosto and salami and bresaola, and the butcher didn’t seem to have switched over to white meats as a result of that press statement by the cancer-researching arm of the World Health Organisation.
Even people with little or no knowledge of medicine detected a strong whiff of organic manure in this barrage of media hype. I’m not surprised. Many so-called documentary channels on TV have metamorphosed into little more than fantasy channels featuring new, inventive ways in which the world is going to be obliterated, or in which the viewer is going to get killed - from massive asteroids striking the earth, to the sun exploding or swallowing up the earth, to zombie apocalypses, or even mockumentaries about giant prehistoric sharks brought back to haunt our beaches.
Instead of features that inform, these channels are going for features that will draw viewers by shocking and scaring them, while maintaining the image of educational channels – and people are growing increasingly sceptical.
Something similar seems to have happened last week. The cancer research arm of the World Health Organisation issued a press release (after it had already been leaked), which said that processed meats were included as Group 1 carcinogens, while red meat was listed as a Group 2A carcinogen. The papers started vying with each other to see who could come up with the scariest way to present this announcement.
I decided to do some searching myself, and found out that – while it’s true that Group 1 is the ‘top’ category, and includes smoking and asbestos, it also contains ordinary sunlight, contraceptives, alcoholic beverages, the betel leaf, and many others. It also contains plutonium, best known for its role in nuclear power stations.
There’s a difference between a thin slice of ham on your toast and a thick slab reminiscent of Dingli Cliffs
The thing about these groups is that they’re not about how dangerous something is, but how sure scientists are of a link to cancer. So, plutonium, which can kill you after a few hours’ exposure, and sunlight, which generally does no harm unless one spends all day, every day, summer after summer soaking it in, are both in the same group.
The WHO statement essentially gave no useful information since it didn’t say whether salami sausages were comparable to the occasional exposure to sunlight, or closer to smoking. It also says nothing about how much is too much. It took me a very short time to find this out - something that I’d expect news organisations to do before publishing a story – but then of course they might miss out on the scoop.
Someone else might publish first. Maybe they also considered that if they don’t publish it with scary headlines, readers will choose another paper that does - though that could be me being cynical.
Of course, as with a great many products, quantity is important. Just as an occasional glass of wine is said to be beneficial while an excess can lead to death by overdose of alcohol, there’s a difference between an occasional bit of red meat as part of a meal, or a thin slice of ham on your toast, and a thick slab reminiscent of Dingli Cliffs. In fact, given our obesity figures, we should probably consider reducing our portion sizes across the board.
While technically, the IARC declaration contained no incorrect information, it was obvious that it was going to be misinterpreted. The WHO released a ‘clarification’ some days later, but this could have easily been included in the original statement rather than allow misinformation and hysteria to grow over several days.
People deserve objective information from such sources. For instance, it is estimated that 34,000 deaths will occur worldwide due to the consumption of processed meats. By comparison, smoking causes around one million deaths and alcohol causes around 600,000.
People are increasingly aware and concerned about health, and this makes it a subject that’s frequently targeted to grab people’s attention, whether it’s an unscrupulous business selling some herb while attributing to it quasi-miraculous (and unproven) properties, or groups trying to link some commonly-used product with disease – usually in order to promote their own alternative product.
Health authorities like the WHO need to steer clear of such methods themselves and provide only unbiased information. An excess of hype can cause cancer of the reputation.
Ramon Casha is chairman of the Malta Humanist Association.