Is red meat bad and carcinogenic?

Having ascertained that excessive consumption of red meat is harmful and potentially carcinogenic, from a nutritional point of view we must not underestimate this food considered irreplaceable.
In fact , meat is good because :

• it has a high content of high biological value proteins and is easily digestible;
• allows the necessary supply of some easily bioavailable minerals (iron, zinc, selenium, phosphorus, potassium, manganese, cobalt, chromium);
• provides the essential supply of B vitamins;
• provides the important contribution of carnitine in the metabolism of fatty acids.

All this should make us reflect on why eating meat is bad, focusing on a not inconsiderable fact: the daily per capita consumption , some predisposing factors to cancer, an unbalanced diet .
If, at the moment, processed ones and red meats are considered carcinogenic and therefore their consumption is not recommended, it must be added that those who consume meat should limit themselves to:

• eat red meat (fresh) limited to 300-500g / week
• avoid processed ones (sausages, cured meats, canned, pre-packaged, etc.).

Finally, combining meat with fresh vegetables and other foods with a high content of dietary fiber (whole grains, legumes, fruit) helps prevent cancer, not just intestinal diseases.
Source:
Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat

29 comments

# 1

Excellent clarification,
because the media blender (and unfortunately the WHO sometimes gets involved for reasons that have nothing to do with science) periodically needs to regenerate mixing true meta-analyzes with metropolitan prejudices and hoaxes to obtain a terrorist shake capable of acting effectively on the audience.
Given that I almost never eat meat for a philosophical choice (respect for animals) on the state of the art of some there have been FOR A LONG time (the links that I attach refer to articles written by me at least 4 years ago) certain data that can be translated into practical recommendations:
1) ELIMINATE THE PRESERVED MEAT for the reasons you have well illustrated.
Or limit if you are sure of the conservation methods of the same
http://www.senosalvo.com/i_salumi_vanno_evitati.htm
which then corresponds to the recommendations developed by the World Fund for Cancer Research (WCRF), in collaboration with the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), following a cyclopean review of all scientific studies on the relationship between nutrition and tumors, to which more than 150 researchers (and Berrino among the Italians), epidemiologists and biologists from about 50 research centers among the most prestigious in the world contributed.
https://www.medicitalia.it/news/oncologia-medica/5739-franco-berrino-e-il-nuovo-libro-il-cibo-dell-uomo.html
2) LIMIT red meat (do not avoid), in relation to the type and quantity of meat (dose / day)
http://www.senosalvo.com/carne_rossa_va_demonizzata.htm

# 2

A necessary clarification considering the current recommendations for cancer prevention collected in the European Code Against Cancer (ECAC – European Code Against Cancer) and published exactly one year ago, on behalf of the European Community, by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). ) in which prof. F. Berrino representing our country.
Thanks for coming!

# 3

Dear Serafino,
in my opinion you have emphasized very well by placing the exclamation “already partially known!” In brackets in the opening sentence of your article.
That the presence of preservatives and coloring agents, used in the meat processing process, had a carcinogenic potential and information has been available for more than thirty years. On the oncogenic mechanism of nitrosamines, for example, the recent scientific literature should not be bothered, but it is enough to consult a text that is commonly used by medical students.
What then is the surprising fact contained in the news that – even before the official publication – is bouncing on most of the media
Perhaps the pseudo-surprise lies in the interpretation of an alleged complacency on the part of a body anchored to official scientific positions with thought and the feeling of movements that make their flag against scientific positions!
It all boils down to the easy exultation resulting from the goal scored by one’s team in a logic that appears far from common sense and that it is our task (doctors and health professionals) to illustrate correctly.
You have very effectively underlined the difference between fresh meat and preserved meat in risk and above all the nodal point in dietary imbalance as a cause of disease.
I attach the link to the official IARC document
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
and highlight the conclusion:
”These findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat,” says Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC. “At the same time, red meat has nutritional value. Therefore, these results are important in enabling governments and international regulatory agencies to conduct risk assessments, in order to balance the risks and benefits of eating red meat and processed meat and to provide the best possible dietary recommendations.”
In definitiva “For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed”
In conclusion, the risk exists and is linked to the fact that the population of industrialized countries eats too much meat, but in turn this data is closely linked to the fact that the aforementioned population eats too much !!

# 4

User 112XXX
October 27, 2015

Good morning,
I have a curiosity: because we only talk about red meat
And white meat
There is no data about it or, for some reason that escapes me, it is considered healthier
I don’t understand what the difference between the two types of meat could be, since they do not come from zoologically homogeneous groups. If between red meat there were only mammals and between white meat only birds, I could imagine some physiological difference that makes them qualitatively different, but this is not the case, for example the ostrich is considered red meat and the white rabbit.

# 5

Congratulations Serafino for the excellent and balanced treatment.
The paradox that emerges from this, while drawing roots on well-known themes, contradicts in terms every balanced statement about red meat:
Once the concept that red meat, even more if processed and carcinogenic, has been established and certified, it is not correct to say let’s eat less: and correct to say WE DON’T EAT IT ANYMORE!
If you can’t say: “smoke a little because smoking kills” but “don’t smoke because smoking kills” no longer say “eat little red processed meat because it kills even if less often than smoking” but “DON’T eat red meats, even more if processed because they kill, even if with less frequency than smoking “.
Smoking causes cancer in a more likely way, but this does not mean that we should pass the concept that red meat can be eaten because it certainly causes it but with a lower incidence.
Best regards

# 6

Luigi Laino’s proposal is an excellent food for thought.
Many think that the biological effect is always in a linear relationship: increasing the dose corresponds to a proportional increase in the effect. In reality this trend is true only in some parts of the representation curve on the diagram.
Biological systems are complex systems and the analysis of the relationships between the various factors is often simplified to facilitate teaching; in reality the most frequent dose / effect curve is the one with a J trend: there is a dose of the proposed substance that has a “beneficial” effect, increasing the dose first returns to zero and then continues towards the “harmful” effect “.
The most frequent example is that of alcohol intake in relation to cardiovascular disease.
We will be able to deduce this also in the feeding with meats: the undoubtedly positive nutritional value of the administration of adequate doses is neutralized and completely subverted by the introduction of higher quantities!
Everything is further complicated by the fact that biological systems implement compensation systems intrinsic to their “functioning” when they are stimulated by a stimulus. But that’s another story.

# 7