Confronting Challenges to Meat’s Natural Nutrition

Janet M. RileySenior Vice President, Public Affairs

Overview• Ongoing challenges to meat nutrition• Impact on consumers• Possible actions

The Landscape: Steady Drip of Bad News• ‘Study of the week’ cautioning the public

– Invariably epidemiological– Report small associations– Promoted with press releases, use embargoes

• Media, bloggers report mythology, omit context– Studies reported under embargo– Covered as if definitive

Establishing Cause and Effect

“We conducted a study of all 10,674,945 residents of Ontario aged between 18 and 100 years in 2000. Residents were randomly assigned to equally sized derivation and validation cohorts and classified according to their astrological sign… we searched through 223 of the most common diagnoses for hospitalization until we identified two for which subjects born under one astrological sign had a significantly higher probability of hospitalization compared to subjects born under the remaining signs combined (P < 0.05).Residents born under Leo had a higher probability of gastrointestinal hemorrhage (P = 0.0447), while Sagittarians had a higher probability of humerus fracture (P = 0.0123) compared to all other signs combined.”

“Our most significant finding was that three sources (the journal

press release, a story on the BBC News website and a story

appearing on the 'NHS Choices' website) appeared to account for

the content of over 85% of the news stories which covered the meta analysis. The quality of

these 3 primary sources varied from excellent (NHS Choices) to

weak (journal press release), and this variance was reflected in the accuracy of stories derived from

them.”

The Bandwagon• Repetition can create false beliefs

– “We overconsume meat” – “Meat causes cancer”– “We should reduce meat consumption for our

health and the environment”

• Challenge: prevent false beliefs from becoming policy and behavior

Storms – and Hurricanes

• Agency of WHO• Convened panel to

review evidence on red and processed meat

• Vote to classify• Abstract released

October 2015• Full monograph expected

this year

Major Reports: IARC

1,001 Agents Reviewed

• Hazard assessment: A meteor could fall from the sky and hit you today.

• Risk assessment: The risk of a meteor falling from the sky and hitting you is X.

• Crude approach – processed meats and tobacco in same category.

• IARC calculated risk of consumption, did not calculate benefits.

Monograph = Hazard Assessment

Media Frenzy: Theater of Absurd

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

WHO Attempts to Moderate• “WHO has a standing

group of experts who regularly evaluate the links between diet and disease. Early next year they will meet to begin looking at the public health implications of the latest science and the place of processed meat and red meat within the context of an overall healthy diet.”

Full Monograph Release• Expected in the Fall of 2017.• Potential for additional publicity.• Will the tone change?

• Ten year report expected in 2017

• Broad look at variety of cancers, causes, prevention strategies

• Negative toward meat in past

• AICR = North American Affiliate

World Cancer Research Fund

Cancer Rates and Life ExpectancyHigh Cancer Life ExpectancyDenmark 80.55France 82.37Australia 82.25Belgium 80.59Norway 81.55U.S. 78.94Low Cancer Life ExpectancyNiger 61.46Gambia 60.23Cape Verde 73.15Mauritania 63.06Yemen 63.82Mauritania 63.06

Is anyone challenging these conclusions?

• Good news: approach facing scrutiny.

• Meat monograph = tipping point?

Pushback“Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based solely on hazard-identification such as the IARC monograph process and the UN system adopted in the EU have become outmoded. They are based on a concept developed in the 1970s that chemicals could be divided into two classes: carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Categorization in this way places into the same category chemicals and agents with widely differing potencies and modes of action. This is how eating processed meat can fall into the same category as sulfur mustard gas…

Because a risk-based decision framework fully considers hazard in the context of dose, potency, and exposure the unintended downsides of a hazard only approach are avoided, e.g., health scares, unnecessary economic costs, loss of beneficial products, adoption of strategies with greater health costs, and the diversion of public funds into unnecessary research.”

“A month rarely passes by without something being declared unhealthy or carcinogenic. Often, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is at the centre of such pronouncements and is duly rounded on to explain the consequences. IARC, however, is not the only agency with responsibility for determining carcinogenicity of products, compounds, or lifestyles, and many countries have their own authorities to inform national policies. Inevitably, such multiple layers of advice, coupled with competing interests, adds confusion to an emotive landscape, undermining the primary objective of risk assessment—cancer prevention.”

“These latest disputes regarding carcinogen classification highlight the problem of determining reliable findings when data are equivocal and where there are vested interests. They also highlight the difficulties of translating carcinogenicity research into appropriate health policies and recommendations for risk management. Furthermore, there is an equally clear need for a standardised, internationally agreed methodology for carcinogen assessment, alongside ways of presenting results that are easily understood and accepted by all interested parties. Until these objectives are met, carcinogen definition and regulation will continue to be the poor relation to other cancer preventative measures.”

Vegetarianism Risks B12 Deficiency

Pooled Analysis from Harvard

“Greater intake of either red meat (excluding processed meat) or processed meat was not related to colorectal cancer risk.”

Mortality: 60,000 Vegetarians and Non Vegetarians in the UK

• 18,431 regular meat eaters • 13,039 less regular meat eaters • 8,516 fish eaters • 20,324 vegetarians and vegans• 5,294 deaths

– All groups ate similar fruits and vegetables– No difference in colon cancer– No difference in total cancer, heart disease or all cause

mortality– Source: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2016

Nutritional Impact of Reducing, Eliminating Meat is Public Health Issue“Commonly consumed sources of dietary protein frequently contribute substantially to intakes of nutrients such as calcium, vitamin D, potassium, dietary fiber, iron, and folate, which have been identified as nutrients of “concern” (i.e., intakes are often lower than recommended). Despite this, dietary recommendations to reduce intakes of saturated fat and solid fats may result in dietary guidance to reduce intakes of commonly consumed food sources of protein, in particular animal-based protein. We propose that following such dietary guidance would make it difficult to meet recommended intakes for a number of nutrients, at least without marked changes in dietary consumption patterns.”

“Commonly consumed protein foods contribute to nutrient intake, diet quality, and nutrient adequacy” Stuart M Phillips⇑, Victor L Fulgoni III, Robert P Heaney, Theresa A Nicklas, Joanne L Slavin, and Connie M Weaver, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2015

Where is the consumer’s head?

TasteSafety

ConvenienceAffordability

Tradition

Cancer UnnaturalUnhealthyChemicalsMystery

Bacon Ham Bologna Hot Dogs Salami Sausage

Steady ‘Drip’ of Cancer, Other Health News Erodes Confidence

North America leads way in claims of

“reducing processed foods” because we think

it will help us lose weight. But many

regions close behind.

Processed Meat: Media Coverage Summary

Media coverage: August 2013 to July 2016 Total Articles % Coverage % Negative % Cancer*

Bacon 25,512 42% 24% 20%

Bologna 1,885 3% 46% 43%

Hot Dogs 13,763 23% 32% 30%

Lunchmeat 1,249 2% 12% 89%

Salami 2,894 5% 40% 89%

Sausage 15,896 25% 16% 83%

Total articles 61,199 100%

29

* Percentage of negative coverage mentioning cancer Data Source: Cision

2017 IFIC Survey

Unabashedly Proud• Proud of nutrition our products offer• Proud of choices we produce• Knowledgeable about nutrition regardless of

job responsibility

12 Good Reasons Meat and Poultry Should Be Part of Your Balanced Diet

1. Protein. Naturally and completely. Protein found in meat and poultry is “complete” because it contains all the amino acids essential for health. Animal proteins are complete proteins. And they occur naturally – no protein powder needed.2. Iron rich. Meat, fish and poultry contains heme iron, which helps to

prevent anemia because the body absorbs this iron better than non-heme iron found in plant foods such as vegetables. Heme iron foods help the body absorb non-heme iron.3. Bioavailable nutrition. Nutrients in meat, including iron and zinc

are typically more easily absorbed and used by the body.4. Muscle strength and maintenance. High- quality protein, e.g. meat

and poultry, have been shown to prevent muscle loss as we age more effectively than other protein foods.

12 Good Reasons Meat and Poultry Should Be Part of Your Balanced Diet

5. Bone strength. Meatless diets have been shown to contain lower amounts of calcium, vitamin D, vitamin B-12, protein, and omega-3 fatty acids, which have important roles in maintaining bone health.6. Brain function. Animal products like meat are the only natural sources of Vitamin B12, which promotes brain development in children and helps your nervous system function properly.7. Heart health. Mounting, recent evidence shows that lean meat protein could help maintain healthy cardiovascular function.8. Blood Sugar Control. A high protein and low carbohydrate diet,

which could include lean meat and poultry, can help to control blood sugars.

12 Good Reasons Meat and Poultry Should Be Part of Your Balanced Diet9. Zinc immunity. Zinc helps maintain optimal immune

function and promotes wound healing. Beef is the top dietary source of zinc in the diet.10. Selenium-rich. A serving of beef or lamb delivers half a

human’s daily selenium needs. Selenium is an antioxidant that helps prevent cell damage, promotes proper thyroid function, and may contribute to cancer prevention.11. Weight management. High protein diets that include

lean meat and poultry have been shown to promote long term weight loss better than other diets.12. Tastes good. Taste drives consumption.

Sustainability• Most popular analyses compare

carbon footprint of 10 pounds of meat to ten pounds of carrots– They ask, “Which is greater?”

• More appropriate: meat and carrots of = carbon footprint– More appropriate to ask, “How

many people are nourished for same carbon footprint?”

“The more–nutrient-dense animal products, including meat and dairy, had higher GHGE values per 100 g but much lower values per 100 kcal.” --Drenowski, et. al.

Processed Meat Makes Fresh Meat ‘Green’

• Nose to tail eating• FAO: One third of food

wasted– Longer shelf life = less waste

• Facilitates distribution to those who need it– Case Study: Spammy in

Guatemala

What more can we or should we do?

Focus On Areas Where Impact Possible

Source: IFIC 2017

Don’t Let Omissions/Errors Stand• “Everybody knows we should eat less meat.”

– Less meat than what?

• “Nitrite causes cancer.”• “Hot dogs contain mystery meat.”

• Seek dialogue –especially with critics

• Be transparent• Demystify ingredients

and processes

Other Tactics

Focus Groups Findings: Give Consumers Permission

• Boomers = passionate consumers with health concerns

• Millennials = hungry for more information• Showcase choices

Put Meat Nutrition in Positive Spotlight

More Positive News

• Know that there are some bright spots in the news landscape!

Closing Thoughts• Challenges significant

– Skepticism increasing• Scientific support exists, more needed• Cannot over-communicate positive

– No one is exempt from this role!• Continued coordination needed among meat

organizations across borders• Taste and nutrition are on our side – let’s use

them!

Thank you!Janet M. Riley202/587-4245jriley@meatinstitute.org

Cornell Consumer Study• “For some consumers, an

ingredient-based fear is the result of a potential exaggeration of the risks of the ingredient (such as it leading to obesity in general and child obesity in particular, a loss in taste sensation, and so on), and a potential underestimation of any benefits the ingredient may provide.”

• ”Underscoring the benefits of stigmatized foods and ingredients has been proven to lead consumers to rethink their food fears in lab experiments”