Red and processed meats have been linked with increased cancer risk in numerous studies—yet there aren’t warning labels on these foods. The reasons for this are complex, according to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Timothy Rebbeck.
Rebbeck was among experts quoted in a Feb. 6 article in Sentient that explored why there’s more public health messaging and policy change on certain foods—such as Red Dye No. 3, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned in January—than on foods such as processed meats.
Rebbeck told Sentient that additives like food dyes are a relatively easy target because they are “man-made compounds that people are not culturally attached to.” Processed and red meats, on the other hand, are a big part of U.S. culture. Pushback from the meat industry is also a factor as it aims to keep consumers buying its products.
Other experts quoted in the article cited a lack of clear evidence about the risks posed by red and processed meats. They noted that most research on the topic is based on observational studies, which don’t prove causation.
It can be challenging to create public health messaging about food and nutrition, Rebbeck said. He noted that “the information is very difficult to communicate because we’re talking about some fairly complex, sophisticated science that has a lot of caveats,” he said. Given the challenges, he said it’s best to keep messaging simple, focusing more on what people should eat rather than what they shouldn’t. The healthiest diet for keeping cancer risk low, he said, involves eating a variety of unprocessed foods, fruits and vegetables, and less meat.
Read the Sentient article: Why Red Food Dye Is Banned, but Processed Meat Is Still Sold Without a Warning
