The Critical Conundrum of Carcinogenic Cold Cuts

What if I told you the following: there is as much evidence supporting the carcinogenic properties of processed meats as there is for smoking tobacco? Would this information cause you to change your behaviors?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), processed meats are classified as a Group 1 carcinogen. This grouping is the same carcinogen classification as tobacco. Group 1 classification does not mean that processed meats like cold cuts are just as carcinogenic as tobacco, but that they have similar amounts of evidence supporting their having carcinogenic properties. The main type of cancer associated with processed meats is colorectal cancer. 

Over winter break, I got COVID, and in my boredom, I decided to watch a random Netflix documentary titled You Are What You Eat in which I first learned that processed meats like cold cuts had carcinogenic properties. I was astonished that I did not know this fact sooner. Why didn’t I know this sooner?

The WHO’s claim against these dangerous carcinogenic properties of processed meats, as well as classifying red meats as a probable carcinogen, came in late 2015 and sparked an immediate backlash from the meat industry. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said in a statement to Politico: “While IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] represents a select group of opinions, it doesn’t always represent consensus in the scientific community.” The IARC (a division of the WHO) decision to declare processed meat as a carcinogen and red meat as a possible carcinogen was made by 22 cancer experts representing nearly a dozen countries and considering over 800 studies. 

In the United States, processed meat comprised an over-$40 billion industry last year. Economic and political factors have ingrained meat consumption into the culture of America in which the meat industry has a significant stake. Considering the invasion of capitalistic motivations into our food industry, meat companies most likely prioritize profits on their products over the health of their consumers. Additionally, it is not absurd to consider that the meat industry discounts scientific evidence and refuses to educate consumers on dangers associated with large processed meat and red meat consumption because such action has the potential to reduce profits. Studies have shown that carcinogenic warning labels on cigarette packages decrease cigarette purchases for people with low nicotine dependency, which could fuel the meat industry’s fear of warning labels on meat products. 

With concerns over an uneducated public and increasing cancer rates, the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a petition to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) in December 2016. This petition included a new requirement for a warning label to be placed on processed all meat product packages, which would state: “USDA WARNING: Frequent consumption of processed meat products may increase your risk of developing cancer of the colon and rectum. To protect your health, limit consumption of such products.”

The USDA rejected this very inexpensive and sensible warning label petition. In a disappointing approval letter, the FSIS Assistant Administrator in the Office of Policy and Program Development Roberta Wanger wrote that the rejection of the petition was necessary, citing that the warning would be misleading because of a lack of “context.” 

Wagner went on to say that “processed meat and poultry products as currently labeled are not misbranded for failing to warn consumers of alleged correlations between long-term consumption and increased risk of certain types of cancer.” Wagner’s use of the word “alleged” to describe the correlation between processed meat and cancer risk is very alarming taking into account the IARC’s declaration and its considerations of hundreds of studies. 

The letter by Wagner also mentioned federal legislation, including the Federal Meat Inspection Act as well as the Poultry Products Inspection Act, which gives the USDA the authority to “assure” consumers that food products are safe, wholesome, and non-adulterated, among other properties. The wording of these laws, specifically “assure,” is far too vague to regulate the safety of meat products, and I fear, leaves room for meat industry leaders to heavily influence USDA policy.

Overall, I strongly support the USDA warning label proposed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The labels are an affordable way to educate people about the carcinogenic properties of processed meats. Based on the outcome of petitions and the wording of legislation, I fear that the meat industry has far too much power in the regulation of meat packaging policy that prioritizes profits over consumer health.