|
What's really wrong with the red meat
ads?
(and why doesn't somebody do something
about it?)
by Geoff Russell* - a Vegetarian Action exclusive
(first published in Generation
V, Number 7, July 2006)
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) recently ran a high
profile TV ad, starring Sam Neill, which contained a number
of false claims. MLA also has a website which repeats these
claims in a variety of forms. For example, here is a claim
from the MLA website The Main Meal.com:(1)
"The big leap came when our ancestors started to eat
red meat. The nutrients in red meat helped our brains grow.
Hunting forced us to think. Over thousands of years, our
bodies adapted to a diet high in red meat. Today, red meat
still remains an important part of the diet."
Let's take a calm, objective look at what's wrong with
these claims.
Human brain size growth
There was a growth in human brain size which began some
two million years ago, but it has absolutely nothing to
do with eating red meat or hunting. Many carnivores have
been hunting and eating red meat for millions of years,
and have never experienced any significant brain size growth
- and none can play chess.
A couple of papers published in 2004 have found the crucial
gene responsible for the growth in human brain capacity.(2,3)
In simple terms, our brains grew because a genetic mutation
had some evolutionary value.
There is a great deal of debate about when people started
to eat meat and how much they ate and there will probably
be many correct answers. Humans, like chimps, are highly
variable. However, in a recent book,(4)
Dr Donna Hart and Professor Robert Sussman argue that there
is little evidence for widespread hunting until about 60,000
years ago. In any event, to eat large amounts of meat requires
fire and this wasn't controlled until about 800,000 years
ago. So there was at least 740,000, possibly up to 2 million
years' human brain capacity growth prior to widespread hunting.
You need protein for your brain to grow, but there is
no evidence to suggest that people eating vegetable protein
are dumber or have smaller brains than people eating red
meat. Not everyone who sees the ad will make such an inference.
But some will, and they will have been misled.
Adapted for high red meat intake?
If our bodies were adapted to a diet high in red meat,
such a diet would be unlikely to produce colon cancer.
The level of red meat recommended by, for example, the
CSIRO Total Wellbeing diet, is associated with increased
rates of colon cancer compared to people who eat little
or no red meat. Overseas studies put this increase at 30-40%
for each 100 grams of daily intake.(5)
Recent research also explains most of the causal steps
by which red meat produces colon cancer. There are a couple
of tiny loose ends to clarify, but the research pretty well
explains why epidemiologists have found such a consistent
link between red meat consumption and colon cancer. Essentially,
the causal mechanism behind the colon cancer is the haem
iron in the red meat. One of the great selling points behind
red meat is its iron content, but unlike the non-haem in
vegetables and grains, the iron in red meat produces compounds
which cause DNA damage which leads to cancer.(6)
Data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer
and Nutrition(7), an ongoing study
involving nearly half a million people in 10 countries,
shows that for someone consuming the amount of red meat
advocated by the CSIRO diet, for example (about 200gms of
red meat per day), the risk of colon cancer may be more
than doubled compared to someone eating no red meat.
Red meat is "essential"
The text of the Sam Neill ad is slightly different from
the website text above. The TV ad claims that red meat "is
still an essential part of the diet of the most highly developed
species on the planet". This is clearly false. There
is absolutely no evidence that red meat is essential for
a healthy diet. In fact, another MLA website acknowledges
as much when it says: "Those who eat meat and are health
conscious can live just as long as vegetarians." (8)
So MLA itself acknowledges that meat in general (not just
red meat) isn't required for a healthy diet. In fact, all
major nutrition bodies from the Australian National Health
and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)(9)
to the American Dietetic Association (ADA) acknowledge that
meat isn't required for a healthy diet. Here is how the
ADA puts it:(10)
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association
and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide
health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain
diseases."
I don't dispute that many nutrients found in red meat are
essential. Since these nutrients are also available in other
foods, this does not establish that red meat is essential.
For example, meat has some things called "essential fatty
acids". They are called "essential" because you damn well
better get them. But it doesn't make meat essential - because
there are plenty of sources of these essential fatty acids
besides meat. And these sources provide them without the
cholesterol, saturated fats and haem iron.
Obviously, poorly planned vegetarian diets can be as disastrous
as poorly planned meat diets - for example attempting to
live on potato chips and coke. Nobody is claiming that all
vegetarians or all vegetarian diets are necessarily healthy.
This in no way weakens the argument against meat consumption
or the falseness of the claims (a) that red meat initiated
or fuelled brain growth, (b) that it is the diet we are
'meant' or 'adapted' to consume, or that (c) is an 'essential'
part of the human diet.
Truth & television
When my mother-in-law was alive, she would frequently read
her daughter and me some astonishing nutritional claim from
a magazine or newspaper. We would sometimes laugh and tell
her not to believe everything she read. Her response was
always the same: "Surely they wouldn't be able to put it
in the newspaper/magazine if it wasn't true." If the snippet
was also on TV, then the issue was settled - it must be
true. My own mother believes the same.
Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of impact which
the marketing gurus at Meat & Livestock Australia knew full
well their ad campaign (rendered convincing by a famous
face and the hallowed medium of TV) would have on "ordinary
folks". My father, on the other hand is much more legally
sophisticated. He's more likely to say something like: "If
you breach the Trade Practices Act, the ACCC will be onto
you. They prosecute people every day of the week for misleading
statements."
Like most fathers, my father is always right! So I was
somewhat surprised that when I notified my local ACCC office
of what I thought was a clear, serious example of an advertisement
which was both false and dangerously misleading, not only
didn't it take action, but it sent me a reply that was,
in my view, seriously deficient.
I understand that the ACCC also received complaints from
other pro-vegetarian organisations and individuals, including
well known nutritionist Rosemary Stanton whose letter demonstrates
that red meat isn't essential and that vegetarians typically
have less of a number of serious diseases.
Not only false... but harmful
Now if an ad claimed "100ml of orange juice per day is
an essential part of the diet", this would be false. Vitamin
C is essential, but oranges are not. However no-one is likely
to come to harm from following such advice (rare allergies
aside). Hence such an ad would be definitely false and could
easily mislead someone into adding 100 ml of orange juice
to their diet. However it is not in the highly dangerous
category.
But red meat isn't like orange juice. There are some 12,000
cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed in Australia each year.
50% more people get colorectal cancer than lung cancer -
the lifetime risk for Australian women is 1 in 26 and for
men, 1 in 17.(11) And the science
is now very clear that red meat is a causal factor. Let
me quote from a journal article just published by four CSIRO
nutrition researchers:
"Colorectal cancer is a socio-economically important
disease in affluent societies and epidemiological data suggest
that dietary composition is a major factor in its etiology.
Earlier reports suggested that high intake of red or processed
meats could be a risk factor. Three large population studies
have recently confirmed those earlier reports."(12)
Of course, theoretically it might be possible (if unlikely!)
that an essential food turns out to be carcinogenic. However,
red meat is not only bad for people, it is inessential.
When essential means ... non-essential?
The following paragraph was included in the response from
ACCC to my letter: "The ACCC notes that in one instance,
one of the television advertisements describes red meat
as 'still an essential part of the diet of the most highly
developed species on the planet'. As a general comment,
the use of absolute terms such as 'essential' in advertising
material can put promoters at risk of breaching the Act.
The ACCC has reminded MLA of its obligations in this regard."
Is there some legal definition that says that for the purposes
of the Trade Practices Act "essential" can mean "inessential'"?
Surely this is the only basis on which a false claim that
red meat is 'essential' could merely risk breaching, and
not clearly breach, the Act?
At last we have come to the nub of the real problem. "Essential"
in a dietary context (and in most other contexts) means
essential - it doesn't mean optional. When you say red meat
is an "essential" part of the diet, you are telling people
that sickness or other life-threatening consequences will
result if they don't eat it. MLA have been remarkably successful
over the years in persuading people that meat is an essential
part of the diet. But it simply isn't true.
To say, as the ACCC reply does, that advertisers making
absolute claims risk breaching the act is clearly good advice
to people planning an advertising campaign. But it is ridiculous
to say it after the ad is finished. MLA not only risked
breaching the Act with its absolute claim, it did breach
the Act.
I believe that the obligation of the ACCC was clear: either
to present contrary evidence - ie prove that the claims
in the ads are not false and misleading - or enforce the
law. I note in passing that the relevant section of the
Act - Section 53(f) - doesn't require anyone to present
evidence that anybody was misled by the ad. Simply being
false is sufficient for a breach of the Act.
A range of studies demonstrate that red meat is both epidemiologically
and causally linked to colorectal cancer. If, and only if,
contrary studies of a similar scientific credibility can
be produced, would the ACCC be justified in claiming that
the issue is not well proven.
To "remind the advertiser of their obligations" after the
advertising campaign has concluded can at best be viewed
as bureaucratic finger-smacking. I can't judge the ACCC's
intentions, but I do know that this is far too important
an issue for finger smacking. This is not orange juice.
We are dealing with a significant contributing factor to
12,000 cases per annum of colorectal cancer.
A private legal challenge?
At the end of his reply, the ACCC officer pointed out that
it is open to any party to take proceedings under the Act
if they consider a breach has occurred. This is ridiculous.
Who can take on MLA in a legal battle? Any person with a
little experience of the legal system understands that MLA
could (and I believe would) easily bankrupt anybody with
pre-trial maneuvering well before the facts of the matter
were even discussed. This is precisely why we have an organisation
to "police" the Trade Practices Act. It is the ACCC's job
to keep big corporations honest. These corporations cannot
be held accountable by anybody else.
I notice that over the past few years the ACCC has launched
a number of actions relating to the so-called dietary product
ThermoSlim, initially for breaches of sections 52 and 53(c)
(the same breaches in question regarding the red meat ads).
Significant time and resources were clearly invested to
pursue this case.
The MLA claim that red meat is an essential part of the
diet is not only false but dangerously misleading. Which
issue should consume more ACCC resources - a dodgy diet
aid, or an issue involving thousands of cases of cancer?
Of course, neither issue is as critical as the RAA's New
Delhi ad, withdrawn from view in Adelaide recently for causing
offence to public sensibilities.
Consult the CSIRO!
The ACCC could rightly claim that it needed expert evidence
before making a judgement on a matter of this importance
and complexity. This would be entirely justified. Let them
consult with NHMRC and CSIRO. Ask these organisations to
produce data to demonstrate that meat is essential and that
it caused our brains to grow. But ACCC must demand evidence,
not just opinions.
Dr Peter Clifton, one of the authors of the CSIRO so-called
"Total Wellbeing Diet" had a letter published recently in
which he claimed:(13) "High-protein
diets have been criticised for their potential to cause
renal and bone disease and the red-meat component has been
linked to colorectal cancer, but the evidence is contradictory."
He didn't produce a single scientific study to support his
claim that the evidence is contradictory.
In other forums he and co-author Dr Manny Noakes have claimed
that any increased risk of colorectal cancer from the red
meat in the CSIRO diet would be "infinitesimal".(14)
Again, they produce no evidence for this estimate. Both
scientists are highly competent and well read. Why do they
make claims without producing evidence?
The CSIRO, like the ACCC, is a government body - Australia's
top scientific research body, to be exact. So why is it
not only denying the evidence about the links between red
meat and cancer, but actively promoting red meat? It's no
coincidence that the research behind the diet was paid for
by Meat and Livestock Australia, and that only those results
which supported MLA's agenda were promoted.(15)
So what's it really all about?
Why are these two government bodies - supposedly independent
and credible entities and upholders of our societal wellbeing
- maintaining positions clearly contradicted by scientific
research? There's just one simple answer: big bucks.
The red meat issue and the conduct of both the ACCC and
CSIRO in relation to it clearly recall to my mind the case
of tobacco. For decades prior to the 1964 announcement of
the US Surgeon General about the link between tobacco and
cancer, the tobacco industry pushed its products as healthy.
There was even an advertisement with the catchy title "More
doctors smoke camels".
Following the US Surgeon General's report, the tobacco
industry and its supporters continued to claim that causality
hadn't been proven. This went on for decades and long after
the final causal links had been nailed down. Interestingly,
one senior tobacco public relations apologist is now a public
relations apologist for the CSIRO - Ms Donna Staunton.(16)
For 10 years we've known that red meat causes formation
of NOC compounds - the same family of chemicals that cause
cancer in smokers. A UK researcher wrote back in 1996: "Increased
intake of red meat induced a significant (P<0.024) 3-fold
increase from 40 ± 7 to an average of 113 ± 25 microgram/day
NOC, a range of exposure in faeces similar to that from
tobacco-specific NOC in cigarette smoke."(17)
The tobacco lobby taught us a lot. It taught us the power
and influence of big business, and the extent to which those
institutions which we believe are independent and impartial,
and are there to protect us and ensure our wellbeing, are
far from immune to that power. It taught us how long it
takes for the truth to seep through and eventually outweigh
the clout of affluent advertisers in public awareness. But
it also taught us that truth will, eventually, prevail.
Is red meat essential for a healthy diet? Absolutely not
- this is simply false. Is red meat a healthy food? In very
small amounts, your chances of the DNA mutations leading
to cancer are reduced. This is analogous to the reduction
in lung cancer risk from reducing cigarette intake. Some
smokers never get lung cancer, and some red meat eaters
never get colon cancer, but red meat loads the dice against
you. 
* Geoff Russell (B.A.(Hons), B.Sc(Maths) is
a longstanding Adelaide-based animal rights activist
© Vegetarian Action July 2006
August 06 update:
From 9th July, the Red Meat ads 'Library'
and 'Evolution' began another round of exposure on Australian
tv screens, backed up by big-budget marketing.
Interestingly, the wording of the
'Evolution' ad has undergone a slight change. The words
"Red meat is still an essential part of the diet"
have been changed to "...still a central part
of the diet...".However you'd have to listen hard to
hear the difference! (We only know because the ACCC notified
Geoff that MLA had changed the ad.)
References
1. www.themainmeal.com.au (click on 'Diet &
Health' then 'Fuelling Evolution'). Accessed 24/6/06.
2. Patrick D. Evans, Jeffrey R. Anderson, Eric J. Vallender,
Sun Shim Choi, and Bruce T. Lahn. Reconstructing the evolutionary
history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain
size. Hum. Mol. Genet., 13(11):1139-1145, 2004.
3. Patrick D. Evans, Jeffrey R. Anderson, Eric J. Vallender,
Sandra L. Gilbert, Christine M. Malcom, Steve Dorus, and
Bruce T. Lahn. Adaptive evolution of ASPM, a major determinant
of cerebral cortical size in humans. Hum. Mol. Genet., 13(5):489-494,
2004.
4. Donna L Hart and Robert W. Sussman. Man the Hunted: Primates,
Predators and Human Evolution. Westview Press, 2005.
5. Eg: T Norat, S Bingham, P Ferrari, N Slimani et al (45
authors). Meat, Fish, and Colorectal Cancer Risk: The European
Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. J Natl
Cancer Inst, 97(12):906-916, 2005. Also Susanna C. Larsson
et al. Red meat consumption and risk of cancers of the proximal
colon, distal colon and rectum: the swedish mammography
cohort. Int. J. Cancer,113(5):829-34, 2005.
6. Michelle H. Lewin et al. Red Meat Enhances the Colonic
Formation of the DNA Adduct O6-Carboxymethyl Guanine: Implications
for Colorectal Cancer Risk. Cancer Res,66(3):1859-1865,
2006.
7. see reference 5.
8. Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd, 'Food Mythology'. www.foodfacts.com.au/FoodMythology.aspx,
accessed 24/6/2006
9. National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Dietary
Guidelines for Australian Adults. 2003. (see www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications)
10. American Dietetic Association. 'Vegetarian Diets Position
Statement'. www.eatright.org (click on 'Advocacy & the Profession',
then choose Position Papers). Accessed 24/6/06.
11. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in
Australia 2001. AIHW, 2004.
12. Shusuke Toden, Anthony R. Bird, David L. Topping and
Michael A. Conlon. Resistant starch prevents colonic dna
damage induced by high dietary cooked red meat or casein
in rats. Cancer Biology and Therapy, 5(3), 2006.
13. Peter Clifton. Value of high-protein diet is clearer
than drawbacks. Nature, 439(19 January):266-266, 2006. [Clifton
cites J. Eisenstein et al. Nutr. Rev. 60, 189-200; 2002
and A. Chao, et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 293, 172-182; 2005
for the first two clauses. No reference is given for the
final sentence of the citation.]
14. Cited in John Breusch. A stampede towards red meat.
The Australian Financial Review, 18/1/2006, p 52 and Paul
Pottinger. Meat debate red hot. The Sunday Times, 26/2/2006.
15. Manny Noakes, Jennifer B Keogh, Paul R Foster and Peter
M Clifton. Effect of an energy-restricted, high-protein,
low-fat diet relative to a conventional high-carbohydrate,
low-fat diet on weight loss, body composition, nutritional
status, and markers of cardiovascular health in obese women.
Am J Clin Nutr,86(6):1298-1306, 2005. [Note for example
that these published results only discuss findings on two
of 4 original research groups, that the findings compare
the high-protein diet to another very specific diet, and
that the findings relate to a narrow sub-section of the
population - obese women.]
16. Ms Staunton announced recently that she would be leaving
the CSIRO in July.
17. S. A. Bingham, B Pignatelli, JR Pollock, A Ellul et
al. Does increased endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds
in the human colon explain the association between red meat
and colon cancer? Carcinogenesis, 17(3):515-23, 1996.
|
