Short: Processed meat = smoking? Not really

A time a go media made a great deal of the IARC classification of processed meat as IARC group 1 carcinogens. One could see alarming headlines like this:

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 00.56.51

Vegans were sharing this all over the place ecstatically. Well, it is kind of a big deal that food is put on this list, since it’s very rare or even never happened.

Hold your horses

International agency for cancer research (IARC) is part of WHO. They are maybe most famous for classifying chemicals, environmental factors and mixtures as carcinogenic in different levels. The levels work accordingly:

“Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.

Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.

Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.

Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans” (IARC, 2006)

The news was that IARC classified processed meat as Group 1 and red meat as Group 2A (IARC, 2015)

So what is the problem? Well, it’s true that in Group 1 we find things like arsenic, asbestos, alcoholic beverages, tobacco and various radioactive elements. That made the press print those headlines shown above. But let’s have a look at what the criteria for being on these lists are:

“These categories refer only to the strength of the evidence that an exposure is carcinogenic and not to the extent of its carcinogenic activity (potency).” (IARC, 2006)

That means that in principle, whatever is in group 1 could have an extremely small effect size. The relative risk could be just above the detectable limit, just that we can be very certain that the effect is real. The effect size of course makes a huge difference in addition to the degree of evidence. What if agent X is increasing your cancer risk by 0.000001% but we are 99.99% sure that link is correct (group 1). Agent Y on the other hand increases your cancer risk by 80%, but we are only 10% sure that this link is real (group 3). Which is worse?

Of course this is just an extreme example, but I hope you see my point. But what are the effect sizes? Well, for processed meat the relative risk (RR) is actually quite low (according to IARC), 1.18 if eating 50g processed meat daily (IARC, 2015). Compare that to smoking where the effect size is between 1.2 and 20(IARC, 2004).

So how do we interpret these numbers? Well, it’s the relative risk increase from the basal probability of developing the disease. A RR of 1 means that there is equal probability of developing disease being exposed as not being exposed, a RR of 2 means that it is twice the probability of developing the disease when exposed. How bad something is, is both dependent on the level of exposure, but regarding the relative risk, risk is without exposure matters quite a lot.

So, yes, processed meat is causing cancer, probably red meat too. But not to the extent that the newspapers seem to want to claim, and I think we should avoid to compare meat consumption to smoking and arsenic.


IARC. (2004). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.

IARC. (2006). B. SCIENTIFIC REVIEW AND EVALUATION. Retrieved January 5, 2016, from

IARC. (2015). IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat.


3 thoughts on “Short: Processed meat = smoking? Not really

  1. I completely agree. They make this seem as if meat (especially red meat) is extremely harmful for us, when most of the world lives to be over 80 whilst eating meat daily.

    And if the average human has a 5% chance in a lifetime to get cancer, wouldn’t red meat just increase it to, let’s say, 5.3%? Adding 0.3% is clearly nothing, and it’s not like we want to live till 110, just because we won’t be able to do anything at such an age.

    It’s just like doubling your chance of winning a lottery from 1/15,000,000 to 1/7,500,000 (I agree, this is probably mathematically incorrect), sure you have such a high chance of winning, but 1/7,500,000 is still extremely rare and you probably won’t win it in your lifetime (even though it’s double the chances).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Regardless of how small the risk is, why take it all? There are still 4 million people each year that die prematurely from cancer. Why roll the dice when you don’t need to.

      Otherwise you might as well use the same reasoning for smoking. Yep I bet you don’t smoke because of the health reasons.


      1. One is perfectly free to choose whatever risks one wants to take.
        I’m not saying that it’s a too small risk to be concerned about, or giving any advices.
        I’m simply saying that the numbers are not really comparable – which they have been erroneously.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s