A Controversial Study
BETH COPLOWITZ—On October 26, 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a study in The Lancet Oncology stating that red and processed meats may cause cancer. The study was published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the agency within the WHO that conducts research into the causes of cancer and determines whether a specific agent should be classified as a carcinogen.
The IARC classified processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans,” as it may cause colorectal cancer, the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second major cause of cancer death in men and women in the United States. The IARC placed processed meats, such as bacon, hot dogs, bologna, salami, and sausages, on its group one list of potential carcinogens. Group one means that there is “sufficient evidence” that the agents on that list cause cancer. Other agents classified as group one include tobacco and asbestos, as well as arsenic, UV radiation, tanning beds, formaldehyde, and mustard gas—to name a few. Red meat, like steaks and roasts, was classified as probably carcinogenic in IARC’s group 2A list, the same classification used for glyphosate, the active ingredient in many weedkillers.
According to the study, there is an 18% increase in the risk of colorectal cancer for every 50 grams of processed meat eaten daily. Fifty grams of processed meat is the equivalent of eating one hot dog or two slices of bacon. According to a 2011 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Americans eat about 21.7 grams of processed pork per day. The red meat classification was based on the positive associations between red meat and colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.
The results of the study have drawn criticism from meat and food industry groups alike. The Canadian Meat Council rejected the findings as simplistic, while the North American Meat Institute said the IARC report “defies common sense.”
What are the legal ramifications of this study?
Based on the IARC’s study, California is determining whether red meat and processed meats like hot dogs, sausages, and bacon, fall under a state labeling law known as Proposition 65, and must be added to a cancer-alert list. This will likely lead to a battle between California officials and the meat industry over the state’s authority to place health warnings on processed meats. Specifically, the legal question to consider is whether such warnings would interfere with USDA meat regulations. As Reuters explained:
California’s Proposition 65, an initiative approved in 1986, requires that the state keep a list of all chemicals and substances known to increase cancer risks. Producers of such products are required to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings for consumers.
Some Proposition 65 experts expect California to add processed meats to the list. Typically, once an item is added, it is up to the maker to prove to the state that its product is not dangerous enough to warrant a warning label, experts say.
According to the meat industry, courts have clearly explained that Proposition 65 conflicts with federal policy on meat warning labels at stores. In a 2009 California appellate ruling, the court confirmed federal authority over labels for meat from plants inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. However, the 2009 California appellate ruling was made in regard to fresh meats, not processed meats, so it is not entirely clear how courts would rule regarding warnings on processed meats. Federal law preempts warnings on fresh meats, but it may not necessarily preempt Proposition 65 warnings on processed meats that are added to the Proposition 65 list.
If processed meats are added to the Proposition 65 list and warning labels are required, this could seriously hurt meat companies and producers as demand will likely drop. And a move to add processed meat to the list will certainly be challenged by the meat industry, leading to a bitter battle and litigation with California officials. Only time will tell what is going to happen, but until then, processed meat intake should be scaled back.
