The Misleading Headline

As any good journalist would, I feel compelled to address the sensational headline right away. It grossly misrepresents the content and is exaggerated beyond what is typically seen in media coverage. It is irresponsible to label a food item as ‘killer’ without substantial evidence to support such a claim.

The headline also insinuates a direct cause-and-effect relationship between bacon—along with other processed meats—and cancer. This causal link is not established in the research paper for a valid reason: the study is not designed to support such conclusions. This is a critical point LBC has overlooked.

Furthermore, the article contains several misleading assertions.

Misunderstanding WHO Carcinogen Classifications

For instance, LBC asserts:

> "The World Health Organisation has stated that processed meat ranks alongside smoking as a major cause of cancer, while red meat has been classified as a ‘probable’ cause of cancer."

While it is true that the WHO ranks processed meat in IARC Group 1, indicating sufficient evidence of its carcinogenicity in humans, this does not imply that consuming processed meat carries the same cancer risk as smoking or exposure to asbestos.

The WHO clarifies:

> "Processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos, but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous."

The categorization speaks to the strength of scientific evidence regarding an agent's carcinogenic potential, not its risk level. This represents a significant misunderstanding that misinforms the public.

Red meat is classified as IARC Group 2A, indicating that it is probably carcinogenic. This classification suggests that while some association has been observed, other explanations cannot be entirely discounted.

The WHO notes regarding red meats:

> "Limited evidence means a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer, but other explanations (such as chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out."

Group 2A designations usually arise from insufficient human evidence but may have experimental support from animal studies.

The Importance of Citing Original Research

The study central to this discussion, titled “Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: a prospective study,” was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. You might not realize this from the LBC piece, as they fail to mention the study's title, authors, or even provide a link to it.

Additionally, they did not seek comments from the research team, which is an unforgivable lapse in science journalism. I have previously abandoned promising stories due to a lack of commentary from the authors.

Equally missing is a perspective from another scientist in the field who isn’t directly involved in the research. Such insights would provide essential context, helping readers gauge the significance of the findings.

Had LBC included these elements, it might have allowed readers to better understand the study's nature. While many readers may not actively search for peer-reviewed papers, they should at least have that option.

Finding the paper took me minimal time, especially since its title closely mirrors the article's conclusions. However, many research paper titles can be obscure unless one is familiar with the relevant science.

This highlights the need for citations. Omitting them leaves a lack of transparency in journalism. Readers may suspect the journalist is trying to obscure original findings or hasn't engaged with them thoroughly.

It's understandable that most journalists lack the time to read every paper they report on. That’s precisely why contacting authors and experts is crucial.

Acknowledging the Limitations of Epidemiological Studies

The research in question is an epidemiological study. LBC barely mentions this, aside from referencing the journal title, which may indicate a lack of understanding of its significance.

Epidemiological studies are essential for researching human diseases, providing much of our knowledge about them. However, they come with significant limitations.

The American Cancer Society states:

> "Humans do not live in a controlled environment. People are exposed to many substances at any given time... It’s very unlikely they know exactly what they’ve been exposed to or that they would be able to remember all of their exposures if asked by a researcher."

Consequently, establishing a definitive link between any specific exposure and cancer is challenging.

This type of study is limited in that, unlike controlled lab studies, researchers do not impose controls on subjects, making it impossible to isolate singular cancer causes. Thus, epidemiological studies cannot definitively state “X causes cancer” or “X increases the risk of developing cancer.”

In the current study, confounding factors—such as age, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, and BMI—significantly influenced the results.

As noted in the study:

> "Compared with those in the lowest category, participants in the highest category of reported total red-meat intake were slightly older, more likely to be smokers, had a higher BMI and body-fat percentage, had a higher alcohol intake, and had lower intakes of fruit, vegetables, and fiber."

This suggests that individuals who consume more red meat are also likely to engage in other behaviors that elevate cancer risk and lead generally less healthy lifestyles.

LBC should have highlighted this. Their failure to do so misrepresents the study's findings and reinforces the misleading implications of their headline.

Misunderstanding Statistical Data

LBC reports:

> "Experts examined data from 475,581 people aged 40 to 69 at the start of the study and followed them for an average of 5.7 years."

While 475,000 participants represent a substantial sample size, it’s important to note that this figure only reflects those who provided initial dietary information through a questionnaire.

The researchers continued to gather data from about 175,000 individuals, still a significant number, but it’s crucial to acknowledge that they lost track of the diets of approximately 300,000 participants over the average 5.7-year period.

Furthermore, LBC fails to provide absolute numbers. They report that consuming "most processed meat" correlates with a 17% higher risk of colorectal cancer. The term “most” is worryingly vague.

While a 17% increase may sound alarming, it needs to be contextualized against the baseline risk. The absolute risk of colorectal cancer in the UK is relatively high: 1 in 15 for men and 1 in 18 for women.

Thus, a high processed meat diet might increase a man’s risk from 20 in 300 to 23 in 300. While this is a noteworthy increase, it pales in comparison to the risk associated with a family history of bowel cancer.

A meta-analysis titled “Relative and Absolute Risk of Colorectal Cancer for Individuals with a Family History” found nearly a 56% risk increase for individuals with two family members diagnosed, and a 53% increase for those with one diagnosed relative.

The Importance of Accurate Reporting

The issue with articles like LBC’s is their potential to tarnish the public’s perception of science and scientists, making individuals less inclined to heed valuable advice.

I can't help but wonder how many readers responded to this story with skepticism, thinking, “Everything seems to cause cancer these days.” They may unfairly attribute blame to scientists when the real issue lies with the media's failure to accurately convey findings.

This could stem from a belief that responsible reporting doesn’t generate clicks or sell stories. The old saying goes, “If it bleeds, it leads,” but this mindset is detrimental to science. Cultivating cynicism towards scientific advice can harm public health—perhaps even leading to fatal consequences.

We are at a crucial juncture in human development. As a society, our reliance on scientific advancements has grown, yet our scientific literacy remains low. Therefore, the media bears the responsibility of accurately reporting scientific findings without resorting to sensationalism.

Sources

1. Killer Full English: Bacon Ups Cancer Risk, No byline attribution, LBC, 17/04/19 https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/killer-full-english-bacon-ups-cancer-risk/?fbclid=IwAR0tJxs2g5T8brLh6cZZXgjFjOPZcAvK6Cq-BdksiU2WOtkcsRFL2jO1VpQ
2. Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat, WHO, 2015, https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
3. “Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: a prospective study,” Bradbury, Kathryn, Murphy, Neil, Key, Timothy J, International Journal of Epidemiology, 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz064
4. Known and Probable Human Carcinogens, https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html
5. Relative and absolute risk of colorectal cancer for individuals with a family history: a meta-analysis, Butterworth, A S, Higgins, J P, Pharoah, P, NCBI, 2006, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2005.09.023