No doubt you have heard this at some time or another over the past week...

Here we go again!

Or, if you missed it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621

What better way to freak people out than to use the word "cause" in a headline, especially when it's coming from the World Health Organisation.

Ok, so there's a link between the consumption of processed meat with cancer.

Nothing new - and we should be always erring on the side of caution with processed meat anyway; some of us nutritionists also use that dreaded word "moderation" when guiding people on processed meat consumption.

But how about red meat itself? I am just not convinced about this "causal" relationship talked about it all.

Just because there is a link between the two, doesn't mean it's a cause!! 

Think about these possibilities for a bit:

• Could it be the additives (nitrates, colouring etc) rather than the meat that's the problem?  
  
• Could it be what is consumed alongside the meat (one picture showed a girl eating a big fat white bacon buttie with ketchup dripping out)?
  
• Could it be the lack of fibre and antioxidants (vegetables!!) that's the problem?
  
• Does a meat lover/veggie hater have a higher risk of constipation and as such a higher risk of bowel cancer? Less fibre equals slower excretion equals more chance of putrefaction and inflammation after all. And in another email we also went over tumour encouraging oestrogen (OH-16) being reabsorbed back into circulation if left in the bowel too long. 

What a shame the whole food industry will get the knock rather than the industry that endorses high carb, nutrients and fibre-poor, packaged food which we know does more harm than good. 

So yep, this isn't news to the nutritionist circle, but the fact that it is coming from the WHO is probably a big deal for people, as their last guideline change on sugar was fabulous, so why wouldn't people believe this? 

As long as the new sudden meat avoidance strategy has people turning to eating more fish - particularly fatty fish, rather than eating more pasta, then that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. After all not many people I know eat the recommended 3 servings of oily fish a week.

So, as a nutritionist, what what am I going to advise people to do?

1. Avoid red unprocessed meat to prevent cancer? 

No, but I would recommend eating limited amounts (palm size) at main meals and varying protein intake each day, with other sources like:

fish (2-3 x per week),

chicken (2 x per week)

eggs (2-3 x per week) 

plant protein sources (1-2 x per week)

This along with the good ol' 50 percent of the plate filled with above ground preferably organic veg.

2. Would I suggest avoiding processed meat like the plague to prevent cancer?

Noooo, most of us loooove  bacon and many just can't afford the organic non cured kind every time- but just don't have it every day either. I would (and do) seek out so-called processed meats (like bacon and sausages), with limited additives included and gluten free e.g. Black Farmer

Yes, it's extra effort, and sometimes extra cost, but hey it's my and my family's health, and that's a priority for me. 

I can't wait for a headline to read:

"50 Percent of Dinner Plate to be Above Ground Vegetables = Minimum 9 Servings of Veg a Day!" 

All the best and always question those headlines.

Kim