Red and transformed meats have been linked to an increase in the risk of cancer in many studies – but there are no warning labels on these foods. The reasons are complex, according to the Harvard Th Cha Chan School of Public Health Timothy Rebbeck.
Rebbeck was among the experts cited in an article of February 6 in Senient who explored why there is more public health messaging and change of policy on certain foods, such as red dye n ° 3, than Food and Drug Administration of the United States prohibited in January – only on food as transformed meats.
Rebbeck said to feel that additives and food colors are a relatively easy target because they are “artificial compounds to which people are not culturally attached”. The transformed and red meats, on the other hand, are a large part of the American culture. The decline in the meat industry is also a factor because it aims to have its products buy from consumers.
Other experts cited in the article have cited a lack of clear evidence on the risks posed by red and transformed meats. They have noted that most research on the subject is based on observation studies, which do not prove causality.
It can be difficult to create public health messages on food and nutrition, said Rebbeck. He noted that “information is very difficult to communicate because we are talking about a fairly complex and sophisticated science that has a lot of warnings,” he said. Given the challenges, he said it was better to keep the messaging simple, focusing more on what people should eat rather than what they should not. The healthiest diet to keep the risk of low-risk cancer, he said, is to eat a variety of unprocessed food, fruits and vegetables.
Read the Seniend article: Why the red dietary dye is prohibited, but the processed meat is always sold without warning