MSc in Food, Nutrition and Health Processed meat: the real villain

MSc in Food, Nutrition and Health Processed meat: the real villain? By Sabrine Rohrmann and Jakob Linseisen. DENISE BUTTIGIEG FITENI Article Critique Tutor: Dr Eileen Gibney 2017/8 1|Page Processed meat: the real villain? By Sabine Rohrmann and Jakob Linseisen: Article Critique Introduction In the article “Processed meat: the real villain?” Rohrmann and Linseisen (2016) outline although meat is a popular diet among many cultures, great care should be taken in its consumption. Meat contains important proteins and vitamins such as zinc, vitamin A, and vitamin B. However, it is also rich in cholesterol and saturated fats (Zhao et al., 2017). A high consumption of processed red meat may lead to increase in the intake of salt, cholesterol, saturated fats, aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrate (Carr et al., 2017). This paper is a critique of the article and will pay particular attention to the strength of the evidence, confounding factors, and the recommendations. Critique According to the article, there is strong evidence to say that processed meat is directly related to incidences of cancer. The article reveals a positive association between colorectal cancer and processed red meat consumption. In making that conclusion, the article examined a host of other studies published between 2007 and 2016. The evidence reveals that a “50g increase in daily intake of processed meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%” (Rohrmann and Linseisen, 2016, p.234). As outlined by the article, the risk of cancer goes up significantly if a person does not have an active lifestyle. Apart from colorectal cancer, the study reveals that processed red meat is linked to other forms of cancer including lung, esophagus, endometrium and pancreatic cancer (Jeyakumar et al., 2017) It is on the basis of this evidence that the study recommends that a person should 2|Page consume less than 500g of meat per week and a very little fraction of this should be processed meat. The study has correctly taken into account the confounding factors. One of these confounding factors is the interaction of processed red meat and other foods and nutrients. As observed, the risk of cancer among people who consumed fish and high fiber intake is lower than those who take the processed red meat without either fiber or fish (Domingo and Nadal, 2017). Other factors that are correctly considered by the study include smoking. Former and current smokers face a higher risk of cancer when they combine smoking with consumption of processed red meat (Lippi et al., 2016). Just like Boada et al. (2016) observe that these confounding factors are important in the study and reveal vital details about cancer in that high fiber food and fish reduce the risk of cancer while smoking increases the risks of cancer as they pertain to processed red meat (Boada et al., 2016). There are several factors within the processed meat and associated biological mechanisms that are thought to contribute to this increased risk (Inoue-Choi et al., 2016). One of these factors is the addition of salt (NaCl) to red meat in order to conserve it. The addition increases the red meat’s sodium content resulting in meat that has “50% more nitrates and 400% more sodium per gram” (Mazzai et al., 2017, p.115). A high amount of salt in the body is associated with colorectal cancer and hypertension as the lining of the stomach is damaged (Rohrmann and Linseisen, 2016). Moreover, red meat is associated with high concentration of plasma that in turn causes major changes in the concentration of fatty acids (Amiano et al., 2016). All these changes are thought to result in protein modification as well as DNA damage (Guo et al., 2015) 3|Page There is enough evidence from the article to warrant the recommendations. While some things about the harm of processed red meat may still be unclear, there exists enough evidence linking processed red meat and total mortality and some forms of cancer such as gastric and colorectal cancer. It is on the basis of these studies that Rohrmann and Linseisen recommend that a person should consume “less than 500g of meat per week and a very little fraction of this should be processed meat” (Rohrmann and Linseisen, 206, p.234) Conclusion This article has revealed a strong link between processed red meat and incidences of cancer and in particular colorectal cancer. The article also reveals the link between processed red meat and total mortality as a result of a host of other ailments including hypertension. Some of the factors within the processed red meat and associated biological mechanisms that are thought to contribute to the increased risk of total mortality and cancer are the increased salt content in the body and DNA damage from either meat preservation techniques of its preparation. The article advises on a significant reduction in the consumption of processed red meat. 4|Page References Amiano, P, Chamosa, S, Etxezarreta, N, Arriola, L, Sanchez, M, Ardanaz, E, Molina-Montes, E, Chirlaque, M, Moreno-Iribas, C, Huerta, J, Egues, N, Navarro, C, Requena, M, Quiros, J, Fonseca-Nunes, A, Jakszyn, P, Gonzalez, C, & Dorronsoro, M 2016, 'Unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption and risk of stroke in the Spanish cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)', European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 3, p. 313. Boada, L, Henríquez-Hernández, L, & Luzardo, O 2016, 'Invited review: The impact of red and processed meat consumption on cancer and other health outcomes: Epidemiological evidences', Food and Chemical Toxicology, 92, pp. 236-244. Carr, P, Jansen, L, Bienert, S, Roth, W, Herpel, E, Kloor, M, Blaker, H, Chang-Claude, J, Brenner, H, & Hoffmeister, M 2017, 'Associations of red and processed meat intake with major molecular pathological features of colorectal cancer', European Journal of Epidemiology, 5, p. 409. Domingo, J, & Nadal, M 2017, 'Review: Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: A review of scientific news since the IARC decision', Food and Chemical Toxicology, 105, pp. 256-261. Domingo, J, & Nadal, M 2017, 'Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: A review of scientific news since the IARC decision', Food and Chemical Toxicology, p. 256. 5|Page Guo, J, Wei, W, & Zhan, L 2015, 'Red and processed meat intake and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies', Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 1, p. 191. Inoue-Choi, M, Sinha, R, Gierach, G, & Ward, M 2016, 'Red and processed meat, nitrite, and heme iron intakes and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study', International Journal of Cancer, 7, p. 1609. Jeyakumar, A, Dissabandara, L, & Gopalan, V 2017, 'A critical overview of the biological and molecular features of red and processed meat in colorectal carcinogenesis', Journal of Gastroenterology, 4, p. 407. Lippi, G, Mattiuzzi, C, & Cervellin, G 2016, 'Review: Meat consumption and cancer risk: a critical review of published meta-analyses', Critical Reviews in Oncology / Hematology, 97, pp. 1-14. Mazzai, A, Eltzov, E, Manzano, M, & Marks, R 2017, 'Probing putative carcinogenic potential of processed and unprocessed meat using bioluminescent bacterial bioreporters', Sensors & Actuators: B. Chemical, 239, pp. 113-119. Rohrmann, S., & Linseisen, J 2016, ‘Conference on ‘The future of animal products in the human diet: health and environmental concerns' Symposium 1: Meat, health, and sustainability Processed meat: the real villain?' Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 75, 233-241. Zhao, Z, Yin, Z, Pu, Z, & Zhao, Q 2017, 'Original article: Association between Consumption of Red and Processed Meat and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis', Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 15, pp. 486-493. 6|Page