In general,
IARC reports and monographs are taken very seriously by Governments, policy
makers and scientists throughout the world. These reports often become a basis
for creating new policies, implementing various measures to combat cancer and new research initiatives.
However, there are instances where IARC reports / monographs have attracted widespread criticism. IARC attracted huge criticism from
scientists and general public due to their reports on subjects like red meat,
hot beverage consumption and mobile phones etc.
In 2015, working
Group comprising 22 experts drawn from 10 countries evaluated the
carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat & processed meat. After a
year long study and deliberations, and a week-long workshop, IARC published a
monograph in 2018 (Vol. 114). In the monograph, it was concluded that the “consumption
of red meat is probably carcinogenic to humans” & “consumption of processed
meat is carcinogenic to humans”. The
processed meat has been denoted as Group I carcinogen and red meat as Group 2A
carcinogen. It was concluded that the processed meat causes cancer of
colorectum, whereas red meat may cause colorectal cancer, and pancreatic and
prostate cancer. This was heavily criticized by several senior scientists.
Immediately
after the publication of monograph on red meat, researchers from five top
universities of South Korea, published a research article in a top-rated international
journal called “Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition” (Taylor &
Francis Journal) questioning the veracity of the claims that red and processed
meat causes cancer of colorectum. The title of the research article was “Controversy
on the correlation of red and processed meat consumption with colorectal cancer
risk: an Asian perspective”. In the study explained in the article, they had investigated
the relationship between meat intake and colorectal cancer risk from an Asian,
particularly Korean, perspective. The had conducted an in-depth analysis of
prospective, retrospective, case-control and cohort studies, systematic review
articles, and IARC monograph reports. They had claimed in their article that the
IARC monograph (Vol. 114) is biased and gave higher weightage to the results of
studies (published in research article elsewhere) based in Western countries
more than the studies conducted on colorectal cancer incidence in Asians. They
showed that among 73 epidemiological studies, approximately 76% were conducted
in Western countries, whereas only 15% of studies were conducted in Asia.
Furthermore, most studies conducted in Asia showed that processed meat
consumption is not related to the onset of cancer. Moreover, there have been no
reports showing significant correlation between various factors that directly
or indirectly affect colorectal cancer incidence, including processed meat
product types, raw meat types, or cooking methods.
Note: As per IARC, the agents/substances are classified as Group 1, if the agent is carcinogenic to humans; Group 2A if the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.
