Claims that eating red meat leads to increased rates of some forms of cancer do not stand up, and have seriously set back healthy eating campaigns, a British cancer expert, Dr Michael Hill, told the congress.
Suggestions that consumption of red meat, for example, was responsible for increased levels of colorectal cancer in Britain and Ireland did not stand up, said Dr Hill, chairman of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.
He disputed findings of the controversial World Cancer Research Fund report which urged a limit of red meat intake of less than 80 grammes a day. The reality was that consumption of red meat had fallen significantly in the past 30 years.
"Over the same period, incidence of colorectal cancer had increased by more than 50 per cent. Mediterranean populations eat more red meat than do the British but have lower incidences of colorectal cancer."
The difference was, he said, that consumption of "protective cereals" and vegetables in Britain had decreased. The cancer rate was not related to red meat intake.
A nutritionist, Prof Michael Gibney of Trinity College Dublin, accepted the issue of meat and cancer was controversial.
The UK COMA report had provided the best analysis of the problem, he said. It had concluded that lower meat consumption in adult life lowered the risk of breast, lung, prostate and pancreatic cancer.
It also found "moderate evidence" to conclude that lower red meat and processed meat consumption would reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. It recommended a balanced diet, rich in cereals, fruit and vegetables, and did recognise that very high levels of meat should be avoided.
More recent evidence, Prof Gibney said, suggested any association between meat intakes with cancer could be influenced by cooking methods. The meat industry might be advised to discourage people from overcooking meat.
"Overall, consumers will reduce the risk of cancer to a greater extent by increasing intakes of fruit and vegetables than by lowering meat intake," he added.
The chief executive of Superquinn, Mr Feargal Quinn, predicted that if the meat industry did not change its mind-set, which saw meat as a commodity whose price was to be maintained through political rather than market forces, its future would be of "gradual, consistent decline".
His customers were saying that "those who drive the world meat industry are in need of a reality check". The industry was not giving them what they wanted. The days of people measuring prosperity by the number of times a week they put meat on the table were over.
"Meat, in common with every other foodstuff, has to justify itself in health terms."
Customers wanted less fat; less red meat; less meat of any kind as a proportion of the meal; and less overall protein/calorie intake.
"To what extent have these trends been responded to by the meat industry? Not enough, is the short answer."
