Communicating epidemiological risk about nutritional risks: the case of processed meat
Authors: Gregori Dario , Zec Slavica , Fano Carolina , Minto Clara 
Published: November 2023

Background

Relationship between meat consumption and cancer incidence is well established. Nevertheless, doubts have been raised on the appropriate ways of communicating about the risks, especially after the World Health Organization announcement to recommend a limitation of the intake of processed meat since there is sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes cancer. Communication has been focused on the fact that subjects with intake higher than 50g per day are at 18% higher risk of encountering colorectal cancer, with respect to the minimum intake group.

It is reasonable to expect that a hypothetical policy aiming at reduction of processed meat consumption would generate revenue loss for the processed meat industry. It would not be surprising that the final consequence could be displacement or job loss of the workers, as the previous experience from tobacco industry and BSE market shock in 2000 show.

Present research aims to create hypothetical scenarios in order to highlight potential impact of control measures on processed meat, comparing effects of potential gain in terms of yearly number of cancers and adverse health effects deriving from the job loss/displacement due to reduction of processed meat consumption.

Methods

Meat industry represents a large economic sector, with 44 thousand enterprises, 30 billion value added and 1 million people employed, out of which 54.2 in processed meat industry. Monte Carlo simulation study has been performed on the basis of European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study on meat consumption and colorectal cancer, with the population divided into the lowest (<10g/day), medium‐low (10–20 g/day), medium (20–40 g/day), medium‐high (40–80 g/day) and highest (>80 g/day). Simulation on the consequences of potential job loss are based on Eurostat statistics and Eliason, M. and D. Storrie, Does Job Loss Shorten Life? Journal of Human Resources, 2009. 44(2): p. 277–302.

Results

1% reduction in number of high end consumers of processed meat (>40g/day) would lead to a yearly decrease in colorectal cancer cases of 364.84 (IC 95%: −285.98, 1015.65), 5% reduction would lead to 979.75 (IC 95%: 325.59, 1633.92), 10% reduction would lead to 1552.20 (IC 95%: 894.97, 2209.42) while 15% reduction would lead to 1916.85 ( IC 95%: 1255.82, 2577.89).

On the other hand, if the demand contraction leads to 0.1% loss in employment, one could expect 27.29 all‐cause mortality attributable to job loss (IC 95%: 26.75, 27.83). For 0.3% industry job loss, this amounts to 81.88 (IC 95%: 80.27, 83.48), for 0.6% we could observe 163.76 (IC 95%: 160.55,166.9) and finally in worst case scenario of sharp market reaction reflected in 1% loss, the number increases to 272.93 (IC 95%: 54.90, 267.58). Death due to suicide ranges from 2.18 for best case scenario of 0.1% employment loss (IC 95% 2.14–2.22), to 21.81 in the worst case scenario of 1% employment loss (IC 95% 21.38, 22.23). Alcohol related mortality amounts from 1.47 (IC 95% 1.45, 1.50), to 14.80 (IC 95% 14.51, 15.09).

Conclusions

Even though this represents a simple setting simulation study, it should makes us reflect upon the trade‐off relationship that exists between the consequences of an eventual enforcement of a public health policy aiming to decrease processed meat consumption on one hand, and the demand shock that an important industry could face – leading to employment loss and its potential adverse consequences.

Support or Funding Information

None