Niki Bezzant: Hamming up the smoke signals

Smoking and bacon are classified the same - it does not mean the cancer risk is the same. Photo / GETTY IMAGES

Opinion

If ever there were a headline to put you off your breakfast, it was this: "Bacon just as bad as smoking for cancer."

This, and many like it, came in the wake of the report by the World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer on the consumption of red and processed meats. The agency concluded that eating processed meat is "carcinogenic to humans" and that the consumption of red meat is "probably carcinogenic".

Much has been made of the fact that processed meat is a Group 1 carcinogen, in the same category as tobacco and asbestos. Scary, isn't it? Now you can see how those headlines came about.

Unfortunately, the headlines are confusing the point. Yes, smoking and bacon have the same classification. But that does not mean our risk of cancer from bacon and smoking is the same.

What the WHO has identified - but perhaps not communicated well - is the level of evidence. It is confident processed meat has the potential to cause cancer. But it is not talking about how much cancer it causes. The risk of getting cancer from smoking is much, much higher than the risk of cancer from bacon.

It's not time to swear off the Christmas ham just yet.

It has been known for years that processed meat and cancer, particularly bowel cancer, are linked. The World Cancer Research Fund made the recommendation in 2007 that we eat "little, if any" processed meat.

In case you're wondering what "processed meat" is, it's meat that is smoked, cured, fermented, salted or otherwise processed to preserve it - things such as ham, salami, bacon, pastrami and jerky.

It is confusing that sausages are often mentioned in this grouping; there is a big difference between a highly processed smoked frankfurter, say, and a freshly made butchery sausage containing nothing but minced meat and spices. Choose the latter (and cook them gently) and the backyard barbecue is unlikely to be a danger.

When it comes to red meat, the WHO classified it as a Group 2A carcinogen. Again, this sounds scary. But again, it doesn't mean if we eat a steak we will get cancer.

When it comes to risk, we know that people who eat the most red meat have an increased lifetime risk of bowel cancer over those who eat the least. But there are also benefits to eating meat. It's a great source of protein, iron and zinc.

So what does this mean for the average meat-eating Kiwi? Probably not much, unless you are someone who routinely eats piles of bacon and steaks that cover half the plate. In that case, you'd be wise to reflect on your portion sizes.

Eating bacon and ham as an occasional treat rather than every day would be a good idea. With red meat, keep your portion the size and thickness of the palm of your hand.

And get some variety; two or three red-meat meals a week, plus other proteins such as fish, chicken and tofu. A healthy diet is about the big picture, not just one food.

Lastly, if we're keen to cut cancer risks, a couple of things will have more impact than eating one less bacon sandwich: get more vegetables into our day, which most of us still don't do too well, and cut down on that other Group 1 carcinogen, alcohol.

Niki Bezzant is the editor-in-chief of Healthy Food Guide.