We’re publishing here a letter drafted by our founder. We hope it can be used by poultry industry professionals, industry associations, and anyone who shares its content, to address the bad habit of some journalists and commentators in irresponsibly spreading alarmist articles and headlines. The inspiration for this letter came from the recent news story: “Eating chicken increases cancer risk.”
We believe our letter is a clear and well-argued text that incisively criticizes media misinformation regarding cancer prevention and, in particular, chicken consumption. The essence of the message is that health recommendations must be based on robust scientific evidence validated by authoritative bodies, not on individual, sensationalized studies.
Ours is a call for caution and accuracy in scientific dissemination and a reminder that science progresses through the accumulation of evidence and critical review, and that health recommendations derive from a well-established scientific consensus, not from a single result. This is a crucial message in trying to combat the infodemic (” Infodemic: the dissemination of an excessive amount of information, sometimes inaccurate, which makes it difficult to orient oneself on a given topic due to the difficulty of identifying reliable sources” – from Wikipedia). and to promote only informed health decisions.
Here is our letter
” Dear Director (or the editor-in-chief of the newspaper),
We’re writing to you regarding the growing misinformation surrounding crucial issues such as cancer prevention and nutrition. We’ve noted with concern the trend of spreading alarmism based on individual scientific studies, without the necessary context.
We attach our contribution analyzing this issue, taking the recent example of misleading headlines about chicken consumption. We believe it is essential to promote accurate information based on authoritative sources.
When it comes to cancer prevention and nutrition, there’s a lot of confusion. Journalists and nutritionists often struggle to distinguish between the results of a single scientific study and actual nutritional recommendations. This creates unnecessary alarm and undermines public trust.
Reliable guidelines for reducing cancer risk come only from authoritative and recognized sources: the Ministry of Health, the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the EFSA, the WHO or agencies such as the WCRF (World Cancer Research Fund). https://www.wcrf.org/preventing-cancer/topics/meat-and-cancer/#white-meat-and-cancer ). These recommendations are the result of the painstaking work of hundreds of independent researchers who critically and transparently evaluate thousands of scientific articles each year on the association between diet and cancer. This rigorous process ensures the validity of the recommendations.
It is with a mixture of anguish and anger, therefore, that industry professionals and consumers witness the spread of alarming headlines based on individual studies.
A recent example is the news story: “Eating chicken increases cancer risk.” This statement, reported by many mainstream media outlets like yours, refers to an article published in the journal Nutrients (available here: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/8/1370 ).
The problem is that these headlines misrepresent or completely ignore the limitations of the study, limitations that the authors themselves correctly highlighted.
For a handful of extra views, terror and confusion are sown about a widely spread and globally consumed food, chicken, which is in fact often suggested as a healthy alternative to other meats as also indicated by the WCRF:
https://www.wcrf.org/preventing-cancer/topics/meat-and-cancer/#white-meat-and-cancer
That chicken meat could, “suddenly” and without any plausible explanation, be associated with cancer mortality is deeply concerning.
Nutrients article, it is essential to read it carefully:
- This is a single observational study. Scientifically, a single study of this type is not sufficient to establish a cause-effect relationship.
- The data comes from a survey of approximately 5,000 residents of two municipalities in Puglia (Castellana Grotte and Putignano), a small and geographically limited sample. The analyses and results should be treated with caution and replicated in other contexts before drawing conclusions.
- The authors themselves admit that they have no information on how the chicken was cooked and prepared (for example, whether it was ultra-processed or fresh meat).
- The study refers to chicken consumption over twenty years ago (2004-2005), a period with a regulatory framework and consumption habits potentially very different from those of today.
- The authors conclude by urging caution in interpreting the results: “Residual confounding was consistent across all models analyzed, and the impact of a different environment could partially explain the inconsistencies with other studies.”
We’re not the only ones concerned about these media phenomena, which, among other side effects, can cause unfounded alarmism that can also have undue consequences for economic activities related to those issues. People are tired of hearing everything and its opposite. This risks leading to a “lowering of our guard” with the thought that “everything is the same, it’s all disgusting” with potentially devastating effects on behavior and public health.
We remain available for any clarification or further information.
Best regards
Peter Greppi
communications ethics consultant
Founder of www.moreaboutchicken.com and www.nutriamocidibuonsenso.it ”
For a clear and accessible explanation of why this study should not be taken as a recommendation or a warning, we also recommend reading Angelo Campanella’s article: https://angelocampanella.it/cancro-e-consumo-di-pollo-verita-scientifica-e-falsi-allarmi/
