Causation vs. Correlation: Does Chicken Consumption Increase Cancer Risk?

Prof. M Zahidul Haque

Prof. M Zahidul Haque and Tanzila Rahman

Recently, a study conducted in Italy published some surprising findings, stating that “eating more than 300 grams (g) of poultry, such as chicken and turkey, per week increases the risk of gastrointestinal cancers and all-cause mortality compared to eating moderate amounts.”

This research has raised concerns among consumers: Is eating chicken healthy, or is it harmful?

According to current dietary guidelines, the consumption of chicken is considered both safe and beneficial. Chicken is a reliable, affordable, and widely consumed source of protein. It is a popular choice due to its high protein content compared to other animal-based proteins and also provides essential vitamins and minerals necessary for maintaining good health.

Tanzila Rahman, UAO, Ramu. Cox's Bazar.

However, the Italian study in question is an observational study that relies heavily on the statistical relationship between variables—specifically, poultry consumption and health outcomes. Experts reviewing this research have raised important questions. Cancer is a complex disease with multiple contributing factors, such as:

--The use of preservatives or additives in processed chicken products,

--The cooking method (e.g., frying, grilling, or smoking), which can lead to the formation of carcinogenic compounds,

--Individual lifestyle or genetic predispositions.

Given these variables, it is scientifically unsound to claim a direct causal link based solely on correlation.

The Methodological Core: Causation vs. Correlation

This brings us to a fundamental principle in research methodology: the distinction between correlation and causation.

• Correlation refers to a statistical association between two variables. For instance, research might show that cities with more public libraries tend to have higher literacy rates. This is a correlation—but it does not prove that building libraries causes people to become literate. Other variables, such as educational funding or socioeconomic conditions, may influence both.

• Causation, by contrast, implies a direct effect—one variable produces a change in another. Establishing causation requires rigorous methods, such as randomized controlled trials, longitudinal studies, or statistical techniques that account for confounding variables.

In the context of the chicken study, the presence of correlation does not automatically confirm a causal relationship. It merely suggests a possible link that needs to be tested further with more controlled research.

Conclusion

The Italian study on poultry consumption illustrates the importance of distinguishing between correlation and causation in health research. While its findings suggest a potential association between high chicken intake and increased cancer risk, this does not prove that chicken itself is the direct cause.

Factors such as how the chicken is raised, processed, cooked, and consumed—as well as other lifestyle elements—must be considered.

Therefore, drawing conclusions or altering dietary guidelines based on this study alone would be premature and scientifically unsound. It highlights a broader truth: in both scientific research and public understanding, we must approach correlation-based findings with critical thinking and insist on more rigorous evidence. In research, as in health, clarity and caution go hand in hand.

(Prof. M Zahidul Haque is currently an ‘Adjunct Faculty’ under Agricultural Journalism Program at Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka and Tanzila Rahman (BCS Agri) is Upazila Agriculture Officer, Ramu, Cox’s Bazar)