Their conclusions published Monday were swiftly attacked by a group of prominent USA scientists who tried to stop publication of the research, arguing it sends the wrong message.
The advice - which immediately drew a sharp reaction from other experts - added that adults should also "continue current processed meat consumption".
"Based on what we found - low-quality evidence and evidence that's uncertain - we made a weak recommendation for people to continue their meat consumption", Johnston said.
Cutting back on red and processed meat brings few if any health benefits, according to a review of evidence drawn from millions of people, but the finding contradicts dietary advice of worldwide agencies and has prompted criticism from many experts.
The new work is the latest example of the divisiveness in food research.
The WCRF gathered a group of organisations - together with from the World Well being Organisation - to hit again on the newest findings, saying there may be good proof of a hyperlink between pink and processed meat and bowel most cancers. Defenders counter that nutrition studies can rarely be conclusive because of the difficulty of measuring the effects of any single food, but that methods have improved.
Tim Key, professor of epidemiology and deputy director of the cancer epidemiology unit at the University of Oxford, said: "There's substantial evidence that processed meat can cause bowel cancer - so much so that the World Health Organisation has classified it as carcinogenic since 2015".
Researchers were able to conclude that eating less beef and pork has a minimal health benefits. They are even attempting to delay the release of this publication. They noted the average of two to four servings a week eaten in North America and Western Europe.
"More than 99 per cent of households in the United Kingdom enjoy red meat, according to Kantar, and this report should give them the permission to continue to enjoy red meat as part of a healthy balanced diet". "This report will confuse the public", she said.
"The panel opted to consider personal preferences along with cancer and cardiovascular outcomes but not to take into account environmental and animal welfare issues when making their recommendations".
The accompanying editorial by authors at the Indiana University School of Medicine said: "This is sure to be controversial, but is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date". Hence, they recommend that on the present evidence, meat consumption at current levels need not be stopped or reduced.
Not all of the report authors agreed with its conclusions.
Gardner and Hu are among a group of scientists who signed a letter to the journal's editor requesting the papers be held pending further review. Therefore, because we can't do more rigorous studies, we should not advise the public about diets best for health or the environment.
According to Cancer Australia, "there is convincing evidence that consumption of processed meat and red meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, and there is also suggestive evidence of an increased risk of oesophageal, lung, pancreatic and stomach cancers". He said the benefits of cutting back would be larger for those who eat such high amounts.
Still, other researchers not involved in the reviews have criticized nutrition science for producing weak and conflicting findings.
"I have read the statistics yet but I think it's good news that we can all eat more hamburgers", said one person.