A Controversy on Red Meat: To Eat or Not to Eat

On World Vegetarian Day, a new controversy took over the nutrition and dietary world. In an already very confused and contradictory space, a new group of researchers made a shocking claim in a study: that red meat and processed meat, seen as the enemy of nutrition world, and now also the food safety world, may not be so bad after all.

For decades we have been told, repeatedly, with scary warnings ranging from heart disease to cancer to strokes, that red meat is bad for you. Now, to be clear, red meat in moderation or once a week, is the dietary advice across board, from the World Health Organisation, to the American Heart foundation and World Cancer Research Fund.

But the warnings have specifically targeted an audience that eats a heavy meat-based diet.

Published in the Annals Internal Medicine, the study titled, ‘Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium’ is based on research by 14 researchers across seven countries. They have made clear that their study has no outside funding, and no conflict of interest.

What Do the Findings Say?

The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

• They examined studies that claimed that eating red meat or processed meat can lead to increased risk for cardiovascular disease and cancer.
• They further reviewed 61 articles reporting on 55 populations, with more than 4 million participants.
• They also examined trails that linked read meat to cancer and heart disease.

In short, the researchers say there is little or no evidence that eating unprocessed or processed meat in any way increases the risk of getting heart disease or cancer.

The researchers have taken pains to emphasise that there is no conflict of interest in their study.

“After generating a list of potential panel members without perceived vested interests, we contacted prospective candidates from North America, Western Europe, and New Zealand. Those who expressed interest completed a detailed form enumerating potential financial or intellectual conflicts during the previous 3 years.”

The Backlash

Despite this, the backlash has been swift and severe. According to this article in The New York Times, The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health have already expressed several concerns about how this research will damage years of hard work educating the public. The article further says that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group advocating a plant-based diet, has filed a petition at the US Federal Trade Commission against the journal.

Nutrition scientists called out both the researchers and Annals of Internal Medicine, saying publishing the piece was controversial, irresponsible and dangerous. An editorial published in the Harvard TH Chan, School of Public Health, they called the publication “of these studies and the meat guidelines in a major medical journal is unfortunate because following the new guidelines may potentially harm individuals’ health, public health, and planetary health.”

The publishing of the report, and the following backlash has once again brought to focus how nutrition science is studied, researched and recommended. Time and again nutritional advice has changed - sugar is good, sugar is bad, cholesterol, salt, poultry, wheat, rice - the pendulum has shifted many times.

Add to the mix, the planetary risk and food safety warnings, and an average consumer is left baffled. Most nutritionists stick to a simple advice - moderation, moderation, moderation.