Pumping bad cholesterol and hormons into the body for many years does not cause health problems like pumping greenhouse gases into atmosphere for many years does not cause climate change.
ILSI is quite a reputable organization that holds science at the highest regard. While I can’t comment on the rigor of the study itself, to allege that Dr. Johnson is somehow biased because he once was associated with ILSI is nonsense.
1
Note to all carnivores: be on high-sanctimony alert.
During the next week or two our veg & vegan friends will be positively preening with pleasure. Every cut of my steak knife will elicit warnings that the red meat study is flawed and "if you won't do it for the planet, do it for yourself."
What a pity. Sigh.
1
this explains a lot of NYT anti-meat coverage: https://animalequality.org/news/how-to-go-vegan-by-tara-parker-pope/
2
Can't wait to hear about his Ukraine connections. More likely Brasil and JBS. His study is true "fake news" - glad it was revealed quickly.
Time for a salad.
OK, but this "attack" on the paper based on financial disclosure is irrelevant and in fact is not scientific. Critic the science not the investigators.
1
Something the layperson should understand about this story: the laziest, easiest claim a scientist can make is that everyone else is wrong. Using the “highest standards of scientific evidence” makes proving others’ work wrong even easier. As an example, most research in the category of “eating lots of meat is bad for you” is supposed to have about a 90% chance of being correct to get through peer review. If you apply a higher standard of evidence, say 99%, of course the messy data about human meat consumption will fail to confirm or deny any hypothesis at this “high standard of evidence.” It doesn’t mean eating lots of meat is good or bad for you, it just means we can’t tell at a level of certainty of 99%
2
I think more explanation of GRADE is needed in the article. Dr. Hu seems to criticize its use on the basis that “You can’t do a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial...." The connection to GRADE is unclear. It is only by juxtaposition of the two sentences that one guesses there is a connection. Does GRADE require double-blind trials? Is it that there are other hypotheses of GRADE that are not met in the study and that undermine the reliability of it? Dr. Hu's criticism seems valid if well founded, but so does Dr. Laine's. In fact, I bet both are correct. My guess is that Dr. Johnston's study used a higher standard of certainty ("confidence level" perhaps), to which the statistics of previous studies did not measure up. From a reporting point of view, the interest should be in the standards to be used for public health policy recommendations and why they differ from "the highest standards of scientific evidence." I think the standards for public health should be a fairly high certainty that the recommendations are not damaging to health and a somewhat lower level of certainty that they improve health. I think Dr. Hu's criticism is along such lines and wish it had been made clearer in the article.
Biostitutes strike again, trying to prop up an unsustainable industry by manipulating public opinion - quelle surprise!
Americans have been reducing beef consumption by nearly 1%/year/capita each year and now consume about 40% less than we did in 1976.
The advent of excellent Dead Cow alternatives from Beyond Burger and Impossible Foods has the cowboys quaking in their boots - actually since beef production is almost entirely corporatized (like the rest of US agriculture), it has the Big Beef execs quaking in the Florsheims.
America's Big Beef Boyz have responded to declining US consumption by shipping increasing amounts of US beef to "developing nations", whose peeps want to ruin their livers with too much protein, just like we do.
As a fun aside, the export of US beef and alfalfa means that The Bigs are also exporting gazillions of acre/feet of precious water from CA, TX, and other arid states where about half of US beef is raised, at a time when exploding western population is increasing demands for more water for peeps.
2
So the question at hand is simple: is it statistically appropriate to use GRADE methodology for this type of population based study. This question can only be answered by the statisticians. This is a common problem with medical publications, lack of systematic expert statistical review to insure correct methodology is used.
5
HA! Knew it! His conclusions, contrary to decades of research on a meat diet and health, reeks of a silent conspiracy with certain industries that promote beef, poultry, and pig consumption. What's that conspiracy? Economic support to carry out studies that benefit the meat business.
2
It's funny that the ad playing at the top of this article is for Wolf SubZero refrigeration. Big dinner party - I see lamb chops and fish - no beef or pork that I can detect. Coincidence??
1
The fundamental issue is that nutrition science is complex and we can’t make recommendations that apply to everyone the same way. So take the matter into your own hands. Experiment with various diets and make a note of how you feel and get tested if you can.
1
@GV Get tested for what? The main claims are that there are slow long term damaging effects of a red-meat centered diet. By the time anything shows up on a test, it's far too late, like lung cancer from smoking. There's no way one individual can "test" that hypothesis by simply studying their own life and health - each of us has too many other "confounding" variables that affect our heart etc. You need to approach this statistically across large populations.
1
@Melissa Belvadi there is no way to setup a study across large populations because of the confounding variables, genetics and lifestyle being primary ones. If you use your own testing for small movements in various health indicators, at least you can control for genetics and lifestyle. You can’t get 2 large groups of people with same genetics and lifestyle and put them on different diets. That’s just not possible.
We go through cycles with these so-called experts: Eat less butter, eat more margarine then find out that margarine is worse for you. Eat more oatmeal, it is better for you then find out that oatmeal is not any better. We had studies saying that we should not use sugar but sugar substitute but those companies did not reveal or did not study enough that those artificial sugar substitutes are worst for you than sugar. They also never recommended honey, maple syrup, etc. Now we have vegetarians, vegans and environmentalists yelling at people that meat is bad for you and the planet (methane from cows). (I am not talking about processed meat now.) Scientists are supposed to report all their findings in their studies and not just trying to prove their theories. If the facts do not fit the theory then you are supposed to adjust the theory or throw it out. Not these days. We have studies for drugs that the companies only list those in a good light instead of all of the results. We need new regulations that require that ALL the studies are listed, explain why some should not be accepted and why others should be but in the end ALL studies are published.
3
@Geoffrey All studies should be published where? If you only pay attention to the mass news media that report on a tiny sliver of the scholarly studies that are published every day, the ones they deem sexy enough to tell you about, you have no idea whether all studies are being published or not. Yes, there's a publication bias by the scholarly journals to only publish "positive" results, but it hardly matters if the public would never find out about the negative ones anyway because the popular press filters them out when they are published.
Look, the saturated fats in red meat, along with the environmental costs of raising cows pigs and sheep for meat very clearly show that red meat is not good for us. We should be eating much much less of it.
I eat beef about once a month.
I would love not to eat it at all, or any meat, but my wife is intolerant of legumes, and I have a condition where I get the shakes if I don’t get animal protein.
We will all do better to get off meat as best we can. This truth is obviously a huge threat to the meat industry, and they need these phony research groups to counteract the tsunamis of data showing the unhealthy effects of their products.
It’s the same with climate change.
The conservative movement is pro business, and to them, any regulation is an attack on LIBERTY. But the truth is the truth. Meat is expensive and unhealthy, and we should all cut way down.
6
Fun stuff, science in the post truth age. Can’t wait for the return of sugar and carbs!
2
As with anything, follow the money. Whether and how much red meat people consume is of little interest to anyone outside the industry supplying red meat.
4
Give me a break. Dr Johnston was not required to disclose anything about his funding. If you think he should disclose his funding then surely you think that CNN was wrong in not disclosing that the person who asked Liz Warren a LGBQ question was actually a substantial contributor to Warren's campaign.
2
@Grace You really don't see any difference between a journalist having a bias in what questions they choose to ask, and a researcher entrusted with thousands or even millions of taxpayer dollars hiding their potential bias that could affect the answers they give the public? Aside from the vastly different roles in society, how about the difference between a question being biased and an answer being biased? Really, no difference in your mind?
The study this author was involved with in December 2019 is within the window for a conflict of interest. Also, these publications are peer-reviewed (research included) so how slanted was the research that a known fact, for decades, was disproven?
6
Bryan Hanley. Always good to try to judge things on the merits but you can't pretend that the reader can really do that. The author is in a position of power, especially one with a history of working for aggressive trade groups. Its like saying so and so did nothing wrong in the Mueller report except some obstruction of justice. Well, if you are going about hiding facts and pushing investigators of course, who's to say you did nothing wrong? In this case who's to say the study isn't designed to avoid uncomfortable truths? You are either forthcoming with the truth about your experience or you are hiding something that effects the conclusion you want others to take away.
1
And we're surprised that giant corporations and their bought-and-paid-for shills are spreading lies in the service of their own profits at the expense of the well-being of regular people? Do I sense a theme here?
9
Sounds like we have a candidate for the next Secretary of Agriculture.
12
“If the rules don’t say I have to be honest then I’m gong to lie.”
13
Plant based meat is catching on.
The meat industry is in a tizzy
9
@New World No, the real tizzy is in the industrial area trying to sell the chemical frankenfoods. No scientist will ever eat any of this noxious stuff. Look at how many chemicals are used raising the greens that both you and every animal eats.
3
They do not teach critical thinking skills anymore.
I knew this article was bought and paid for by the meat industry immediately after reading it and I deleted it from my awareness and went back to my plant based diet and to looking 20 years younger and feeling 40 years younger than I really am
9
Me too!
And I hope more people join us.
1
Oh goody, another scientist without a moral compass....
5
When I saw this so called study a couple weeks ago, I knew it was tied to industry. I was actually more surprised that the New York Times published it's results. I would have thought your journalists would have done more research.
10
I hope the journalists didn’t get paid to not reveal industry ties and unethical capitalism run amok.
@Ray The journal it was published in is a very high ranking scholarly journal. If it had been a garbage predatory journal, I'd hold the NYT to that task, but I think it's reasonable for the editors of the NYT to trust the high-reputation editors of the AIM. It's those editors who let the public down.
I don't understand why this is so hard ... I'm slowly counting down the days until people admit that studying diet over the long term is impossible unless we lock up and study for decades test subjects from all over the world under ridiculously controlled conditions.
People need to keep it simple and accept that all we maybe know is to limit processed foods as much as possible and eat organic foods from and of the earth that humans have consumed for tens of thousands of years (whole vegetables, fruits and grains, unprocessed meat, some dairy, water, teas, black coffee). Literally, and figuratively, "keep it moving" and you'll be fine.
What little scientists can track in this domain is that stress and cortisol levels resulting in inflammation from worrying about your diet is likely more detrimental to your body than a weekly bowl of ice cream.
4
@Phillip J. At 91 and totally healthy, I heartily agree.
1
And the "meat is deadly" crowd just might be using health concerns as a front for an environmental agenda. In the '90s California voted for "medicinal marijuana" (won't someone think of the cancer patients?!), except it turned out to have had nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with prison policy. The tactic was sleazy, and now I suspect it elsewhere.
2
@Blair An “ environmental agenda”? Do you mean advocating for clean air and water ? Oh that sneaky sneaky crowd.
5
@Maggie The detrimental effects on the environment of beef production (and pork, and chicken) are something that can be explained to rational people. So do it. Don't hide behind scare tactics, junk science, and half-baked health trends.
Trying to save life on earth?
The shame!
Every health scientist relies on external funding. The funding coming from industry or industry supported groups is easily tagged with bias. But the peer reviewed government funded research is also prone to bias. That bias is driven by established scientists on review panels, many times from leading institutions who drive their own agendas. This so called "peer-review" funding is also highly susceptible to herd mentality, often in the service of pleasing the liberal cause de jour. No one wants to put their neck out and support unconventional ideas anymore, lest he/she be tagged by the review panels and shunned. This is the reason for ongoing confusion in nutrition and psychological sciences, although other research areas are not immune to herd bias. Disclaimer: I personally gave up eating meat because of spiritual reasons, however, I will make no pretense that it is really healthy as counter-examples abound.
2
Sources of funding are not the problem directly--but they are an important clue to look for bias, deliberate or otherwise. The GRADE method used in this study is (purposefully?) designed to elevate standards beyond what is reasonable for a diet study or PRECAUTIONARY recommendations. The Authors can conclude "there is not enough evidence for..." which is easily spun as "there is NO evidence for..." The Authors also take it upon themselves to measure and weigh consumer preferences -- as though what we enjoyed eating tells us what is nutritious and what is not -- faulty reasoning and BAD SCIENCE. So, funding or not, this is BAD SCIENCE -- and the industry ties just help us understand why it was ever done this way and submitted for publication. Shame on AIM for publishing this biased report.
5
@DK Allchin
Yes, heaven forbid that we would demand high standards for nutrition science. After all the past 40 years of dietary advice has been so successful, the results speak for themselves.
/s
3
Recall that an academic grant is not like a paycheck with a beginning and end date. The grant is for the proposed project and may well be, for the researchers, contemporary with other grants for other projects. If it were me, I would think that during the time of execution of the project which includes publishing the results and presumably some period thereafter for replying to reporters, conference proceedings etc. the grant, and therefore the potential conflict, should be reported. Three years is certainly arbitrary and if I were reading the paper (I haven't) I would look at the list of financial interests and judge the work on its quality.
I have been a contract researcher - paid by a company to conduct a study - but the findings have always been the findings. The company might want and hope for a specific result, but with me, and every company I have ever worked with as a client, there has never been any pressure to come up with anything but the objective truth. They'd love Product X to be the next aspirin but if it's not effective or it kills small furry animals, they want to be the first to know.
4
It sounds like the majority of the fault lies with the journal for an arbitrary "3 year" window for conflicts disclosures. Some blame certainly also lies with the lead author who chose to favorably misinterpret the 3 year window as it related to his funding from 2015.
Beyond that, however, we should focus our criticism on the study itself, particularly the data and the methodology. Attacking authors and sources of funding is the classic "ad hominem" logical fallacy. A source of funding should never be used to discredit work.
5
Its so sad.. money and interest groups sips into so many aspects of science and government. New science reports come out all the time then only get to debunk later...in the age of disinformation, this is not a good trend as public trust in science and government are eroding fast...
2
I will go with the advice of a very wise, Sicilian lady, my Nonna, who always told us, "Eat everything you like in moderation and you will be fine." She never took a pill in her entire life, rarely saw a doctor, and lived to 88 years old. This was a woman who endured much stress in her life. She was widowed twice by the time she was in her mid-thirties, and lost two children, one three year old hit and killed by a car, and a boy from meningitis. She maintained a happy attitude, worked until her sixties, and was a kind, peaceful woman who never raised her voice.
8
Thank you for reporting on the study itself, and now the (perhaps) fraught origins of it.
The takeaway for me? Any authority that cannot intelligently phrase a question they pose to the research community is not worthy to give me advice on what I should eat.
4
It is easy to shout ‘conflict of interest’ when looking at results you do not agree with. It is better to examine studies from a scientific standpoint to see if they stack up. A bad study is a bad study - no matter who funds it.
It is also naive and wrong to assume that all scientists are ethical and that grant funding from government and other sources is neutral. In order to get a grant, scientists have to demonstrate that there is something worth studying. The use of best results rather than typical results in order to get a paper published and get support for the next grant application is rife. Not publishing negative results is also part of the game.
One example is the oft repeated nonsense that eating vegetables prevents cancer. There is no Ehrlich style magic bullet in vegetables that prevent cancer. Longitudinal studies have shown this. And yet I do not see the great and the good lining up to criticise the flawed studies that try to imply a link.
2
The real problem is how food "research" goes viral. Drink more champagne! Drink more coffee! Eat more sugar! Everyone is so hungry for "likes" they post news about these studies and they go viral. Hopefully this article will do the same...and make it into Snopes.
2
It is odd that after first reading about this study I can’t really get it out of my head even though it now seems to me semi-fraudulent. I think the initial splash of information stays in your(or my) mind more than what you hear later.
3
And this is why science needs to be questioned constantly.
Time to stop with the blanket 'anti-science' shaming every time someone puts up their hand and says 'I don't trust that stat'. Science is valuable for it's critical thinking skills. Scientists are human and thereby corruptible and fallible. They play word games to manipulate their credibility, just as Dr. Johnston has done by not disclosing conflicts based not on what he was researching but when the funding was paid. He knew such information would diminish his findings and so lied by omission.
The list of things science has told us to believe in, that weren't harmful and that ultimately turned out to harmful is a long one: DDT, Thalidomide, BHT/BHA, sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, glyphosate are just a few. Even though it can take 12 years for FDA to approve a new drug, some 3-4% have to be withdrawn due to life threatening side affects once they are in use in the general public. In other words, the number of variables in real life is simply not able to be reproduced in a lab.
My physical anthropology prof told our class one day: "There are NO capital 'T' truths in biology, only little 't' truths... and those are only true until someone comes along and proves them false'. This is a good definition of a discipline that moves from hypothesis to hypothesis.
1
And the next time the AHA is quoted on the supposed dangers of butter, will you report the funding the AHA receives from the soy oil industry?
And the next time that Harvard researchers report on the benefits of nuts, will you report the funding that Harvard receives from walnut and peanut producers?
And the next time that any health "expert" reports on the supposed dangers of meat and the benefits of plant protein, will you report on their connection to the SDA Church (religious veganism)?
6
@The Pooch I think they do?
2
Thank you for publishing this article. I would have hoped and will hope in the future, that the NYTimes will more thoroughly filter & evaluate the key players in an article before publishing an article such as the first. I don’t believe that we as readers, have the resources to do that on our own and rely on major newspapers to “check their sources”.
6
@karen Bamonte
It's probably better that we heard about this report through the NYT, instead of another news source, because the Times will investigate, like it did here, and give us both sides of the story.
3
It is not about requirement. If you are a real scientist, you disclose it. Simple as that. If scientists use loopholes to avoid any inconvenient truths, they allow science deniers to discredit the entire discipline
7
Yes, and we are all 'shocked' to learn this, right? Our human nutrition guidelines are made and vetted by the food industry and US governmental departments that support the food industry. Financial ties to the uber powerful (meat and dairy) food industry are ubiquitous, but the publication of a 'scientific' paper without revealing such a tie is irresponsible and immoral.
9
We are told that they used an inappropriate analytical tool for this analysis, one that could be bent to disprove many important health guidelines. Where were the referees and editorial folks at the journal where the work was published? Either we are being misled by Dr Hu or the publication of the work was a disgrace.
7
@Drjohnhodgson
Should peer reviewers disclose their financial ties to the industries whose "scientific" papers they're reviewing? If not, publishing in a peer-reviewed journal (the current standard) loses its sheen. Yet today, few publishers of any sort employ editors, copyeditors or fact checkers. When a researcher decides to prove his/her initial hypothesis by cherry-picking the data used in his/her report, this is not ethical science, in my view. It's not science at all. It is, however, what many beleaguered researchers resort to, at a time when funding is increasingly corporate.
1
Once again, a good NYT article about this issue, giving ample voice to both the author of the study and its critics.
Thanks NYT!
7
But it was published just the same. Why give credence -- so easily -- to anything so far off the map? And why do so many features in the "Food" section include red meat? or chicken, for that matter...?
5
It is just blind ,willfull obstinance to think that financial fealty has no place in studies like this. This is akin to Rex Tillerson saying that carbon dioxide is good for the environment. Or RJR saying smoking is good for you. These guys know where their bread is buttered.
5
@Tim Lynch
Except that in the meanwhile, both Rex Tillerson and the current ExxonMobile CEO fully support the Paris Climate agreement, AND publicly said and wrote that climate change is real, caused by human carbon production, and that we have to urgently do something about it.
So yes, for decades Tillerson financed studies that tried to prove the opposite. But he finally became convinced by the overwhelming evidence refuting the idea that at the time he wanted to see scientifically proven to be true.
What we have to be careful of is to not reject a study BECAUSE there is a potential conflict of interest. The only valid way to reject a study is to show that and where it made a mistake.
And of course, is thousands of studies prove A to be true, and then ONE appears that shows it's false, then it's too soon to change our behavior and base it from now on on the assumption that A must be false. ONE study leading to that conclusion is interesting, but the "solidity" of a scientific truth depends on then number of independent studies asking the same question and obtaining the same result ...
10
@Ana Luisa
There is a big difference between "potential" conflict of interest and actual,concrete conflict of interest. Transparency is crucial.But, yes, scientific research requires follow up studies.
3
@Tim Lynch
But 'conflict of interest' does not mean there is bona fide evidence that an individual is biased; it simply means that one *may* have bias. And, it depends if the COI is current (on the payroll; receiving support; etc.) or was it in the past.
In a general sense, a COI simply means one may have bias - *may*. Whether one is enough of a professional or not to simply report the data/evidence as it is is the question. Yet, it is a question for everyone because we all have biases of some sort. Whether we can put the blinders on, so to speak, and do our jobs without those biases, those pressures, that is the challenge.
So really, better to know of a potential COI than to not.
Of course they didn't. We have a long history of "scientists" selling out. Without their lack of integrity perhaps we wouldn't have climate change denialism.
3
Maybe newspapers could be a little more sensible about what health sciences stories they report on.
6
My mother taught me that just because you “can”, doesn’t mean you “should.”
In this case, just because you don’t have to, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. A person with integrity has their own moral inner compass, and knows honesty is integral to trustworthiness.
Shame on him. I hope such behavior disqualified him both from federal funding and future publishing in professional journals.
I realize the executive branch of government hasn’t set a standard for ethics, but I would hope our scientific community would.
1
Everyone knows that it is bad to eat processed meat. Also, one should curb one's meat consumption. The so-called "experts" are in bed with the beef industry? You don't say!
2
Definitely a shady thing to do and casts doubt on the study.
1
I’ve seen enough evidence over the past couple of years that I decided to go plant-based a few months ago, and I have never felt better. Not just from the improvement in diet, but going to sleep at night knowing I’m not paying for animals to be harmed, abused, exploited and killed for no reason. I still eat bacon, egg, and cheese sandwiches occasionally, and pizza, cookies, cake, and the like, it’s just all made from plants.
My doctor is impressed with the improvement in my cholesterol levels and blood pressure, and the supplements I’m taking seem to be dosed properly (I’m taking iron, B, D, and omega 3s). I haven’t really been trying to lose weight but it seems I’m averaging three pounds per month. At this rate I should reach my ideal weight in five or six months. It has been life-altering in the best ways, aside from all of the hilarious comments I’ve received since making this change.
If I can do this, I know for a fact that anyone can, and we all really should do this.
12
My past funding did not influence this study. I and my team were objective throughout our work. The study was double blind on all factors. These are all good explanations.
No one told me I had to report a potential conflict of interest is not the response of a serious scientist. It's the response of a child.
12
Yes, legally the lead author was not required to report conflicts of interest. The peer reviewing may also not have “required” reporting such conflicts and potential sources of bias. However, academic ethics and integrity do make such revelations a requirement, though still voluntary.
Potential conflicts can and should be revealed in the lead author’s short biography, if not elsewhere. A mere statement of “10 years in the meat industry” would have sufficed. The author revealed no sources of potential conflict. Because all researchers know to do this, we in the academy call it academic fraud.
8
Like in politics, banking or any other endevor that involves large sums of money to be made. Just follow the money. Any professional scientist knows the importance of full disclosure to avoid the appearance of impropriety. which is a important lesson todays politicians should follow.
7
Unfortunately this is another nail in the coffin of trust of any reports and information that is disseminated by endless media. What we don't know may very well hurt us.
3
@JRO
With all respect, that's absurd.
The job of the media is to correctly report the news - new things happening.
A new scientific study, published by a respected scientific journal, and that has results that seem to contradict thousands of other studies, IS "news".
That many scientists have serious criticism of this study, is part of the normal scientific discussion, and precisely why scientific results that HAVE been independently confirmed by many different studies, are so solid and trustworthy (NOT as the "absolute" truth, but as the closest we can get to it, in this particular moment in time).
To conclude that when a new study was actually compromised because of a conflict of interest - conflit that is reported by the media too - somehow the media themselves should be distrusted, doesn't make any sense, you see?
5
This study, and all published studies, should be evaluated on the basis of its claims and the methods used to support those claims. If the research methods are sound and the authors are not fabricating their data, it shouldn't matter who paid for the study or what the authors eat. It is the responsibility of the publication and the peer review process to find problems with the research before it is published, and it is the responsibility of the press to report the findings accurately and not to jump to sensational conclusions that the research does not support.
The fact that an author has a conflict of interest does not automatically invalidate the results of the research. There should be a very clear answer to the question, how is this research flawed? In this case, the conclusion is far more modest and constrained than the press is reporting. The paper reports that its conclusions and suggestions are weak recommendations on low-certainty evidence and spends considerable space in discussing the limitations of the study and process.
Instead of looking to tar and feather the authors, I think it would make more sense to ask questions of their findings and come up with follow-up research that could confirm, refute, or in some other way shed light on the relationship between meat consumption and health outcomes.
12
@MMR This comment might make sense if the point of this and the prior article about the benefits of limiting sugar, were to report something of scientific interest about these issues. Unfortunately, it takes only a brief glance to see that both articles are aimed at muddying social control, making it easier for the food industry to claim that everything is uncertain. This approach is so easy to understand as we see it daily in our politics, nothing can be said these days with any degree of certainty. The take away message from both articles is that the studies that were reviewed have multiple flaws and therefore should not be used to set public health recommendations. Dr. Hu points out that the method used to spread this disinformation, the GRADE standard, is quite inappropriate to this type of question. Unlike this comment, I think it is reasonable to consider the income related bias of people making public health pronouncements. I am quite sure the same type of attack could be used to show that secondary smoke is not necessarily that bad. The public should not use general biases to dispute scientific study, but when scientific study concludes that the right studies have not yet been done, we should not ignore the widespread epidemiological evidence of health hazards of poor dietary habits.
12
@MMR the oil industry historically funded research on global warming. They would fund 20 studies, all with reasonably good science. It wasn't unusual for the funding to give the oil industry final say on publication. 19 studies would find fossil fuels directly contribute to global warming. 1 would find a weak inverse correlation on weak evidence that it was possible that fossil fuels were not linked to global warming. Which study do you think they allowed to be published? Funding sources matter.
2
@WHM you are making your very valid points by referring to critical reviews of the articles themselves, rather than relying on press coverage or dismissing the study outright because of the authors' affiliations, and this is what I am saying. The strongest argument against junk science is to point out scientifically where it is junk - where studies are underpowered, researchers are cherry-picking results, methods do not support the conclusions, etc. We cannot just say that the authors are biased - we have to show that bias in action.
2
The meat industry is under assault worldwide. The Bradley Johnston "research study" was an attempt by the industry to promote itself in a positive light. Industries know how to market their products to the public. This is one way to do it.
The Paleo/Keto/Dr._Arkins fraud that encourages people to eat butter and red meat and avoid carbohydrates knows how to promote their eating habits through scientific community.
Here's the simple truth: Anytime you have a disease (cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes or other conditions), the doctor tells you to cut down on meat and increase vegetarian options. No doctor ever ays "eat more meat to reduce your risk of cancer and heart disease". Simple truth!
23
@KM Oh how I wish you were correct in assuming doctors aren't telling their patients to eat more red meat, bacon, butter, mayo, etc. Full disclosure, I am a licensed dietitian-nutritionist whose focus is on preventing a managing chronic disease taking a whole foods first approach. Just this week I had the shock of discovering that a medical doctor I respected and have made professional referrals to is now routinely advising all of his patients to follow a keto diet with instructions to consume zero carbs at breakfast, eliminate all beans, grains (even intact whole grains), all liquid dairy (it contains natural sugars), all fruit - including berries and non-starchy vegetables that are botanically fruits (tomatoes, peppers, etc.), almost all vegetables are eliminated entirely. And what is he referencing? A book by a journalist. Not science, not research, not even one of the many "celebrity doctors". This information is actually printed on the general advice that is included with the patient summary that he gives each patient at the end of their routine physicals. Oh! And he is also recommending 24-hour water fasts 3 days per week! All without any mention of medical monitoring and management. I suppose I can count on an increase in clients in need of nutritional therapy when all of those folks start having digestive and gut issues. But it pains me to see people who have harmed their health by following recommendations from those who take an oath to "first do no harm."
4
@KM
What's funny about the Atkins "fraud" is that it keeps producing results in randomized controlled trials, with human beings. Low(er) carb, high(er) fat diets produce better weight loss, better blood sugar regulation, and improved cardiovascular risk markers, over and over again.
Nothing in the field of nutrition is "simple truth".
2
The real story is the media that jumped on this study because of the controversial conclusions but did not do any research on the authors. Kudos to NYT for exposing them. Now you can understand why some parents stubbornly refuse to believe in efficacy of vaccinations.
11
@GEO2SFO
Ah, vaccinations. Same thing, sad to say, regarding authors of trials and studies and financial interests.
We probably agree that the greatest damage regarding vaccines is parents refusing to have their children vaccinated at all because of lack of information or lack of trust.
But the pharmaceutical industry causes, at least in some significant part, this distrust. The new, much-touted Shingrix vaccine is a good example. The trial, run by the drug company making Shingrix, removed people with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc. from their trial. (Gee, wonder why?)
Nothing said about this on the warning label. Reports now coming in of the removed folks getting bad reactions from the brand-new, powerful adjuvant in the Shingrix vaccine.
As a person with an autoimmune reaction to a statin drug (see Statin Induced Autoimmune Myopathy), I'm vulnerable to this cheat.
Bottom line to me is that until/unless the Big Pharma/Big Food industries become more concerned and more honest about our health rather than their profit, it's every person for themself.
StatinStories.com
4
It’s disappointing the The NY Times hastily published the study without taking a deeper background look.
8
The New York Times did not publish the article being discussed.
It appeared in The Annals of Internal Medicine.
Duh. Did anyone expect anything else. That should have been the first question by every editor before running the story. C’mon folks.
7
Greed will kill us all if we let it.
6
Just stop eating dead animals.
14
Disgraceful behaviour
3
That my parents have long ago died does not permit me to conclude that they had no influence on my present thoughts and feelings. Likewise, Dr. Johnson cannot with honesty claim that his past association with large agricultural interests is of no relevance to his published strongly biased works.
Instead, in an honest world, he should be held criminally liable for the shortened and crippled lives his poisonous thoughts will cause, and he should be permanently enjoined from spreading any more of his lies that come from his sucking up to big business.
3
Shocker.
1
Meat will kill us, one way or another. It's bad for your body, bad for the poor tortured animals, and really bad for the planet, thanks to the methane they released, and the oil required to grow their food. If you doubt these FACTS, you probably don't believe in climate change, or government corruption, either. So, not worth debating with you. You are willfully ignorant, or just don't care that YOUR individual actions have a negative effect on all living things. First, it's one individual, then 7½ BILLION individuals.
14
Why do they have to disclose ties? They are scientists, right?
The Annals of Internal Medicine is now yet another medical journal that I know is hopelessly corrupted by dirty money.
8
As a landlord, I get paid on the first of the month on my month-to-month leases. Can I now ethically say that on the second of the month I "have no relationship with them [the tenant] whatsoever"?
Total hogwash and every single person involved knows it.
7
"He said he did not report his past relationship with ILSI because the disclosure form asked only about potential conflicts within the past three years."
HR employment officer, I did not report the thefts from my past two employers because the disclosure form asked only about illegal activities within the past two months!
4
Always consider the source and follow the money. Unless it is hand raised in a natural environment there is no such thing as "healthy meat"..none of it is really fit for consumption or should it be fed to our pets. This is yet another attempt by big corp profits to undermine public health w/ their propaganda ...it is not healthy and the issues of climate and animal rights are serious and not to be ignored. CocaCola is garbage and only good for cleaning off an old corroded car battery yet people give it to very young children... and there is no reason for people to be consuming sugar...no nutritional value.Eat real food all the time and get educated and informed.....these "studies" are nothing but anti Science propaganda from people who want to sell you their "products" often GMO food like products.
6
Wow, as surprised as Jets fans when Gase calls a run to the left on 1st down.
2
Hahaha. I know scientists that do and publish research. The idea that someone in his position could be "a little naive" about this kind of issue is just laughable.
These people do not get to the positions they are in by being dumb or ignorant of the intricacies of publishing good science. He knew exactly what he was doing.
14
As a scientist as well as a citizen, I'm deeply disturbed by the many examples of "researchers" prostituting themselves to industry (and I say this with apologies to legitimate sex workers who actually benefit other people.
11
Dr. Johnson has done a lot of damage already to health and the environment, as many people will have seen the headlines about his study and not seen the subsequent disclosure of his financial ties. Shameful.
11
It now appears that we will now try and divide the country based on what we eat. I have read enough about food fights! We seem to be geared in the direction worrying so much about our food consumption that it is killing us with elevated anxiety. Sit down and have a nice quiet meal your digestive system will thank you.
2
Guess what, scientists are people like any other people. There are crooks among them, and some of them can lie quite effectively. I don't know why if someone says that he/she is a scientist we are supposed to believe that person. I don't. And I don't know why the journalists who reported on the recent read-meet research didn't exercise a little bit of critical thinking.
3
Dr. Hu says you cant use the strict rules of science to examine this issue. Of course he says that because he has built his career on pseudo-science and is now being called out. He is understandably upset. But science seeks the truth and the truth is Dr Hu is wrong. There were 4 papers published in the Annals on this topic and an Editorial. As the Editorialist said ““The overall recommendations, contrary to almost all others that exist, suggested that adults continue to eat their current levels of red and processed meat, unless they felt inclined to change them themselves. This is sure to be controversial, but it is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date. Because that review is inclusive, those who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence with which to build an argument.” Let Dr Hu build an argument and publish in a peer reviewed journal as prestigious as the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Or write and story trying to discredit the authors instead of challenging the science. Sure a disclosure would have been appropriate. But science isn't about "gotcha" disclosures. Its about the truth. And the truth is the science on diet and health is very weak.
Time for my morning steak and eggs!!
10
This comes across like the old cigarette company sponsored studies that showed no connection between lung cancer and cigarette smoking.
Perfect for the times we live in: Fake Science anyone?
5
I knew when I first heard of this new report that meat actually was not as much of a health threat as medical science had been telling us that was another desperate salvo from the beef, pork and poultry industry to sabatoge a movement that they cannot possibly stop. Event western European countries have become more vegan oriented than the East Coast of the United States.
6
Having read several of the "why is this study suddenly different articles," this one passes Occam's Razor the best.
This study is also a great example of how to lie with facts. It's "true" that the effect of eating meat on any specific individual's health is tiny. Here's some other examples of interventions where the effect of the individual are insignificant:
- Bike helmets
- Baby aspirin for heart attacks
- Seat belts in cars
8
His connection certainly compromises the integrity of his research. On the other hand, nutritional "science" has gotten it so wrong so many times, that the point that the methodology is fundamentally flawed can't be ignored.
3
Just as with climate change ...
Uncertainty is Not Your Friend!!
There are multiple reasons why our self-indulgent ignorance about meat, sugar, and other personally and environmentally expensive habits of consumption are dangerous to humanity and its future.
For those splitting hairs about the exact "rules" that were or were not broken, I recommend a close reading of this other issue with red meat. The dangers of replacing the some of the world's great forests with cattle ranches to make wealthy big farming wealthier while enslaving more subsistence workers are more than obvious by now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
It's obvious that about 10 times more of the world's agriculture products are used to produce nutrition in the form of meat than to consume it directly. Rice and beans are the mainstay of the diet of many of the less prosperous: a complete protein and high nutritious - Live long and prosper!
Though I would expand this to other red meat and encourage moderation even among those who are not ready to give up meat.
3
Shocking! One day, perhaps, people will become educated about the extreme difference between "observational studies" (as this one was, meaning sponsored, and with a foregone conclusion baked inside!), and a controlled, randomized study.
Til then, these bogus stories will continue to confuse and obfuscate.
3
Money has fully corrupted America so why is this surprising to anyone? Just another example how public concern and politics no longer work for the people. I hope 2020 is the beginning of at least some of the major systematic changes we need at every level of government. So many people - especially younger people I've run into lately think Trump was no worse than if we'd gotten Clinton or Sanders - they don't plan on voting or think it's a waste - I don't blame them but I hope more turn out to vote - we need a lot of change at every level.
Journals need to require authors to list any potential conflicts of interest for the previous ten years. Of course authors can lie, as many do, but listing any conflicts for the previous decade should provide benefit.
2
Does no one have a conscience any more? There was a time when the definition of a "professional" included the ethical ideal of putting the well-being of a client, or of the public at large, above personal profit.
Yes, I can hear the cynics laughing. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm nostalgic for an era when scientists and other professionals were held to that standard.
Recently, a studied showed that greater income inequality in a country leads to greater support for authoritarian rule, as though protecting one's ill-gotten gains trumps all other values.
It's time for all billionaires to join Warren Buffet in donating at least half of their wealth to charity. And for the rest of us to be more charitable in our actions and in our support for public policies that help refugees and the poor.
9
Everyone just needs to calm down. Proponents of these diets--plant based, paleo, Mediterranean, flexitarian, etc.--are really arguing over only a small portion of what we eat. They all agree that we should minimize processed foods, get plenty of fiber, not over eat, and base our diet around whole foods, especially fruits and veggies. These rules cover 90% of what we should eat, and are what most nutrition experts (not internet gurus) recommend. They are also what my doctor recommends, what keep me in shape, and followed by generations of healthy people across all cultures.
4
I commend Dr Guyatt who said in this article that he has been a pescatarian for 20 years. He said he used to have 3 reasons not to eat meat -- animal welfare, the environment, and health, but now because of these findings he only has 2.
It really bothers me that so much money and research is so narrowly focused on human health. Yes, that's important, but too often the argument becomes if it can't be proved that things like meat, GMOs, pesticides are bad for human health, then case closed, go ahead and use them.
To be ethical instead of narrowly scientific, perhaps such journal articles need warnings and disclaimers about (possible) negative consequences of use like medical ads on TV have to state. Cattle and the production of so much grain to feed them have serious impacts on our environment.
4
Is the methodology of the study flawed? If not, then this article is classic poisoning the well.
I recall a similar outcry when the Salt "Studies" were debunked, and the Egg "Studies," and the Cholesterol 'Studies." Meanwhile the Gluten Myths continue unabated, despite the actual cases of Celiac Disease being vanishingly low.
Dietary Hysteria is a luxury of the Leisure Class.
19
Great job reporting on this! Now need to get this as much publicity as the Johnston study got last week. Even if it turned out that eating dead animal flesh is not so bad for you, new foods are being developed that can provide all the nutrition we need, be more healthful and help the environment at the same time, and can even emulate the meat experience! Why would anyone be opposed to this? Seems like a win win for everyone but multinational meat corporations.
4
I am left dissatisfied by the treatment in this article of the actual debate over the scientific rigor or merits of the study.
18
I find it disingenuous that Dr Johnston claimed he didn't know how involved industry was with ILSI when he did the sugar study. According to the linked Times story on the group, the World Health Organization has been calling them out since the early 2000s for their dubious studies and corporate connections.
8
See "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming," the excellent book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, and the film by the same name that was made based on the book.
This is corporate behavior we're all well acquainted with.
Just wish the media did a little more digging before rushing to publish flawed science.
9
Perhaps a FAMINE will bring some common sense into this food fight. In the meantime simmer down, eat mostly plant food that is in season, don't put too much on the plate and try to exercise now and then.
7
Yes, it is always good to look for loopholes when you are dealing with the area of ethical disclosures.
9
I could care less what this scientist has to say about eating meat. I will always stick to eating chicken and fish especially salmon. The red meat is sure to eventually clog your arteries. My cholesterol level is 122 and triglyceride is only 50 and my doctor is pleased with it.
This is not the first time that I am reading about scientists having ulterior motives making recommendations without disclosing their ties to a industry.
4
@Tonjo Bully for you. My cholesterol levels are better than yours and I eat eggs every day and beef and pork frequently.
3
Even if "the rules" didn't "require" Dr. Johnston to make the disclosure, his failure to disclose his former ties discredits the integrity of both the research and the researcher.
9
The Annals of Internal Medicine is a good place to reach clinicians. In the past, it has been a source of studies designed to influence clinical practice including what clinicians say to their patients about health. Patients see their Internal Medicine or other clinician for individual diagnostics and care; those visits are also a convenient place for prospective advice on maintaining and promoting ones' health. While the journal appears very strong in the contested knowledge of best clinical care, their editorial board needs strengthening in understanding the methodologies of population studies about health--not disease, but health. This highly respected journal will rise to this challenge, but like the poorly considered vaccine study published in the Lancet, the damage has been done.
3
> Dr. Johnston said his past relationship with ILSI had no influence on the current research on meat recommendations.
But his future relationship with ILSI and similar groups would definitely have an influence on current research.
15
@Aaron ILSI has received industry funding from Big Meat for decades
1
Might not be being a vegetarian be just as much of a "conflict of interest"? Anyone check the eating habits of researchers whose papers lean towards limiting red meat consumption?
I say that partly in jest because I find it amazingly irritating that as a society, we apparently cannot reason too well on our own. We need some faceless entity to tell us what to eat, how much, how many minutes a day to exercise, whether we should lean towards HITT or just old fashioned cardio.
And, if one must have those Words of Wisdom telling you what to do, listen to your mother, who probably said:
All things in moderation.
Eat a variety of things.
Eat seasonally.
Eat respectfully, of what you're eating (plant or animal), and give thanks for those who make it possible for you to eat so darned well.
Okay, my mother never even said all those things, but it should really be obvious that "meat" is no more a killer than anything else, eaten in moderation (and from local sources who raise animals for consumption in responsible, ecologically-wise, and respectful manners - pay more for it done right, people).
We all know that food "truth" changes quite frequently. So, look at and listen to your own body. It knows best.
13
@DKM -- I certainly wouldn't call following one's own researched advice a conflict of interest. I would call it trust in the facts found.
2
@DKM And the impact on the environment of meat production?
1
You’re a cannibal in moderation? Or is this an example of defining the set to control the data?
1
Not only does Bradley C. Johnson undermine the scientific consensus in regards to meat and processed foods consumption, he undermines popular opinion of science and scientists at a pivotal moment in world history when climate change is a real threat. False equivalency has become the 5th column of attack on our scientific community.
37
@Dave -
Science is all about undermining. That is how knowledge progresses. If a theory or view of the world cannot stand up to scrutiny and additional data, then that theory or view of the world must be replaced. Such challenges to the status quo are absolutely necessary in science. That is what has happened in our recent re-evaluation of fat consumption, for example.
Are you arguing for doctrine over exploration? Religion over science? Political correctness over truth? Attacking individuals instead of their data or methods or ideas?
Wait a minute, I guess you are.
1
@Dave
It's a sin to undermine the scientific consensus?
I heard this somewhere else: You can't be right against the Party.
It's a sin to undermine the adulation of lay people for scientists at this moment when we must have them?
Goodness. Isn't this the old listen to your betters line?
Actually, we need scientists who know what they're talking about. Maybe Johnson is right, which would mean some scientists are talking through their hats. You too.
How about a decent interval while the back and forth claims sort themselves out?
One major issue we've faced for the last 40 years or so is science by press release. Studies that have conclusions that are press release worthy are trumpeted before the ink is dry. Worse, they're trumpeted before any peers have a chance to replicate it. Part of the problem is the blood sport of grant applications. You need published research and a track record for the big ones. You need notoriety as well. Bringing in grant money is also a ticket to tenure at a large university too. There's nothing particularly wrong with the scientific method but our method of reporting science is seriously flawed and science literacy of people is sorely lacking.
17
Newsflash! You need to be an informed consumer. When someone is trying to sell you something they probably have a vested interest. Shocking I know. But thanks big tobacco, sugar, meat, dairy and the pharmaceutical industry for reminding us we’re really just the sum of our buying power and ultimately disposable.
22
@Rmski77 > we’re really just the sum of our buying power and ultimately disposable.
"Kill all the consumers you want. We'll make more!"
Medical research, like all scientific research, is extremely difficult & expensive &, in the end, unrewarding. It is practically impossible in a capitalist system. It is easier to step on toes than on someone's bank account.
2
If you cannot argue with the data, go after the messenger.
13
@SRP
Bam!
I tend to agree, yes, because we all have biases. So the question really is, or ought be, can individuals perform research (science, report news, etc.) without being biased?
They should, shouldn't they. We demand it of educators and other professionals; librarians (I am one, fyi) have a full Code of Ethics that discourages bias if not prohibits it - which isn't to say it doesn't raise its ugly head; it does, esp. in K-12 libraries, those that still exist). Yet we seem to think it is inevitable, even expected, of others.
Why? Bias simply brings in belief. Even if justified true belief, it is still belief.
Best to stick to the facts, the data, and then, as SRP implies: read the data, and then judge for yourself.
Don't shoot the messenger, although if it is a politician, welll....vote :)
@SRP As much of carnivore that I am, the second to last paragraph was a direct attack on the study's methodology. By using a tool designed for drug trials with meat eating it was an apples and oranges situation. He was effectively using a hammer to drive in a screw.
1
“They do workshops on plant-based diets, do retreats on wellness and write books on plant-based diets. There are conflicts on both sides.”— I fail to see how that is a "conflict of interest" on the level of big agro's conflicts of interest.
11
You seem unaware that the so-called "natural" market run by hucksters is worth billions of dollars. It is Big Business.
1
@Prog-Vet -
Then you are not looking very hard.
Because it is individualized, it is actually worse.
I have yet to see a nutritional research paper where all of the authors disclosed the degree to which they are vegans or vegetarians, as this paper did. I think that that is good idea going forward. It should be required.
Similarly, all NYTimes health reporters should similarly have to declare with each article whether they are properly woke or not.
And whether they are Democrats or Republicans.
10
@SRP No one discusses the immorality and inhumanity of killing animals.
1
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
- Upton Sinclair
47
@Mike Rupp ...Excellent quote that could also apply to the GOP law makers who are in the tank for Trump.
5
This is a black eye for Annals. They made the same mistake with the same author 3 years ago. He should have been banned then. And they not only didn't ban him, they didn't even inspect the paper for its obvious similarities.
I'd guess this study would never have been published in Europe.
The best advice for Americans at this point is to trust all American science a little less, and European science a little more. They are far less foolish about letting industry pay for 'studies' intended to promote their product because they are far less brainwashed by right-wing economics.
62
Sorry? Didn't you get the memo? All 'science' and scientists are paid for by big business, neither directly, through fronts, or institutions (like universities paid by businessmen. Certainly, the multi billion dollar "Natural Big Business" interest has made more spurious unverified claims than any other of these businesses since they are not required to prove anything about their claims.
@priceofcivilization That's right we should trust Europe - the home of the vaccine autism hoax.
Their they go again. Many of the commentators of This article are the same that attacked the study when was published . They repeat the same excuses . Mainly that the consensus up to now and the recommendations from the health department was the meat was no good in this study harms their reputation . In the 1950s and 1960s the medical profession and the consensus of the scientist and of the health departments was that stomach ulcers or cost only by excessive acidity A scientist that challenged this belief asserting that They were caused by a bacteria in the stomach was denigrated and dismissed . Eventually the conclusions of the scientist were proved correct 40 years later . Just because there’s a consensus and something doesn’t make a right . Just eat a balanced diet meat chicken and fish Animal protein is necessary
7
@perdiz41 Our genetics play a role in what diets we should eat for optimum health. But most of us can be healthy and fit eating a whole-food, completely plant-based diet. The same can't be said for the standard American diet - high in both animal protein and refined carbohydrates (though I know this isn't the diet you're suggesting.) You can find plenty of scientific studies on pubmed.org regarding plant-based diets, but here's a mainstream article: https://www.today.com/health/longevity-loma-linda-town-may-hold-secrets-long-life-1D80353425
7
@perdiz41 -
Or that the ulcers were caused by "stress."
Eventually, the non-academic, non-elite Australian physicians who had the data and spoke truth to power received the Nobel Prize. Not the American academic elites.
@Brenda -
What you cannot find on PubMed.org are datasets that indicate that plant-based diets are substantially better for you than diets that include animal protein and substantial fats. Go look. Cite your studies for us. We'll wait.
Compared to omnivores, do vegans and vegetarians get better health outcome results? Answer: They don’t.
On PubMed look up PMID 12936946, 19297458, 26657045, 23836264 & 28040519. And 28254171.
Certainly it is unhealthy to avoid vegetables and fruits completely. We need two or three servings per day. But do eating plants beyond that provide better health outcomes? The answer, in dataset after dataset, is: No. After 2 or 3 servings per day the Dose-Response curve for plants is essentially flat. See PMID 12081821, 28446499, 23599238, 25073782, 28338764, 22854878, 24965308—and now 28864331 on PubMed. Print ‘em all up and read ‘em. Do you believe in science or religion?
9
@SRP I looked at the first 4 of your 2-3 servings per day references:
25073782: “For the reduction in total mortality, we found a threshold of around five servings a day of fruit and vegetables, after which the risk of death did not reduce further”
23599238: “In this large prospective study, lower mortality was observed with large consumption of fruits and vegetables. An 11% lower risk of death was found in this study for the highest quartile of fruit and vegetable consumption (>569 g/day) when compared with the lowest (<249 g/day)”
28446499: From the graphs: in regards to all-cause mortality, dose response curves seem to imply that both whole grains and legumes show a linear decrease with increasing consumption; vegetables and fruit show a decrease up to ~250g/day; similar for nuts with decrease up to ~15g/day; while red meat and processed meat shows a linear increase in mortality with increasing consumption. Seems to indicate the benefits of plant-based diets.
12081821: “Fruit and vegetable intake was grouped into 4 categories by intake (<1 time/d, 1 time/d, 2 times/d, and ≥3 times/d)”…with an average of 520g/day for the ≥3 times/day group. Shows a downward trend of mortality with increasing fruit and vegetable intake, but I can't find anything that indicates a “flattening” of benefits beyond 3 servings/day.
1
What we should eat is dictated by our teeth. We don't have the teeth of herbivores, do we? Have you looked into a horses mouth recently? Nor do we have the teeth of an obligate carnivore, like the felines. Humans have the teeth of an omnivore, who should both eat meat and vegetables. However, during most of humanity's history, meat had to be hunted down, and the success of the hunt wasn't guaranteed. Now the hunt is surviving the commute to the supermarket, where game is plentiful and easy to trap, but we pay for that ease with the health and ecological issues of mass production of meat. Where I live is about 25 miles from massive feedlots. When the wind does it's thing, you wonder how you could possibly eat what comes off those feedlots...
11
@Catwhisperer You're right about the importance of dentition in determining diet— so let's look at the teeth of apes and monkeys, our closest relatives, and look at their diets. Let's take the gorilla: "About 67% of their diet is fruit, 17% is leaves, seeds and stems and 3% is termites and caterpillars." Our teeth are even more, shall we say, herbivorous in appearance than theirs! Ever major civilization grew up on a staple grain after all.
14
@Prog-Vet: Wrong. Our ancestors before two million years ago (australopithecines and their relatives) had large molars appropriate for crushing plant foods. Since then, molar size has declined, indicative of a more omnivorous diet. As far as grain and civilization are concerned, grain feeds the large numbers of people that the elites require to build their monuments and fight their wars. It has nothing to do with the health of the peons. Skeletal evidence shows that the elites were far healthier than the people they exploited.
2
@Prog-Vet
Of course, we are not gorillas. Mostly.
We are human.
So, perhaps, it would be wise to look at humans.
ILSI has coopted governments all over the world, leading to rising obesity, inflammation, and death. (See, for instance, Nestle in Brazil). I am a scientist. This is the kind of behavior that destroys trust in science.
Even if you think that the scientists with these ties are honest people with integrity, there's an implicit self-censorship after the fashion of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.
18
I see this as another one of those attempts by some industries to sow confusion causing many people to throw their hands up in the air and stop caring and start making bad unhealthy decisions.
I am not anti - vaccine, but I can understand why people would choose to not vaccinate. If you cannot trust medical research, you have to learn to make your own decisions. All that time and money invested in medical research to create distrust and confusion! We might as well be living in the Middle Ages.
14
@Morgan
Slow you roll there, big baby.
You have a convenient story about science and doubt but you ignore those, who rabid doubters mostly worship, making a career and a living of creating doubt.
This is, paleontologically speaking, The Age of Doubt. Roaming the steaming wilds of media, the dangerous environs of Internet World, doubters reign supreme.
Reason is the first victim, so we have children hired by vile somebodies to go to elementary schools, douse themselves with ketchup, and lie very still for a very long time pretending to be dead. And fake moms grieving floridly for the cameras.
As a race we overnight developed the capacity to see everything every government everywhere ever said is an ugly lie. Which is a big problem, because that seems to support evolution...
We realize vaccinations are a vile profit-based conspiracy. Far more difficult to produce than fake insurance papers, but easier to carry around.
Somehow we know nobody ever went to moon; we went there and COULDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE.
Before you decide to disbelieve everything everybody you don't like says, maybe check out who gets richer when you stop believing.
I got his box of materials showing the medical fraud that makes ignorant people believe vaccination is good. You want it? I'll give it to you cheap.
@oogada I’m the generation after the generation that didn’t get vaccines but got polio. No one said anything about vaccines. They said a lot of stuff about tobacco, sugar, drunk driving. In the US, there is a strong relationship with healthcare and money. In Canada, vaccines are free. I was shocked when I saw my first advertising about some medical pill. That made no sense to me and I thought it was illegal.
I get how tough it is and I am always suspicious. But you might want to find out which countries are being given for free what medical vaccines, etc. to help determine what’s safe and useful. However there are no guarantees and we have to realize how badly we always want guarantees.
There is SO much corruption at the foundation of most of these studies that I no longer believe any of them, and I eat what I want...wisely! I do believe meat is good for you and provides vitamins and amino acids not available elsewhere. That doesn't mean steak every night! I think you just have to use common sense.
6
@J. G. Smith
I am a registered dietitian nutritionist. ALL of the vitamins and amino acids found in red meat can be found in other foods, yes every single one.
15
No surprise that this study was industry funded. Just look at the health of all of our citizens, look at the health of our fitter citizens and it’s easy to draw a conclusion that high meat consumption is unhealthy. Sure, people can be very healthy with low to moderate consumption but I think everyone by now knows that a meat centric diet is unhealthy. Add this to the burden on the environment and we are forming a public consensus around lower meat consumption. Just look at the young. Their eating habits are profoundly different than older Americans. It is nevertheless shameful that industry funded propaganda can pass as fact and be picked up as click bait. This ability to rapidly spread disinformation is likely what will lead to the end of humankind.
15
@Maya EV -
Please take the time to actually read the article before asserting that your pre-conceived notions are true.
This study was not industry funded.
But hey, why make the effort to be objective when cognitive dissonance is so much easier?
7
In a free-enterprise system, everyone is for sale, by necessity. We must take the bad with the good. Who would pass up cold cash for cold thanks.
@JGSD Actually, many would. It's called ethics...
7
I looked through the disclosures required by the authors of the article which said "go ahead, eat red meat and cured meat."
I failed to see that the meat factory sponsorship was disclosed.
Nothing new. Industry, whether asbestos, lead, oil and gas, tobacco, sugar, or alcohol, has bought and sold "scientists" for generations, just as they buy your congress member and mine.
And, you know what? Since AG Barr and the Boof Kavanaugh Supreme court are now the arbiters of what is legal and constitutional, it will get worse.
In the interest of being Zen, that is, not fretting over things I cannot change, I'm going to get me a Big Mac and a jumbo Coke. Soma by another name.
5
It simply comes down to this. Eating meat is un-sustainable living! Anything that takes away from that fact is just plane bad for all of us!
10
Is my private jet also unsustainable living? What’s your point? I still like it.
1
Of course no conflicts exist?
After all, who would ever expect a person who had spent a large portion of his life working for the meat guys with all their biases to be anything but objective when considering the health implications of eating a lot of bacon or hamburgers.
I can't wait to start eating McDonalds again. Thanks so much Mr. Johnson.
3
It is unfortunate the authors and readers make the simple minded assumption the scientists' conclusions were affected by the attenuated and non current relationships with industry. The science is real, even if you don't like the conclusions or like to support guilt by former association. This the the behaviour expected of a tabloid.
8
Please read the actual studies. The conclusions that are valid are not what the titles or abstracts suggest. Yes, the mortality differences between 7 servings of meat a week and 4 servings will are not substantial. The studies tell you nothing about the differences between 7 servings and 0 servings. All the statistics are for mortality, none are for morbidity. The effects of increased use of statins over the study periods are not mentioned, nor are the source of calories people used when reducing meat consumption.
Here is a more complete discussion of the problems with these studies:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/
And here is an example (one of many) that reach dramatically different conclusions:
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/105/6/1462/4569801/
19
@Bruce
Article J nutrition was a great source of information.
Thanks
1
@Bruce -
For the differences between 7 servings and 0 servings of meat, see on PubMed.org: PMID 12936946, 19297458, 26657045, 23836264 28040519 & 28254171.
There simply don’t appear to be any significant health benefits in being a vegetarian/vegan compared to being an omnivore.
As you say, please read the actual studies.
The data that science has says that, indeed, we should all have 2 or 3 fruit or vegetable servings per day—but beyond that the Dose-Response Curve is flat. No added benefit of going whole-hog (sorry) on vegetarianism/plants. See PMID 12081821, 28446499, 23599238, 25073782, 28338764, 22854878, 24965308—and now 28864331.
As you say, please read the actual studies.
6
The Annals of Internal Medicine 'journal' should no longer be a trusted source of information. Thank you for exposing them!
8
We are all looking forward to Dr. Johnston’s new study on the health benefits of vaping ...
20
@FA
Vaping is a bad idea. But compared to smoking cigarettes, it probably does have health benefits. This is why vaping was widely seen as a lesser of two evils when it appeared on the market, about 15 years ago, when more people in Western countries smoked cigaterres.
The doom of men is that they forget.
Professional journals need to both expand COI reporting windows & drastically limit # of observational epidemiology articles. Too easy to “game” methodology & execute selection bias. I loathe this literature but mass media eats it up. Also stop graduating so many Epi from MPH programs.
2
Scientist for sale to the highest bidder.
There are a bunch of them around. How about the ones that are in Bayer's pocket and attempt to discredit the reality of Roundup disseminating the bee and butterfly population, polluting waters around the world and contributing to cancer in humans.
12
An ambitious epidemiologist looking to make headlines, again. Well, he did. And he can kiss his credibility goodbye. Dalhousie University hopefully has not given this ‘scientist’ tenure. Shame on Guyatt too. Another poke in the eye for evidence based medicine.
5
Trump can appoint Dr. Johnston as the new Acting Energy Secretary, if he can fill the shoes of the resigning Rick Perry.
9
I am starting to wonder whether these constant contradictions in food science (it's good for you--no!--it's bad for you--no!) are actually part of some larger propaganda campaign to erode the public's belief in science.
10
@Madeline Conant I agree, Madeline! The Annals of Internal Medicine should be ashamed - peer reviewed journals of this caliber perform a public service as vanguards of sound science. They decide which studies will ultimately influence how the public thinks, how healthcare providers advise, and how policy makers legislate. The general (i.e. non-scientifically trained) public sees bogus studies like this positioned in a way that trumps decades of good science, and conflate these poor editorial decisions with sound recommendations around vaccination, for example. Public trust in the scientific method, scientists, and even healthcare providers, is eroded. I'll even make the leap to say that major faux pas like this only fuel conspiracy theories and anti-vaxxers, and add to unease and uncertainty among those who are genuinely just trying to make the best choices for themselves and their families. As a healthcare provider, it's another unnecessary misstep I have to undo when I talk with patients.
1
Clearly, medical journals can no longer rely on self disclosure. Journals now must thoroughly vet the articles that are submitted to them through peer review and independent investigation. Critical to do this BEFORE publication. Certainly this author’s links to industry would have been discovered pre-publication had this been done. The article should never have been published.
5
No money in broccoli, said the author of #eatveganon$4aday ...non broccoli corporations,
broccoli lobbies or associations. Mom, aunt both sisters had breast cancer. On top of that, heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. What do I know...
yes, further erodes our trust in science and research. then also, there is a sort of "war' being started now, and centered around what we all should do to save the planet from global warming. the plant eat people are really strong into saying everyone should more or less embrace veganism of *ELSE*.
else we all die. and soon.
the flat earth society is gaining new members by the hour. the most popular website for medical advice is from an accused quack. far more people go there then for webmd or mayo clinic! *I* am beginning not to trust nearly any finding from science or medicine now. someone from Ithaca once wrote, "everything is now political, art, science, poetry"! yes, now so. every article is biased, has an agenda.
but in diet, few people realize just how unique each DNA footprint is, in a person! each of us needs *our* individual diet. some people might need no meat, others might have to eat nearly all meat; to be healthy.
freestone
3
And the NYT fell for it - touting the 'New Wisdom' along with all major media outlets. The impression of 'This annual scientific Truth' paired with conflicts of interest serve as arguments for all those mistrusting science - Climate Science foremost. So the damage can be considerable.
4
Cant' deal with or disprove or counter the Facts & Science in his study, so you resort to Smears & Guilt by Association - again? This is becoming a tiresome and transparent strategy for True Believers, ranging from the screeching about MonSatan & glyphosates, to false claims about Drug companies & vaccines. Can't defend your Beliefs? No problem! Start a smear campaign with insinuations and ad hominem. Every researcher on Earth has received some sort of financial support or been involved with a business that's involved with their field of study. This is pure character assassination substituted for criticism.
3
Oops!
Also, Dr Johnston is one to argue against "digging one's heels in"; he apparently is spinning his wheels as we speak.
Can we sue? Truth is more powerful than 1 trillion dollars of Big Pharma's GDP who sells Antibiotics to Animals... #GoVegan what is the worst that can happen? You will longer...
A few days ago the NYT was very happy to print his meat industry report.
Don't believe the NYT either. Protect animals, protect your health and the health of your children.
You don't have claws to catch and rip flesh off bone. You don't have teeth to rip flesh off bone and unless flesh is cooked you would NEVER go near it. Humans are NOT supposed to eat flesh no matter what any paper tells you.
Vitamine B12 is also in all untreated water in abundance. Do an article on the health benefits of fresh water from your local well?
3
Surely, there must be a place for Mr. Johnson in the Trump administration.
4
Shouldn't this article really be a NYT apology for running with a story they did not bother to check out?
First thing I noticed on that document was that there was no way to tell who funded it. That the scientist behind it was known to support positions that no respected scientist would find is another failure.
3
This is the second Canadian group I’ve recently come across who get corporate money to publish questionable industry-friendly research. What gives? Is NSERC too stingy?
The university and journal facilitating this fraudster should be censored.
3
And then perhaps censured.
This is yet another incidence that the report is quite biased,again with help of the powerful lobbies. A few months ago erroneous report on “benefits of salt” were discussed to the detriment of majority of the people suffering from chronic illnesses like high blood pressure, heart failures and kidney diseases and so on. Ayer the article brazenly touted how good the salt is! The medical editor of the NYT needs to be more careful about controversial reports with data that could have been extracted from errors in stats and poorly designed studies. This otherwise lends to the same phenomena as perpetuated by the anti waders.
1
This does not repair the damage you already did with your irresponsible headline and lead in the original article.
Just like with the tobacco industry model, the animal products industry is not about meat it is about instilling doubt.
And you played right into their hands by imprinting that headline in your readers.
1
Here are the full disclosures: Among all this Dr. Johnston has to slice and dice his timline??
Disclosures: Dr. de Souza reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from the World Health Organization; personal fees from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Health Canada and McMaster Children's Hospital; grants from the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation/Population Health Research Institute outside of the submitted work. He also reports other support from the College of Family Physicians of Canada, Royal College (speaking at a recent conference), and he has served on the Board of Directors of the Helderleigh Foundation. Dr. Patel reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, and the National Science Foundation; personal fees from XY.health, Inc, doc.ai, Janssen, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and nonfinancial support from Microsoft, Inc, and Amazon, Inc, during the conduct of the study and equity in XY.health, Inc, outside the submitted work. A summary of disclosures is provided in the Appendix Table. Authors not named here have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Disclosures can also be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M19-1621.
Who didn't see this coming?
1
Eat More Meat Message was obvious Capitalist Spin....We already knew to disqualify bogus advice.....................
1
This now is the second study published by Annals of Internal Medicine that was written by Dr. Johnston who received funding from organizations "largely supported" by agribusiness. How many tainted articles like this does Annals of Internal Medicine have to publish before the Times will discount or ignore future "findings" from this source?
5
Hunter Biden must have been involved somehow. Trump should ask Canada to investigate.
2
Must have gotten his degree at Trump U...
4
Bradley C. Johnston- is the C for Chuck?
2
The NYT published the findings without first checking who the researcher is. Much of the damage caused by these sorts of propaganda attempts could be avoided by careful reporting.
3
Why didn’t major news sources like TNYT and WAPO vet the authors of the meat report before publishing it as news? Such vetting—where has this scientist worked before?—doesn’t seem that hard to do.
5
well...one must read an article with their intelligence intact. Red meat is not a bad thing if you eat it sparingly, know your tolerance, know your body numbers and history, know where the meat is sourced from, etc, etc.
However...we do have a population that does not get certain facts and will listen to anything.
NYT...where is your place in setting this matter straight? Actually, what I really mean is...why did you publish that first article anyway??? And oh yes, I do realize that I get into a very serious area here.
Shame on the NY Times for publishing the findings without doing this critical background research especially on a story that seems to SLAM the door in the face of many other credible medical groups position on the issue
1
Just another psychopath using the "scientist" (clergy, educator, politician, banker, corporate officer, tobacco lobbyist/attorney general/admiral/lobbyist/government advisor/cabinet member) mask and costume. When all the world's a play, you gotta have a costume.
Hey, a guy has to wear some kind of clothes, so make it a play actor's costume of some sort, any sort. Just another Charlie Babbitt under the mask.
Want some fact based information? Head to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
https://www.pcrm.org/news/blog/journal-advice-eat-cancer-causing-meats-science-or-clickbait
1
It is best as an America to import your knowledge every other product from abroad you can
Most things in America are garbage wrapped in marketing and lies to sell cancer.
Johnson is a shill, an industry lacky, and a crook. He should be blocked from publishing anymore, and perhaps fired.
3
What a surprise?
1
Does The Times even care about the science or objectivity any more? Apparently not, since Dr. Hu, who has based his career on meat-bashing through epidemiology, is given the prime spot to discredit someone whom he disagrees with. I guess it was Hu, or Willet, or Nestle to tie a bow around this article for you, eh Times?
Let's dig a little further: do we have any RCTs that prove any causation between red meat and ANY disease. Hint: No, we don't. Why isn't that front page news every, single, day? Epidemiology isn't science. Period. You guys know this (association does not equal causation) yet you keep spouting noise.
So how about the good old fashioned sniff test? What are the foods that allowed us to become human? What are the foods that allowed your brain to evolve? Take a wild guess... Hint: meat. Better yet, what is your stomach pH? What is it best suited to digest?
This health space has become a religion based on faith and belief rather than proof. And this is where The Times could do the public a solid by reporting real science. If The Times is going to impugn a scientist (any of them), make the same efforts on all of them. You want COI? How about looking into the WHO reports that classify meat as a carcinogen. BTW, every Times health writer should post their eating habits and their beliefs so we can be aware of their biases as well.
3
So purely on a technical point he had no conflict of interest? Surely his colleagues knew where his priorities lay.
2
We need to let go of our egos and flow together to find solutions
The underlying motivation and bias of the interpretation of information. We are all vulnerable to our own biases.
How do we free ourselves of this when reading or researching a topic? How doe the public interpret the information they see or read?
Third party assessment of information data or information. Interprofessional formal or informal peer review in collaboration is one way to deal with bias.
1
We see this same problem in drug interaction research. If one wants to disprove that a drug interaction causes adverse effects, it is very easy to set up an epidemiological trial that will fail to show a connection by 1) using an inappropriate trial design, or 2) ignoring confounding factors that muddy the results. Dr. Hu is absolutely right... this study has an objectionable odor.
10
Public health warnings are a dime a dozen. So tired of reading what ''experts" say. Foods are full of chemical additives, and that's the bottom line. Meats are healthy, yet markets dip red meat in dyes to keep it looking fresh. Veggies are healthy, but the soil is laden with insecticides. Food recalls come in by the dozens day after day for bacteria. Experts said Agent Orange was safe. My husband died from it, but a lot of people made a lot of money buying stock in Monsanto at the time. I rest my case.
13
Reports like this cast the entire scientist community in a bad light. Industry gets involved to serve their interests, and that makes it difficult for the layperson to trust anyone when scientists go along - either naively or intentionally. This reminds me of the AstraZeneca relationship with two Harvard research psychiatrists. They published research that showed children can have Bipolar Disorder, which was not heard of before. AstraZeneca made the cure - Seroquel. AstraZeneca eventually paid 750 million dollars to settle the sham. The psychiatrists pocketed a nice fee for their services. The scam was revealed and stopped, but the damage was done as more and more children are diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and prescribed powerful antipsychotic medication. Much of that is paid for by Medicaid which means the taxpayers are paying for it. At 12 to 14 dollars a dosed given 3 times a day, AstraZeneca sure didn't lose any money because of their fine.
With all that said, the question in this case - or any recommendation about our health - I am convinced the best approach is moderation - moderation in everything we eat, drink, and do.
14
The problem with this sort of research is usually is not with the scientific analysis. The real problem is with investigating the effects of adding or removing a few types of food from the typical Western diet that is already quite bad to begin with.
One then finds that eating a bit more red meat isn't all that bad, eating a bit more eggs, more cheese etc. isn't going to cause health problems down the line. Saturated fats are not as bad for health as once thought.
These findings are not wrong in a strict scientific sense. But when it comes to improving the health of the population, we need to consider what type of diet is really healthy, and we know from other research that this is a diet full of vegetables, fruits and whole grains. This sort of a diet can not only prevent health problems, in some cases it can actually cure disease:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euY2Gnm_lK0
The problem with doing scientific studies for such healthy diets is then that it's not feasible for people who are not (yet) overweight, who do need to eat a normal amount of calories, to be put on a low energy density diet without refined fats and sugar. The volume of food one would have to eat is so much more than that of a normal Western-style diet (or the slightly healthier Mediterranean variant of it), that it would take many months to get used to it.
So, eating healthy is analogous to exercise. If you don't do it, you can't start to do it immediately, you need to start gradually.
4
@Saibal Mitra
Yes, it takes time for our bodies to adapt to the introducing nutritional or other lifestyle changes. I see this all the time in myself as well as patients.
Chronic conditions create a physiological adaptation changes that takes time resolve.
This reminds me of the group project I had to do as part of my sociology senior thesis. Our topic was meat consumption. The instructor overseeing the project was vegan and one of the group members was vegan, with the others pro-vegetarian. I'm neither with no opinion either way. Before the project even started the biases were immediately apparent to me, but I was expected to comply because it was the dominant ideology. I knew veganism is just as big a business as meat is in this capitalist system.
Thing is, even if you could cut out the businesses and assure all food studies were funded from neutral sources, you could never eliminate enough biases to paint a clear picture on the health of certain foods, because we all eat. Food is cultural and social. Diet is both psychological and highly political. The skirmishes between carnivores and vegans are not unlike the vast divide between left and right today. It's not about what's actually healthy for individuals, it's about whose diet and bodies are morally superior. So even if all the food researchers in the world claimed to be neutral parties, they still eat, and what they eat colors their perception of food.
9
@MM
Hunh?
How is veganism a big business?
It's a better-than-thou cult within vegetarianism, itself a not unreasonable way of eating, modulo only the danger of breaking their arms while patting themselves on the back, seems to me.
1
there are many flaws in “scientific” research, and direct funding or industry ties is just one. One factor is pressure to publish - do you think an article reinforcing or disputing conventional wisdom would be more likely to be published? It probably depends, but you can bet either politics (reinforcing conventional wisdom) or something that grabs attention will often be an influencing factor. “Peer review” is not equal to studies being reproduced by peers which is one of the standards of science. Admittedly a theory is often built upon a collection of related studies but again, a lot of published studies, are subject to cherry picking.
1
Big surprise. I'm disgusted that the Annals published this. Contrary to what the article says, there is little financial incentive to push a plant based diet, and certainly a lot of incentive for the meat industry to push their agenda. It is also in Big Pharma's interest to keep people sick. Unfortunately, the media has put the word out about this lying article. The damage is done. Shame on the New York Times for being part of this.
20
Well, it figure$.....
5
Big surprise. The science is there. Meat kills!
2
Hands up who saw this coming a mile off.
8
Every time. Every. Single. Time. These creeps are caught with one hand in the industry cookie jar, and one hand on the scales of scientific research, they plead naïveté or ignorance of the protocols.
Other researchers, please note; Johnson will never publish again, outside of World Nut Daily, Fox Nuuz, or Infowarps.
10
Any wonder why so many people don't trust or believe in scientific research these days? Here is one more example of "scientists" who are really frauds, corrupted by industry, liars, cheats.
5
@TW
Yes, how can we create information that can be trusted by the public? For me, it is scary to read and see information in the news and how distorted or biased.
Perhaps Bradley Johnston was the screenwriter for “Sleeper”?
3
People like this give science a bad name.
6
Coke and Cargill behind this effort to subvert nutritional guidelines! Make the executives at those shops eat their recommendations for a year as punishment!!
2
And if that doesn’t make you smile CNN just reported tattoos are healthy
Corporations want people to be sheep. Shut up and buy our stuff, whether its good for you or not. Borrow if you have to. If you get sick, we don't care. If you run out of money, we don't care. Our quarterlies are more important than people. Its a sad state of affairs and far too many companies are run this way.
8
" Although the ILSI-funded study publication falls within the three-year window, he said the money from ILSI arrived in 2015, and he was not required to report it for the meat study disclosure."
LOL
5
Ethics are for sissies. Facts are for fools. Reputations are meaningless. Dr Johnston accomplished his goal, which was to generate lots of headline-grabbing articles with his tainted conclusions. These articles will live forever online, despite articles like this. Dr Johnston's corporate masters are pleased, and he makes a good buck - but no worries, even tarnished bucks are still green. Is this what passes for science these days?
11
@Markymark
Sad, but so true.
For some reason, The Times’ science reporting - particularly reporting on the results of diet and exercise studies - is consistently weak.
The Times typically issues a dramatic headline about some new study that radically changes the consensus on food or exercise, but in the body of the article we see misrepresentation about statistics, poor understanding do basic research methodologies, and little context.
The article recently published is a perfect example, followed by the “revelation” that this lead researcher is compromised.
I am not accusing The Times of nefarious intent - you simply seem to lack depth in science reporting. Until you can “beef up” the skill of your staff in this area, best to leave the topic alone.
23
"Perhaps Brad was a little naïve, and both I and perhaps Christine Laine were a little negligent in it not occurring to us that he should probably declare the previous money he got from the previous project,” said Dr. Guyatt, an internal medicine physician and a distinguished professor at McMaster University. “All of that being said, I feel personally extremely comfortable that it had no effect on what we did.”
What a self-serving gobbledygook from this "distinguished professor". The reason disclosure is sought is to ensure that others can decide whether they are comfortable with what "your ethical framework" finds so comfy ! Somebody should look at what makes this prof so "distinguished" - perhaps the adjectives he uses like "little" when referring to what appears to be a very calculated and narrow construction of the disclosure language !
9
@SR dr johnston seems to be part of the same startup as dr guyatt....hmmm...winder why dr guyatt supports him so strongly?
This is nuts. To the Annals editors: I would think this would be obvious to you: disclosures aren't just about helping publishers figure out whether they should publish an article, it is about helping your READERS judge the validity and ethics of the article.
4
@ms It would be helpful if Trump had the ethics to disclose to substantiate all of this claims.
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
3
Many people saw through this when it was published and made comments to this effect. But Americans have such a blood lust to mass slaughter animals and eat them it fell on deaf ears.
5
agricultural farming companies are freaking out about all the plant based alternatives. god forbid nut milks and beyond beef ! the lobbyists are pushing to specify that the term milk is only used for cows milk, same with the meat word. its a new world big Ag
2
Oh my god, i think the mix-informed research article should never have been published in a leading daily like nyt unless the source was known to be legit :( How am I gonna make sure all the people that I shared the link with are gonna ‘reset’ the info again?
2
How completely irresponsible of The Annals of Internal Medicine to allow this travesty of “research “ to be published. The editors should have known the publishing history and affiliations of these authors. There is no excuse for such sloppy investigation. This is a public health nightmare!
4
Who wants to live forever anyway!?
41 BILLION animals are killed every year in the US alone for human consumption. https://animalclock.org/
150 billion worldwide. Even ignoring the immense suffering caused by this slaughter, it is totally wasteful and unnecessary. We don’t need animal protein as the overwhelming evidence points to a plant-based diet as the healthiest. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/do-vegetarians-get-enough-protein/
The Catholic Church was seriously threatened by the Age of Enlightenment and the rise of science. Nowadays, the fossil and food industry “priests” are likewise threatened by science. For the Catholics, it was belief and power. Today, it’s power and profits that are being threatened.
They will do all they can to misinform and confuse the public just like the tobacco industry did for decades. Millions likely died until they were forced to admit that tobacco causes cancer.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-smoking-in-the-50s-is-like-eating-today/
5
Astounding! How much wealth is enough? Undermining health
education from THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION??!! After you make 10 or 20 million dollars, can't you possibly at least allow impoverished people in the world to get true information about their food and nutrition? I may never drink another Coca Cola again and am not feeling too great about the McD's right now. Wretched, truly wretched greedy people....I don't want to use the word "pig", because a pig would never be that harmful. Maybe we need to change the way we invest in stocks. Years ago, you could divest from a company like CocaCola directly. Now, its all mutual funds and risk management, etc. I guess the anti-Apartheid movement was too effective.
1
Wasn't this obvious to everyone that the meat industry was behind said study?
3
If MAWA boys dont wake up articles like this won't show up anywhere. NYT or the Right Wing Review. The president is set to deregulate anything and everything. profiteers manipulating research or any involvement won't have to worry about any rules. Remember.....the conscientious GOP hates big government (except eliminating any regulations on guns, telling women what they can do and not do, manipulating trade to benefit the rich....
2
This guy should be required to eat nothing but bacon the rest of his life. How ever short that may be.
2
The most ridiculous idea is that folks who eat meat might be biased researchers. As though vegans and vegetarians have no biases. Maybe they should also disclose if they liked their mother’s cooking. Or if their ancestors came from France, or if they were Maori, or Masai. It’s clear that the critics are biased too.
1
The NYT jumped the gun by running this study’s finding on its front page before looking a little deeper. When I relayed the study’s finding to my wife, a family physician who servis an underserved and poor patient population, she dismissed the findings simply false in the face of established findings. She just thought the study was rather dim. I was looking forward to a guilt- free hot dog
3
Can’t grow all those cattle and tell people it’s bad for you. This is the American way. Just like climate change and methane from cattle, fake news. America thrives on just in time health care prevention. It’s the dollars not the sense.
4
Oh great, and I just ordered a steak....
I think the burden is on journal editors to vet a study's author's credentials beyond CVs and reputations. Do the the deep dig.
8
OK.
For future reference: disregard all dietary studies published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Now, can we get a picture of the funding for this respected journal?
3
change the headline: "Scientist Who Published Article Challenging Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties". it has just to proved he discredited the guidelines....
Did someone expect no ties to the meat industry?
2
From the referenced Annals of Internal Medicine study on meat consumption:
“Recommendations:
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).”
Apart from the ethical scientific fraud perpetrated by the lead author, why does the NYT repeatedly publish health articles for the lay public based on statistically challenged or poorly designed low validity research where the conclusions are worthless at best? There usually is never any strong statement to the public that the conclusions cannot be relied upon. If the NYT had to make an explicit assessment of validity, such articles might not be published in the first place.
4
Clearly this was a bogus study. And it is not surprising that the lead researcher had ties to the meat industry.
When I read the article about the study it made no sense to me.
There was nothing about cholesterol in it.
The Times should have better vetted it before publishing it. It was
suspect from the get go.
3
Maybe...a bit of probing would have been good before pushing the results of this study as news?
3
It does not matter if there are ties to industry. Because there is absolutely zero evidence that eating steak while avoiding junk food (as opposed to eating a fast-food burger patty that comes with a vegan-friendly giant bun, goopy sauce, french fries with ketchup, and a large Coke), causes cancer.
And why is there no evidence? Because we have demonized steak so much that few people eat it, and even fewer eat it who avoid junk food.
And there are three forces currently working independently for the same goal of demonizing meat - animal rights activists, climate change warriors who actually think cow flatulence causes more CO2 than transportation, and the packaged food companies which sell very little meat. It is a disgrace.
1
@Erik The disgrace is your lack of respect for animals or the climate, not the advocates.
1
“Eventually, everything becomes transparent. The only question is whether you want to make things transparent or have someone else do it for you.” —Unknown.
O, I didn’t see THAT coming.
1
Veganism/vegetarianism, for many, is a religion.
Such people are inevitably consciously or unconsciously biased.
Therefore, I don’t want to see the NYTimes reporting on any nutritional study with a pro-plant co-author.
Fair is fair.
3
Morality for these researchers seems as dead as a slaughtered beef.
Shocked. Absolutely stunned. jk
America has had a catastrophic food experiment over the last 50 years, where it eats 5 times the world average in red meat. The horrifying results are obvious, if can't see that you are wilfully blind and beyond hope.
Oh, look.
Unlike religion, science is self-correcting.
And this little nugget was just discovered and aired.
Of course, there's a little common sense that might be invoked here. Humans, and proto-humans, all evolved eating red meat. Our digestive systems are designed for us to be omnivores. For 70,000 years, our early ancestors evolved scavaging or hunting game to eat.
Many vegans and vegetarians are addicted to carbohydrates, sugars, grains. And there is a lot more evidence supporting the deleterious effects of these, and their being responsible for the declines in public health in developing countries. People do not get metabolic syndrome eating steaks everyday.
2
Actually the people on the developing countries are getting unhealthy by eating the American fast food. Please educate yourself about vegetarian diets especially Indian vegetarian diets before commenting on grains and carb addiction. We have a varied diet and if I try all the different recipes from different regions of India I would not repeat one for 6-8 months at least.
6
@pinkdhr Red meat is not fast food. Fast food is processed, but may contain red meat. Not the same.
1
Annals of Internal Medicine; 1 October 2019. Clinical guidelines. Google "eating red meat" and read the method section and find the number of participants, their affiliations, countries of origin, and the rules for conflict of interest.
Ms. Parker-Pope and her colleague have published an intentionally false statement.
The published data does not support limiting red meat intake, nor limiting processed meats intake. In other words, continue doing whatever you are doing, just be aware, there is no evidence to support the current mania against red meat.
Unfortunately, there has been a commingling of the vegan diet meme and the climate catastrophe meme. Negating one of those agendas weakens any argument towards the other.
Hard data is hard to come-by.
Hysteria about diets matches the hysteria about climate emergencies.
10
@RiHo08 Last I heard Dr Atkins died of heart disease. How is that for some evidence. And it has not rained where I live in 2 months: August and September. I am getting hysterical about that.
20
The article claiming red meat is OK was funded by the meat industry, just like the sugar industry fund d the phony study that Johnston authored suggesting sugar consumption should not be curtailed. Based on overwhelming scientific support, the WHO has declared processed meat is a carcinogen and red meat a probable carcinogen.
These phony studies by Johnston and his cartel of “scientists” are supported by the animal and processed food industries. Their false claims that sugar and red/processed meat can be consumed in unlimited quantities are solely intended to confuse the public and prop up sales of those who paid for the studies.
Phony science and doctors also supported using tobacco, until we found they lied about their own knowledge that it caused cancer. Money will continue to drive these lies. Sadly, the greatest means of protecting the health of you and your family is your own nutrition knowledge of what’s at the dinner table. These fake scientists and the companies that support them have no interest in on your health, the environment or humanity in general. They’ve sold out for the next quarter’s profit.
2
@justyna kostkowska
“Last I heard “. You need to see an audiologist. Your hearing is impaired. Atkins died from slipping on an icy sidewalk in NYC, striking his head and suffering a cerebral hemorrhage and died. Climate catastrophe.
1
'Evidence-based medicine' at its finest. This will surely make Fox News headlines.
1
Ah... there’s always a catch...
Corruption in the industry is nothing knew. Meat lovers revel in Dr Johnston’s analysis in the same way smokers used to revel in “studies” showing that tobacco is virtually harmless. Emotional attachments to meat and tobacco are as blinding as hallucinogens, and the industry wants to keep it that way.
Here’s a fascinating article on the topic:
http://blog.sustainablebrilliance.ws/changing-the-game-an-uphill-battle/
2
How much money did he personally receive? Apparently, none. Some organization funded a study that he did, NOT this study. Why not actually report on this study instead? Was it really high quality, were the results striking? Is this another "what did you eat yesterday" baloney (haha) study or something more rigorous? Attack the paper, not the man.
4
Has the world always been this crooked? One would hope that this neglect of ethics and professionalism will not just rattle this researcher’s career, but shake the tree of his employer and academia in general, so that all of the rotten apples may fall.
Figures. Stunk all along.
2
Instead of relaying a richly disguised set of ad hominem attacks, why not provide your readers with an analysis of the findings of the article?
5
Thanks NYT - you did your job again by exposing the truth.
2
...steak anyone?
@Patagonia
No, thanks. I'm having snap peas and spring greens for lunch.
2
Sounds to me like this guy has just kissed his credibility goodbye.
3
Eat. Mostly plants. Not too much. Get off your couch
You’re welcome. Keep your million bucks
3
Welcome to 21st Century Westerm Civilization where everyone is a liar and a crook!
If only we could have an analysis of bias tendencies employment history of journalists and organizations that employ them with the same vigor.
What? No it couldn’t have happened.
It was obvious this was a bunch of meat industry shills twisting science in response to the explosion of meat alternatives! The World Health Organization has declared processed meat to be cancer causing! Enough said! My only wish is that the media had investigated his ties before publishing his slanted conclusions! Always follow the money!
1
How about moderation in food consumption. Is it that difficult to think before shoveling food into our mouths. It’s not that hard, attempt to be healthy if we want to be healthy
When Mrs Obama spoke about obesity, Sarah Palin had plenty of mouth about the food police and Mrs Obama’s garden. Well now with corruption everywhere people need to think if they want to be healthy. Scientists are not above being paid by companies to promote unhealthy products look at Johnson &Johnson
Kind of a black eye for the Annals of Internal Medicine, too, for being the (admittedly peer-reviewed) journal that printed both of these contrarian articles.
2
If we are going quote single research paper, maybe this one would be good. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174015300218
'Accepting small, statistically significant risks as “real” from observational associations, the field of nutrition has a long list of failures including beta-carotene and lung cancer, low-fat diets and breast cancer or heart disease that have not been confirmed in randomized trials. Moderate intake of a variety of foods that are enjoyed by people remains the best dietary advice.'
My advice, cook your own food. Grow your own vegetables.Have chickens for eggs. Ignore newspapers' findings on nutrition and recognize your own bodies reaction to what you eat and adjust your diet accordingly.
My own personal observational study concludes, people who own a dog and walk them several times a day live longer and have more fulfilling lives. Maybe we study what those people are eating :)
2
Well people shouldn’t worry about eating red meat and should enjoy it while they can since cows and others sources of red meat will become extinct once the world floods from climate change.
“Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said the medical journal asks people to disclose their financial interests but relies on the integrity of the researcher and does not attempt to verify the forms. “We are really leaving it to the authors to disclose,” said Dr. Laine.”
This, and the casual acceptance of claims of researcher naïveté, with what we clearly understand about the history of decades of industry (dairy, meat, sugar, tobacco, alcohol) corrupt tampering with nutritional studies and guidelines — this, in 2019, is really shameful. And infuriating.
2
"He said that in both cases Dr. Johnston undercut sugar and meat recommendations by using a tool called GRADE that was mainly designed to rate clinical drug trials, not dietary studies."
What!? Please tell me more!
1
As usual people respond with “ I’ve already made up my mind, don’t confuse me with facts”
1
His next study will deny climate change.
Clearly biased "research"...just follow the special-interest paper trail here:
1) lead "researcher" = Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada = Director and Co-founder of NutriRECS Research 2) One major NutriRECS supporter/sponsor = Texas A&M University with its own "Eat Beef" special interest group = "Texas A&M International Beef Academy" 3) Texas A&M International Beef Academy has been renamed the "44 Farms International Beef Academy at Texas A&M" = 44 Farms is the largest registered Angus operation in Texas and the fourth largest in the U.S. This "research" is little more than a poorly cloaked subterfuge by a now at-risk dinosaur industry more focused on resurrecting beef profits than the nutritional health of consumers. Easy to deduce "What's Their Beef?!"
3
We have to use the euphemism "meat" for flesh in order to deny our basically inhumane behavior, don't we?
1
@Kaari — that’s only in English. Germans say “fleisch”, and so far the entire country has not gone vegan.
Shame on Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr Johnston is probably already salivating for the packages of Omaha steaks about to show up at his house around Christmas in eternal gratitude from the meat industry for his study they sponsored. Years ago my wife made a small loan to one of these companies as one of their lenders. And the steaks just keep coming for Christmas, as reliably as Santa Claus.
Why didn't the Times do this research BEFORE doing a story on this "research"? It was suspect to anyone with a basic knowledge of diet and health.
1
Why is everything everywhere so corrupt? America is a disgrace.
Disgusting. Shameful. Dispicable.
Perhaps the NYT could share why they decided to publish this story. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of publications in the medical literature each month. The methodology used in this paper has significant flaws. Why was this story chosen? Was this story pushed or planted in some fashion?
3
Shocker!
The NYT only published this story to offset the anger to a majority of it’s readership with the published study on beef. This article is a non story.
2
I just love the “both sides argument” by Dr. Laine. That statement, in this day and age, speaks volumes. I quit my membership to the ACP because of “Arguments” like this.
I must say, I was very disappointed that the NY TImes put this story on the front page a few days ago. This study, on its face, wreaks of poor science. Other studies that have looked at long standing cultures of people who have traditionally not eaten red meat seemed very clear to the idea that it just is healthier to eat smaller quantities. Please don't publish "new science" until the methodology has been fact checked by credible scientists. We all can see for ourselves how healthy diets affect people's health. That study was too problematic to publish-please be more thoughtful.
1
More gaslighting by industry. It's what they do.
ethics are a thing of the past
Shame on you, NYT! Your readers expect better! Anything that links red meat consumption with health benefits sounds false from the outset. Maybe in the 40s, when cattle ate grass and weren’t loaded with antibiotics, an occasional steak could be an enjoyable source of proteins and vitamins. Not anymore.
This is not scientific method.
M.D. and Ph.D. scientists and the editors of prestigious journals are "naive" and "negligent"? These people are supposedly the best and the brightest. Maybe they should consider other careers where affecting people's lives are not prone to "naive" judgments. You're naive as a 14-year old, not as a scientist.
It should have never been reported on by the media until it was clearly vetted. I smelled rotten meat a mile away when I saw the original story...where are people’s critical thinking skills?
1
This is why we need a strong independent news media. When the report came out I tried to follow the money with a quick search and could find nothing on the scientific team's website about who funded the research. I couldn’t find anything. These reporters obviously dug a little deeper and found an industry link. While, it wasn’t required, it was unethical of the scientific group not to disclose former meat industry ties.
1
While I look askance at any promoter of a particular set of analysis as a consequence of their past association with the very thing they are now evaluating I will say this. Look at the report, evaluate the data (to the extent you can trust it - heh), and decide for yourself the merits of his proposition.
Of course he does himself no favors if he follows the strict letter of the law in terms of disclosing his past associations. One would think that by this action he knows full well that anything he promulgates will be highly, possibly justifiably, suspect.
After all, finding religion after being known for being paid for it does tend to color a readers thoughts on the merits doesn't it?
John~
American Net'Zen
We became vegans 7 years ago when my husband’s cardiologist leaned in and said, “It’s my strong belief that the only way to stop or reverse cardiovascular disease is to go on a 100% plant-based diet. I can’t prove this because there have been no definitive studies, but who would fund them? The Bean Industry?”
On the way back to the car that day I decided that I would give this a try. It was more of a challenge than I expected because my husband also has a lot of food allergies and sensitivities, but hey, I enjoy a challenge. We are now on a mostly gluten-free, soy-free, vegan diet and we are reaping the health benefits. He has had no progression of disease and his cholesterol and blood pressure numbers are low. While not the heart patient, I have benefited as well. I have steady energy throughout the day and have lost my sweet tooth completely. For me one of the most positive things has been the thought that we have been able to disengage from the meat industry and all its’ despicable practices. Yes, I know that the diet of two little people is not going to amount to a major change in this crazy world. But it matters to me that I’m not as much a part of the problem as I might have been. I try to keep this thought to myself....except when commenting in The NY Times.
2
The discussion between Dr. Johnson and Dr. Hu is starting to get to the heart of the matter -- nutritional epidemiology is basically pseudo-science.
Surveying people about their eating habits and health conditions produces correlations, but simple correlations should not be the basis of recommendations. In any other field but nutrition, this is considered PRELIMINARY research, a starting point for scientific study, not the end point.
Yes it is very difficult to do real science on nutrition. But in the absence of real science, we have experts like Dr. Hu telling us what to eat basically by the seat of their pants.
And that's what got us to bad advice like the "food pyramid" which instructed everybody to eat an absurd 11 servings of grain per day. We 50 years of experts preaching us to eat less dietary fat, which meant people at more refined carbohydrates and sugar, which is a big reason why 40 percent of American adults are obese.
If nutrition science can't do real science, experts like Dr. Hu should just shut up with the recommendations already because they really don't know what people should eat or not eat.
4
We could avoid all of this by waking each morning reciting the Pollan mantra:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
The rest is commentary.
1
Shame on the Annals, which I had always felt to be a credible general medical journal but a long step below NEJM, JAMA, Lancet and BMJ... though Lancet did initially publish (and subsequently withdrew) Wakefield's shoddy allegation of a link between vaccines and autism.
Three years is the vaguest of veils...
Is it really that surprising that a scientist studying meat has a part relationship with the industry?
Free speech is one thing, OK? Freedom of the Press is one thing also, OK? Telling boldfaced lies and getting it published should be illegal with some reasonable periods of jail time and commensurate fines.
The only way that the public is going to ever get the truth on a reliable basis is to make it painful to lie to the public by any person or group with the intent to persuade away from facts.
Articles that purport to the public that they are based on science should have authors barred from future publications if found negligent in disclosure or not factual in data presented. Dr. Johnston needs to see the inside of a jail for a while and the publishers of these bogus articles should disclose with blaring headers whether the reports are peer reviewed or not.
The only thing sure out of this is that the meat people got their money's worth because we are even talking about it. The new data makes it so bad that this should not have seen the light of day in the public's eyes.
Senator Warren will have a plan to address false scientific appearing reports like this to fool the public.
Go Warren 2020 for truth in reporting.
The word of academia has turned into just another Big Business, and trusting professionals who rely on “getting published” to advance their careers means that integrity can go out the window.
1
Oh, I already bought steaks for tonight's dinner.
Some people think disclosing conflicts of interest is a quaint legal detail that doesn't really mean anything. Wrong!
The company you've been keeping as a researcher colors your mental processing apparatus. It affects whet evidence you highlight and which evidence you suspect and therefore discount. It's not about conscious bias. It's about unrealized bias lurking in the way you think and what you conclude.
And that's why this study cannot be trusted. In fact, it is a good presumption that it is skewed and unreliable.
The defense of their scientific process is laughable. Anyone with even slight experience in doing clinical studies knows you get whatever results you want by designing the study how you want. While the conscious omissions about industry ties are criminal (and likely not limited to the lead researcher), worse is the defense of the study by everyone involved in it. These people are hacks who hurt others.
And now, fake science. Something we should expect when nothing can be believed.
The FDA food/nutrition pyramid is corrupted by the same industries. Everything is determined by the level of greed the relevant capitalists bring to a project. It's our up to date version of the profit motive, or "sacred hunger", used to justify the slave trade. Same as it ever was. Wealth uber alles.
2
Bradley C. Johnston. A "previous paper suggests that Johnston is making a career of tearing down conventional nutrition wisdom.” Wait! Shouldn't Trump quick make him the head of the Department of Health and Human Services? Sounds like his kind of guy.
Oh, that's right, he's already got, Alex Azar, "a former drug industry executive with pristine conservative credentials."
Meat will not kill you. I have maybe 1 hamburger a month, 4 or 5 steaks a year. Moderation is the way to good health.
Oh, wow... as a long-time practicing academic scientists I am astonished by Johnston's reliance on the letter of the disclosure forms rather than the clear intent. Johnston knows beyond any doubt that his ILSI association is at least problematic, if not disqualifying, but he hid it deliberately anyway. That's a fundamental breach of trust not only with the public, but possibly with any of his co-authors that might have been unaware.
Shame on you Bradley Johnston, shame.
1
It’s always a matter of following the money...
“Critics of the meat study say that while Dr. Johnston may have technically complied with the letter of the disclosure rules, he did not comply with the spirit of financial disclosure.”
The speed limit is 75 and you were doing 75 but about 3 years ago you were doing 80 so I’m writing you this ticket.
1
@Americus
They actually do this in NJ and call it "surcharges," from 3-yr old tickets!
Read The China Study.
You don't need meat ESP in the grotesque amounts that Americans consume:
A land of obese, diabetic , cancer and heart disease ridden people , all helped along with Big Ag and the pharmaceutical companies.
To say nothing of what cow and pig manure does to our waterways and climate.
2
Perhaps, given Jonathan Swift 's "Modest Proposal" of 1729, given an absence of moral bases for any current social standards, given this anti-immigrant administration's quandary over what to do with all the orphaned-by-law refugee children currently warehoused in concentration - er - kindergarten camps along US' southern borders, might Bradley C. Johnston or his equivalent next produce an advocacy of cannibalism, funded by Stephen Miller, with Professor John Yoo, Berkley, providing legal justification without once breaking stride?
Publishing biases “studies” such as this should be a criminal offense. Once again corporations demonstrate they don’t care if you die as long as they make a profit.
1
"People didn’t get that message. They got stuck on the funding part." -- Dr. Bradley C. Johnston
Um, Dr. Johnston, the message that people have gotten since 1974 is: "Follow the money."
1
As a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist (RDN), I was skeptical about this study. The results go against what I have learned over 37 years of reviewing research in the best foods to eat for optimal health.
I believe the Mediterranean Diet provides the healthiest foods (e.g. olive oil, legumes, fruits & vegetables, fish) and minimizes foods (e.g. red meats) that can promote health problems.
Thank you for exposing this researcher's ties to agribusiness: his bias helps explain his unreliable conclusions.
5
@Joan Stewart -
I agree with you that, overall, a Mediterranean Diet is likely best. At least the extra virgin olive oil, moderate alcohol, nuts, and seafood components. But have you noticed that PREDIMED and many of the other datasets come from countries that are the biggest commercial producers of olive oil, wine, and seafood? So they must be false. They must be rigged. They are biased by money. They must be frauds. You shouldn't believe them. So your Mediterranean Diet belief must be wrong. Right?
1
Conflicts of interest?
We've been steam rolled by decades of conflicts of interests be it in Govt, or in private. Any one seeking election who takes money is conflicted. Period. Any product developer who seeks funding, is conflicted. Period. The list is long. My employer is conflicted. My guy at the local oil-change chain is conflicted. My uncle is conflicted by his self-interests. And so it goes...
The issue at hand is this. Despite the conflict, is the science sound? Have we, the public, been misled by others with conflicts of interests, that "red" meat is less good for us? That processed meats (define processed please. is a locally craft made sausage better or as bad as the Hormel or imported varieties?) are bad. Is the chicken products lobby being honest?
Thats what I want from these sorts of articles. Some discernment, not "whistle blower" stuff. Not the conflicts and biases of the reporters or their sources.
We now know, with a fair amount of good science, that not all fats are created equal, and that the consumption of "good" fats is part of a healthy diet. That fat-free was never truly a healthy alternative. That carbs are not good in large amounts. That many self-proclaimed vegetarians are not by default eating a healthier diet.
We need to know if the anti-red meat lobbies have been misleading the public, much more then we need to know who this researcher in question was aligned to. We need to know that of course, but Only IF, he lied too!
7
@Boregard Your use of the term "anti-red meat lobbies" indicates your bias.
1
@Gary Giovino -
Your problem with the term "anti-red meat lobbies" indicates your bias.
(Would "woke vegan cultists" been better?)
1
From what I have read, limited consumption of red meat is better for your health, although I strongly agree with the old adage "Everything in moderation".
Eating less meat is certainly better for the planet. Unfortunately this study will be quoted by those who can gain from it for years to come.
1
very misleading title. so we are talking about sugar now? two things make the meat research much more believable than anything about suger. 1) Omnivore's Dilemma had been out for a long time now and has shaped people's view of food. 2) the paleodiet has been around for quite some time as well and has made a lot of people healthier. 3) older people who eat a candy bar feel sick to their stomach (kids seem to be able to stomach anything). you can write all you want about conflicts of interest but people were designed to eat meat, not sugar. the real problem is that people are against meat for other reasons--let's hear about these conflicts. well, they are right here in the comments: meat eating is destroying the planet; eating animals is immoral. really, the health issue is a proxy fight and this "conflict of interest" is really about a conflict of interest.
4
No one will be paying any further attention to research. Ties to the companies and monetary compensation make for conflict of interest.
8
This is the price we pay for accepting the industry funded results of tobacco research and the the more recent anti climate-change publications. And in a sense, the faux news phenomenon. With a little money it is very easy to make any argument sound respectable on the web, and social media gives everyone a megaphone. The challenge is to create the right filter. Every profession will have to fight to preserve their right to exist - and prove they have earned the right to serve society - by revisiting their professional standards. That'll make it easier for the lay public to create reasonable filters and categorize the information correctly.
2
Financial disclosure rules are meant to report current or recent financial relationships. If he has not had a relationship for 4 years than he has complied with the rules and the research (of which he is only one author) should stand on its own merits.
Calling people "prostitutes" rather than dealing with their opinion is dangerous. People can do research, even research which abrogates accepted norms, honestly; even if at one time in the lives they received money from someone who has similar agenda.
I have not reviewed this research but I review clinical trials' data for a living. While conflicts of interest are critical, in the scientific field as well as the public field they are frequently used to dismiss good research or used one-sidedly. For example, industry money is considered corrupting but money from NGOs are considered acceptable. Certain foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, are just as agenda-driven as any industry funded research.
Even federal research money has to be allocated through committees of humans with their own bias. Money has to come from the outside. $27 billion in federal contributions to medical research is not enough to answer critical questions concerning public health. This question isn't even critical for public's health.
Read the study. Evaluate it based on its merits. Read conflicting studies. Make a decision based on your life experiences.
Don't ignore quality research because you question motives without a darn good reason.
13
@jkemp
That's the question, isn't it. Is this quality research?
Living, as we do, in an age when defining words to suit one's purpose, parsing every syllable of every utterance, finding justification in tortured or myopic interpretations falling back on some myth of objectivity increases our reliance on good faith and transparency exponentially.
In that regard, you're seriously wrong. Johnston may, indeed, have complied with the dotted Is and crossed Ts of disclosure policy, but the simple fact his previous notorious work raised and confirmed serious concerns about his process requires he address those issues.
The similarity between the studies, and their public and scholarly reception make plain that, if he had any interest at all in having a positive impact he needed to go to great lengths to obviate a similar occurrence here.
Dr. Laine's fall to "Well...they do it, too" is laughable. Just on the face of it there is a meaningful difference between the opinions, however expressed, of a guy running the Annual Eat More Asparagus Conference and a reputedly reliable scientist making pronouncements he clearly intends to alter the way people think and live.
2
@jkemp
I believe the article states a pretty darn good reason to suspect this report.
1
Always question motives. The last many decades have shown us that researchers are not above self-dealing—history has shown us that whoring is quite common. You don’t have to dig deeply to understand this.
It’s always necessary to do this: follow the money. The three-year limit on declaration of potential conflicts limitation is bogus And only invites public cynicism and distrust. Knowing what we know about human nature and the power of money, past associations should be fully disclosed and made available.
From the book "The Intelligence Trap" by David Robson, page 54: "....smart people do not apply their superior intelligence fairly, but instead use it 'opportunistically' to promote their own interests and protect the beliefs that are most important to their identities." And further..."Its a powerful finding, capable of explaining the enormous polarization on issues such as climate change". It explains why analytical people like Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, spent most of his life chasing and in his eyes finding proof of the genuineness of mediums and seances, and Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying to prove a unifying scientific theory of everything, in which he passionately, and for many, futilely believed. For the rest of us, somewhere there will be someone who will give proof of whatever we want to believe. Maybe we need to tolerate others and their beliefs more. Maybe we shouldnt be so passionately sure that we alone are right. Maybe, if we like meat and have no qualms about eating it, we should eat it sensibly and in moderation. If we believe its unhealthy, maybe we can quietly cut down, or buy less for our families. Maybe it's more important that each of us do what we feel is right, rather than stand up and shout outraged insults at each other. The meat debate is a microcosm of the exponentially growing number of issues we feel only we have the right answers to.
3
Personally, i believe we only need one reason to opt for limiting or eliminating animal based diets. The amount of water and land used to produce this food source is so huge as to be prohibiting, long term. I eat meat, by the way. Trying to cut back.
5
This article stops short of the work needed to be a good article. There are two issues. One listed in the title regarding financial disclosure. The other and arguably more important one is the study itself. Dr. Hu asserts the statistical tool used was inappropriate to the type of issue being addressed. The GRADE tool.
A bit more digging would be very valuable in establishing who is correct. Just putting innuendo and uncorroborated conflicting statements out is less than useful journalism. l looked at the GRADE tool and it strikes me as very amenable to bias.
There are a lot of statistical analysis tools available. They can be misapplied to the issue at hand because of not really understanding the math behind the tool and thus the correct situation the tool is meant for. Conversely, understanding that and intentionally misapplying the tool is plausible as a method of deceit. Given that most people don't actually understand the meaning of the math underlying the tool, the cover of authority could be exploited to deceive. Unless someone like Dr. Hu can discern and explain why the tool is inappropriate to the study. Get a couple more like Dr Hu involved to determine if the study is valid or not, and why.
8
It is worth noting that simply because something may be difficult or even impossible to prove conclusively, it doesn't make it untrue.
Human nutrition science is inherently a very difficult field, for at least two reasons: a) the sheer complexity of the mammalian metabolism (thousands upon thousands of chemical metabolic pathways, many known, likely just as many if not more yet to be discovered, occurring simultaneously, and often interacting in complex ways), and b) you can't study human beings in controlled conditions like lab rats, for obvious ethical reasons.
Therefore, by setting an arbitrarily high bar for "strong evidence", as this study has done, it is easy to conclude that nothing is known is to be true. But this is just a sophisticated version of intellectual nihilism, much like the arguments of some climate change deniers. To be rational is to act in the best evidence we have, even if the evidence is imperfect. Therefore, I for one am completely unimpressed and unmoved by the essentially vacuous conclusions of the paper in question.
7
There's a difference between naïveté and foolishness. Now, the story is more about his convenient omission, less about his research. But much more investigative reporting needs to be done on these types of research-funding mechanisms. While a research administrator at a notable university, I was aware of front organizations that easily skirted our internal norms.
2
What's important here is that 2 major scientists, Dr. Laine and Dr. Hu disagree as to the objectivity and rigour of the study. It would benefit all of us if they went public and explained the criteria they used to come to an opinion, one way or the other.
7
The problem with saying that everything was alright because 'in the past 3 years' because he didn't receive any outside funding, based on the acceptable publishing standards of the journal, is that it makes it seem that the lead scientist was starting from a clean slate. One moment before 3 years he was supported by the industry trade group and the next he has his ties absolved.
To think like this is too simplistic. We judge a paper alone for its scientific merit but it the whole body of work of the author, the patterns and topics of interest that is relevant in deciding whether one should take his work seriously or not - or as a scientist that has let his scientific rigour go by the wayside. The lack of financial disclosure is pretty telling.
6
The Times should have been much more careful. Read the top Reader Picks for details on that view.
My n =1 response to the original article.
Feeding, killing, and eating animals that are meat producers must decline and finally end, for the health of the climate.
I stopped eating meat many years ago, nobody needs it. If you want a burger because you like all the stuff you put on it, there are in Sweden at COOP excellent veggie burgers.
All of you who want to follow this "researcher" be my/our experimental animals - eat as much sugar as possible, have a big piece of red meat every day, and let us know in 5 or 10 years how you are doing.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
9
Glad that the other shoe dropped and the conflicts of one of the authors were found. Now we can properly evaluate the surprising findings of this study.
3
As disheartening as this news is (since it may cause many to trust health news even less now), maybe it's a good and timely reminder that rigorous fact-checking and analysis is always prudent to apply -to various assertions of fact, even inferences from research- for the public good.
We need journalists, expert specialists and other watchdogs more than ever in the ever expanding dis/information age.
Always seek truth.
8
Forget about the contrarian scientists' ties to the food industry. Is their conclusion right, or is it wrong? Either meat is harmful to health, or it isn't. The researchers' ties to the meat industry have no bearing on that.
6
@Louis Bricano
There are 60+ years of mostly observational studies. These researchers have selected five studies out of hundreds to re-analyze, found that even those studies were leaning in the direction of less meat and declared their own results inadequate. It's a very shaky result itself.
7
@Louis Bricano As a scientist, I have to say that this is unfortunately not true (or at least not so simple). Science is very, very, very difficult. People get things wrong all the time. If you want to reach a certain conclusion and have an ulterior motive to do so, it's usually possible to do so in a way that looks very convincing. This is why humility, trust, reputation, and ethics (very very much including disclosing who is paying you) are essential to science.
11
@Louis Bricano
"The researchers' ties to the meat industry have no bearing on that."
You have to be joking. Of course ties to the meat industry are a very important clue here as to the veracity of the study. They may not totally discredit the study but they certainly cast doubt on it.
2
I find it extremely odd that individuals' food choices are being used to demonstrate "conflicts of interest." The premise seems absurd to me. The scientists defending this study are trying to distract from the issues.
"Notably, Dr. Johnston and colleagues thought it was important to fully disclose their personal eating habits."
"And, Dr. Laine noted that people on both sides of the meat issue have conflicts of interest. “Many of the people who are criticizing these articles have lots of conflicts of interest they aren’t talking about,” she said. “They do workshops on plant-based diets, do retreats on wellness and write books on plant-based diets. There are conflicts on both sides.” "
The issue certainly isn't who eats what; it's who gets paid by the food industry to implement an exhaustive study to find that the industrial products aren't as harmful as other scientists make it out to be.
8
@D. Epp -
Realistically, the most biased academics are those who have previously published on a subject or, worse, have been part of committees who have made recommendations. They will fight to the death to preserve their reputations and previous conclusions. Their livelihoods depend on it.
And no, the scientists defending this study are NOT trying to distract from the issues by disclosing their personal food choices. Yes it is extremely odd and absurd, but you can see by the vitriol in these comments that some people view vegetarian/vegan diets as a religion and are willing to cry "bias" and "heretic" at the slightest provocation.
Unfortunately, the polarization around diet today does make personal beliefs a potential "conflict of interest" as much as any past research funding.
1
You can’t just jump on every new study and say “aha this proves it”. One single study does not provide sufficient evidence for anything.
Now, this paper was based on a number of systematic reviews of hundreds of studies so it carries more evidentiary weight than any single study. However, as it contradicts conventional wisdom, you have to wait for the dust to settle. The reviews will be reviewed, the analyses redone slightly differently, the selection of studies to include in the reviews will be dissected and discussed. In 5 years we’ll know whether this study was flawed or whether there really isn’t sufficient evidence for the claim that reducing red meat consumption is good for your health.
15
@Norm Vinsonbe
Because the Reasearch’s did not disclose their ties to industries that can benefit from the research the study is flawed and not valid.
10
@Dr. B
Your comment is prejudicial. Yes, the conflict of interest requires closer examination of every aspect of the study (along with replication of results if possible), but a failure to disclose does not automatically invalidate research. Like all studies, this one should be judged on the quality of the data and analysis, and on whether they support its conclusions.
Suspicion is not the same as guilt.
6
@Dr. B I think that is addressed in the article. This particular study was not financed by ILSI.
If you have an argument with the methods used please elaborate. I am interested understanding why I should believe the study is discredited.
As Norm Vison states a 'systematic reviews of hundreds of studies so it carries more evidentiary weight than any single study'.
Cheers
7
I’m not happy with the result, the methodology is flawed, and the lead researcher failed to disclose conflicts of interest. That said, maybe it’s good that internal medicine published it.
I think this study is like a flu shot. It’s It’s important for research fields to face their skeptics. Maybe we can develop resistance.
It’s also possible that this team was not so much motivated by conflicts as their ideas naturally aligned with industry. There are plenty of people that doubt science, and even scientists that doubt the confidence of scientific conclusions based on their preferred methodologies or statistical techniques.
Just as the GRADE approach seems a poor fit for dietary research, observational studies plainly have confidence problems. At the same time, there must be foundational research on how our bodies metabolize the components of red/processed meats as there must be for sugars. With logical ties to diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, it’s not a stretch to consume these with caution, in moderation.
I think that’s the sticking point here. A GRADE study would need to control the dose to measure the response. An observational study has almost no control over dose, just what participants self-report.
So participants define their moderate amount, later researchers check on them and see how that works out. That sounds more helpful than nothing. It’s not great for setting a safe amount, but that doesn’t mean there’s no unsafe amount. Limiting remains wise.
5
@NotanExpert Sorry that is not what the article actually says.
1
I already guessed as much when my husband declared how it had become ok to eat read meat. I told him I bet this guy’s “research” has been funded by the meat industry.
14
@NB Well, you were wrong, because this research was not funded by the meat industry. One of the numerous researchers was involved in an industry-funded project on sugar years ago, long enough ago that he wasn't asked to report it as a conflict of interest. The project itself was not funded by any industry.
7
Absolutely! The meat industry just keeps trying. Kind of like tobacco did.
1
Well yeah, did anyone really believe it! Next, doctors will say that vaccines are bad(deadly sarcasm). What happened to peer reviewed research?
8
It was peer reviewed.
1
This is so endemic (and epidemic) to how the mainstream press breaks a story. But in defense of the Times' original story on the study, I do recall that article well-represented the large pushback to the study by many in the scientific community. It is really a shame that the lead researcher did not disclose his funding by the sugar/corporate agribusiness industry as he pushed a fully discredited contrary view on the health effects of sugar, and that he did not see fit to disclose that. I think for many of us, knowing that history would have caused us to have taken his current study on red meat with a shakerful of salt.
Who knows, perhaps Dr. Johnson's next study, funded by Morton Salt, will tell us there is no danger of high blood pressure from excessive sodium.
22
Too often the media is notified of one, isolated, outlier "scientific" study and then trumpets that study until millions accept it as the new accepted wisdom. It never is, but the damage is done. Once again a lie has circled the Earth while the truth is still getting on its shoes.
16
Kudos to Ms Parker-Pope and Mr O'Connor for the research.
Thanks to (alleged) 'free market capitalism' the need for responsible journalism never ends.
10
I had dreams of fulfilling my prescriptions at a McDonald's drive thru window. And now I'm depressed. My psychiatrist told me to take two McRibs and call him in the morning.
11
In America, not even science is free from the scourge of lobbying and the corruption of money.
21
The lead author (the one with the conflict of interest) is at a *Canadian* university.
An in Australia it is?
Everyone is attacking his links to the meat industry. He should have disclosed it. But does his findings stand up to scrutiny? If so, who cares who finances him. To be blunt, no-one would have financed this kind of study other than the meat industry so of course he has links to them. All everyone should really care about is if the science is solid. If it is then we should listen to it, end of story. Otherwise we are as bad as republicans these days who go after climate scientists because their findings affect their ideology, irrespective of the sound science.
9
@JJ The article is pretty clear that the study's design was constructed to prove rather than test the hypothesis. There is little to no scientific validity beyond making journals and other legitimate researchers jump through hoops to show the flaws. By the time the reasoned evidence comes out, the researchers and their passive (or not) funders have gotten exactly what they wanted. It's called the art of the deal.
7
@JJ
I always look at the substance of a study even if I know it's prejudiced. For instance, I seem to be the only one who believes the ILSI reasoning that it's ok to have soda/sugar as long as one exercises. And, in this meat review, even with their own strict guidelines, they still found it was better to have less.
who cares? people tell half truths all day long. food pyramids were found out to be sponsored by the farming, dairy and cattle industry. everyone has a price and people are jealous that they aren't making money off of industry.
5
@Greg Jones
You're saying that the USDA has commercial sponsors? I don't think so.
Going against the grain here, and expect this to get buried or attacked for a tangential point.
Every top voted comment has been a personal attack against this researcher, as is most of this article, and not against the substance of the argument.
Sound familiar?
It's ok to look down on Republicans for focusing personal attacks on Biden and avoiding the substance of the argument that Trump committed impeachable offenses; however, when it comes to an argument and research challenging our own beliefs it's ok to go for the personal attacks against one of many researchers and not the substance of the article itself?
The hypocrisy is extremely disheartening and makes it unsurprising that we've become so polarized and entrenched in our own beliefs that a president will no longer be held to account for their betrayal to our country. It's not just republicans looking for scapegoats to distract from difficult arguments and issues; its us as well.
7
@Erik Character matters. If I don't trust you as a person, I don't even look at your work product.
@band of angry dems -
How is that any different than: If I don't like your conclusion, I won't even look at how you got there?
Maybe that is how politics and religion works, band of angry dems, but not science.
1
The doctors real name was Peter Luger living at the Old Homestead.
There isn't anything out there that isn't some sort of poison for our bodies.
Forgetaboutit and enjoy life. Longevity isn't what it's cracked up to be.
3
And how many researchers or journalists bother to mention the diet books they write and don't work? How many of them work for the Times? How many are among the "experts" the Times interviews?
How many depend upon certain conclusions for their continued status? How many would be out of work if people didn't follow their recommendations?
I find it interesting that they are not attacking the study or the results on scientific terms but just social ones.
The world of "nutrition" lacks rigorous study and open debate. The entire endeavor is failing as science. And that hurts the people they claim to want to help.
It is filled with either those trying to kill us like a page from the tobacco industry? or those trying to save us with less science than the first Kellogg.
A plague on all of them. They wouldn't know where to start on how to cure it, because actual science and all it entails is beyond them.
6
So?
Research on new drugs is conducted by scientists who work for the Pharmaceutical Industry.
7
In related news, Dr Johnston has said that this nutrition stuff is great but he’d like to study the atmospheric role of CO2. OPEC has expressed interest.
Note: satire
4
Yes, the ILSI is a tainted organization and I have no qualms about illegitimizing its work, making it a pariah.
But it had nothing to do with these current analyses. Sorry.
So you have to go over the analyses themselves.
But if you cannot argue with these data, analyses, or interpretations, you can always just go after the authors. That is what appears to be going on here.
(However, on the lead-author's prior sugar work, having gone over the literature, I have to say that those authors made a pretty good case. Not that sugar and carbohydrates are not bad for you—I believe that they are bad for you—but that we really don't have a whole lot of good scientific evidence that they are bad for you.
Nutrition science has been so caught up in its (erroneous) demonization of fats for the last few decades that the role of sugar and carbs has seen little quality work. (That has been part of the ILSI strategy.) That is why people like Gary Taubes can make such a big splash. We still do need to do a lot of good work here.)
But I see no effort in these comments to even read the actual meat analyses and discuss them. See the two main studies at:
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752320/red-processed-meat-consumption-risk-all-cause-mortality-cardiometabolic-outcomes
and
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752321/reduction-red-processed-meat-intake-cancer-mortality-incidence-systematic-review
Science should not be a team spectator sport. It should be a search for the truth.
13
@SRP Um,
“You can’t do a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of red meat and other foods on heart attacks or cancer,” Dr. Hu said. “For dietary and lifestyle factors, it’s impossible to use the same standards for drug trials.”
"But Dr. Hu said Dr. Johnston’s methods were not very objective or rigorous and the tool he employed in his meat and sugar studies could be misused to discredit all sorts of well-established public health warnings, like the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, air pollution and health problems, physical inactivity and chronic disease, and trans fats and heart disease."
1
This disclosure clarifies my feelings on the research. Pass me the broccoli, please.
4
@William Okay, but broccoli is apparently not good if one has kidney issues. (I stand corrected, if I'm not accurate.)
Perhaps the worst feature of Trumpian corruption concerns the underlying psychology of the most corrupted. They simply don’t believe that they are corrupt at all.
5
And The Clinton’s believe they are beyond reproach because they are after all, The Clintons!
I don't have any ties to the meat or food industries and I stand by my comment I left on the original NYT article about this story. I'm sick on seed oils and high carbs, healthy on red meat and animal fats and low carbs. And that includes preserved meats, nonsensically referred to by the plant cult as processed meats. More than one million years' worth of human ancestral experience with ruminant meat trumps one prissy outraged article from a trusted publication with a financially vested interest in low fat and high carb, and no, those ancestors did not have a twenty-year lifespan. You're thinking of the early farmers.
8
There are really only two things that are highly correlated to heart disease, cancer, Type 2 diabetes, and a whole host of other maladies. They are smoking and obesity (which are worsened by a lack of exercise).
Non-smoking steak eaters who are the correct weight for their height and who take a brisk 20-minute walk everyday, have nothing to worry about. There is no evidence that steak in itself is unhealthy.
4
@Eric-
Increasing rates of antibiotic resistant bacteria within us (in meat-eaters especially) suggests otherwise.
3
The problem is that people who really capable of doing complicated mathematical and statistical analyses go into investment banking, consulting, etc or if they really want to
push the boundaries of science math and theoretical physics, NOT nutrition research. I don’t think we are dealing with Feynmans here. For this reason and because careful controlled studies in nutrition are nearly impossible, whatever these researchers are saying on either side if the debate is irrelevant. They have no idea. But the plant based diet fanatics (most commenters on this article) do not need any evidence, because they “believe.”
9
Way too many medical journals, there is not that much original research that goes on and so people publish this kind of trash- only purpose is sensational coverage. Not many people knew about Annals of Internal Medicine, now they do. Annals made a wrong decision publishing this article, only for their own publicity, reckless editorial judgement and it will have negative public health implications. Nutritional studies are difficult to do and entire nutritional science relies on scientifically less rigorous studies, you are never going to get robust data in nutritional sciences. This will lead to confusion among general population and increase distrust of medical science in general among public, and that is the most important objective of food industry.
10
It honestly is not surprising to see another article about someone's past association be of a conflict of interest. The problem is that Dr. Johnston did not think it was important to mention that some of his research connects to people in the meat and food industry. To me, it is already seen as problematic because he did not think that he had to mention anything.
The fact of the matter is that red meat has always been a very controversial topic. The same thing goes for sugar, alcohol, carbs, etc.... I believe everyone is entitled to do what fits best for their body. I remember watching a documentary on Netflix titled “What The Health” and hearing so many negative effects on red meat and sugar. Later on, I find out a lot of that information stated was twisted and not correct. I think the best thing to do is to listen to your body and consume everything in moderation. I do think the consumption of meat should be less due to the fact that it can help save more animals and our environment. Whether it is a documentary, scientist, doctor- I think all should be honest. Although it was not legally required to reveal a “maybe” conflict of interest, in the end, it looks better to leave everything on the table.
1
This is why we search out local, humane and sustainable farmers as often as we can.
6
Surprise, surprise, surprise. One just needs dig a little, have a skeptical eye towards revelatory declarations and the truth comes out. Only real surprise is that the background context wasn’t provided in the first articles.
22
The recommendations to keep eating sugar, red and processed meat are based on a scientific study approach designed for pharmaceuticals. Typically, it uses a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled technique to determine the effectiveness or side-effects of certain ingredients or formulas in a product.
It’s important for everyone to understand that tobacco has never been subjected to this study technique to prove it causes cancer. Likewise, parachutes have never been tested with this technique to prove that jumping from a plane without one will cause death.
Mr. Johnston and his phony scientists should consider proving, once and for all, the effects of tobacco and parachutes by volunteering in the next randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study of tobacco and parachutes. They could volunteer to be randomly selected to smoke and jump out of an airplane with placebo parachutes. If those with placebo parachutes survive the jump, those selected to smoke can then prove whether smoking really causes cancer. Then, depending on results according to his standards, we may finally conclusively state that tobacco causes cancer and parachutes should be used when jumping from planes. Until he does this, his advice would have to be, “smoke all you want and don’t worry about using those silly parachutes when jumping from a plane”.
24
@James McNeill You are missing the distinction between causal and correlation evidence. In the case of parachutes there is clear cause and effect.
In the case of meat there is only correlation, nobody knows why meat eaters don’t live as long. It may be that older meat eaters (and it’s the older ones who die) tend to be more sedentary, or obese or tend to have had occupations with long term harmful effects.
6
@Glen The WHO and hundreds of other studies have found sufficient cause and effect between processed meat and cancer to label it a “known carcinogen”. They found probable cause and effect between red meat and cancer. For decades, the tobacco industry used the same so-called failure to find “cause and effect” to claim tobacco did not cause cancer. This was despite literally over 7,000 other studies that did find sufficient “cause and effect” between tobacco and cancer.
These claims by Big Tobacco hid behind the same inability to perform randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies on tobacco smokers. They couldn’t practically or ethically randomize non-smokers and ask half to smoke tobacco and the other half to smoke a placebo (which is impossible). So, millions died while the tobacco industry profited. They did so by using a phony research standard intended for finding a single “cause” that can only be found ethically in a clinical setting. It’s either unethical or impossible to do so with nutrition science because with food (or tobacco) there are thousands of possible compounds, all of which could have exponential synergistic effects with other compounds.
Without a “proven cause and effect”, a few brave souls in the medical establishment and the US Surgeon General stepped forward and screamed “The King has no clothes!!”. Tobacco was branded for what it is and always was; a carcinogen. Tobacco sales and cancer have predictably declined precipitously.
@James McNeill
Tobacco sales and tobacco-linked cancers have declined in the Western World. And only because taxes have made the produce less affordable. Other cancers are on the rise.
https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/8/1893.long
i read last year that eggs were good for you. i started eating 3 eggs a day for their protein. then a couple of months ago. i read that eggs were again bad for you and i stopped eating them. now they are saying red meat is good again
2
@Omar jarallah
Don't worry about WHAT you eat, and concentrate on HOW MUCH. That's the important factor in health.
2
Egg whites are very good and full of protein, egg yolks have a significant amount of cholesterol, hence the confusion
Omar
Why bother eating anything at all if you are swayed by what strangers tell you what to eat?
Once again, academic freedom is under attack.
Instead of healthy scrutiny on the data, methodology, or assumptions, the society at large decides to attack the person.
Society at large must remember one of the central tenant of the scientific method: There is no proof. A well-accepted theory is not "facts". Look at Gallileo or Neuton -- their "theories" are not 100% correct and is continuously updated over the centuries.
The good news from the scientific method is that: It is possible to "disprove" a theory through evidence.
Anybody unhappy with the result should do an experiment, collect data, and analyze the data. Find evidence. Don't be lazy.
8
@Udayabagya Halim, PhD
Sorry, to disappoint you but the evidence has been gathered by many more studies before this that have shown a negative link of red meat. This study stands alone in saying there is no link. So the preponderance of evidence is towards the negative link.
This is not the kind of science that Galileo or Newton were facing --that was is medieval compared to the where science is nowadays.
And conflict of interest is exactly there to avoid bias in scientific research.
20
@Udayabagya Halim, PhD
Don’t be an idiot! Some things like this “the study” they did cannot be done with the tools they used . Even the study that uses a large number of real life examples can have errors but they can be quantified! For example, a car insurance premium is based on thousands of samples of data and error of the predictions can be verified.
This is nothing but a hatchet job done by stooges of the industry and I was mad enough that NYT published without getting the real nutrient experts to help them understand,
I am close to cancelling my subscription! I am just as fed up as bad media as these stooges !
Nothing wrong to refute science with real science but this is no better than how Trump brain washes all his believers!
While I took the meat study with a grain of salt (just a pinch), reading the vitriolic commentary makes me wonder whether readers are going to step into the Impossible Burger Bandwagon despite its own highly processed nature. Bear in mind vegetarians don’t live longer than meat eaters — we’ve got to stick to common sense that we see in the Mediterranean diet. Preferably with a little extra meat on the side for good measure.
14
@Joe Smith Agreed. The answer is not the Impossible Burger or Beyond Meat, which are so highly processed and have additives of unknown nature to give the smell, taste, and texture of meat, that it may actually be worse.
6
The sales of companies selling red meat has been going down and those of firms selling vegetable based protein, such as Beyond Meat, has been going up. And a fellow who was funded by the big meat industry decides to pump up the benefits of eating red meat. Is this 2019 or 1029?
4
McDonalds could save its soul from eternal damnation if it slowly transitioned the pallets of its consumers from meat to veggie burgers.
At a rate of about 1 percent a month, it could substitute soy, nuts and vegetables. Eight years from now, it would have 100% veggie burgers.
And ranchers would stop burning the Amazon rain forest to make fields that beef cattle graze on.
5
@Toms Quill you do realize that the amazon is being cleared for soybeans even more than beef right?
9
@G Show me your source on that. Acre for acre, soy generates more protein than beef. And we have lots of soy farms in the US. US soy farmers are getting the short end of the stick with the China tariffs too.
1
And what about those of us who have an intolerance to both dairy and soy products?
Big industry has been "modifying" data for decades. Big ag learned from the best of them: the tobacco industry and fossil fuels industry. In January 1977 George McGovern chaired a committee that released the first dietary guidelines for optimal health. Then big ag pretty much turned the guidelines upside down. Check out this fascinating video on The McGovern Report, a report that was quickly twisted to the meat, egg and dairy industry's benefit, and to the detriment of the American public: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-mcgovern-report/
8
Sad to hear the possible bias. As far as red meat goes (and saturated fat by the gobs) there is plenty of research to validate it is a healthy choice. We were lied to by the AHA, Ancel Keys and the USDA! Instead, it is carbs in the form of grains that is the human health disaster. Not only that but the whole cholesterol story is questionable...especially the LDL fable. And the fact that MD's sell us on the statins in order to rectify a problem that doesn't exist, makes them biased Con artists who work for the pharmaceutical companies.
4
I remember thinking when I first saw this wondering what "think tank" dreamed this up. In this age of skepticism these revelations are both sad and destructive. The last thing Montana ranchers need.
1
Any “results” from a researcher who fails to disclose financial ties to an entity favorably affected by his research should automatically be disregarded. He simply cannot be trusted.
13
You should evaluate his methods rather than just dismissing his conclusion on the basis of a distant, weak potential conflict. Just because you don’t like his conclusion doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
4
@Phliman If you read the article you see that he previously tried to refute a study encouraging people to eat less sugar while he was funded by a trade group whose interests were the consumption of more sugar. The very fact that he doesn’t disclose his ties to industry eliminates him as an unbiased, impartial researcher. It’s a deal breaker. He’s a hired gun. He does not deserve serious consideration. And, by the way, his methods in this study were criticized by other, independent experts as being flawed. Any way you slice it, his work is unreliable at best.
this appears to be an attempt to use fear uncertainty and doubt to cast aspersions on a scientist who was ethical and did their job right.
6
I only go by my personal metrics. When I eat fatty red meat, my lipid numbers go out of bounds. If I don’t, they correct to normal ranges. I don’t care about this research. I monitor my own. Everyone should take personal responsibility to do the same.
4
Same here, but my Vitamin B12 also goes low along with lipids. So, if you have not done so, I suggest checking B12 levels whenever you check lipids. And if low, then discuss with doctor what is best approach, B12 oral supplements, B12 IV, or... more red meat.
1
I’m not surprised with the current atmosphere that this man thinks just because he says “no conflict “ we should believe him. Sounds so familiar. Like someone else who thinks his word is god. No collusion, no conflict let’s call the whole thing off.
5
We should reduce meat consumption because there are 9 billion of us on the planet and it is unsustainable for us to all eat lots of meat. PERIOD!
13
When I read the reports of the research findings, I strongly suspected this...
5
Uh, read the study (https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from).
No human participants were involved, either in a short- or long-term study. No blind study with humans. No hypotheses. Study relied on, what amounts to, a literature review of previous research.
Not rigorous, not acceptable. If these authors were my students (doctoral level), the proposed research would not make it past the prospectus phase.
Thanks for reading my comments.
15
Welcome to the new normal, where conflicts of interest, morals, ethics, and any standard of fairness is elective.
Thank you trump and the republicans.
6
@Mark In medical and health research and reporting--this is nothing new. It has been the norm for over a hundred years.
Lazy people will believe anything - just look at Trump's rabid fans. They do not analyze data or care to ask the right questions of their Doctors or learn how to evaluate "data".
Years ago there was a widely-spread article that said that CHOCOLATE did not cause cavities, and everyone got so excited. Millions of kids got more cavities as a result. The article was written by some guy with a Dental degree who had never practiced and made his money working for chocolate manufacturers. Few bothered to check his credentials and/or verify his findings.
Did YOU ever eat raw COCOA? Try it some time - without sugar it doesn't feed decay-causing bacteria but it will certainly bring up everything in your stomach the wrong way.
CAVEAT EMPTOR so dolor homework or don't complain. Or, better yet, hire very smart experts (what your FDA and DOA SHOULD have but don't under Trump) to set standards. Trump hates standards and wouldn't understand them any more than a 2-year-old anyway. ELECT A REAL PRESIDENT!
7
I’ve been gorging myself with as much prime rib as possible since I read the initial news, and now I’m supposed to believe that it’s probably not true? Balderdash.
Donald Trump’s cabinet has all the best people, and they’re working tirelessly on behalf of the interests of the ordinary, carnivorous American.
1
What's surprising about that discredited study is that it's not surprising. Decades of research have shown the health risks of eating meat. Scientists should be constantly reminded about honesty in research. Just because he wasn't legally required to reveal his conflict of interest when presenting his research, doesn't mean he had no obligation to do so. What a fraud.
3
The entire article lays bare everything wrong with medical research. The conflict of interest process is a joke. And why did no reviewers for "Annals" not say, "Oh, yeah, a lack of randomized studies in nutritional science? Yawn. Reject. Next!" I would have expected better from what's supposed to be one of the better journals for internal medicine. I guess they are too occupied with their Pharma advertising.
And to those of you who are buying up meat based on this study: enjoy your future medical problems. I have members of my family who are decades into their meat-and-potato life, and they are dealing with diabetes mellitus, GERD, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis . . .
4
Truth be told, it may matter if you eat meat or it may not.
Literally 85-90% of the negative (and positive) impact all foods have on your health is determined by your genetic makeup.
This includes smoking and drinking alcohol.
We all have stories, and perhaps relatives, who lived into their 90's who smoked and ate red meat their whole lives.
My mother died a month shy of 100 and had been drinking Manhattans everyday of her adult life, at the same time enjoying her steak and potatoes.
I chose not to eat meat for ethical reasons, and have been vegetarian for almost 20 years.
These studies of food's effects are so poorly drawn as to be almost worthless.
Eat a variety of foods, exercise and try to get 8 hours sleep.
Your DNA will take care of the rest.
9
This study doesn't pass the smell test. Does anyone actually believe it? Of course it is biased toward the meat industry.
9
The problem starts when universities accept corporate money to do their research. Corporations have their own labs, where they can do all the research they want. The only reason they want universities doing research is to create an appearance of objectiveness.
The only solution is for universities to refuse corporate funding. This is similar to Consumer Reports accepting no advertising from corporations whose products it reviews. Or Wall Street analysts, who are prohibited from investing in companies they cover.
In medical research, this will be a revolution.
5
If strong evidence involves a 20 year trial that randomizes subjects to a red meat high diet or a red meat low diet, then the trial will never be done. Clinical trials of drugs do this so they constitute strong evidence . Diet trials do not. So the lack of "strong evidence" is a misleading statement regarding any diet.
3
@Will Hogan Clinical trials of drugs do not do this. Such is left up to the pharmaceutical companies and they are not playing clean. Easily researched-go
I was gobsmacked by the first sentence in the study, "Dietary guideline recommendations require consideration of the certainty in the evidence, the magnitude of potential benefits and harms, and explicit consideration of people's values and preferences."
Seriously people, if you like sugar, smoking, drinking, fats, and not working out enough your doctor will probably just let you keep doing it!
6
ILSI has a history of trying to shape the narrative on pro-industry food stuffs. I think a more helpful way of looking at nutrition is to consider longitudinal studies, and research like the Blue Zone. Instead of nutritionists saying this is what we think is healthy, these studies look at what healthy people actually eat. And a meat-heavy diet isn t part of the picture.
21
Dr. Johnston’s past association is clearly an indicator of potential conflict of interest — and it’s potential, not actual, that is the trigger for a red flag. Even though he wasn’t required to report conflicts of interest within the past 3 years, he should have been aware of this. That he apparently wasn’t I find astounding.
5
Dr Hu claims without any evidence that the methods used by this group could also be used to disprove other well-accepted public health recommendations. However, perhaps the methods are perfectly sound and could support some well-accepted public health recommendations, just not the ones that Dr. Hu prefers.
5
The lead researcher, Bradley C. Johnston's next study can pick one from MANY promising ones and he can prove that
- cigarette smoking is NOT bad for health;
- inhaling asbestos is OK;
- there is no public health problem with fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as an air pollutant;
- radioactivity is just a figment of one's imagination;
etc.etc.
He will get funding from the cigarette manufacturers, asbestos mining companies or other related companies!
22
@S. Roy
Perhaps those who comment on NYTimes articles should also state conflicts of interests.
Seemingly lost in all this is the conflation of meat, actual meat from animals, and the ultra-processed, chemically laden, opposite-of-fresh meat-based products that are everywhere. In terms of health, they appear to be polar opposites to me. Where are the health studies that take this into account?
10
@Sara C A book that touches on your question and ranks as the most extensive study on diet and epidemiology is The China Study by T. Colin Campbell.
5
@Luke
The China Study has been debunked up down and sideways.
Campbell had data on 22 countries but only used the 7 that supported his agenda and ignored the rest.
That’s beyond bias. That’s fraud.
2
Like most Americans, I was raised to view the other animals who evolved here on earth with us as mere fodder, playthings, toys, machines for our species to do with whatever we want, including imprisoning them, tormenting them, and eating them.
Only our beloved pet animals were spared such treatment.
Then I lived around some "factory farms," ranches, and dairy operations, and saw the ghoulish, horrific, utterly cruel things done to animals, and that the animals are sentient beings.
I also noticed that whenever I ate animal-derived foods I felt sluggish, and my digestive system told me "don't do this."
I became vegan, lost 50 pounds, greatly improved my exercise performance, and reduced my food costs by half.
All other animals have to eat what evolution stipulates. We don't. We have other choices.
So why does our species kill 57 BILLION innocent animals a year?
96
@Steve Davies
The number you quoted is for the US alone. Globally it’s more like 150 billion.
8
@Steve Davies
57 BILLION innocent, sentient animals per year! It's three times that number worldwide.
As a lifelong vegetarian and a vegan for the last 25, I am O.K. with being in perfect health because of it. But my real reason for being vegan is that I am against harming animals in any way. How can people be so heartless and yet claim to love their pets? No wonder we are so brutal to each other.
10
Who cares? We know beef is really, really, really bad for the planet. That’s not up for debate. It’s not up for debate that the primary reason for deforestation of the Amazon and other remaining forests is cows. Cows nothing more. So it’s simple we need to drastically cut back on beef and dairy not for our individual health but the collective health of the planet. Let’s lead with that and get the word out. It’s not a left, right, blue, red issue it’s a planetary issue, something we can all unit on and support. We all have the same planet of residence so let’s start defending it.
33
Surely the problem here is not the science, but science journalism. Experts on the issue understood the research in context and weighed the conclusions accordingly. But when the research disseminated to the wider public, credibility becomes an issue. Maybe the fault here lies with science journalists and not with scientists?
10
Seriously — wasn’t everyone’s first thought when they read that headline, “who paid for THAT study???”
Nutrition aside... there are so many other good reasons not to eat meat: it’s inefficient and unsustainable from an environmental perspective AND it perpetuates the misery of factory farming. Even ethical small farmers/ranchers must send their grass-fed, free-roaming cattle to slaughter houses that are horrors for both those who work their and the animals who must endure their final hours in terror and pain.
35
@Pat Bindrim Many of the people I see homesteading on YouTube process their own meat and poultry. Milk their animals and and take good care of them, avoiding the use of drugs and antibiotics. Their beef and pork poultry tastes nothing like the meat in the stores. The problem with a plant diet is that it is a product of modern society.
By which I mean that most people do not do physical labor for a living. 100 years ago most people walked to work. Even secretaries were labor intensive. Try using an old typewriter for 10 min. I am not against it but I think we don't take it into account enough.
1
@Pat Bindrim Who cares? Not meat-eaters. The Human Race is a nightmare. Check out the acreage in the Amazon that is destroyed for the purpose of providing all the grazing territory for your future hamburger. How about our depletion of creatures of water and air?
Until the whole human race embraces veganism and stops torturing all animals but human ones, war, murder and violence will be the norm. How do you spell karma? Or, if you would rather see it in biblical terms: "Reap what you sow".
1
@Pat Bindrim
Good points. I eat meat and enjoy it greatly. But I have cut down for the reasons you mention.
But they are beside the point of these articles which only say that we don't have the evidence to back up the current guidelines.
Every article published in mass media, on a research paper, needs to state the report is one only one study. I read the earlier NYT article on this meat study, which stated this one article was in contrast to the bulk of other studies. The public needs to be educated on the difference between one and many.
Reading this piece, it's clear that disclosure of financial interests cannot be left to the honesty of the researchers. Sad to say, but money is corruption. I know to ignore studies conducted by industry friendly scientists, but if the scientists lie, how can we protect ourselves. I'd say this is another corruption issue for super corruption cop, Elizabeth Warren.
23
@citizen vox - I agree. I've always been concerned about this simplistic approach by the media that makes each paper they report on as the latest gospel, along with a glaring headline.
2
I knew it from the get go the study was compromised and connected to the meat and food industry. Bad eating habits have ramifications on our health, no matter what their funny study says.
25
@Patty -
And how exactly were these 14 authors "connected to the meat and food industry"?
They weren't vegans?
3
There's more about this study. "Weak" recommendations with "low-certainty evidence."
"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).”
A weak recommendation is also "also about people’s values and preferences" -- it could have been lower than weak but “'our inference is that most people would choose to continue.' Hence, the weak recommendation."
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/10/1/20893070/beef-bacon-red-meat-health-effects
7
I knew from the start that this was funded--directly or indirectly--by the meat industry, just like "studies" touting the benefits of dairy products are funded by the dairy industry. These are dying agribusiness models and the principals are desperate. People latch onto headlines, particularly when it comes to nutrition. Just follow the advice of Michael Pollan: "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."
38
This study was done over a short term. Bad eating habits take a toll over the course of many years, not just three years.
13
@Judy T Actually, this was not a primary research study but a meta-review. The authors took a detailed look at the other studies that have been published and combined the data from these other studies to reach their conclusions. Many of these other studies did look at the effects of meat consumption over many years. In that sense, this study was "performed" over the many years to which you rightly refer.
8
@Rob-Chemist - But not reporting conflict of interest (and there may be more than one), the research study should be considered fraudulent. Dr. Johnson is guilty of a virtual lie, if not an actual one.
5
Yes, and we all know that retrospective analysis is usually of extremely limited value and only hints at what kind of well-controlled prospective studies should be done to a sufficient standard to provide strong recommendations to guide the behavior of 340 million Americans, with the nobler goal of reducing population-based risk.
2
This dishonorable episode provides one more reason to be skeptical about nutritional research reports, even when they emanate from prestigious researchers from top institutions. The well-funded lobbying arm of the food and beverage industry finds corruptible experts to peddle their double-talk, and steer their biased conclusions to reputable journals whose standards are not discerning enough to reject the work of researchers influenced by commercial interests.
22
After all that head scratching and criticism of the shortcomings of the scientific method, all that was really necessary to make sense of this study was to follow the money. It usually is.
59
Thanks to the Canadian doctor the Oprah Winfrey led crusade against beef has met its match. I am going to add four more servings of nutritious red meat to my weekly diet, effective immediately. Curious that those who preach about the need for change throughout our society have such difficulty understanding a change in scientific results. Galileo could have explained it to them: the accepted knowledge is not always correct. Whole milk and butter, anyone?
6
The vagueness of the study was all red flags to me. The subtitle " Evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork " per Dr. David Allison who received reseach funding from The National Cattleman's Beef Association, a lobbying group for MEAT PRODUCERS ... "The findings erode public trust critics say". When will we lean!
7
As critics of the paper have pointed out, you can't readily do double-blind randomized control studies of nutrition, so their methodology is problematic. By these same standards, we can't say lead is dangerous to human populations, because we haven't done randomized control experiments.
5
@Midd America Your comment regarding lead is misleading at best. Animal studies clearly show lead is toxic and has specific deleterious effects. Additionally, there are clear mechanisms by which lead will be toxic. Neither of these data exist for meat.
Your comment regarding the difficulty of doing nutrition studies, however, is so very true and what makes this field so difficult.
11
@Rob-Chemist, Midd's lead comment was sarcasm.
As a lifelong omnivore, I welcome any evidence that my chosen diet is a healthful one.
But red flags went up as soon as I read the headline on this article. Why? Oprah. There's no better reason than her case to be skeptical of anything connected with factory farming and factory meat. We don't have to be like this. Farmers and consumers have the same issues at heart. But gross, greedy, Big-Ag corrupts everything it touches, from the great potential of GMO foods, to the simplest expression of personal choice which cost Oprah Winfrey more than most people make in a lifetime. Luckily she could afford it. But none of us can afford half-truths and outright lies and bullying of industrial food corporations.
22
Surprise, surprise. These industries will do anything to protect their own interests at the expense everyone else.
38
In MY field of science this would have you laughed out of all future collaborations. In THIS field of "science" it is evidently a right of passage towards becoming a millionaire.
17
Shocked. Not. Fast food and medical care insurance industry will sleep well tonight. Type 2 diabetes will continue to thrive.
33
Insulin resistance is caused by continuous insulin. You are wrong about hereditary causes
. Diabetes is a recent epidemic and directly caused by a carb heavy diet.
2
@Pete
Diabetes II is mostly caused by obesity which is heavily influenced by the consumption of meat from fast food franchises IMO.
1
Let's see if I have this right. The article had 19 (!) authors and one of them had funding from an agribusiness-based organization over 3 years ago, and so folks want to consider the research fatally tainted. What about the other 18 authors? Additionally, how many authors go so far as to include their own dietary habits as a potential source of conflict?
Quite frankly, the only reason folks want to make a mountain out of this mole-hill is that the conclusions of the authors differs with their world-view. The authors only pointed out that the existing research does not support reducing meat consumption. Indeed, meat is perhaps the most nutritious food available in terms of its protein and micronutrient content.
30
The LEAD researcher was clearly biased and did not declare it for good reasons. The study first had to be sued by other scientists before this information came out. to the public.
Meat is dangerous and all previous (non-industry funded!) research says so. This study, even though biased also says that it is dangerous but "not that dangerous".
In this case they didn't compare people eating red meat vs. people eating NO red meat but People eating red meat often vs. people eating red meat a little less often. Of course the results are weak...
People love to hear good news about their bad habits. (Dr. John McDougall)
21
@Kristen If you read how the study was performed and the recommendations were developed, you would realize that even if Dr. Johnston were biased, it would have had no effect on the guidelines. All 19 authors reviewed the data and then voted. Since Dr. Johnston only had one vote, his allegedly biased vote would not have impacted the final recommendations.
In terms of meat being "dangerous", this is simply not supported by the existing data. There are correlations between societies with high meat consumption and certain diseases, but correlation is not causality. This is especially true in nutrition since folks in different societies have so many different habits. It is impossible to deconvolute the different potential variables.
12
@Rob-Chemist -
You simply cannot argue with religion.
And for many non-scientists, this vegan/vegetarian/plant-based diet thing is a religion.
(And for many cognitively-dissonant older nutritionists too.)
It'll always be a lot easier to attack the researchers than to attack the data.
7
A lot of Studies are discrediting the US food guidelines, That were made and paid for by the "food industry".
And yes most of them are showing red meat and saturated fats are not near as bad as sugar and carbohydrates.
13
@Steve
No, they weren't. That's the point. Try to be open to something that goes against your biases. This study goes against mine as well, but I'm willing to learn about it.
1
Science is not one scientist, nor one paper, nor one study. An outlier report like this one was NEWS but not SCIENCE, even apart from this scandalous concealment of commercial affiliations. Lay people must learn to ignore "the latest finding" and pay attention only to results that have been reproduced in multiple labs, and multiple contexts. Impending climate catastrophe is science. General safety of vaccines is science. The latest "it's good to eat, it's not good to eat" ... not so much.
Science reporters could help us all out by clarifying reports like this one as outliers, and should put all new scientific "news" in the context of the general views and results of the particular scientific community involved.
33
@David A. Your comment "Impending climate catastrophe is science" is factually wrong. The idea of "climate catastrophe" is not at all what climate scientists are saying. The science of global warming simply states that increasing CO2 concentrations will warm the atmosphere. As to wether it will be a catastrophe, that is pure guesswork and speculation.
1
@Rob-Chemist
Of course "impending climate catastrophe is science" is factually wrong. The catastrophe is happening today, with melting icebergs, superstorms, and droughts - to name a few of the symptoms.
17
@David A. I don't think you understand this matter. This study was a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a study of studies, not a single "outlier" study. The researchers involved review all the studies available in the field in question in order to get a more accurate overview of the state of the science at a point in time. Meta-Analyses tend to give a more accurate picture of what is known about the subject at hand than looking at a single study or a small group of studies. This study is, therefore, not an "outlier", as you characterize it, and in fact does "pay attention only to results that have been reproduced in multiple labs, and multiple contexts." That the study's conclusions go against conventional wisdom should be a good reason to reconsider the reigning paradigm of diet and nutrition, or at the very least to inspire further research and experimentation to discover if the established hypothesis is weakly rather than strongly supported by solid evidence.
10
As an RN with a degree in public health, the lack of ethics here infuriates me. Maybe the research was conducted under the highest of standards and most rigorous of protocols, but how can anyone believe this knowing now that potential conflicts of interest weren’t disclosed? At best this does a grave disservice to the public. At worst it affects their health and safety. It’s a good lesson though. Do your own research and find out who payed for the study and what past affiliations the researchers had. Big corporations don’t care about our health and safety. They care about their money.
56
@Cay -
The biggest conflict of interest in nutritional science isn’t industry funding, it’s previous position-taking.
Cognitive dissonance.
Once someone is on some board recommending to eat this or not eat that, they will mocked in academe if they ever change their opinions.
Their reputations are their incomes.
THAT is the true bias in nutritional studies. Show me one senior academic who has ever changed their tune.
So how do you report THAT on disclosure forms?
8
Dr. T. Colin Campbell, PhD, one of the most accomplished nutrition scientists in the world, changed his position on the consumption of animal protein after he discovered that it promoted cancer. His findings and subsequent efforts that proved the association with cancer are documented in “The China Study”, the largest study of its kind ever undertaken. He was systematically marginalized in academia as a price for his honesty.
His position and evidence he found caused the agri-business to attack him and pay $millions to academia and the medical establishment to overlook his findings. They are now repeating the same strategy of lies used by Big Tobacco about the relationship of tobacco and cancer, including the payoffs to academia and the medical establishment to support their lies.
You’re right, he paid a personal price for his honesty, integrity and change of position he took against animal protein consumption over 40 years ago. He has gradually, however, over the past decades been joined by thousands of credible scientists and medical doctors who understand real science. The WHO and hundreds of governments and other organizations around the world now support his views against red and processed meat.
Sometimes, integrity counts. The truth eventually is found. Let’s hope these phony studies can be exposed to stop the hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths caused by processed food and animal products.
3
@Cay We shouldn't have to do the research; the journalists who write the article on the study should. As others have pointed, later articles like this one have far less impact than the original report.
1
So the basic argument they make about why there is no health effect is that it’s only evident in large numbers because statistically it only affects a certain percentage of people. And the reason you shouldn’t worry about it is that it’s unlikely to affect you. Then why do we worry about exposure to radiation? Only a small percentage of people ever get cancer. Shouldn’t we just ignore radiation exposure then?
12
@David Mangefrida Also; bullets. They hardly kill anybody!
The basic ethical obligation of the legal profession is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
The basic ethical obligation of the mefical profession is to do no harm.
What is the basic ethical obligation of the scientific profession?
See ' Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus" Mary Shelley
5
And people don’t understand why there’s caution and questions surrounding vaccine safety?
2
@Ed Vaccine safety is orders of magnitude easier to study than nutrition. As far as I am aware, every study has concluded that vaccines are safe.
3
@Ed Hardly comparable. Nutrition studies nearly all depend on personal reporting of what people ate, which is notoriously unreliable as data. Vaccine studies are fully experimental, which is the gold standard of scientific study.
2
@Ed Bizarre, counter-intuitive comparison. Established science and evidence supports not eating too much red meat and getting your children vaccinated. Why would this article make you want to question vaccinations?
What a surprise. A study comprised by big business. Everyone is on the take. The free market will sort it all out!
11
The bacon sandwich was fun while it lasted..back to kale salad.
10
Bacon is really good in kale salad.
3
@Hero's Journey uh oh, one bacon sandwich is all it takes!
Next up: Keep On Smoking Those Cigarettes! Because, you know, the evidence is weak.
From the article: “But Dr. Hu [of Harvard] said Dr. Johnston’s methods were not very objective or rigorous and the tool he employed in his meat and sugar studies could be misused to discredit all sorts of well-established public health warnings, like the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, air pollution and health problems, physical inactivity and chronic disease, and trans fats and heart disease.”
Classic tobacco company playbook: Sow confusion. Make your contrary findings discrediting established and accepted scientific conclusions possibly plausible. This is also being used to discredit the science of global warming and climate change. All very discouraging.
46
@Dr. J -
Hu and his Harvard colleagues use the same methods.
And I say that as an ex-Harvardite.
Such a criticism is grasping for straws.
Let’s hear from someone other than Hu.
Mozaffarian maybe?
@Dr. J
No, actually, for tobacco, the evidence is pretty strong since Doll and Hill, in 1954.
Sounds like the journal editor and her colleague are trying to justify their decision to publish the study. The public health professor at the Chan School is more credible in his analysis of the study’s major flaw.
8
Do scientists on the take realize they are undermining public confidence in all science?
We have legions of people who "don't believe" in anthropogenic climate change or the efficacy of vaccinations.
With the election of some of our current political leaders, it's blazingly clear that the public IQ is maximally challenged.
Enough.
16
Its not “the scientists”, its the reporters and the dismal state of basic science education in schools. “Science” is an ongoing process of testing using the scientific method.
1
@Occupy Government -
It isn’t scientists fault.
It is reporters’ fault.
Let the nutritional scientists duke it out amongst themselves, as scientists in other disciplines do.
You should be blaming Parker-Pope and O’Conner, not the scientists.
Note for Bradley Johnston:
You should immediately apply for a cabinet post in the Trump Administration. You have the requisite corrupt qualifications and Orwellian abilities to undo legitimate scientific research. I hear they could use a new person in land management who doesn't believe the government should own land, and someone at the EPA that doesn't believe the environment needs protecting.
45
People really, really don't like to deal with counter-intuitive results or engage with nuance and complication, do they?
Attacking someone for literally complying with the rules? You would do better to address the actual research (and perhaps to argue for changing the rules, if you don't like them) than to engage in pointless ad hominem attacks.
The real reason nutritionists and science journalists are up in arms on this subject is that it has for once pulled back the veil on the staggeringly low quality of evidence in the field of nutrition, and how little real evidence underlies the dietary recommendations we are given, let alone the breathless pop-science takes we hear every day on which food that was good for you yesterday will kill you tomorrow. The "rebuttal" piece on HSPH essentially amounted to calling the analysis flawed because it held nutrition to the standard of science.
Everyone here would do better to engage with real facts and experimentation than to try and shoot the messenger with vague suggestions of unspecified wrongdoing.
8
In the annals article it states quite clearly:
“ The authors conducted the study independent of the funding source, which is primarily supported by the food and agriculture industry.” So maybe folks need to learn to read the papers before they opine. That said, literally everyone has a political view that might bias their approach to research, and there is not a whiff of evidence that the methodology of the paper was flawed any more than that of any meta-analysis. The criticisms here are all self-interested in one way or another.
7
“No quid pro quo!!!”
Science = marketing now? Nest we'll here that vaping is the healthiest thing you can to for your lungs.
If you have industry ties you should be banned from all peer-reviewed research and publications - period.
Leave the others to publish their "results" in the National Enquirer.
5
How could this journal not inquire further, when this same researcher published a pro-sugar study, soon revealed to have been financed by the junk food industry?
4
Scientists have also found that contrary to longstanding belief, being hung upside down from a meat hook does not have any adverse effects on cows. They are calling for volunteers from meat industry supported scientists to see if the same holds for humans.
9
Statistics can be manipulated to serve those funding the enterprise. No surprise here, just business as usual. Never forget that maximizing profit is the driver for American industry. Need to lie to make more money? No problem. Need to cheat to make more money? No problem. Need to manipulate data and deceive the gullible? No problem. Pass the steak sauce, please.
4
The Annals of Internal Medicine is considered one of the finest peer reviewed medical journals. Can the editors defend their publication choices in a world in which conflict of interest is serious? It is time to hear from them.
6
@Thinking Person -
Yes, the Annals of Internal Medicine IS one of our best, most respected medical journals. And they also have a reputation for challenging the group-think that pervades our medical establishment sometimes.
3
Dr. Johnston undercut sugar and meat recommendations by using a tool called GRADE that was mainly designed to rate clinical drug trials, not dietary studies.
“You can’t do a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of red meat and other foods on heart attacks or cancer,” Dr. Hu said. “For dietary and lifestyle factors, it’s impossible to use the same standards for drug trials.”
Johnson has his career path laid out. It does not seem to include actual research. At least research that does not start with a conclusion and then finds innovative ways to reach that conclusion.
10
@uwteacher -
Hey, it is a lot easier to progress a career by bootlicking the status quo paradigm, isn’t it?
Try fundamentally disagreeing with your Ph.D. advisor and department’s prior work or positions. You aren’t gonna get very far.
We need whistleblowers in science just like we do in government and industry. But in science, you have to publish your identity and your data.
P.S. Hu should know that it isn’t “double-blinding” or “placebos” that are critical in the best nutritional study designs, but rather “randomization” and a sufficient number of “hard outcomes” that insure the quality of the conclusions.
1
This is actually the first thing I thought of when I read the original article.
5
Empirical validity and reliability is what matters here...everything else is media fodder for profit.
1
Anti vaxers are ridiculed because they don't believe in science, but should anyone believe what governments/corporations tell us. Seems that science has lost its way and is not all that believable anymore.
@bill - It's not so much that the government and drug companies tell us that vaccinations are safe but that there is no actual evidence to the contrary. Just anecdotal claims. Disinterested scientists (people who know how to study these things following the scientific method) have repeatedly found no evidence to link vaccinations to autism. It is more likely that autism is linked to unleaded gasoline, SUVs, child safety seats, flat screen TVs, cell phone radiation, and dozens of other things that make up modern life.
I knew it was too good to be true.
4
I had a feeling that there was something rotten in Denmark.
3
Just like the scientific discussion about the contribution of livestock to climate change when the industry got one hiered mouthpiece to repeat over and over livestock's contribution to livestock should not be exaggerated, namely Frank Mitloehner.
He even sat on the board who published the landmark report "livestock's long shadow" by the UN concluding livestock created more emissions than all traffic combined (18% vs13%).
Now this might sound a lot but not when you consider the Worldbank 3 yrs later suggested those number would not include indirect emissions from deforestation etc. and that it should be at least 51% percent
1
Funding for NutriRECS is not stated at their website. The research paper just published says "no funding conlficts".
Yet in April, 2019, Texas A&M AgriLife -- a wealthy cattle industry lobby -- issued a press release announcing its generous funding of NutriRECS and included information from Dr Bradley Johnston.
https://today.agrilife.org/2019/04/16/texas-am-agrilife-joins-international-nutrirecs-consortium/
3
What is next for Dr. Johnston, the benefits of smoking cigarettes? :)
4
If an adult person doesn’t want to eat red meat that’s their choice, but forgoing the pleasures of a nice selection of prime rib or London broil every now and then is ludicrous, especially now that the NYT is attempting to debunk the study because a person involved with the study has ties to the meat industry.
Eat well and enjoy...
1
@MDCooks8 Maybe you know something about this issue that has been hidden, but how can you assert that the Times is trying to debunk the study? As I read the article, it discusses the responses of OTHERS to the initial study. These others are medical professionals. In fact I would suggest that you skimmed it and drew a rapid and incorrect conclusion. Further, that you can get the message that one should not eat something "every now and then" tells me that you are deliberately choosing not to understand why guidelines exist that recommend limiting red meat.
4
Repeal First Amendment Rights for corporations. Corporations are inherently biased and should not be allowed to hide behind freedom of expression principles to further their lies and false facts.
4
It seems that Dr. Johnson's actions could best be described a sort of scientific prostitution. He is using, or rather, misusing, the tools of science to benefit himself. Even if he was not in the pay of industry for the meat study, as he seems to have been for the sugar study, he is polishing his credentials, the better to sell his wares to the next high bidder.
3
Out of curiosity I googled the countries with the highest rates cancer. I think that lost alone would tell you meat not great for you.
5
Ok, so google now = scientific research
These PhDs must be wasting their time and money.
@Sm -
A nation's cancer death rate is largely a function of its smoking rate and the degree to which its elderly do not succumb to heart disease, so they die of cancer instead.
If meat were horrible for you, then Indians would live the longest, as they are are primarily vegetarians. That they don't might tell you something?
1
The ILSI should know that the word is out - they are a front for international food and beverage companies and their science is very, very suspect. Better disband and regroup under yet another name. It’s like whackamole- same compromised “nutrition” scientists and execs are at the helm time and time again.
5
I’m shocked.
I’ve been told we drained the swamp.
6
Riiiiight, his relationship with the industry had nothin' to do with his "research."
5
The lead author’s ties immediately exclude any veracity to this report. His failure to disclose his (? past) ties to these meat interest groups, and his excuses for it are dishonest.
4
I surmised as much just by reading the headline regarding that study.
3
As a scientist who has to fill out the conflict of interest forms routinely, I have to say this critiques is unfair.
The forms specifically ask that you fill out anything within three years. He follows the rules and the standard.
Barring a requirement for infinite disclosure of all prior payments there need to be a limit
6
I believe Dr. Johnston is still naive.
1
What a joke. The guy obviously has something to hide since he didnt want to share his connection with those institutions. And now he is an expert on if we should or not should eat the meet. Thank God someone found this out. I will trash his report and pretend it never happened.
4
Eat red meat, don't eat red meat. But don't rely on shills from the red meat industry for advice as to healthy eating.
5
You can't trust anyone.
1
You know, NYT, you could have investigated a little before you put that story, running counter to decades of health science, on the front page. Would have been pretty easy to find this out, I think.
6
No healthy person took that article seriously. It stunk of corruption from the beginning. All healthy cultured people live on mostly plants with maybe meat as a condiment. That hunk of red flesh diet gave birth to to beefy American of today. Not a good look nor a health one,
16
@Janice Then I guess I have to be content to be a healthy uncultured person. The grandfather of all this anti-meat, anti-fat theology was Ancel Keyes, and his work was based on a
@Janice oh my, you really couldn't be further from the truth. We're all fat and diabetic (present company excluded) because of all our carb intake for so many years. Meat (esp grass fed) is extremely healthy.
2
@LogiGuru Nice to see that others are understanding that the real issue isnt meat but carbs. It is facinating that so few people get it. Seriously.
Coffee. Eggs. Now red meat. Of course, Johnson was a "shopped" by the meat industry (and the sugar industry in 2016) for a favorable report of their products. Well-financed corporations are in a disinformation war with anyone that might influence the public to use less of their products no matter how damning the science. Think back to the 60's when Big Tobacco had said was saying that smoking posed no health threat.
5
To whoever dug up this information for the Times: Bless you. And NYT, bless you too. I hope you last forever. If you decided this week to quadruple your subscription cost I would renew in a heartbeat.
4
Dr. Johnson deserves to be barred from publishing papers in the AIM, or perhaps more widely, and should certainly have a bright light shown on his work by un-conflicted peers. Period. He's a tool. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
8
The 'scientist' who recommended we all eat more meat is in bed with the meat industry and forgot to mention it?
Gosh, what a surprise!
Said not one person, ever, with an IQ over room temperature.
8
Dear NY Times.
Please find an experienced and reputable research scientist to explain to your subscribers and others reading your newspaper how to differentiate between 1) necdotal evidence, 2)statistical evidence (the only kind available for human health studies and 3) experimental evidence
It would also be useful to publish an article discussing the strengths and weakness of meta analyses.
Thank you from a retired scientist
9
Dr. Johnston’s protestations ring hollow. The sin here is the appearance of a conflict of interest, the severity of which is underscored by his hair splitting rationalizations. The sad thing is that the study’s conclusions are now marred by the suspicions against its author. Is it safe to eat more meat? To a lot of people the answer is relevant, but because of Mr. Johnston’s attempts at being clever we will have to wait for the answer.
4
Ties to the meat industry? Wow, who woulda thunk!
5
And then you wonder why you read ‘Science says …. Scientists say …’ and no one can take you seriously.
3
Focus on the science. Discrediting because you don't like past associations just makes you a bigot. If the science is good, it doesn't matter who funded it. If the person has impeccable credentials by your intersectionality interests, and the science isn't good, it also doesn't matter.
5
OF COURSE it matters 'who funded it'.
Most people do not have the background to 'focus on the science', and there is rarely any real science involved when industries making a fortune from the product finance a study on its effects on consumers' health.
The tobacco industry financed hundreds of 'studies' on the effects of tobacco, and not one, NOT ONE, said it was horrible for people's health to smoke. Most of their 'studies' were spearheaded by inside counsel who then invoked attorney-client privilege to suppress the results when called to testify before Congress.
The cellular industry has done studies to determine if holding a phone to your head (a source of radio frequency radiation) had ill effects. Surprised to learn that every study they financed said it was totally benign? Or that they've bribed a large number of people to ensure that the FDA and FTC didn't do their own independent studies?
The list is long, the stakes are enormous, the lies are immense, the effect on people's health often devastating - half a million people in America die from disease caused by smoking every single year, and this is AFTER the ill effects were published.
Eating lots of red meat and sugar is a health risk, simple as that, despite Bradley C. Johnson's 'research'.
3
@David
Yes, let’s focus on the science. If you look at the authors’ own data, you will see that even after cherry picking studies (and leaving out great studies like the Lyon Heart study, the Women’s Heath Initiative, PREDIMED, and the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study) that THEIR OWN DATA showed a statistically significant reduction in risk of a whole host of things by reducing meat consumption. (Seriously! Look for yourself!) This, also despite the fact that they excluded any study comparing vegetarians to meat eaters, instead only including studies where meat eating was reduced from a higher to lower quantity. They then claimed that because people like to eat meat, they don’t feel the benefits are big enough to ask people to change their diets, despite their own data. Their conclusions are at odds with their own findings. Three of the panel refused to vote to publish their “recommendations” because of this. This group is also responsible for the report in 2016 that said we shouldn’t decrease sugar intake (surprise, surprise, funded by a beverage corporation) and the paper in 2014 that stated we should eat all the butter we want. The bottom line is that people love to hear good news about their bad habits, and are unwilling to look beyond a headline at actual data if they’re told what they want to hear. Corporations know this. Their only goal is to fund “science” that sows doubt. Classic tobacco industry tactics.
There is no proof it was funded by the beef industry. He had ties years ago. So what. Just about every vegan study I’ve ever read has had a vegan bias, or ties to peta. Has any group of scientist officially debunked this?
It is possible that there is no conflict here, but the doctor could have managed appearances better no doubt. The sugar study referenced was really surprising & disheartening. Science ought to pursue answers, wherever they lead. However, whatever controversies persist around diet, the absolute destructive nature of sugar seems to be the only constant. Maybe sugar guidelines are too restrictive but absolutely nothing I experience speaks to that idea.
2
So why on earth did the NYT publish these “findings “ a couple of days ago?? Don’t your editors vet this sort of claim?
8
Most of the comments come from people who really want to believe they are healthier and are prolonging their lives by not eating red meat. That may be true it may not be. But think of Linda McCartney who famously made all around her be vegetarians. That did not work out so good for her.
Once we start worrying about diet and health it is probably too late for the change to matter. So enjoy what you like in moderation and hope for the best. There are no magic diets.
3
Eating beef only occasionally, about once a week at the most, and eating mainly vegetables, fruits, grains and plant foods everyday has improved my health tremendously. I don’t need a study to prove that.
16
@Alex Bernardo
I've been doing the same for the past 6 years and it's improved my health and quality of life. Also, by changing my diet, not 'going' on a diet (big difference), I've gone from 182 lbs. to 164.
5
@Alex Bernardo Same here. We had long avoided red meat but lately began eating a small portion or organic red meat once a week. As you get older, protein requirements increase and muscles lose mass more rapidly. Red meat does have BCAA (Branched Chain Amino Acids) that are important. So we have decided to be very moderate in our consumption but have abandoned our no red meat orthodoxy.
4
@Mark McIntyre Seems like what you actually are experiencing are the benefits from low carb lifestyle and not so much low meat lifestyle.
I'm a recent graduate of a Master's of Public Health program, and grew up the son of a dietitian. I'm also a lifelong (well, since I was 7) vegetarian, although the rest of my family are happy omnivores.
Dr. Laine is correct that past ties to the industry should not have been a barrier to publication, that this disclosure doesn't change anything about the study, and that the team was above-board in following their established protocols.
Dr. Hu is ALSO right that the protocols the team used are of marginal use for nutritional science, that the study has been over-publicized, and that nutritional science is still apparently correct in warning about the over-consumption of meat.
Science rewards proving your hypothesis and creating novel findings. This is well known enough that there are statistical methods to try and estimate the number of unpublished studies that might have found no connections on a particular topic. Dr. Johnston's study is in the news, and his career on the rise, for producing a paper with novel findings (in that they refute the previously accepted ones.) This doesn't seem to be a case of personal corruption, he and his team seem to have followed ethical best practices. But SYSTEMICALLY science, and science journalism, is fixated on the new. I've learned to hold off on going all in on conclusions that might be too catchy or too appealing. Dr. Johnston is more confident in his study and perhaps less worried about this general tendency of science than I am.
3
After seeing this study, the first thing that came to my mind was:
"This study was brought to you by the Meat and Processed Food Association".
11
Dr. Kellogg had the FDA wrapped around his finger for years, leading to the (now known to be disastrous) food pyramid.
After 20 years of diets of insulin shocking grains, we have an obese population with metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes).
Eating more meat and less grain can't hurt. Grass fed beef or buffalo if you can afford it. Through in vegetables and salads, along with intermittent fasting and you will do a lot to help you blood chemistry. Our ancestors didn't eat 3 meals a day and snack in between.
9
@James The tragedy is that the Amazon is being burned down for cattle grazing. Much of this meat goes to us rich Americans. Grass-fed beef is unsustainable. Scientists are working on brewed or cultured meat (no ecoli) to save the environment. There are also incredibly tasty beef alternatives. It's turned me around on meat eating. I cannot in good conscience eat factory farmed meat and now with whole ecosystems being burned down, I will no longer eat grass-fed. It wasn't easy at first, but now I don
't think about it.
3
Similar instances have happened in case of meteorologists who gave controversial statements about global warming. Mainstream scientific community should come up with an accessible source of information which is relevant to such important issues and echoes scientific consensus.
4
The comments are interesting and expected. To begin, I, similarly to Dr. Guyatt, am a pescatarian, eat no eggs, dairy, or red meat. Nevertheless, I am not aware of convincing evidence showing that eating meat, at least in moderation, is seriously harmful to one’s health. After all , humans have been, for thousands of years, eaters of both plant and animal sources. Also similarly to Dr. Guyatt, I don’t eat meat, dairy, or eggs because I do not wish to contribute to animal suffering or environmental degradation. It is interesting to me that people believe , about religion or a philosophical or political position, because they want to. And they will passionately defend this view from an opposing view, I think because the opposing view is threatening to the way they want to believe. Reasoned, calm, objective analysis often has little to do with it.
3
@Wan
Humans have four teeth for eating meat and all the others are for eating veggies. Obviously natural selection has made us for what we are adapted for. Veggies with just a little meat. All sorts of pseudoscience isn't going to change that.
5
@Wan Fish don't suffer? And most pescatarians eat wild fish as "the best" as if there were some moral reason to continue to consume from the wild rather than farmed.
3
@niucame You can't eat meat with just 4 teeth. That 4 are specialized to tear at meat doesn't mean the other teeth aren't for chewing that meat.
Animals that don't eat meat spend most of their days eating. Nobody even knows what it would mean in terms of ag output to replace all meat with fresh veggies around the world all year around.
3
Follow the money, as usual. Perhaps most "scientific" studies on consumer products are sponsored by the very industries that make and sell these products. It is in their interest to find "scientists" who will cook up the results they want and get handsomely rewarded for doing so. Since Reagan first blurted "government is the problem", we've seen an increasingly shrinking government, with dire consequences. Many compounds that are defined as toxic and illegal in Europe are perfectly fine in many of our foods and skincare products. Why is it that we have so many chronic conditions that we didnt' have 50 years ago? Sugar, processed foods, and meat consumption laden with toxins have steadily and hugely risen over those years. Coincidence?
26
@elotrolado It's not who paid, but whether the science is correct or not. Often, funding comes from those with actual interests in the topic and have money, so it's unsurprising that corporations are often involved.
If money is so corrupting, then clearly all is invalid, as government funds studies, rich universities fund studies, rich people fund studies....who would run scientific experiments without money?
2
@elotrolado
The elephant in the room about what is bad for us and what is not is that there are essentially zero studies that look at the synergistic effects of things.
How many "scientists" and "doctors" did the tobacco industry buy off in the '60's and '70's who stated that this product was not cancer-causing? Now the corporations are going after food. SAD.
20
Thank you Dr. Johnston, for recommending we eat more sugar and red or processed meats. I was hoping that I could start smoking cigarettes again. When will you be working for the tobacco industry and doing an analysis for them. How about motorcycle riding without helmets, I find them so confining? Good job.
796
This man should be sued by the US Public Health authorities. Disgusting!
14
@Barry of Stone Mountain you comment was PERFECT!!
39
@Barry So awful? How come we're richer, better educated and living longer across the world?
5
A lot of the commenters here have it backwards. In my experience as a science consultant for corporations (or maybe you’ll call me a corporate shill), I don’t find that scientists by and large bend their work to fit the corporations. Rather, corporations track down scientists that are independently supporting hypotheses that are of benefit to the corporation, and then amplifying their work. These corporate-friendly scientists then receive more funding (from industry) and can research and publish more than they would have otherwise. The way money twists the process is generally not by twisting the science as much as by amplifying what might otherwise be a relatively small voice in the field... a voice that already happens to see things the way the corporation wants things to be.
My training, at two respected universities on the east coast, were so pro-corporate, that when I started working, I did not even see my own biases. Twenty years later, I work independently, and I can turn away work where I feel pressured to come to a distorted conclusion. So I’m not exactly raking in the bucks anymore...
50
@J Interesting. Never knew that.
3
Heavens!! Who would think that research outcomes might somehow be biased simply because they are funded by huge food corporations? I mean, c’mon...
3
@Jen
Sometimes they are, and sometimes not. What I’m saying is that there are many scientists that just happen to have theories that happen to align well with corporate interests. The theories themselves were not necessarily directly influenced by business initially. But the subsequent publicity and amplification of the theory and its originator often are picked up and championed by business.
I’ve had the distinct feeling that clients have wanted to use my name, image, training, expertise, and words like a weapon just because I happened to espouse a theory beneficial to them. The marketing people and some attorneys really try to push to go beyond the limits of the careful wording we need to use as scientists. It’s pretty awful. Some scientists cave in even in little ways here and there... so little that they can rationalize it as not meaningful.
4
The criticism of COI does not have too much merit because the increase in risk shown in the meta analysis was same as previous studies. What changed is using the GRADE tool to assess quality.
And GRADE is nothing new or "Johnston's methods" as quoted by Dr. Hu. It is used in Cochrane review - the most rigorous met-analysis - for years now for drugs, exercise, nutrition and even acupuncture studies. They also pre-registered all their methods. If GRADE is wrong, the best medical evidence we have is probably wrong too.
If you disagree with the concept of assessing study quality and making recommendations based on the study quality, you need help.
9
This sort of confusing back and forth with contradictory studies, misleading headlines, and sudden reversals of opinion benefits those who profit under the current system, at the cost of the consumer, who loses faith in authoritative sources of information and reverts to habits informed by industry advertising and ingrained habits. In this case, it’s the food industry benefiting, but a similar tactic is at work muddying the waters of our political system, with similar efficacy for our entrenched political leaders at the cost of the misinformed and disenchanted voters who are more prone to doubt authorities and trust in sources of wishful thinking pandering to Machiavellian leaders. It’s no accident that Fox News echoes every criticism of President Trump with an equal and opposite critique of a Democrat or “the media”; the more confusion abounds, the less the truth is heard, and the easier it is to feed doubt and sustain the status quo. Just ask the fossil fuel industry.
26
@WH But wouldn't non-meat agribusiness count as corporations, or do you grow your own food (I know the answer is that you do not)?
1
ILSI has a pro-industry agenda it needs to spread; AIM has to have content to fill out a biweekly publication; researchers have to publish to be paid; physicians have to co-author to be recognized in the profession; peer reviewers have to tread lightly for fear that their own articles will be subject to real critical review. It is a vicious circle evident in many professions that can lead to the publication of mediocre and questionable information in a data-flooded world where the end-user readers only have time to digest the headlines, not scrutinize the substance. However, when it comes to human health, the consequences can be devastating. I applaud the NYT for its investigative reporting, but would prefer that it be done before the potential misinformation is published. Articles on long-term dietary guidance are not so time-sensitive that they have to be published immediately. Leave that to the murky corridors of Twitter and the like.
19
The next thing we will discover is that deep-fat fried food is good for us. (Of course, Woody Allen understood this decades ago.)
12
@Mark Sure tastes great, so I'll continue to eat some deep fried foods along with some of many other things.
@Mark
Hilarious! Haven't thought of Sleeper in a long time.
Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called "wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.
As a healthcare professional who actuallly reads several nationally prominent medical journals this is absurd. It does not matter to me who pays the authors salaries or who renumerates them in any way shape or form. Data is data. Methodology is methodology. Statistics is statistics. Yes you can slant what ever you want how ever you want to slant it. But these journals are peer reviewed by very prominent people in their field, several usually. Now this article has placed a huge dilemma in front of us. And that is: do I believe scientist A or scientist B who have 180 degree different opinions of the issue. Who do I trust and believe in? I do not care who pays you, I always look at what data you have collected, how you have used the data you have collected and how you have presented this data to me. I find the entire nutrition-public health people to be unacceptablly wacko. They all use very dubious data, and use this data in obviously very dubious ways. And frankly I am always surprised that any of their studies are ever published in any accredited journal. These so called Schools of Public Health are almost quackery to me. Everything and anything these peole have published can be attacked by another scientist who looks at the same problem with different lenses. The absolute worst offenders are the so-called nutritionists. Atleast that lady who went on that all banana diet was cute.
13
@Per Axel
You seem to have overlooked the criticism of Dr. Hu that the methods used by Dr. Johnston's study were only available for drug studies. Lending more weight to Dr. Hu's criticism is his pointing out that Dr. Johnston's methods could be used to discredit the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, air pollution and health problems, physical inactivity and chronic disease, and trans fats and heart disease, which is nonsensical.
7
@Per Axel If I recall correctly, the head of Harvard’s Nutrition Studies program is a vegan. This is also a bias that ought to be publicly disclosed.
4
@Eric Why is that nonsense. Doesn't it seem likely that people dying from second-hand smoke (and now third-hand is being taught as real) being a real risk is absurd? Of course many things are not optimal in life, but why must life be lived optimally (per your standards) and maximally (most days rather than most interesting and significant)?
He tried to persuade consumers that sugar was a healthy nutrient? Say no more. He’s a charlatan. Sugar and refined carbohydrates are the new poisons responsible hundreds of millions of diabetics and pre-diabetics. Deadly killers bankrupting our healthcare budgets. Reject his advice.
139
@Charlie Chan And you know that because? To suggest a cookie is a death sentence is nonsense. Overeating seems to be a real known issue.
1
“I realized that if I disclosed my links to industry, I would be less credible, so this time I felt it best to sweep under the carpet.”
- Dr. Johnston.
57
Shocking development. An industry shill does a sham study that makes his paymasters look good. Some things never change. "Let the buyer beware" is still the order of the day.
13
You can't believe any research study published unless you know if the researcher had ties to the industry. Many GMO proponents have ties to Big Ag and of course promote GMO foods.
6
@Jacquie Because scientists with no expertise are best? Because science is often funded by disinterested parties and performed by disinterested scientists?
One one study is not “science”. As you may recall from learning about the scientific method in school, you formulate a hypothesis and then test it and REPEAT it. If the results are not consistent, either your hypothesis is wrong or you failed to control all the variables.
Still consuming my sizzling New York Strip steak, medium rare 😋😛
10
@Sean right dude...it's about genes, exercise, over-all diet, sex, attitude, work...
I knew it was too good to be true...
9
@Mash me too, but at least I had steak & eggs the past week.
'three year guideline"? You mean if I got a PhD in 1987 and worked for industry for twenty years, then decided to go 'on my own' so to speak, my twenty years with the meat industry is beyond the scope of disclosure rules???? As a human, I find this parameter to be ridiculous..Everything I have done for my higher degree choice and after were fully conscious choices..This guy is a meat guy..It was there in the initial stories, but really the guidelines are ridiculous..Another aspect of society tainted by capitalism, profit, and filthy lucre over alles..
46
And there is no such thing as man-accelerated climate change.
8
@Farmer D Exactly
Always best to follow the money that pays for these “studies....”
Reminds me of the ridiculous “study” that was put out years ago claiming that a Hummer is more environmentally friendly than a Prius. Of course it turned out it was written by a couple of car industry marketing hacks. But it bamboozled such “intelligent” right wingers like George Will so got a lot of press before it’s dubious “results” were shown to be all lies.
9
I quit looking at all these sorts of articles once I read that taking fish oil supplements does squat for heart disease.
The only reasonable person seems to be Dr. Gordon Guyatt, chair of the 14-member panel that reviewed the analysis. Before the study, he had three reasons not to eat meat: environment, animal welfare, and health.
Now, he has two. We should all look at it that way, and move on.
Otherwise, I see no reason to believe or disbelieve anybody based on this article.
3
To meat or, not... Your choice. "I wasn't required..." sounds like a Trumpism used not only by Trump's sycophants but, by the Thump himself. I wish to welcome his analysis, led by Bradley C. Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada. He joins former doctor Andrew Jeremy Wakefield, a discredited British physician who became an anti-vaccine activist. He was promoting his own vaccine business solution whereas Mr Johnston just wanted to be buddies with Cargill, et al. It certainly sounds Trumpian to me.
11
I smelled a rat from the beginning. The scientific community and research have long been targeted by the food, chemical and drug industries. Including thug like methods to discredit anything that might affect sales.
Take Atrazine where they followed and repeatedly threatened a researcher who disclosed its toxicity. Atrazine increases the amount of estrogen in a woman's body increasing her chance of breast cancer. It also causes male frogs to grow overies. Novartis, a subsidiary of parent company Syngenta who produces Atrazine then profits further when she gets breast cancer and is prescribed Letrozole to reduce aromatase and estrogen in the body. Hard to believe they cannot know this cycle since the variable is the same: manipulating the amount of aromatase in the body. Profit in causing disease and profit again in treating the disease.
Same thing in this article.
8
So sad. It's so easy to buy people these days. Heck, you can even buy presidents now. Like the NRA.
19
Of course he didn’t report his ties to the meat industry!
7
Scientific consensus is difficult to achieve.
Once achieved, it is not changed by a single weak-science study authored by someone who, by his own admission 4 years ago, has been funded by food industry corporate interests advocating for sugar, salt, saturated fat, red meat, etc.
The editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine should be ashamed for staining the reputation of this usually excellent journal.
22
@Baroque thank you! I have been waiting for someone to make this point. I guess I am not supposed to reveal my identify, but it feels as if you have read my new book. :)
Thank you for publishing this. So much research is tainted now that it is no wonder that people are cynical about any findings. I am skeptical of any research funded by the related industry....this has proven to be a problem again and again. Plus it is a rarity to see any research that disproves a hypothesis...those results just go away.
2
What a surprise! And industry trade groups and advertisers wonder why they are received with such cynicism.
Unfortunately these cosy little arrangements serve only to cast doubt on the honest scientists and researchers.
7
Red flags went off in my head when I read the Times' account of the Johnston study. A long-time reader of the Times, I learned back in the '70's to question articles about health and medicine appearing here. Too often they contained findings and opinions that didn't jibe with accepted medical knowledge or practice which seems to be what enticed the journalists to write them.
10
Incidents like this make it easy for people to dismiss all science, no matter how well done. Dr. Johnson has done the medical and research community a disservice. Perhaps he followed the letter of the rules, but he certainly violated the spirit of disclosure.
He has damaged his own reputation and likely hurt his chances of being funded again. Except by Big Meat, of course.
10
I knew it had to be something like this.
Every vegetarian I know is FAAAAAR healthier than me...a red meat lover.
7
I'm more concerned about the garbage nutritional recommendations based on poorly done science than I am whether there was an optics problem in the reporting of past funding. Seriously, saying that nutritional science shouldn't be held to the standards of other sciences is just like admitting you aren't practicing science.
3
@Carrick That's not what people are saying. they are saying that it is simply not possible to do a randomized, double-blind, controlled study of eating, Therefore, we have to reply at least in part on animal studies, population studies, etc. Yet this paper refused to consider that evidence.
4
From his photos, Bradley C. Johnston seems to be quite young, so I guess he represents the new generation of researchers selling out to lobbyists.
4
Well, well. I earlier defended this study in the comments section of a previous article, because the initial article said it wasn't industry funded, and readers misread a quote by an unrelated industry-funded scientist as meaning the study itself was industry funded (which it wasn't). But this is certainly an interesting turn of events!
3
This flim flam should be illegal, requiring jail time for fraud.
What's odious is the obvious: what people eat matters, and deception is malice.
5
This research is completely bogus and should be retracted. But more importantly, we should reconsider the senseless murder or billions of intelligent, innocent animals every year. It has already proven to be completely unnecessary and entirely cruel.
6
Things in moderation and you'll be OK. I'm sticking with that. It's worked for me.
4
@saurus
Do you want to be moderately healthy(or unhealthy)? Just keep doing the same old thing but expect the same old results.
3
@BB At my advanced age, it's OK I am more than moderately healthy. But I will not tell you what my advanced age is. Just be sure it is well and truly into the obituary pages. I'm healthier than many of my friends who are more than 30 years younger. Maybe I'm just lucky. Well, I am of course. Just making a suggestion here in the middle of all the sturm and drang.
1
That is why we need open science. Make all code, methodology and data open, accessible and reproducible.
4
It is definitely a problem that the author published a study without disclosing his conflict. It seems a much bigger problem that he led publication of a Guideline which is a) supposed to be a rigorous summary of existing evidence, and b) states in the abstract that there was close attention to potential conflicts of interest. The journal should consider a follow up comment from the editors and the authors should make their data available for verification by other researchers.
7
Nutrition by personal attack. What a great and tried and true strategy! Remember all those personal attacks on Atkins or anyone who supported keto diets? Those worked out really well for the general population didn't they?
The real core argument is between those who believe that nutrition should use the same best evidence practices as the rest of medicine -- i.e. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs, lead by John Ioannidis), versus those who think that nutrition has been such a roaring success that we should continue to use the same old methods that give us epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes. I vote for RCTs!
14
@Craig Warden
So, do you have references to RCTs for the Atkins diet or Keto? I.e., were there trials that had people eating meat, fat, and protein substitutes but being told it was the real thing versus those who did have the real things versus those that just had low calorie meals? Or, did the diets just use observational, empirical data- like other nutritional research- for its conclusions?
@Ron A
Stanford A to Z trial, among many others. Atkins explicitly compared to low-fat diets, and Atkins wins on all counts.
Moreover, there is no RCT in humans demonstrating a clear benefit for low fat, high carb diets.
"Dr. Laine noted that people on both sides of the meat issue have conflicts of interest. “Many of the people who are criticizing these articles have lots of conflicts of interest they aren’t talking about,” she said. “They do workshops on plant-based diets, do retreats on wellness and write books on plant-based diets. There are conflicts on both sides.”"
So she (who published the phony study in the Annals of Health) is equating teaching healthy eating habits with the billion dollar meat industry?
Dr. Johnston is a shill, pure and simple. He was for sale when he advocated for sugar a few years ago; now it's meat.
270
@Linda Have you read his (and his team's) work? We need to look at the facts and the methods, and debate with that in base. Labeling him as a shill is not a valid argument.
10
@Linda,
Who exactly is the lobbyist for Big Broccoli? Who makes all sorts of money, and receives all sorts of perks, for recommending plant based whole food eating?
No one. Nobody. Dr. Laine’s rebuttal is premised on the false equivalence of the juggernaut of agribusiness, food, and pharmaceutical industries who must protect their own interests, products, markets, and profits on the one hand to those who would counter, based on science and evidence, those industry products and messages.
48
@Misael I don't know if Bradly is a shill, but I agree that Dr. Laine is practicing false equivalence.
21
In a time of muddying the waters concerning climate change, obstruction of justice, international bribery and blackmail—Fox News, Donald Trump, the Republican Party, Russian Interference, Brexit, Facebook, Anti-vaccers—this comes as no surprise.
15
What does this have to do with the validity of the study? That’s the same as saying food studies done by scientists who are in the environmental organizations are not reliable because of their pro-environmental bias. The study at issue simply pointed out that all of the previous meat studies did not comply with scientific protocol - science is science. 
13
I am a scientist, admittedly in a different field (theoretical physics). I find Dr. Johnson's behaviour rather unprofessional, secretive, to me even shameful. Not to disclose his previous associations is very suspicious, and the claimed innocence regarding the sugar studies is tragicomical. I am surprised that the present article is not written more strongly and more critically of Johnson and others. Dr. Laine claiming to be sure that there was not influence by the industry sound almost Trumpish.
402
@GoranLR: To that I'll just add that his decision was not smart: it was inevitable that this connection would be made public. Now he looks far worse, like he was hiding it.
Trumpish is about right...
15
@GoranLR
"I am surprised that the present article is not written more strongly and more critically of Johnson and others."
Yes, praise the NYTimes high journalism standards!
If you're not familiar with the American news reporting, this is called both-sides-ism, more commonly seen in political reporting, where you have to have opposing views represented, no matter how disingenuous or outright false the other side's claims are.
Journalist objectivity shouldn't mean disregarding outright bad faith claims.
All scientists should read what Richard Feynman had to say about scientific integrity in his essay entitled "Cargo Cult Science". Here's a part:
"It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."
10
The Annals of Internal Medicine flunked its test of objectivity and ethics. Thanks!
75
Dr. Johnston evidently belongs to the same branch 'science' as the 'climate researchers' bought and paid for by the coal and petroleum industries, the 'environmental chemists' working for pesticide industry, the 'epidemiologists' who were once financed by the tobacco industry, and on and on and on. There's always someone out there to hire to support the conclusion you want. Just ask any litigator.
81
Pot kettle. I just spent ten seconds on Google and found articles in which the Times interviewed an ILSI academic in three different health articles as an authority, with no disclosure. This piece is carrying water for the hysterical reaction to a sound review of weak science on red meat.
14
Always follow the money.
17
This happens a lot. Watch Dr. Jason Fung on YouTube skewer his physician and research institution peers for undisclosed conflicts of interest “Financial Conflicts of Interests and the End of Evidence-Based Medicine”. He is well-known and practices in Toronto, Canada. He is shaking up the medical profession around the globe.
3
This is like Cheech and Chong writing an article promoting the benefits of marijuana.
8
Bradley Johnston, sugar and red meat champion epidemiologist for hire by merchants of dietary death, is a disgrace to the scientific community.
He deserves a red scarlet letter on his corrupt forehead.
311
@Socrates -
Have you actually read the analyses?
What are your critics s of the methodologies or interpretations?
Or does it matter?
10
@Socrates Right on Soc. Let's see, how many of the same types as Johnston are spread throughout the present lame administration?
Total corruption. And a big thanks to Hormel and other early death and bad health merchants. I just wonder when the alcohol beverage industry will face honest scrutiny.
11
@Socrates
Take a good look at the American Heart Association's list of Heart Check foods. You won't miss the fact that food manufacturers pay big money to submit their products for inclusion on this list.
Look at the sodium figures on some of the recommendations! Sugar too, I imagine. Lots of canned meats on the list. AHA!
Paying like this is not dissimilar to the way drug manufacturers pay the FDA huge bucks to have their new medications evaluated.
Someone replied to your comment by asking about your science. Actually good science backs up the fact that studies funded by the manufacturer are 5 times more likely to come to conclusions favorable to the product. (Harvard School of Public Health had a Youtube video up on this subject.)
Science paid for by those who profit from the results is no longer objective science.
StatinStories.com
3
The Annals of Internal Medicine might have done a Google search on Bradley Johnston, to avoid an embarrassing story just days after publishing this controversial study.
It makes me wonder who in the heck is working at these organizations.
19
This follows a pattern of bogus "scientific" studies that hit the popular press:
1. Someone unknown to the public make a splash with misleading study with bogus data or half truths that is so compelling it gets widespread publication in the respectable press.
2. Some time later the truth emerges that the study was bogus (or tainted by conflict of interest as in this case), but these news stories are not as compelling "news" and are less widely seen by the public. Additional in-depth evaluation will debunk the reports, but almost no one will see or understand that.
3. The original bogus study continues to be quoted for years by those who want to believe it, or want the public to. Those duped earlier refuse to believe any of the later information that proves it false.
We saw the above with the anti-vaccination movement and see it daily in the right wing press, and occasionally in the left wing press. The anti vaccination theory has tarnished both sides.
The sensational is remembered, the calm and reasonable analysis is ignored or simply never seen.
76
@Hydraulic Engineer
Indeed and don't forget "drinking red wine is good for you!." People remember the headlines that contain the messages they want to hear.
2
@Marta
Drinking red wine is good for you.
Don't tarnish everything with the same brush.
1
@rlschles only in small amounts. The Mediterranean diet encourages red wine for its resveratrol content, with one serving for women....equal to ~ 1 ounce.
Pay no attention to this study, either because of the ethics or the population it examined.
These nutritional studies look at average and unhealthy populations. They don't (and can't) distinguish between organic high quality protein upon which the human genome was founded and the consumption of junk protein which the average American eats. Junk protein includes corn-fed animals instead of grass-fed.
Scientists interested in promoting health should be looking at healthy populations.
3
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The problem is that these so-called “scientists” know that the time pressure around media deadlines prevents the publishers from reviewing these claims with even a reasonable degree of scrutiny. Instead, they consider the source and print a headline most likely to catch a reader’s eye. After Day 1, the damage is done because the average reader with minimal nutrition knowledge now believes the lies inadvertently, or in some cases deliberately, printed in the media. The media generally never follows up because it’s “old news”. The NY Times should be congratulated for their follow-up, though the Johnston connection to the meat industry should be further reviewed.
The original story on red and processed meat, for example, was read by millions who now believe sausage, eggs and gravy for breakfast, double cheese burger for lunch and rib eye for dinner are health foods. Thanks to Johnston, who now has countless deaths on his hands by promoting phony science on sugar consumption in the media, the red meat is washed down with a Coke. It’s this insanity and corruption that perpetuates the 600,000 heart attack deaths and countless other chronic disease deaths like cancer every year. We will never know how many will die from the lies paid for by the meat industry and blindly published by the media in this article.
@James McNeill
Take away the coke, the sugary sauces, and the highly processed lunch meats, and unprocessed red meat and eggs _are_ health foods. They are nutritious, nutrient-dense, satiating, and have supported humans since forever.
The dietary drivers of modern chronic disease are all plant-based: sugars, refined carbs, refined seed oils.
It’s ok, corruption is legal now, right?
19
The beef. poultry and pork lobby is going to do everything in their power to keep us eating their meat no matter what the science says. I for one have quit eating chicken due to the way it is in humanely farmed. We cannot sustain the amount of meat we eat in the US if we want to combat climate change. The sooner we all modify our diets to reflect the new reality the better. Not convinced? It was 99 degrees here yesterday. No rain for 3 months - this is the new normal. Even the cows can't survive this.
24
Surprise surprise. Couldn't this have been uncovered prior to or alongside the Times report on this new "research?"
95
I knew if you dug deep enough--not that deep--you would find his connections.
Unfortunately the Times like hundreds of other publications chose to run with the erroneous headline a few days ago that red meat was fine.
I had hoped the Times had better judgement.
520
@Linda They are not very rigorous. They go with what supports their pre-existing views with little to no analysis or research, sadly. The previous article read like a paraphrased press release presented as investigative journalism.
1
Yes I agree. Because many people have blind faith in nyt (like me lol)
1
@Linda I see no problem with The Times reporting on the results described in an article from the Annals of Internal Medicine. The Times staff were on solid ground in relying of the presumed reliability of a prestigious medical journal printing the article. The problem is with AIM not catching the conflict of interest. Shame.
5
Worst part is that this nonsense (fueled by greed and questionable ethics) means that when other work is done that's legitimate, many will doubt it, in part, because of the corruption that others, historically, engaged in.
11
Universities require their faculty to seek outside support of their research, including their salaries. In the US, it is typical for a university to require a faculty member to obtain 50% of his/her salary from outside funding sources. At the same time, the National Cancer Institute, for example, has a payline of funding only 8% of applications, and will not typically agree to pay 50% of a scientist's salary. That means that the scientist must obtain at least 2 research grants to meet their institutional requirements (the odds of that are 0.08 X 0.08 = 0.0064) or their university will cut their salary, putting their family into financial distress.
Or their could get some money from industry, and then the hyper-moral critics call them unethical criminals. Being an academic research scientist today is the worst best job there is.
15
Not sure what Dr Johnston's current affiliations are, but perhaps they should be reexamined.
In any case, any publication with his name on it in the future should have an addendum indicating his authorship of these studies, as well as the controversy that ensued.
Time to end the gravy train for the good doctor
10
While disclosures such as this can be concerning, it doesn't necessarily mean that the entirety of the study is automatically invalid. It does preach caution in interpretation, of course.
When hearing of a conflict-of-interest like this, the question we should ask ourselves is, "is it possible that the author could have introduced some design element into the study that would have biased the results, as the conflict would suggest?" If the answer to that is a clear "no," and if you have no reason to believe in gross scientific misconduct (i.e., lying about data), the study should still stand.
If the journal wishes to address the issue thoroughly, they should have the study re-reviewed by peers with the potential conflict-of-interest noted up front. If it still passes this peer review (as one would hope), the study should be accepted as valid.
7
@Brian Actually, it's not a clear no. The decision to use a technique designed to evaluate RCTs necessarily excluded a large body of pertinent data.