“The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork” excuse me? the damage the meat industry does to the earth, it’s impact on climate change, is only second to the US military’s devastating impact on climate change. If people don’t stop eating a significant amount of meat my generation will be the last. HOW DARE YOU tell people the “evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork.”
859
If you look at the article itself, it explicitly states that while personal values and preferences were taken into account, environmental and animal welfare issues were not.
211
@the last generation
" the damage the meat industry does to the earth, it’s impact on climate change, is only second to the US military’s devastating impact on climate change"
Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim? Are you attempting to argue that the climatic and environmental impacts of the raw materials (fossil fuels) for Power Generation, Transportation, and Manufacturing are less consequential than agriculture?
68
@the last generation you might also need to elaborate on the ranking of the US military as greater than anything else on earth.
23
It's a medically proven fact protein is an important part of our diet and essential to build muscle and organ tissue, and to maintain bone health. Red meats are highest on the protein scale, so think about the benefits so many have been denying themselves by not eating red meat, due to prior claims by health gurus. Science has changed all that, and medical evidence disproved the harmful effects on our bodies. I suspect the only groups to raise a fuss will be vegans, vegetarians and PETA.
16
Good reasons to cut back on beef and pork consumption are the huge waste of resources required to raise livestock and the measurable contribution to climate change by that industry.
20
The news that the meat industry, under this Administration, will now regulate itself re health inspections, was enough to tip me into eliminating meat from my diet. Asking the American consumer to trust the honor system with Trump controlling the process is a bridge too far.
1125
So pay more money and get your meat from a better grocery store or butcher. Community share box. Go deer hunting. Whatever.
32
@David R. I recently learned that in Europe meat can be traced back to the individual animal, to the individual farm that produced the product. In the US even Federal inspectors - when there is a tainted meat problem - can ONLY go back to the number of farms that provided tainted/harmful product to the slaughterhouse...…. no further.
For the health of the planet and my own personal health, I haven't eaten beef (think bovine encephalitis; nasty way to die), pork and certainly no processed meats. Once in a blue moon, I'll have lamb.
46
@David R.
At the beginning of the last century, meat was heavily consumed, while fish was on the menu for invalids and the elderly.
'The Jungle' by Upton Sinclair, published circa 1915, addresses the cattle stockyards in Chicago where immigrants worked hard, and caused a reaction among the Public, where new regulatory laws were implemented.
Our farming meat industry, under this administration is not in great shape, especially the private ones now closed at 60%, according to a rural neighbor who eats meat in moderation. He goes hunting, not for the blue bird of happiness, but for deer and elk.
O, for a little Beef Wellington, but a hamburger would be just fine. In the meantime, perhaps we should eat less and enjoy our food more.
Thanking Ms. Kolata and other contributors for this latest confusing update, and they might find 'Of Fish, Flesh and Good Red Herring' by Alice Thomas Ellis, on the history of food consumption of interest, although a bit long to digest.
24
The real issue is too many calories and not enough exercise. We need to tax fat people to the point where they hv incentive to lose weight, lets start with the politicians.
3
Tammy,
The real issue is fake food. Food that you buy and can put on the counter and let it sit there for a week, if it doesn’t rot, if microbes won’t eat it, then you’re destined to be a diabetic or obese if you do.
The real issue is making energy or fuel for your body and you can’t do it with fake food. That includes all fast junk food, like in and out burger.
:)
4
Eat less red meat was bad advice. Eat no red meat would have been better advice.
21
This article is deeply troubling to me from a climate justice perspective. The meat and dairy industry is the 2nd largest contributor to the climate crisis. We cannot be deliberating the health benefits of red meat when there are much larger issues to consider, issues that are being led by our young people who are shouting for change. Why is the New York Times publishing such a tone deaf article? As an avid reader, I would hope that the NYT continues to center the climate emergency that we are in and that it filters content through the scientific fact that we are in a climate crisis with less than a decade to make drastic, never before seen and sweeping changes to the way we live. This article stands in direct contrast to that progress.
14
Nevertheless, climate change: the fewer methane emitting animals we raise, the less of that powerful greenhouse gas we generate. Fight climate change-avoid beef, pork, lamb.
15
I became a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but it does strike me as funny to hear my overweight I’ll-never-give-up-meat type friends make fun of vegetarians. (Yes I know there are thin meat eaters and large vegetarians. But if you’re interested, it’s been clearly established that on average the more meat you eat the heavier you are.)
7
The demand for beef is one of the most worrying things for our climate. I don’t care if you’re healthy or not (I know I personally am not), and I’m not saying never eat beef again, but I am saying that there is a whole lot of good food in this world that has less impact on the growing climate crisis.
45
“Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a lobbying group for meat producers”
There it is. In a nutshell.
902
Very old strategy: confuse the consumer so they don’t know what to believe. Cigarette industry did same thing. Where did funding for the study come from? See below, was buried in the article
Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a lobbying group for meat producers.
453
It's an emergency, folks. Eating meat destroys the planet's water, air, soil, habitat, and destroys the animals. If we're going to save ourselves, a radical change to consumption must happen. We must replace violence with compassion. Otherwise, it's all over!
1144
@Murray Bolesta Yes - compassionate raising of livestock. "Eating our friends". Grass which feeds them instead of corn which kills them, and the same process keeps the plant growing and sequesters more carbon, creating very efficient protein for us. Take your Vegan militancy and keep your vitamin deficiencies!
83
@Murray Bolesta
That is all false.
32
@Murray Bolesta
Honestly, more importantly, eating meat, dairy, and eggs (MDE) destroys your body as well.
16
scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”
Hmmm, I recall it was scientists at Harvard who were paid $50K each to cover-up evidence and withhold disclosure that sugar contributed to obesity and diabetes. Thanks for wrecking the healthy lives of billions and billions o ye mightily esteemed and holy Harvard scientists.
6
The problem with nutrition science is that there is too little science in it.
9
This newspaper article makes the very mistake that it criticizes by reporting a single review paper as definitive when it is clearly a highly contested finding. When one first delves into scientific literature, meta-analyses, like the review described here seem like the final word on a topic. In reality, meta-analyses are subject to every bit as much interpretation, variability, bias, and error as the original research papers from which they draw. If you want to help address the problem of health recommendations based of premature research, don’t prematurely report a single research study. It’s just one study.
4
You mean scientific "findings" aren't written once in stone by perfect (completely unbiased) humans, henceforth becoming fact forever?
3
The lesson should continue to be that the human body and its functioning are exceedingly complicated, therefor progressive increments in knowledge are tiny and very sloooow. No single study is likely to be conclusive. Usually it's a long slog of many years and thousands of small inputs.
3
If the studies that show that red meat doesn't have a significant impact on individual health, then it's ridiculous for Harvard scientists and others to claim that publishing such research would “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.” Quashing viable research (especially research that contradicts widely-held beliefs), on the other hand, does harm said credibility and trust.
7
Physicians make lousy scientists. There are many reasons for this but one of the most underreported is that physicians suffer from glaring conflicts of interest (that go undisclosed and undiscussed).
It is amazing, is it not, how many grand pronouncements from the medical community benefit physicians? There was never (and is not currently) any evidence to support the annual physical but that didn't even slow the medical community down given the dollars involved. I bet even they were surprised they were taken seriously when they proposed annual invasive sexualized exams of women ("women health") which didn't pass scientific scrutiny and is now falling apart at the seams (CBEs couldn't even obtain a B grade from the USPSTF and pelvic exams are contraindicated). The fact is that the recommendations run through a filter of "is this good for me and my ilk or isn't it". And there isn't a doctor on the planet that is secure enough in their skin to say "I don't know" and "maybe"...when in doubt, yell it even louder.
At this point, I think it's safe to say that the American Public have washed their hands of the medical community on all things nutrition. Physicians were historically very poorly trained any way so it's likely a good thing. I suspect physicians are going to lose control over blood lipids next (which turn out to be a whole lot harder to manage than good vs. bad).
We get fooled easily enough the first time but incompetence shines through eventually.
1
Translated: Eat Soylent Green wafers.
3
You would need a longitudinal double-blinded study over a course of 30 + years with at least 1000+ people in each group of red meat eaters vs little or no read meat-eaters with the same demographics in each group. To get real dat for this would be nearly impossible. This is what makes nutritional research so difficult; results of what is healthy to eat keeps changing. For example, avocados were fatty and unhealthy in the '70s now they are a superfood.
5
Replace the words, “red and processed meat,” with “smoking cigarettes” and re-read these articles. It took more than 7000 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles over four decades before the Surgeon General even issued a warning about the dangers of smoking. It’s hard to effect societal change when a lot of money is behind processed and red meat. It will be years before policies help wean us from our devotion to these cancer and heart disease-causing substances.
6
I'm simply amazed that the study did not take into account the amount of antibiotics, growth hormones, etc. that are given to industrial farmed animals and are passed along in the food chain, and the potential effects on human health. That and the appalling conditions that animals are subjected to makes consumption of meat, for me, impossible.
6
The problem is those who wish to cater to people with a poor understanding of the way science works. The public usually ends up absorbing simplistic, "solid" pronouncements of things that are not really 100% "true", but agencies allow that because most people won't get the subtleties. In fact, in day-to-day life, the subtleties are just confusing noise.
It would be incredibly expensive and ultimately impossible, with current technology and knowledge, to tailor diet information precisely to every individual, and impossible to guarantee that this tailored information wouldn't change in the future due to updated knowledge. In fact, it is possible that the stress of worrying about all this every day is more harmful to health than elements such as whether or not one might regret having eaten too much meat for 30-40 years - having no real way of judging what "too much" was.
Of course, all that is a separate issue from the environmental effects of farming more and more animals for their meat. We need to avoid conflating these issues. The only intersection si determining whether or not is might actually be unhealthier to not eat meat at all. If not, then less global warming from less farm animal meat trumps dietary questions.
1
Thank you for the news article - however - seems eating meat may be linked to a higher cancer risk, according to a W.H.O. report ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/health/report-links-some-types-of-cancer-with-processed-or-red-meat.html ) => this finding seems to be consistent with the notion that humans may not be natural meat eaters - after all, humans can't eat raw meat like cats and dogs (real meat eaters) - humans may need to cook such food first - a relatively recent development in human history - further - seems early humans, instead of chasing after rabbits, or digging up carrots, may have been more opportunistic - and may have gone from one berry patch to another - much like many other primates - support for such a notion may include studies of the pulverized dental calculus of the fossil remains of early hominins, like "Australopithecus sediba" ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228324388_The_Diet_of_Australopithecus_Sediba ) - a related discusssion may be found in the 2015 PBS film documentary, "The Dawning of Humanity", that focused on discovering the fossil remains of "Homo naledi", but which also discussed related dental calculus studies (at about 46 min/114 min) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_Humanity ) ( transcript: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=nova-1974&episode=s43e01 ) - iac - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :)
Dr. Dennis Bogdan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drbogdan
2
A lot of the land that is used for cattle and lamb isn't sunny enough for raising soybeans or vegetables. This land isn't useful for pigs or chickens either. Some of it just has a Northern exposure.
The title of the article is poorly chosen. Even if you believe the conclusion - that cutting meat has little or no impact - that does not mean it's "bad advice". I believe it's undeniably good advice if you care about the planet and greenhouse gases, and it's at worst "neutral" if you look at the health benefits.
It's a shame that often people don't get past the headlines. If it were bad advice, the built in assumption is that doing the opposite is good, which is flawed on both fronts: environmental and health.
1
Bradley Johnson, the leader of the group that published this research, has previously authored similar research questioning the negative impact of sugar consumption on health (https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2593601/scientific-basis-guideline-recommendations-sugar-intake-systematic-review). That research was funded by the ILSI, which the NY Times previously described as a "shadowy industry group" which is "almost entirely funded by Goliaths of the agribusiness, food and pharmaceutical industries." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/health/ilsi-food-policy-india-brazil-china.html)
5
@lilly Thank you for this info. Wish more journalists had researched this. I figure agribusiness behind it somehow.
Great. Just when we are all realizing that to save the planet we are all going to have to start eating a lot less meat whether it's healthy or not, this finding comes out. I do think the Times could have titled its article more responsibility if it had included this angle on the issue (not to mention the ethics and environmental impacts of factory farming). I know at the bottom of the article, it finally gets to that point, but the editors really need to re-think the impact of their article titles. How about this: "Although eating less red meat will help the planet, scientists say it won't improve your health." Or some such. Otherwise, for the people who just read the title, and maybe the opening paragraph, you wouldn't be having such a potential negative effect.
1
"Meat" is a euphemism. Have the courage to call it what it is - animal flesh!
2
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
Correction to our comment Diana Rodgers is @sustainabledish
🙏🏼
Eating less red meat is GOOD advice. It always has been, and always will be. Given that raising livestock to a point where they are ready to be consumed is not sustainable, people NEED to eat less of it.
2
"Studies of red meat as a health hazard may have been problematic, ...but the consistency of the conclusions over years gives them credibility."
really?
so producing flawed studies over many years somehow makes their findings credible!!??
I do believe this is the cause the public trust being eroded.
5
The article and most of the comments reveal a very low level of human consciousness and negligible compassion for other beings.
Should the main focus always be on your health and the pleasures of your palate?
Are you at all aware of how much misery and suffering you support with your dietary dollars?
Just how much cruelty are you willing to swallow?
2
Eat what you want in moderation, all these studies are making us ill..eat this, dont eat that...
3
Thousands of 'likes' for comments that claim Dr. Allison was a part of the study and received money from the beef industry when that was a false claim. "The new reports are based on three years of work by a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives, directed by Dr. Johnston. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding."
I don't like censorship, but comments that state this should not be published as the NYTimes knows they are false.
5
It is irresponsible reporting to raise doubts in the public's mind when the preponderance of evidence is clearly on the side against red meat consumption.
2
Science is not controlled by scientists, it is generally controlled by those people who control things: politicians, CEOs, administrators, etc. In the case of nutrition these controllers have worn a science badge like a little pin on their lapels. So much of our nutritional guidelines stem from motives of greed and power by a system of utterly corrupt government agencies, industrial food corporations, and fraudulent disgustingly wealthy NGOs.
Science has been prayed upon, abused, and ransacked. It has been used as support of policies when in fact it wasn't even involved.
The medical institutions and the policies they require of our healers are so slow to learn as to be stupid (but wealth producing!). No wonder millions of Americans are going renegade with their own health guideline sources. We can cherrypick studies as well as anyone else.
2
Muahahaha! I've been waiting for this day! "Honey, break out the bibs! Turns out it's ok! It's all ok!"
1
Bovines by the tens of millions roamed the grasslands of all continents for millions of years munching grass and sedge and belching and farting tons of methane gas, cattle species specifically for more than 10,000 years. Global warming was never a problem, not caused by methane gas at any rate, until humans started forcing cattle to feed in restricted area. Grasslands like the Great Plains in North America thrived.
Allan Savory and the Savory Institute have developed a program called rotational grazing that replicates the "free range" grazing that was beneficial for the environment of planet Earth for millions of years.
Cattle, sheep and other livestock grazing is still controlled, has to be with the severe competition for resources, but in a manner that has each herd graze each section of a rotation of a number of pastures long enough that the earliest pasture has time to recover by the time the last pasture has been grazed.
Savory Institute is a fascinating story as is Allan Savory's which you can find in his TedX Talks in YouTube videos. The Institute web site is simply savory.global. It is interesting that some vegan interests have attempted to discredit holistic grazing practices with podcasts that simply lie about them. One YouTube video that is well researched and presented simply debunks the lies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4b8SFSIGK0
Please look for my next post for important fact.
3
There is plenty of good evidence for avoiding all meat, red or white, and dairy and eggs. All saturated fats. This is just more tripe to confuse people who want to justify a practice that is past its time.
https://www.forksoverknives.com/12-studies-from-2019-the-case-for-avoiding-meat/?utm_content=12%20Studies%20on%20Avoiding%20Meat&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Engagement%20Tier%201%20-%20Recent%20Activity%201.1&utm_campaign=10.1.2019%20I%27m%20Healthier%20at%2045%20Than%20I%20Was%20in%20My%2020s%20%28MEmXbu%29&_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJ3b29kc2xvcmlAbXNuLmNvbSIsICJrbF9jb21wYW55X2lkIjogIktDSE5FYSJ9#gs.6t89r6
1
"...the environmental degradation caused by livestock production..."
Dr. M. Sanjayan in his PBS program Earth A New Wild demonstrates that this is not inherent to livestock production but specific methods of livestock production.
Producing meat for the fast food industry is what gives rise to environmental degradation as seen earlier this year in the Amazon.
3
In any study, one can never say what an individual's outcomes will be. Kolata summarizes this study, without comment, "Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits." But as I say, an individual's outcome can never be predicted, unless an intervention worked 100% of the time. If the finding was 90% of people had a positive outcome, one could still be in the camp of the non-positives.
ALL of the studies reviewed by these researchers concluded that eating less meat had positive effect to some extent. So the correct conclusion is, the health and longevity of some individuals is improved by eating less meat, and that person could be you.
2
Eat less animal meat, eggs and dairy.
Nutritional "science", as it's called, has little to credibility. The key to any of these studies is have the properly matched control groups for comparisons. Very few, if any of these studies, involve appropriately matched control groups. Simply trolling through reams of previously published data to try and glean meaningful findings, which is what many of these "researchers" do, has been shown time and time again to be poor science, if you call it science at all. In addition, many of these so-called nutritional researchers find small percentage changes that are not statistically significant, and blow these out of proportion. Bad science leads to meaningless recommendations.
“Remarkable” turnabout, or “predictable” turnabout?
Always question the timing of these studies, always question the findings and who paid for it.
1
I do love how confident so many of the comments are, based on - at best - a smattering of anecdotal evidence, and/or what someone they trust told them. I know a comments section isn't the place to look for thorough citation of sources and rigorous scientific debate... but wow... It's no wonder we can't make any progress in slowing climate change, when these are the sorts of arguments made even by the literate (i.e. NYT readers).
Survivorship bias alone dismisses 80% of the comments I've come across so far. The rest just ignore the subject of the article - a (potential) lack of sufficient evidence linking red/processed meat with heart disease and/or cancer to draw the kinds of conclusions that comprise conventional wisdom on the subject - and focus solely on the environmental impact. It's worthy of consideration, to be sure, but the study that is the subject of the article wasn't commenting on that aspect.
3
If red meat is bad for the environment of Planet Earth, could we agree that it is bad for those of us, both flora and fauna, who live on Earth?
I’m curious about how the large amount of land needed to raise cattle and grow feed affects climate. Can anyone explain that to me?
Did these scientists ever hear about the Mediterranean diet?
1
This study brought to you by the alarmed animal products industry that is slowly and thankfully going away.
4
We stopped eating ALL animal products three years ago when my husband narrowly avoided what would certainly have been a killing heart attack. The LADA, the one they call the "widowmaker" with good reason, was 95% blocked with plaque. We had no idea his heart was in such peril. Thank heavens we went to the doctor's office where hubby was seen by a physician's assistant who took him right over to emergency. The next day they placed a stent in his heart. The very smart PA said, to our surprise, (such ignorance on our part) that he recommended going on a "plant based" diet. We did, after a short period of adjusting our thinking. My husband lost over 40 pounds and now has "safe" cholesterol and blood pressure levels. We are absolutely never going back to eating meat and dairy products. Also, animal rights were never mentioned in this article. Perhaps that issue should be Gina's next post. Oh yeah, the cardiologist, not the PA, never even mentioned nutrition. Later, when hubby went in for a follow up, the cardio called him a "rock star." No thanks to the cardio but we are very grateful to the PA we saw first for saving my husband's life by taking him right over to emergency and not waiting for further test results. If you want to know a LOT more about diet and how it causes the major life threatening diseases look at nutritionfacts.org.
3
The truth is, most nutritional studies are wrong from the get-go. The data comes from asking people what they eat or keeping a "food diary". Both have been identified as not being particularly accurate.
After that, data analysis, "p-hacking" and tenuous correlations produce headlines "x linked with y" or "x associated with y" with that link/association barely exists.
In fact, rounding up all studies, corn and sugar are as likely as beef or bacon to cause cancer, and those studies are largely rubbish.
Google "five thirty eight you cant trust what you read about nutrition" to get the scope of the problem from study/stats people with no axe to grind.
In our current situation, vegetarians and environmentalists are driving the $ into these faux studies. Those things should be separated from nutrition.
As a former overweight guy who followed the "food pyramid" and "food plate", vegetarianism, low/no fat, etc and never lost weight or improved my health, what finally did it was stopping the eating of high carbohydrate foods while increasing protein (including red meat) and healthy fats.
Lost 95lbs and my blood tests were better than pristine.
3
The “certainty” that red meat production is one of the largest global sources of climate change....is that the same “certainty” that says eating red meat results in a host of illnesses?
1
It's disheartening to see how many commenters believe that this study was funded by the meat industry and led by Dr. Allison. What has happened to the ending comprehension of New York Times readers?
4
The anti-meat zealots love to cite how raising beef cattle is bad for the climate and environment, but invariable fail to note that dairy is even worse. So methinks the cattle aren't the only ones who are spewing something noxious here.
1
Everything in moderation? No, thanks. Do you smoke cigarettes in "moderation"? How about doing opioids or illicit drugs in "moderation"? No way.
All meat is bad for a variety of reasons. When you eat meat, you skip the vegetables by an equivalent amount. All meats, red or white, pose the same level of risk. See below study for reference.
Effects of red meat, white meat, and nonmeat protein sources on atherogenic lipoprotein measures in the context of low compared with high saturated fat intake: a randomized controlled trial
Link: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/110/1/24/5494812
2
Only a person suffering from food addiction or paid off by the meat and dairy industry could possible believe that there aren't serious health hazards to animal protein consumption. My advice to you is to watch slaughter videos, and see those animals on the way to their death walk: diseased, traumatized, in their own filth, hormones raging. When you eat death, you can't expect a healthy life. What does it say that the media has to censor your meal prep? Wake up! Hormones, saturated fat, cholesterol, endotoxins, pesticides, antibiotics? What more do you need. And by the way glp5, Moderation KILLS - Dr. Dean Ornish.
1
The critique of this article lumps processed meat (red or pork) and red meat as the bad guys. Read the labels on processed meat, pork, or beef, and you will never eat it again. We do not eat processed food, period.
For example; I buy Teddie peanut butter. The ingredients are Roasted Peanuts and Salt. Read the other peanut butter labels: appalling.
Read the labels on everything processed, you will be appalled by them as well.
Isn't it interesting that every other living creature on the planet knows exactly what to eat and how much? Every animal, fish, bird, and insect instinctively knows exactly what its appropriate diet is and how much of it to eat.
Only humans (and the poor animals we've domesticated and whose natural diets we've subverted) struggle to know the appropriate food to eat and the appropriate amounts. How these big brains of ours have led us astray!
1
Glad I never listened to that advice about eating less red meat. Steak will taste even better now without the guilt factor.
First this article demonstrates that generations of scientists can get complex questions fundamentally wrong, and bemoans overhasty policy initiatives built on bad science. It then uncritically reports another bunch of scientists' warnings over the complex question of beef's impact on climate change. No maybes there!
And no problem for many NYT readers: so long as the fundamental beef-is-bad faith is maintained, who cares what the reason is to believe it?
2
"If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded."
Then again, the health benefits to cows and pigs can't be overstated.
it is unfortunate that the lead image in this article is a BBQ filled with sausages and burgers. In my book, these don't classify as "red" meats, they are processed meats. Regular meat, properly cooked or occasionally raw, has been an element of the human diet for millennia. It is when we start to muck about with it that trouble starts. The other problem, as always, is portion size. The old standard, a piece the size of the palm of your hand, has always been a good guide. Personally, I will stick to wild meat and locally raise pork and lamb. there is nothing on this planet that could induce me to eat a boneless, skinless, chicken breast.
45
@Alison Cartwright You are right, but they are processed red meats. They REALLY are bad for your health and make unprocessed red meats (whole cuts, ground, etc.) look like health food. I agree with you on the chicken breast, but I recommend doing the planet and climate a favor and drop the consumption of locally raised pork and lamb as well. Those operations still have an outsized impact on the environment. Eat vegetable protein and take a multi-vitamin.
4
@Alison Cartwright a hamburger is processed only inasmuch as the meat had to be ground. There aren't additives to hamburgers.
8
To find the best diet, each person has to essentially experiment on his or her self, constantly, with the rigor and objectivity of an actual scientist. That IMO is the hard part of all this. Even thousands of years after we left primitive life behind, eating is still the fundamental challenge of existence.
2
I am a scientist with a publication record and a PhD, but in a natural sciences field, and in my professional opinion nutritional studies are just plain wacko. Even the best of the best studies that account for all sorts of variables usually end up with overly sensational claims based on very small effect sizes and unknown unknowns may very well end up nullifying these small effect sizes. Likely, meat consumption truly does increase risk of some types of cancer some tiny percent, but in the world of food consumption it truly is all about the alternatives. Leaving environmental considerations of meat consumption aside (which can be substantial depending on what meat and how it is farmed), the clear truth of the matter is that red meat is highly nutritious, tiny increased cancer risk included. Alternatives to meat that most people will eat instead will have all sorts of other risks involved while most likely having fewer minerals, protein, vitamins, and satiation. I applaud this study that takes a hard looks, and shame on those nutritionists and doctors that barely understand the scientific studies and blow out of proportion some conclusions based on tiny effect sizes. And shame on the media for always giving doctors the megaphone on these matters.
3
As a biochemist I have long observed that:
A) It is very hard to get good quality data on humans: we can't (thank god) put people in cages to control the experiment, etc.
B) Scientists are human. When the data are of poor quality some people will selectively choose those data that support what they would like to believe (often not even realizing they are doing this). And of course there are many who will manage to get the result their employer wants (or that they think the employer wants). I have personally observed both of these effects. That said, most scientists try to get things right... but fuzzy data often make for fuzzy conclusions.
Nutritional science is especially subject to fuzzy conclusions. Eating red meat in moderation is probably not bad for most people. Of course remember I said "in moderation" and remember that meat varies considerably in quality. Salt is another component of our diet that appears to be subject to true believers. As far as I can tell the very low levels of salt consumption that are sometimes promoted are probably bad for many of us. There are a few people who need to be careful about salt intake but for most of us moderate salt is actually healthy.
My overall message is: Don't worry about your diet too much. Pay attention to your body, but don't overinterpret. Remember that we are all different. Both variety and moderation are positives. Be careful about accepting anything as absolute truth.
6
I can find no mention in the article of who funded the research for this meta-analyses. (The Dr. Allison mentioned is only being quoted for the article not a member of research team.) I am sure these distinguished researchers were not conducting this lengthy study out of the goodness of their hearts. This is very troubling as at this point in our chaotic history when we need to trust institutions which are protecting the public good. It would be criminal if the people behind this study were being funded by the Beef Industry and that the MSM is not questioning it more.
1
Lots of comments on red meat. Few comments about science and what this article says about the changing role of science in society. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and those affiliated with the American Cancer Society see an active role for scientists in promoting policy. While they concede that the evidence is weak on its face, their public health position and focus on population health leads them to a policy prescription - to advise against red meat consumption on health grounds. They go so far as to assert that statements to the contrary , "harm the credibility of ... scientific research." Authors of the study take a stricter view. They believe that scientists report the facts. It is up to policy makers (or other policy advocates) to state their case. Such scientists would argue that making an scientifically unsound claim to support a preferred policy outcome does more harm to scientific credibility. The role of science in public policy and the role of scientists - as investigators versus policy advocates seems a much more significant outcome of this well-written article.
2
No wonder fewer people believe what scientists say. Here is what many people expect to read 10 years from now: "Reduce CO2 emissions, scientists say. Now some believe that was bad advice."
1
"In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.” "
No, what erodes the credibility of academic and scientific reports is when you misconstrue research and insist any contrary evidence or dissent be silenced.
5
It’s worth remembering that the vast majority of the cancer research community for decades vilified the handful of researchers focused on immunology and the belief that the immune system could be manipulated to attack anger cells. Guess what? We now have CarT therapies and are on the brink of more cancer immunological cures. This has the same ring to it. Groups like AHA that have a vested interest in validating the statements they’ve asserted as fact for decades are attacking science that challenges their orthodoxy. Who’s right? Who knows, but I would be highly skeptical when the ferocity of the attack by the status quo is less focused on the science and more on defending their prior work.
2
I've cut back on red meat consumption for environmental reasons, despite the fact that I look and feel best on a carnivore diet. Truly I could just about live on red meat. Others say they look/feel best on a vegan diet. It's made me wonder if people respond to diets according to genetic heritage.
For generations Inuits have thrived on a diet of almost entirely meat, as plant foods are not always available in the far north. I myself come from a northern European background, where seasonal food availability would have included plants, but overall favored meat consumption. The genetic background of equatorial people might favor a plant-based diet.
In short, I'm wondering if changeable nutrition research and guidelines might be due to genetic differences in the human population. Has this possibility been explored?
5
Regardless of the pros and cons of meat eating, we have to think about the planet and there is no doubt in my mind that adding more vegetarian meals to the weekly good plan is a good idea.
1
Here we go again. A new PR campaign from the red meat industry to recapture a dwindling market. The old beef industry campaign, "Beef. It's what's for dinner," may be revived. But we have heard whiners from other industries whose products have been tied to disease including cancer.
Big Pharma has managed to create countless ad campaigns for drugs to be discussed between the patient and doctor. But this is more than an "informative" campaign. This is not just about creating a demand for drugs — and let's be clear, they can be helpful in relieving the effects of varoius diseases — it is about demanding The Brand, in an all-out effort to side-step the value of generic versions. It is about getting a patient to tell his/her doctor what they want.
Then, there was the all-out campaign by the tobacco industry to nullify the indepedent research results proving nicotine was a dangerous habit and, that the tobacco companies' products were/are, indeed, poison-delivery systems.
A few years ago, I even heard a report on NPR (in rather tongue in cheek fashion) that ice cream, and heavy cream were actually good for us. It was sponsored by a Northern England dairy council. ;-)
Now, I confess, I love a good steak or a burger. But I have found I feel healthier avoiding red meat altogether.
6
The conclusions of that article and the howls of indignation and on the part of the dietary establishment questioning their dogma that red meat is harmful should be taken with a very large grain of salt. This is the same group of "scientists" that for decades told us that eating butter caused heart disease and that eating margarine was good for us. How did that turn out?
Let the evidence be presented and hashed out by impartial scientists. Lets not let the dietary establishment gurus impose censorship and shut down debate on this and other fundamental dietary issues.
2
And what about the humane aspects re the treatment and slaughter of these animals?
That has always been a horror story and one of the main reasons (in addition to medical long-suspected connection between excessive red meat and colon cancer) that I avoid red meat almost 100%.
Do we know which farms treat their animals humanely all the way through their life cycles?
4
It is a statistical certainty that large population studies will yield “statistically significant” findings that may not be clinically relevant at the individual level. This is the basic issue with “over-powering” studies and epidemiological meta-analyses. What is interesting, if not concerning, to note is that the objections to the findings expressed in many of the comments do not concern critiques of the methodology or the data but rather, focus on the policy implications of the data and so simply dismiss the findings are they do not comport with the views of those posting. Politics should not trump science.
4
This study's conclusion seems absurd. If it does not contest the link between red meat and negative health effects in large groups, then it is not contesting that some individuals might really suffer bad outcomes because of red meat.
It's not like every individual in a population has one one-millionth of an extra heart attack. That extra case goes entirely to one single person.
Now maybe most people would accept an imperceptibly higher risk of health problems as the cost of enjoying red meat. But this study, or rather, this article's summary of it, makes it sound like this cost does not exist. It just waves it away as "weak evidence", which makes no sense at all. It isn't evidence, it is the very thing we are looking for.
3
Meat was central for the creation of modern humans, and cooking it. The idea humans will give up meat for some small percentage change in some future risk when everyone dies some day is absurd.
7
As we watch the systematic burning of Amazonian forest to make more grazing land for cattle production, the finding of this study could not come at a worse team. I have no idea whether the study results, poo-pooing the health benefits of eating less meat, are credible. What I do know is that the human race cannot be sustained if so much of the land is used to produce animals for human consumption and the resulting contribution to rapid climate change and pollution of our water sources. And what I do know is that modern (mostly industrial) meat production is based on rank cruelty. And what I do know is that "preventive" use of anti-biotics on these crowded animals is making many anti-biotics no longer effective for humans when they get sick. All this study will do is make people less likely to face the worst dangers of meat consumption.
6
Couple of take-aways here: First, science often becomes locked in orthodoxy (all those grants! so little time!) until it is blown up by later studies. So it went with earth as the center of a series of crystal spheres, bloodletting, Newtonian clockwork physics, and too many other etc's to count. Now it's the nutritionists' hour in the box.
Second, more relevant to our times, is the fatal mixture of politics, morality, and science. For many scientists, the goal wasn't really personal health--but promotion of the idea that eating our fellow creatures is bad.
Now we are told that "virtually all" scientists agree on global warming (recent, dissenting letters from "climate deniers" go unmentioned; they are apostates and must be crushed). The lessons of history teach (often too late) that when science is both unitary and politicized, it's usually wrong.
4
It always comes back to Michael Pollan for me:
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
No restrictions there, except on quantity and on processed foods. You can eat meat. Just eat a lot of veggies, too.
4
I agree with Julia Child--EAT EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. She lived well into her 90s. I think that says it all.
6
Even if red meat is actually bad for our health in certain ways, it also contains certain nutrients in far more concentrated forms than plant-based foods. I have friends who've gone strictly vegan, including friends in health care, and creating balanced meals that the family actually wants to eat requires a lot of preparation time and the availability of high-quality foods. So I'm with all the commenters who support moderation rather than extremes of any theory. Now I'm waiting for a study that says sugar is good for you!
2
Scientific evidence points towards a carcinogenic effect of red meat.
Since deforestation, methane production by cattle and numerous problems are linked to red meat, renouncing its consumption is a precious help for world forests and it reduces global warming.
2
The question for food is not really whether it does harm if we eat too much but which foods provide notable health benefit. Is there a health benefit to eating more red meat? There are clear benefits to eating more plants but I've not seen a study that demonstrates eating more red meat helps your health. As such the promotion of this result doesn't seem to help much with peoples health either.
1
This is almost Shakespearean - 'There's nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Depending on our opinion of ourselves we form opinions about the food that went into us. When we're optimistic, chow down! In periods of self-doubt, drink cold water and eat bitter herbs. And this change of mood spreads to the scientists, which is evidently a problem in itself.
Going back to the Romans, " In medio tutissimus ibis ". You will go most safely in the center. If you think this change of advice signals a change of the public mood go long on the S&P 500.
Demanding findings be suppressed to preserve the credibility of a field demonstrates how little credibility it actually has. Science has value, but findings are routinely over-stated and emphasized by the media and by politicians pushing an agenda. A combination of ignorance and desire to sensationalize new developments misrepresents experiment results to the public.
When scientists report a "significant increase in risk" they are speaking in relative, statistical terms, where less than a percent increase can be "significant" if the baseline is less than a tenth of a percent probability. The end result is a risk that is not major, practically speaking, as far as anyone in the wider public is concerned. This detail is lost in the rush to publish breaking, sensational news. Maybe its mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, but who has time to read paragraphs with numbers? The headline and first few sentences usually contain all the necessary info to form an opinion. That's how the general public has been conditioned to read the news. Most do not even read the article, let alone examine the sources it links or references, they simply read the title and assume it's telling the truth.
Science would be better served if only scientists were allowed to write reports on it. It would be far less exciting, but there would be far less misinformation circulated by the press and quoted in soundbites.
4
Maybe it’s the 100lbs of sugar and syrup people are eating each year that is causing the cancer and making everyone obese, but it’s rarer to see the finger pointed there than at meat.
Factory farming is horrible for climate change. However, livestock can be farmed to drastically reduce or eliminate its carbon footprint with proper carbon sequestration practices. Of course this cannot provide meat at the current scale, but should it have to?
Relying on large monocultures of soy and corn are also not the answer to climate change. They are relying on fossil fuel based fertilizers and causing massive soil degradation.
To address climate change through our food system, people will need to eat real food instead of fast food and processed sugar bombs. They will also need to stop eating to excess. 40% of the population is eating massively more calories than they need, to the point of endangering their own health.
1
This science is rendered moot by the certainty that the production of red meat is one of the biggest contributors to global climate change. Whether or not it is healthy for the individual to consume these products, it is ultimately unhealthy for everyone for humanity to continue using and abusing precious resources to raise meat animals.
2
The constant zig-zag in dietary advice, along with distorting sensationalist headlines helps destroy the trust in science. Most people will not read the differentiating reports that refer to limited populations, limited test groups, careful evaluations. I wish the NYT would moderate its reporting and avoid wording like 'erode public trust', remarkable turnabout. The destruction to the environment, the abysmal living conditions of cattle, the residual hormones we humans ingest are not mentioned.
5
I think the problem with the American diet is not red meat but processed food. Good ahead and eat your steak...just make sure it's not in some hyper processed microwavable tray.
5
Repeatedly, the article contained general statements that the research undermined the idea that eating red meat or processed meat was bad for health. But discussion of the actual details of the research mentioned only red meat. Not a word about processed meat.
Did the research actually undermine the idea that eating processed meat is bad for health?
1
Can someone tell me why pets are allowed to have red meat and not humans? Are cats' and dogs' GI systems so different that they can eat nothing but red meat, but by some accounts, humans should not eat any? My parents lived to their middle and late 90's and ate red meat almost every day (and hardly exercised!), so I have been and am suspicious of all the absolute food diktats we see.
@Stuart Wilder Yes, our GI systems as well as a long list of other physiological and anatomical differences make our pets suited for an omnivorous diet and ourselves suited for herbivorous diet.
I'd encourage you to look into Dr. Milton Mill's lectures on this very topic: are humans herbivores or omnivores? Very interesting!
3
Yes, dogs (and cats) GI tracts are very different than humans. MUCH "shorter." Similarly, humans can't eat grass like rumanents. We don't have the same plumbing!
Are you seriously comparing carnivorous animals to omnivores humans? Not only are our GI tracts vastly different, our dietary needs are also different.
You ever seen a cat live to be 90?
But you say "why are cats and dogs allowed" red meat as if they have other dietary choices.
1
So James Cameron produces a documentary, "The Game Changers," about the benefits of plant-based living for athletes (with some noteworthy executive producers like Novac Djokovic, Lewis Hamilton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chris Paul, Jackie Chan, et al.), and now we see a pro-meat "study" coming out that flies in the face of scientific convention.
Humans don't want to change the way we treat the planet, so we continue to heat it up; and humans don't want to change the way we eat, so we continue to eat whatever the heck we want regardless of the impact on ourselves and our planet.
And there are always going to be "studies" to give credence to our desires, and on the other end of these "studies," there is an organization benefiting from keeping the masses ill-informed even as they hurt themselves and the planet by believing climate change is a hoax, by buying into a "theory" that red meat really isn't that bad for you, and by continuing to believe that tax cuts for the wealthy lifts the entire economy.
In a fact-free world, always follow the money paying for those facts.
6
It is hard for me to take any "scientific studies" seriously after decades of flip-flopping on numerous items; I have seen eggs, red meat, milk, and many more flip flop from healthy to dangerous over an over again. Unfortunately, we don't teach critical thinking in schools any longer and instead instilled students with blind faith in "science."
1
people need to be able to recognize the difference between actual science and something that just sounds "scientific" (scientism).
The most revealing part of this story is the nutritional scientists and Harvard professors calling the study unethical because it flies in the face of what they have been saying and understanding. They tried to prevent its publication, they tried to silence the results of the study. They don't seem to understand that their very efforts to silence a study that flies in the face of their own beliefs calls into question every study that they cite in defense of their position. And how many studies were stifled prior to this because they did not align with the status quo? How many researchers had evidence that contradicted current wisdom and refused to commit career suicide by publishing them?
5
@John -- You seem to assume that the study authors are honest. Several red flags suggest that this was indirectly sponsored by industry, trying to undermine science (as they have done in other cases regarding regulatory health safeguards). Historically, rarely does one study undo decades of research. Not so much drama as you might wish for.
1
@DK Allchin
According to your logic, vegans shouldn't be allowed to perform studies saying a plant-based diet is superior. After all, they couldn't possibly be honest.
1
A year ago the doctor said I had high cholesterol for my age (30). He said to only eat meat 2-3 times a week. Should I listen to this article and eat as much red meat as I like?
@Nino
Dietary cholesterol has minimal effect on blood cholesterol. Cholesterol is produced by the body and is the building block of both testosterone and estrogen. If you have high cholesterol at 30, it may be a familial trait. Check how many family members of previous generations have died for heart and stroke problems. Check out your HDL and LDL levels.
As someone who has “high” levels with no apparent deleterious effects, however, my advice on meat would be eat how much you need, not how much you want and don’t pass on the veggies. And I mean real veggies, not salad.
@Nino No of course not!
1
The recent "campaign" against red meat was dictated by the realization that cow and pig farms were ecologically extremely costly, not primarily by concerns about human diet.
1
And by the fact that animals in the factory farming system are treated horribly. For that reason alone it makes sense to cut down or cut out consumption of animal products. A friend told me about how badly animals are treated in the factory farming system - I was happy eating burgers and chicken at the time. I watched some of the videos that show how the animals are treated, which aremore plentful by the day. I didn't want to view the videos, but I figured I owed the animals thst much, you know? I learned more about it and found I couldn't rationalize eating meat after that. Cut down if you can.
4
I suspect that in time someone will discover the hand of the beef industry behind this attempt at taking the stigma away from eating red and processed meat, but it is not solely for reasons of health that we should all avoid red meat consumption. I stopped eating the stuff about 30 years ago because of the conditions under which cattle and pigs are raised in this country. I'm certain you have all seen the pictures. There is also one paragraph, late in the article, that out-weighs everything else. "Questions of personal health do not even begin to address the environmental degradation caused worldwide by intensive meat production. Meat and dairy are big contributors to climate change, with livestock production accounting for about 14.5 percent of the greenhouse gases that humans emit worldwide each year." Enough said.
11
Funny Thing, after I went vegetarian my weight dropped back into a "desirable" range, intestinal issues disappeared, and my general health improved. I wonder which organizations funded these "meat is ok" studies?
12
For the sake of the planet, not to mention the animals, we need to switch to a plant-based diet. Yet we evolved to be omnivores and the saturated fat and cholesterol in animal products do serve functions that may not be exactly duplicated by vegetable oils supplying the lipid component of phospholipids in cell membranes. The difference between animal fats and vegetable oils is clearly visible to the naked eye; how rapidly will neurons containing predominantly polyunsaturated lipids conduct an action potential ?? How will various receptors and ion channels function within a more flexible membrane?? and what of the different nutrients, and differing amounts of amino acids supplied by plant proteins?? How will these affect metabolism? Protein synthesis and muscle growth?? Neurotansmitter synthesis?? Changes in ways of eating may result in profound consequences that are difficult to predict, particularly given the difficulty of nutritional research and resultant conflicting studies.
4
There should have been a study done that analysed the impact of knowing red meat is bad for your and your red meat consumption. I’m guessing that knowing would have a slim to none impact on the ammount of red meat people ate.
Hogwash. So to speak.
Is this just another journalism misunderstanding of how science works, and thus an overreaction?
Why the "some believe" qualifier. Some believe the earth is flat.
It's time some real scientists are put in charge of these kinds of stories, and Googling can causes more trouble than it offers help.
2
Your headline is misleading. Unfortunately, I suspect that well over 90% will read only the headline and come away with a false impression. This is a real disservice to the public's health.
4
once a week is fine. there are nutrients in red meat you dont get elsewhere.
2
@Nate what nutrients exactly?
There is so much nonsense about food. If humans were such fragile beings, we wouldn't have spread over the entire planet. Don't eat or drink too much, be sure to have some fresh food, and get some exercise. Otherwise, eat what you want.
3
What about the health benefits for the billions of animals that are slaughtered, unnecessarily?
10
Tell you what. You eat your healthy red meat and cheese. I will stick to my less healthy fish, vegetables, fruit and nuts. In ten years, we can compare notes on who has the more diseased circulatory system and on which one has colon cancer.
7
@Richard Cohen
Sounds like a deal to me. I was considering going full carnivore after two years on keto, anyway. I managed to lose 60 lbs and reverse my diabetes on my high animal fat diet already.
2
Sell Beyond Meat, buy Burger King! (If you actually believe story)
Maybe red meat in moderation is not the severe cardio-vascular risk we once thought. Maybe. However, it is indisputably a major source of the green house gases hilling the ability for our planet to survive. And the increased need for feed for cattle is driving the deforestation of the Amazon as we speak. Our planets lungs are failing.
The fact that this article did not even mention this once is a critical failure on the NYT part. Either we go all in on climate change - or our children and grandchildren will be facing a hellish existence.
5
Meat industry funded! Hilarious, unbelievable analysis.
5
Who funded this research?
5
Oh the shame! Now who will restore to me the lost years of cheeseburgers and pork chops, the ribs and bacon I never had?
2
what would Greta say? Come on people - researchers, NYT - the word CRISIS is used for a reason.
WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A CLIMATE CRISIS!
Stop eating meat for God's sake - for the planet and for the poor animals affected. It's really not that hard once you stop to think about what we will lose.
7
@Esme
Well, I guess if everyone goes completely vegan we will have to clear far more than the Amazon Basin, in order to grow all that food that we will need. And of course, without grazing livestock, we will only be able to use artificial fertilizers? We are omnivores, we need balance
I will take the advice of the China Study, the American cancer Society, and the American Heart Association, - along with my parents lives. Both of my parents grew up on farms, developed the tastes and habits of people nutured in that environment, and developed heart disease and cancer at a point in their lives early on.
I know that is is a result of the typical dietary habits of the "Greatest Generation".
The beef , dairy, and poultry lobby is trying to save market share as their last vestige of ready consumers (the Bay Boomers0) are beginning to die off. In my community, the overwhelming majority of people in restaurants that are serving high end food fare of beef, pork, poultry and dairy laden offerings are grey haired individuals over the age of 60 years of age.
Times are changing , - rapidly.
3
The problem with things like this study is they turn into religion, those who eat a lot of meat are defensive, much like smokers once were adamant, that what they were doing was okay. Likewise those who are into the plant based diet only can be pretty militant about it, showing the same zeal. It is why it gets so heated, the Paleo people proclaim they have found the one true path, the keto people, they all have found "the truth"...and it ends up like religion, with people throwing bricks at one another. Add to that the power of the beef industry and agribusinesses, who feed that fire, and you end up with a mess. Among other things, it has meant that government recommendations and the studies it pays for are based on the power of an industry, rather than trying to find the truth.
The science is out there on diet, and it pretty much shows that longevity across the board is tied to a diet that is mostly plant based with moderate consumption of protein from animal sources. When people talk about 'the wisdom of our ancestors', who supposedly ate a lot of meat, they leave out that lifespans back then were much shorter.
As far as eating everything in moderation, the problem with that is moderation has no meaning, what does that mean? It also sounds like , for example, that eating a lot of vegetables is immoderate, that the best diet is to eat small amounts of everything, when that isn't true (green vegetables should be eaten in larger quantities than meat or grains).
2
Developments in individual medicine now can determine which classes of medicines will be metabolized rapidly, or not metabolized very well based on the person's phenotype.
This knowledge from one's DNA may now predict the efficacy of a certain drug, and guide the correct dosage of the best medicine for an individual.
Nutritional studies have long been difficult due to the grazing nature of people and what they eat. Many cannot tell you with accuracy what they ate yesterday. Ironically, in animal husbandry, e.g. swine production, we know so much about nutrition and how the body utilizes foods at each stage of digestion. That actually allows for a "best" diet, nutritionally speaking. People won't ever be likely to eat only what is best for them, as we start using food for behavioral manipulation (routinely rewarding the kids with ice cream or sweets in child rearing).
Prospects for science are nevertheless getting better. The diet industry isn't particularly helpful, tho, as they will try to make money on their "special theory" no matter how well or poorly it is supports by facts.
2
@Richard
Curious why broccoli doesn't work well for behavioral manipulation in children??
I've often wondered why if vegetables were so good for kids, Mother Nature didn't make them taste better, at least during that period of life?? Is there a physiological reason why the majority of infants and toddlers and children dislike ( maybe even hate) vegetables???
1
@Lady Dieter- My grandkids (8, 6, 3) were given broccoli from their earliest solid foods and the oldest will now order it in a restaurant.
NO LIE!
Nurture over nature? I dunno
1
The most important reason to stop eating meat is buried at the back of the article: its environmental cost. Whatever the effect of red meat on human health, the effect of mass-producing livestock on Planet Earth is significantly damaging. Do you need more reason than that?
6
Thanks for including some information about how eating meat is detrimental for our planet - but please don't ignore animals. Eating meat means torture and death for animals. There is no way around that and animals deserve at least a line acknowledging this.
8
the preponderance of evidence is that a whole food plant based diet is the healthiest . From every perspective...medically. economically and from climate change. The Meat and dairy industry are involved with all the major medical groups (AMA, AHA, and ADA) through monetary donations . If you want health and energy eat plants, your choice.
3
It's interesting to me that this study was done with no funding from the food industry. How many nutrition studies can say that? It was also done in Canada. The American food industry is trying to make us believe that plants processed to taste like meat will be good for us. Highly processed foods, especially foods containing way too much sugar, are what leads to obesity, diabetes, and cancer. Our nutritional guidelines, with advice to eat 6 servings of grains each day, are killing us.
3
My entire life has been based on three principles:
1) You are genetically different from any other, in short you are lucky or unlucky.
2) Listen to your own body and determine if a particular food is not tolerated.
3) Eat whatever you want in small quantities.
I am over 60, the word "diet" is unknown to me, and my BMI has not changed significantly since I became an adult.
(Yes I got wrinkles and gray hairs).
2
This is simply a group of people questioning the methods of the 100s of studies that have shown that meat is unhealthy. They have not proven the studies wrong and they have not conducted new studies that show contrary results. This article does not make that clear.
4
Glad to see that many comments advocate moderation. Seems to me moderation and personal responsibility are the keys. The most telling phrases in this article are "dietary guidelines that change every few years" and "erode public trust in scientific research." My own "trust" has been eroding for years as we are routinely bombarded with alarmist junk science. I make no claims regarding my own expertise, but this latest study seems reasonable to me. A meal of a hamburger, French fries and a Coke (or even a milkshake) isn't likely to hurt most people, but not every day and not the mega-sizes of everything that we often consume. Climate change is real, but livestock production is only one piece of a huge, complicated issue.
4
Whether or not people should eat red meat is a larger question than what the article addressed. The article simply explains that new research shows that health is not significantly impacted by eating red meat.
So, should we eat red meat?
Economics teaches that the answer depends upon the costs and benefits of doing so. On the cost side are the environmental impacts of eating meat (or alternatives), and the opportunity cost of buying meat. On the benefit side is the amount of enjoyment you get from eating meat. Health impacts are now out of the equation.
The environmental impact is the same for all of us, but its a largely externalized cost. We all suffer the environmental degradation equally, regardless of who eats the meat. So this cost is felt, if at all, by moral people.
The opportunity cost of spending $20 on a ribeye is significant for some (who are poor), while for others, negligible (the rich). So rich people, everything else equal, eat more red meat.
The benefit of eating red meat is highly personal. Some love it; some hate it; some are indifferent to it. Those who love it will pay more for it, and worry less about the environmental impact. Those who don't enjoy it won't pay for it and will trumpet their environmental virtue. Those who are indifferent will accept alternatives.
So, economics teaches us that some will rationally choose to eat red meat, while others will not. If we want less red meat eaten, we just need to raise the price.
Overeating is unhealthy. People who consume excessive amounts of red and processed meat are likely to be obese and suffer the associated health problems. These studies simply say that consuming average amounts of meat have little to no negative health effects. The ascetics who scream that a serving of steak should be no more than 3 1/2 ounces may scream, but there's never been any real evidence to take that standard seriously. An average of 7-8 ounces a day - which is typical - isn't going to hurt anyone.
1
Why are you publishing this study? Is it helpful and significant? To further obfuscate understanding of the role meat and meat products have in our over all health? How are ordinary people supposed to interpret this? Our planets health is our health our animals health is our health We simply block out this relationship when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable
1
I haven’t eaten red meat or poultry in almost fifty years. I’m pretty healthy- I get fewer colds than most. But it’s more important to me to not eat something I could never kill, and to not contribute to the incredibly wasteful practice of expending so much land, water, and fossil fuels just to sustain these huge animals as they wander around belching and defecating.
4
@Taemie
The defecating part is important. It returns nutrients to the soil. Without it we have to use chemical fertilizers. The problem is not raising animals for food. It is the way we raise them - factory farming.
Nutritionists have always presented a one size fits all dietary recommendation. And health aficionados are quick to blame this or that substance for cancer and other ills. But it appears none have looked at the genetic puzzle and how that affects our response to various diets. Genetics play an outsize role yet we are all assumed to be one large bland population with no differences. So the new study is long overdue. But Ms. Kolata correctly points out the huge environmental impacts of raising mass quantities of red meat and dairy products. That in itself should be enough to give us all a reason to cut back and diversify our diets.
1
Eating less red meat would erode public trust? You are kidding, right? Can you imagine the boost in controlling climate change if, by consuming less meat, we would raise less cattle and leave more forests intact from the grazing?
3
I thought the point was that all these contradictory findings about what’s good/bad for you erode public trust.
1
Middle Class Europeans first fill up their plate with veggies and potatoes - any space left then some meat. American Middle Class first fill up their plate with meat - any space left then some veggies and potatoes. Both sides of the Atlantic die same average age of about 80 years old.
I eat meat. And I am GOING to eat meat. I cannot be stopped eating meat. If it makes you cry, it makes the meat taste better. meat! Meat! Meat! MEAT!
Who sponsored this? The meat industry which had the slogan for years "Beef: it's what for dinner"? Boy do they feel threatened by vegetarians.
4
@Lifelong New Yorker
Guess you didn’t actually read the article? It’s a study from Canada with NO OUTSIDE FUNDING!!! It was not sponsored by Big Beef so calm down and take your vitamin b supplements or whatever vegans do.
1
This new "research" is a blatant, desperate reflection of the present administration, led by our most misinformed, science-denying president America has ever had. Clearly, with the financial backing of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
its sole intent is to "harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.” (--from the article) Once again, another nail in the coffin of Democracy, until we VOTE these self serving liars out of office.
4
It depends on the meat for goodness sakes! If you must eat meat, eat humanly raised and fee of additives. Know where it comes from...And don’t eat it everyday. Like any food leave the garbage food in the garbage.
2
Humanely raised but not humanely transported or killed.
We were led to believe that the science was settled. No disagreement was tolerated. Those who disagreed were derided as fools, or corrupt.
And now it looks like the certainty was overstated and the science was wrong.
The best dietary advice I was given was to stop reading about nutritional studies.
1
"Beef in particular tends to have an outsized climate footprint"
and "cows belch up methane".
I'm glad to hear it's not people causing all these problems.'
This is a remarkably irresponsible headline. The main reasons to not eat red meat are (1) it is a primary cause of the environmental catastrophe we will live through the rest of our lives and (2) the animals we kill are sentient beings whose torture is necessary to our consumption. Contra, apparently, what the Times believes, one's dietary habits need not be formed solely based upon self-interest.
2
The cancer risk by consumption of
red meats is apparently not strongly proven (?).
Wow.
My interpretation of claims is now non-conclusive, and perhaps heretical
I am perplexed by what I skimmed this morning.
Perhaps I should just not comment nor try to understand the conflict.
Beam me down, Scotty, I am confused as heck
r
I think the NYT should report the issues as candidly as possible, which I perceive it to be doing presently, and despite my agonizing about complexity.
Insufficient scientific evidence? Hardly. I urge anyone on the fence to watch the VERY SCIENTIFIC documentary "Forks Over Knives". If you are serious about preventing and even reversing cardio vascular disease, this video is a must-see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forks_Over_Knives
1
Good for you or not. Eat less meat because of climate change.
I will never give up bratwurst... ever.
It reminds me of Woody Allen's movie, "Sleeper." My recall was that the doctor said, "what, no fudge, no deep fry?" I looked up the exact line:
"You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?"
2
How do we know that seatbelts will protect any individual?
1
I'd take these findings with a grain of salt, but I've been told that's bad for my blood pressure, so...
1
While red meat consumption might not be a health issue, I thought grilled meat was proven to contain carcinogens. The accompanying picture seems misleading. Just because red meat is safer than thought doesn’t mean grilling is.
(Omnivore, voluntarily eat read meat only around 2 times a month for environmental reasons, use the grill sparingly)
1
What about the evidence that red meat production is a leading cause of greenhouse gasses? Finding that out made me cut my consumption dramatically, given a livable planet is good for my health.
2
Very interesting, as Arte Johnson's character used to say....
It isn't the long-range health effect of meat that gets many of us as much as the fact that meat items are just plain old harder to digest as one gets older. Built-in moderation by chronological age? How about a study on that? (smiling) Guess we'll have to stay tuned on this new data.
1
@J Fleming
An evolutionary mechanism to protect the environment.
I eat red meat (free-range) almost daily with a salad or fruit. I'm 50 and have a resting heart rate of 55 (before coffee), which is normal for an athlete and which I became in my 40s. I have a right to live well, and I firmly believe cravings tell us what to eat, not dietary charts.
@Brooklyn
Yes, my grandpa is 95 and has eaten red meat if not daily then several times weekly his whole life (excluding the great depression and WW2). He’s also drank 2 cups of coffee daily and has eaten dessert everyday as well. The only thing different him and my grandma did was grew their own vegetables, stored & canned them. They used no pesticides. Not sure if that has made a difference or not.
Seems odd to me that this study, or is it just this article, would conflate red meat and processed meat as somehow the same thing. There's a whoooole lot of stuff in processed meat that is not in that steak on your plate.
3
Let people eat whatever they want. What I want to see is that health insurance premiums should heavily depend on people’s lifestyle choices. Not a new concept. Look at auto insurance and life insurance.
2
Interesting article. A few months ago i came across an article talking about seaweed species, called Asparagopsis that helped reduce the methane cows burped up. Most of the downside of meat seem to be the excess methane cows produce, I havent seem this reported by major news outlets. But if that seaweed does help its something this country needs to adopt sooner than later provided it doesnt cause any other issues.
I have lived through all kinds of cycles of what is good for you and what is not. I think the best diet is common sense and moderation. There are foods that are indisputably bad for you, avoid those. This includes pop, too much sugar, and too many highly processed foods.
When I go into the supermarket and I see rows and rows of Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Mountain Dew and on and on. Then I see people taking them home by the cases and feeding them to their kids. As a result obesity and diabetes have increased significantly.
I doubt red meat in moderation, as with most things, is a significant health risk. Too much of so many things will damage your health.
I believe, overall a more vegetarian diet is better for you and better for the planet. Over the years I have switched to an 80 percent vegetarian diet that includes whole grains and many organic products. This was not done just based on health. I no longer want to be a part of the factory food production and the extreme cruelty of raising animals in cages and overcrowded conditions. Animals, besides humans, have intelligence, emotions, and feelings. Raising them like they are a production product and not alive is all wrong. Furthermore, a significant portion of seven billion people consuming meat, is extremely bad for the environment.
I no longer want to be a part of this.
Approximately 25 million food animals are slaughtered each day in the US for food. Millions die before going to market due to poor conditions.
4
Remember the many decades in which fat was the major culprit in the American diet? We all ate pasta and bread. Then that went away.
The truth is so obvious. The problem is not any single macronutrient like fats or carbohydrates, or meat, or cholesterol. The problem is a combination of excess calorie intake, and the high amount of sugar and processed foods in the diet.
Walk through the grocery store - half of the space is occupied by chips, soda, artificial fruit juices and sugary drinks, candy, and prepared food like frozen waffles. At what point in evolution were these available?
Most of my patients are obese, many with diabetes. This is what I tell them: eat a source of high quality protein: fish, fowl, meat, eggs. Your carbohydrates should come from vegetables and fruits. Limit starches such as rice, potatoes, bread, and beans. Avoid processed food and sugar. Simple.
Avoiding meat is great for the environment, but that's not what this article is about.
1
It's remarkably difficult to establish a correlation between diet and health, at least on a calorie-for-calorie basis. Sure, excessively caloric diets lead to health problems, but so long as people maintain normal body weight, it's hard to show that any particular diet is healthier than others.
The basic challenges are two-fold: People who eat specialized diets tend to make other lifestyle choices that confound the studies; and the effects of diet tend to be small, so that large and long term studies are required to establish an effect.
Some years ago my wife suggested we try a plant-based diet for a month. I read the literature, and the only meaningful studies I found were done on a population of Seventh Day Adventists. This cohort, it seems, consist of people who largely lead healthy lives: little alcohol consumption, tobacco use, etc. Some in this group eat only plant-based diets, while others consume meat. It turned out, after many years of study, that the plant-based cohort lived very slightly longer.
Beyond that, as a professional researcher, I've found very little evidence to suggest that any maintenance-calorie diet is superior.
2
there might be arguments to eat less meat because of the environment. However, the real problem is that there are far too many humans on this planet and that is the root cause of our other problems.
4
I eat less red meat and only the lean variety to protect my kidneys. I do not eat processed meats and my kidney doctor thinks I am doing just fine.
Does it really matter whose scientists are doing the extolling? Does this have to be us-versus-them, Left-versus-Right? What ever happened to middle-of-the-road common sense?
I do seem to recall something about "everything, in moderation". Oh, and that concept of 'freedom of choice'.
Imagine that.
6
Once again, those weighing in on environmental concerns, which are real, say nothing about the role of overpopulation in the increased production of all foodstuffs, including plants, on the degradation of the biosphere. Providing food for a population of seven-going-on ten billion omnivores is straining the resources of the planet to the breaking point. The quality of the food produced is also generally lower. This is less a challenge for the wealthy than for the rest of us.
There is a limit to how large a population is nutritionally sustainable. No solutions are practical without a reduced population.
2
“Beef in particular tends to have an outsized climate footprint, partly because of all the land needed to raise cattle and grow feed, and partly because cows belch up methane, a potent greenhouse gas.”
Please be careful with such generalizations as this. It matters what the cattle are fed; how farmers and ranchers manage the land on which the cattle’s feed is grown (i.e., pasture or farmed grains, and which grazing or farming methods are used); whether grazing land would be used for other types of farming or wildlife if cattle weren’t on it; how far the beef is transported versus how far replacement foodstuff, such as for a vegan diet, would be transported; how much greenhouse gas is used to process beef versus replacement foodstuff; and other details.
1
People will always eat meat obviously meat properly raised meat is a lot better but in today’s society I feel a lot of people are more likely to eat meat because of the fact we offer it out at such a cheap price we would rather spend of couple bucks on that than double or triple the price on a healthier option.
Wow. You can search and combine data to argue whatever point you'd like, but nutritional science is very clear about how and what we should eat to keep our bodies healthy and prevent disease. I see the inside of arteries every working day and I promise, a high-plant, low-meat diet isn't what is creating the fatty plaques that require ballooning and stents to reestablish blood flow and ensure the other vital organs get what they need.
The same trade policies and politics driving the deregulation of international agriculture are controlling your access to health care. Just sayin'.
2
@krm can you say “Twinkies”?
Is this what science has become? We don't like the outcome, so we claim it was a bad study, or we like the outcome and we tout it as solid evidence to act on?
While one has a hypothesis when starting a study, that hypothesis cannot drive the data collection (must include placebos or all variables and then prove/disprove the influence one at a time).
These conclusions should not be a surprise. A few years ago, after decades of telling people to cut carbohydrates and fat based on the Framingham study, it was fount to have false conclusions. It wasn't fat that was causing heart disease, it was sugar. My guess is that researchers that concluded red meat was bad, used the Framingham study as truth and sought evidence to support the theory that fat is bad; red meat has fat, so must be bad.
I am disappointed that so many disregard the study which appears to have been conducted without prejudice and without outside sponsors or grants, unlike most studies which do have sponsors that seek a certain conclusion be found. Like the government grants that almost require climate change be a part of the 'study.' Even when the study has nothing to do with climate or climate impact - one is to find it if they want that grant money. This doesn't mean climate change isn't real, but it does mean that science has been appropriated for political and financial gains.
@Ma Yes, "APPEARS to have been conducted without prejudice". But you are correct to be wary of bias. The Authors report their own meat-diet preferences, and then include consumer preferences as part of a NUTRITIONAL analysis? Suspect statistical methods. Does your conclusion reverse if the prejudice is revealed -- once we identify where the funds did come from, directly or indirectly?
Thank you Gina and Gary Taubes for your journalistic professionalism in exposing the scientific shortcomings of so-called nutrition "research".
Nutritional fraud continues to this day with the latest entrants in the plant-based protein category where founders are driven by climate change and the ethical treatment of animals. Nutrition is not a driver.
@Thomas Payne. Nutritional science, which is to say NO SCIENCE AT ALL, is a false god...see Cornell’s Brian Wansink...
The application of the reductionist scientific methodology is flawed.
I have a doctor of medicine and a doctoral degree in science in molecular biology. Everybody is obsessed with reductionist methodology ( for good reasons : it has created most of the Mecical braleakthroughrs of the 29th century. ) This article shows some studied diene with reductionism are doomed to failure.
Some things can not be demonstrated by this approach. A lack of data showing health improvement in these studies does not mean there is not a benefit.
Recently, a similar approach was done using a meta-analysis to look at the need for skin cancer screening in adults. The office concluded that skin cancer screening is unnecessary. Tell that to the millions of asymptotic people each year who come in for a skin screening and have a skin cancer or Pre-cancer found by their dermatologist.
2
@Working doc. That’s what everyone who has a prostate or breast cancer screen and undergoes a (paid) procedure done...then talk to people about false positives. Medical science is not science, it is empirical research drawing correlations and producing models whose faults become obvious only in their extrapolation to infinity....like climate “science”. Sorry, folks...
Yes, Michael Pollan offers sensible advice for the ages: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." We should also listen to our individual bodies. My wife and I have largely given up beef in favor in chicken. But there are times when I think about having a burger, and the craving grows. While this could be a tic of the mind, it might also be a message sent from deep within, that the body would welcome a small portion of red meat. We should be attentive to those messages, whether or not we place red meat on the menu.
3
@Diane Stoltzfus. Ah, yes, there’s the rub. A burger can be yummy!
This research study is irresponsible, to say the least. I read the abstract from the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium, and it states: "Considerations of environmental impact or animal welfare did not bear on the recommendations." BOTH of these two subject matters are absolutely essential when making any decision about one's diet. To leave them out is shocking.
2
What is the evidence that eating red and processed meat has health benefits? Thus far, the only argument that I've seen for eating these things is "I enjoy them." There are many things that I enjoy that I refrain from doing because they are unhealthful.
4
Anti-meat propaganda has gotten way out of hand. Meat raised well (ie, not feed lot and fed a good diet) has a ton of nutrients in it, and many that are hard to find and/or digest from plant foods. The push toward plant-based foods is coming from these incredibly large investments and their incredible returns, as well as their long-term profit potential because of the amount of value-added labor involved. Profit margins on cow products are relatively low, so they're getting pushed out. The propaganda about emissions is extremely biased and much of it is even falsified, and whether that's by business interests, religious institutions like Seventh Day Adventists that have been pushing vegetarianism and veganism through dietetics associations for decades, or vegan activists... I don't care, it's wrong, and it'll harm people's health. Frankly, I'm almost at the point of not caring. The grass-fed beef industry has its own base independent of traditional feed-lot beef that's growing. Grass-fed beef has been shown to STORE carbon if produced on a restorative agriculture model. All these people who will cut animals out of their diet can go suffer until the West realizes they are being had, although unfortunately it'll not slow down ecological destruction and may even make it go faster. We live in a society so colored by propaganda that we don't even know how to exist as a human species on this planet anymore. It's disturbing and getting worse.
4
@R. McMahon my brother from another mother...we need to unite! Wait, what...?
There are other reasons for eating less red meat that have nothing to do with heart disease, cancer, and other ills. Principal among them is that the beef industry has a negative impact on the environment. In fact, eating lower on the food chain is one of the most beneficial things individuals can do to shrink their carbon footprint.
8
The key is not whether any individual is destined for better health but the environmental impact of cattle raising. Beef cattle farming uses too much water, too much feed, and too much land. We should eat less beef as an effort to help our planet.
8
Last week, I participated in a webinar on the importance of robust protein intake in for hanging on to muscle mass during the aging process. The point was made that those who eat larger amounts of beef often have diets that are in other respects lower in nutritional quality and this may be why beef is suspected to injure health -- because of the company it keeps!
If the cattle industry can change its business model to reduce environmental impacts and antibiotic use, eating beef regularly would appeal to those who care about climate change.
3
The article is correct that the science is deeply flawed. No this is not the same as climate science where the evidence and science agree. In these nutrition studies, there is confusion between association and causation. What the studies which have been done for the most part show are associations in s statistical sense between some dietary components and some aspects of health. They do not show specific parts of the diets responsible for which effects nor in which individuals. There are a myriad of confounding factors in peoples’ diets, habits and genetics which all play a role in overall health. Yes there are suggestions that certain dietary excesses may cause problems in some people, but there is NO evidence that there are universal truths about which components of diet, activity or genetics are most important. If one studies the nutrition literature over time, one will realize that there has been enormous shifting of opinions because of essentially bad research. Guidelines in clinical medicine are essentially based on best guesses, not necessarily hard data. We must avoid confusing association with causation and using belief instead of good data. The one principle which has remained consistently true is that all things in moderation is the best solution.
2
Somebody on the radio this morning was reported as saying that this "undermined safe eating guidelines". But that's precisely the point; if no-one were allowed to publish anything that went against the existing collective wisdom of the experts, science would not have evolved since Galileo. What this tells us is that nutritional "experts" are not scientists, but a ragbag of prejudices.
1
Why is it that the conclusions that the health benefits from eating less meat are small - erodes public trust in nutrition science? Shouldn't it be the original overstated reports that are the ones that would erode public trust?
4
Yes, there is little evidence that eating less red meat will make your health better.
There is, however, tons and tons of evidence that eating no meat at all will improve your health significantly.
10
@EmettC. Again, association, not causality. The “evidence” suggests that there may be some factor(s) associated with a non-meat diet which improve indices of health. They may be related to life in an affluent environment, life style, including exercise, sleep, stress, to genetics, psychology, etc. Once again, the angry responses to this literature review shows how poorly the American public understands science and fundamental statistics, and how demanding we are of immediate answers to complex questions. Science is not a consumer product; it is a thought process and it can be tainted by our addiction to outrage.
3
Hmmm...with many people moving to a plant-based diet and rejecting animal products, I am suspect of the research and its ultimate purpose.
8
I was cautious for years - even gagged down tofu. Quit smoking at 30 and ran 6 marathons. Still cycle at least an hour a day. I'm 72.
But my pledge was that at age 75, I'd figure the timeline was in my favor and I'd start smoking again, eat chicken liver mousse for breakfast and wash it down with a good single malt.
With this article I might just get started now. Life is good.
6
I highly recommend people read the academic responses to the recommendations provided by the study. For example, from Prof Nita Forouhi, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge:
“First, they stated that the magnitude of the link is small. Is it? Take the link with type 2 diabetes, for instance. For the impact of reducing 3 servings of processed meat every week, they estimated 12 fewer cases (confidence range of 9 to 16 fewer cases) of diabetes per 1000 persons over 10 years. For a common condition such as type 2 diabetes, at a population and country level, that is not trivial. And by the time one sums this across the modest absolute risk reduction for several health conditions, the potential public health impact cannot be ignored”
Also, their recommendation of three or four serving a of red meat a week would still be a huge reduction for many Americans.
3
@Adrian Doan Not all red meat is the "processed meat" cited by Professor Forouhi.
To be clear, this paper states that the risks we attribute to excessive intake of red meat are still true for the most part, but the degree of these risks are statistically acceptable for the average person given common food preferences and preferred diets. Ok, fine, if patients wish to accept the risks of eating a diet high in saturated animal fats because a single (emphasis on single) mega-study reports that these risks are not as significant as previously thought then that's of course their prerogative, but the foundational biochemistry and physiology of obesity with high intake of saturated fats is clear. What's also odd to me is that the WHO lists read meat as a risk factor for many cancers, including colorectal cancers, meaning that rigorous international studies (including mega-studies like this one) have supported this correlation. The findings of this single mega-analysis should be appreciated but viewed in the context of decades of international research that indicates a contrary conclusion on this matter.
5
The real lesson is to know what harms you; and to do what won’t. As physicians pledge: Primum non nocere.
Everything in moderation. If you look at people who age well and live ling, besides genes, then tend to eat everything in moderation. Not saying that recipe is for everyone but for most of us. Is X good or bad for us, in moderation probably good but never bad.....
79
@glp5 All in moderation; not a novel idea but worth repeating over and over...as we survivors can attest to.
7
@glp5 Ice Cream in moderation? Deep fried Twinkies in moderation? Some things are best avoided entirely.
5
@glp5Yes, everything in moderation. If you eat a class 1 carcinogen 4 times a week, just eat it twice a week. If you hit yourself in the head with a hammer six times a week, three times a week is way better than, say stopping the carcinogenic diet or not hitting yourself with the hammer. Good advice.
4
So confusing these days. So did the chicken industry pay for the earlier reports? Or did the beef & pork industry pay for the latest report?
Here's a better idea. Eat less animal meat, period. Better for you, better for the planet.
3
This is trump’s way of defeating the green deal. Subpoena the scientists.
1
This is an example why people don't believe in global warming, "the authorities" have flip flopped on issues that the public deems as simple (like the effects of food on health) that the complexity of global warming is something most think are beyond their depth of knowledge. I know that weather and health studies are apples and oranges, but this really does not look good and people are tired of the effects of butter, cholesterol, and red meat changing like the seasons.
2
Who funded the study?
6
I love animals, they taste great.
3
Agreed that meat production is an environmental disaster. And, while I am open to the concept that eating red meat in its purest form is not an issue, I am extremely doubtful that processed meats aren't an issue.
3
Let's look at facts and these ARE BACKED UP BY RESEARCH:
1. Heart medications , beta blockers etc are highly prescribed among meat eaters. Not so with Vegans
2. High blood-pressure a malady of the 'average' middle aged meat eat.Not so with Vegans
3. Pre-diabetic or type 2 diabetes--a disease of meat eaters--not Vegans
4. Anti depressants-- amount the highest prescribed drug in America. Very little usage by the 'health conscious ' and Vegans.
If you use a standard of 'the average American' take a look at the numbers: Growing obesity. Growing reliance of prescription drugs. Over use of antibiotics.
One more point: The researchers also insult people by thinking that when presented with facts that they won't change to improve themselves. What an insult! That alone should make people think.
7
The corporate meat industry has taken some pages from the tobacco companies playbook — create your own research to refute the real science.
If you want to know how animal protein is being produced these days, do some research on CAFO's — Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. These are factories, not farms, and most of our food is now being produced this way. Dairy, beef, and chickens are being raised in confined buildings and feed lots, by the millions to make low quality food.
The farmers who work for (not with) the corporations are not independent, but stuck in monopolistic contracts that make them, "modern day sharecroppers" — their description, not mine. And the corporate consolidation of food production is running smaller family farms out of business.
Aside from the health issues, the environmental impact of these places is supersized in both natural resources' usage, and pollution in the form of animal waste, water, and air particulates. The list goes on.
Corporate meat has infiltrated our state and national AG departments, academics, and government regulations, to wield their power to control regulations, production methods, and the markets. Looks like they have now entered the research side of the discussion.
Remember when tobacco companies put out research saying that there was no link between smoking and cancer? We are seeing that movie all over again, this time with meat and dairy.
7
@DP I totally agree. Add to that the immense suffering that's caused by EVERY aspect of meat production. One comment here says "I love animals and I love meat". I find this schizophrenic, to say the least... Being aware of the horrifying pain that's connected to the piece of meat on one's plate should make any honest person gag...
Many people, specifically vegans and vegetarians, would be measurably healthier if they ate small amounts of red meat on occasion, as these groups tend towards anemia with much higher frequency.
4
Cheeseburger in Paradise. Here I come!
3
Even apart from the effects on climate change, the thought of eating fellow animals makes me feel ill. Bring on the Impossible Burger.
1
The health industrial complex is very Trumpian here: they'd rather lie, and continue to lie, than accept that they may need to rethink some of their long standing assumptions. They've really done a lot of good too--diabetes is skyrocketing. It doesn't seem much of a reach to realize that some of their advice is not good. I can't believe the crazies at Harvard who believe that lying "improves the credibility of nutrition science!!" Science is not about TRUTH writ large, it's about avoiding bias and challenging assumptions. Really, what is wrong with those folks.
1
"Already they have been met with fierce criticism by public health researchers. The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and other groups have savaged the findings and the journal that published them."
Evidently these organizations are "science deniers" and should be shunned. That's how we deal with ideologues now, right?
2
The NYT recipe of the day in my email briefing this morning is linguine with clam sauce. Healthy? Probably not so much. OK to enjoy in moderation? Probably yes.
There are always exceptions, but in general it is rather easy to observe who in society is healthy. I'm no scientist, yet when I read some of the nutritious items that the keto diet restricts, I just laugh. Similarly, I don't agree with the zealots, several of which are trying to unsuccessfully shame people like me in this comment section, that act as if eating meat is a crime.
To quote the great Sergeant Hulka in the movie Stripes...."Lighten up Francis."
1
“bad advice”—
Those words should not have appeared in the title of this article in the New York Times—
Certainly not without more careful consultation with experts and researchers and institutions.
A physician MD
2
Who funded this research?
2
Seriously, NYT? This is coming out in the same cycle when we're hearing from Greta Thunberg who's reminding us that our meat-eating habit is a big part of global warming? There is no reason to eat burned animal flesh, none; this piece looks like an advertisement for a meat industry that's worried that it's losing customers—because it is. Including me. Please look for the show "Game Changers" featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger and other top-level atheltes who are all vegans. If we want to separate ourselves from animal cruelty and the slow death of our planet, sure keep shoveling down the flesh of tortured animals. If, on the other hand, you'd like to live a long life, heal faster, feel better, and help make the earth habitable for future generations, stop it. Now.
1
@Me This is an article about the health effects of eating red meat, not global warming or animal cruelty.
1
"Science" vs. Science.
It is all about who is finding the “researchers.” BTW, there is a good chance that these researchers were not funded by the broccoli, kale, or avocado lobbies!
Nutrition science should shut its doors and take up organic farming. It is scandalous how often we see this kind of 180o reversal. Just a few months ago we were told that every sausage produced a measurable decrease in one's life expectancy. Now it's "never mind." This kind of fecklessness might be tolerable in some obscure field of research, but not in a field that has large-scale impacts on the public. Much of the problem arises from small sample size, poorly controlled studies. Nutrition scientists should not go public with recommendations until they have large-scale epidemiological studies and meta-studies to support their claims. I say all this as a working biologist.
2
I haven't had a hot dog in 16 years ever since I ate one at the St. Martin's airport en route from St. Barth's to NYC and the ensuing 3 hours on a plane tossing my insides (and the subsequent emergency room visit upon arrival). That's the real reason I haven't had a hot dog even though I also knew from reports (or, "from reports") that they were nutritionally unhealthy.
But after reading this I think I'm going to take the plunge and have one again. With mustard. And relish. Fingers crossed.
1
@James L. I eat hot dogs all the time! No trouble and vast enjoyment. Chopped tomatoes, raw onions, mustard, green chili’s and a crisp dill pickle slice. Good gravy, it is so good. And I have taught my sons the lesson. They will demand hot dogs for the next fifty years. It cannot be stopped. Ever! Bwaahhhaaaahhhhaaahhh!
For every data driven study, there is, or will be, an equal and opposite "study."
1
It’s not new research that’s destroying our faith in science; it’s watching the various lobbyists, businesses and interest groups fight over whose agenda gets to be pushed by the government as scientific truth.
1
@Greg. Scientific truth is un-obtainable, which is why the scientific “community” has turned to predicting the future instead. Sorry, folks...
It depends on the lifestyle of a person. Also encouraging more meat consumption leads to more production that will lead to more environmental damage to Mother Earth.
Who ran and paid for the study.......American Beef Packers?
3
Would cows belch up as much methane if they were eating grass as nature intended, rather than corn or soybeans which they cannot digest without the assistance of drugs. The corn fed cows suffer a constant stomach ache, but the grain fattens them. What brought about the initial impetus to feed cattle grains they can't digest unaided? Did the corn growers need a market? I eat less beef because it doesn't taste like the delicious beef of my childhood.
4
The day I die they'll decide a pint of ice cream each day will make you live forever.
1
The study used the GRADE method of analysis. This type of analysis was created for the drug industry. Not appropriate for long term research. Rocks are not considered poisonous. Under the GRADE method eating a rock would not result in negative results. However, we all know that if you eat enough rocks it will kill you. Enough said.
1
This is an irresponsible take on this study.
You bought the disinformation and helped sow the same confusion that delayed action on cigarettes decades after health officials and tobacco companies knew the dangers of smoking.
2
Follow the advice of the Cornucopia Institute, daily doing battle for small organic and sustainable farms against Big Ag.
David versus Goliath.
Dr. Hu, of Harvard says
"Nutrition studies, he added, should not be held to the same rigid standards as studies of experimental drugs."
Why not? Is "trendy science" less rigorous than "science science?"
3
I stopped eating beef and pork after my gall bladder got removed. I think it is not the meat that was bothering me but the things in the meat. Like drug traces that my body somehow started to react to. I would get sick anytime I ate beef or pork.
My guide is to eat things that our ancestors ate, but to amp it up with the best of what they ate given our accessability to those foods.
We'll survive as a species no matter what. But we'll thrive in today's world if we take a little good advice from doctors, and usually it's medicine, not food.
We've adapted to taking certain foods and to surviving.
Doctors are trying. There's an occasional quack doctor that tries to sell stuff. Let's give them a break. Most are trying.
Not most on TV, however. They don't deserve anything. They already have it. TV docs, go away, please!
But it will improve the health of the planet.
Gina Kolata is well known in the statistical community for her ability to make scientific debate accessible to her readers. Thank you to her for another fine article emphasizing what the studies tell us, and more importantly, where there is still uncertainty.
I have always considered that changing ones diet from red meat to one containing more rice and Beans only changed the site of methane production to the human alimentary tract. The whole environmental issue would be changed much for the better if human reproduction were more limited. The Chinese one baby law was dropped for the impossibility of getting people to obey. Mandatory birth control
Worldwide would be an ideal solution. Without it the human race is doomed. We only have one planet . The moon and Mars will work only in the pipe dreams of opium smokers.
The allegation that cattle cause global warming is simply not true. How beef is produced in industrial feedlots with corn as a major part of their diet does promote greenhouse gases. But when cattle are grass fed and finished in a holistic grazing system the soil is grown and in fact it can grow soil organic matter by 8% a year -- an amount that means the net impact on CO2 in atmosphere is negative not positive. Plant based protein cannot make this claim as it is a positive contributor to CO2 in atmosphere. The science is clear but there is no money behind grass finished beef so the NYT and others continue to print 1/2 truths as full truths. Shameful
3
Obviously , " Nutritional Science " is an oxymoron. Other than the height of women's hemlines , nothing is more capricious than advice on what foods are good or bad for you .
Who to believe...medicine or industry? I choose to believe the science not the money. Eat less meat!!!
1
Ohhhhhhhh....but if scientists say it we must ALWAYS follow blindly!
This headline is irresponsible both in its placement and in its substance. Is the latest food fad really worthy of being near the top of the fold? It's not exactly a slow news day. I believe it is there to make the Times appealing to a larger segment of the population and to make it not seem "liberal" when it reports facts, the great majority of which are important and incidentally unflattering to the administration. Secondly, if you want to report trends in nutritionism, if anyone really believes that is news, and the trend is also dvestating to an already devastated environment, highlight that in the headline. For instance, "While a major contributor to the planet's ill health, red meat may not be one to yours". If it turned out that mini nuclear power stations in your garage were an econmical way to run your household electricity, although obviously allowing for many enfironmental hazards, would the headline be "New study shows that home fission is a go"?
1
@GreatDoubt If you really care about the environment and global warming fission power should be a go. No greenhouse gasses.
Huh, this is weird, I thought the science was settled, but now it’s not? I wonder what other “settled science” is not really settled?
4
Eating meat is directly linked to the torture and slaughter of BILLIONS of animals. Meat production is horrifically polluting, which is not good for any of us. Not eating meat is good for the planet and good for your heart and soul.
1
@Anne
And BILLIONS of animal deaths are directly linked to the plowing, planting and harvesting of a plant based diet. I know those rodents are not as cute as calves or chickens, but they are killed just the same.
In other words, get over yourself.
1
It is pointed out in the article itself the resistance to the publishing of the so-called facts when there are so many other good reasons to avoid meat including climate change. How incredibly incredible that the New York times would be part of such a polar change in trying to influence us on this topic. Have you sold out to the science resistance of the Trump administration??
1
Oh look, another means of helping the planet along toward her demise. Please, by all means, use the land and water to feed cows. It's the least you can do to hasten the resource wars to come.
How about some articles about the horrendousness of factory farming -- for the animals involved and the planet -- on the front page instead of this article!
1
Love that meat photo! My new computer wallpaper! It's unfortunate that new factual studies "were met with indignation" by those alleged researchers with political objectives disguised as research.
2
Reminds me of the Woody Allen movie, "Sleeper."
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.
3
I find it interesting that this study comes out just as plant based "burgers" are gaining popularity.
This focus is on red meat, and though they do bring up the environmental issues, they don't bring up growth hormones, antibiotic resistance, or, in the case seafood/fish, the problems with mercury. I'm guessing that this latest viewpoint and actual force, connect the dots to industry lobbying (note the focus on red meat) with the current administration.
2
I was a vegetarian for 25 years, certified cholesterol level average: 140.
Then I started eating meat again for almost 5 years, certified cholesterol level during that time, 220.
Quit eating meat again and live on a plant based diet for the last 8 years, certified cholesterol level, 135.
5
@BK I eat red meat at least once a day; cholesterol level 130. Individuals vary, so the risks presented by different behaviors also vary among individuals. That's one of the reasons that these types of food/health issues are so difficult.
3
@Joel, is that total cholesterol?
Individuals vary, but I'm not speaking to that. I'm speaking to the variability within individuals themselves due to dietary changes. Apples and oranges.
Anecdotally speaking (as a committed vegan of eight years), people who tend to stick with it are motivated more by ethics and environment than by personal health. This is not to minimize the health benefits of whole foods, plant-based eating, which are amply established by mountains of research this particular study did not consider at all. Dr. Michael Greger's books and his website nutritionfacts.org are a reliable source of research-based information about such studies. This new study is the nutritional analog of climate change denial. It is important to note that most of its authors are methodology-oriented. Their study reflects an interesting angle on "cherry-picking" in science: select a small number of studies that are vulnerable on methodology and tear them apart; then make sweeping conclusions about what they don't prove and ignore all other evidence on the subject. Reputable public health authorities are right to caution people about making food decisions on this shaky foundation.
2
It's pretty obvious that this article is just a response fueled by fears from the meat industry. The plant-based movement has taken off and they are SCARED of losing money. The dairy industry is worried as well. More and more people are becoming educated about the health risks of consuming meat and dairy, and its negative impact on our environment.
7
This is a sad tale. I sat in classrooms in the 1970's hearing that the 'evidence' shows that saturated fat causes heart disease. Often that information was amended with the observation that a population with one of the highest intake of saturated fat, eskimos, had a low incidence of heart disease. The presenter usually just briefly mentioned this, admitted that he had no explanation why it was so, and then moved on to other topics. Now we know the explanation for that uncomfortable bit of knowledge. Saturated fat does not cause heart disease. We have been deluded by, perhaps well intentioned, but biased observers all these years. Personally, I have greatly reduced, but not eliminated red meat from my diet. My philosophy is that it is a varied diet that is important. Besides, by decreasing red meat consumption, I aid the environment and also my pocketbook.
2
As someone who gave up red meat and pork 35 years ago and has had very obvious health benefits, I fail to see the point in this story, which itself erodes public trust by creating doubts about a long-standing consensus among health professionals. Does this really negate all previous studies of the subject? Even if it does, red meat and pork production in factory farms has been an environmental and animal cruelty catastrophe. So again I ask, what's the point? This reads like one of those "studies" that industry creates to sell a product.
6
I've long thought that observational nutritional studies are flawed from the onset. The idea that there is no bias in someone filling out a survey is ridiculous. Too the researcher's point how do we know that the subject was knocking back cokes and fries along with their burger? How do you control for all these biases i.e. exercise rates, body composition, gender, genetic origin, chemical exposure ..etc. It's a huge error rate. This has been my point all along with nutritional science is that it's inherently flawed. I mean the argument that there is "some" connection is ridiculous. That's like saying that I surveyed 4 million people that walk down stairs every morning. Turns out a half a percent fall down the stairs instead of walking and of those a certain percentage die. My advice don't use stairs. Of course you would ask were they drunk when walking down the stairs or old or blind or carrying laundry or eating a sandwich or texting on their phone ..etc.. That's literally their argument for both fat and red meat consumption. Because, the reality is they have little to know idea what the probability of disease is associated with red meat for you or I. Just like stairs example they are casting a wide net to snag a loose correlation. My suggestion read up on healthy populations in blue zones.
side note:
I'm a sustainable grass-fed meat consumer who thinks that animal welfare is utmost importance. There are too many cows already and meat needs to be much more expensive.
1
I think people make eating way too complicated by adopting various types of diet based on whatever they believe to be healthy. To me that is a luxury of western civilization or just having too much money. Instead of focusing what is the latest fad in healthy eating, learn how to cook at home. Eat what grows in season in moderation and avoid processed foods and soda. For the sake of planet earth, support sustainable and local farming.
5
I am 72. I eat meat once or twice a week. I have not ever eaten any fat on the meat. I prefer lean cuts. This has been my one constant when a meal includes meat.
1
As expected. Just as more and more people are opting not to eat meat, for various reasons, suddenly its not so bad after all. Just so that all those who are looking for excuses to continue the carnage, can pat themselves on the back. No need to think any further, or think for yourself at all. Watch the news, there will be many many more articles like this appearing soon. And of course, none at all funded/pushed by the meat industries who are scared stiff of losing more ''customers".
4
Who’s funding the research? Did a cursory look at their website but couldn’t see who paid for the research. The website and the bios of researchers look very professional and they also look well funded.
4
According to the article, the project was self-funded.
1
@JF
I saw that maybe it’s not expensive to run a study. I’m not scientist. The couple of scientists I know get grants that pay for their time and study.
@TW All academics in higher ed institutions run their research on grants. This could have been funded by their own universities, federal grants, or, in this rare case, out of pocket. The project is what is called a meta-study (a study of studies), which has become popular recently as analytical platforms have become cheaper and cheaper.
Ms. Kolata, you stated that livestock production accounts for "about 14.5 percent of the global greenhouse gases that humans emit worldwide each year."
This figure released by the FAO is not only outdated, but conflicts with green house emissions statistics produced by other notable UN organizations such as the IPCC and UNEP.
The 2018 FAO World Food and Agriculture Statistical Pocketbook states on page 42: “Agriculture GHG emissions contributed about 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2eq
to the atmosphere each year during the period 2005–16.”
According to your dated FAO source, livestock account for “7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year, representing 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions."
Even if the FAO source from 2013 was accurate when it was published, more recent statistics by the FAO itself blames the whole of agriculture for 5.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv. To continue to blame livestock for 14.5%, or 7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year is thus bad journalism.
Moreover, in the same year the FAO published its 14.5% statistic, UNEP stated in page xvi of the Emissions Gap Report that "Agriculture now contributes about 11 percent to global greenhouse gas emissions."
Once again, the whole of agriculture is blamed for producing global emissions less than what the contemporary FAO report blamed livestock for. Even if the FAO did not release a new figure in 2018, the 14.5% figure published in 2013 does not signify consensus within the UN’s environmental organizations.
2
I'm a life long vegetarian and recently I tasted the Impossible Veggie Burger. They said the Burger tastes almost like meat. My thought was, If this is what meat tastes like, there is no need to kill wonderful animals for this taste. Before you say about protein and some vitamins not present in Vegetarian food, I can simply say it is not true. Go vegetarian and show the same compassion to all animals as you would to your Dogs and Cats.
9
The only advice on one's bodily needs worth heeding is the one your body gives you. Not all bodies are the same.
It's too bad so many interested parties, be they health professionals or lobbyists are looked to.
It would be much better if from an earliest age we were taught to listen and learn what our own organism is telling us.
2
If the "credibility of nutrional science" can be damaged by this study then nutritional science is not very robust.
There have been thousands of studies on nutrition, many of them small, many conflicting. At least this new study is a large one and thus, to my mind anyway, more believeable.
In the end, common sense is probably just as effective as as "nutritional science".
4
'Public Trust' in nutrition and dietary studies have long since been eroded by the seemingly endless cycle of new findings contradicting previous ones. While we expect that such results will 'evolve' with advances in science and new data, nutrition remains an inexact science at best as a cursory browse of diet publications at your local bookstore will show.
Yes, the general public is cynically shaking its collective head once again..and for good reason.
3
It doesn't make sense to look at the individual's benefit from eating meat or not eating meat. Meat consumption is a planetary issue as well as an animal rights issue. Hundreds of millions of acres of forests continue to be cleared to raise crops for animal feed and we can see this clearly with the destruction of Amazon rain forest. Why continue to report on a one-to-one relationship of food consumed to the specific data on one species? This is incredibly short-sighted and does not in the least present the whole story. It's not healthy for one person or for billions of people for land to be cleared for meat production. Get your protein elsewhere, please.
17
This article supports the 'carbohydrate hypothesis' as explained in Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" published in 2007. Between the two great food journalists, Taubes and Michael Pollan, we know enough to eat well for a long, healthy and enjoyable life. Thanks to you both for sorting through the morass of scientific data and making it usable to the layman.
6
The best evidence I’ve seen against eating red meat is in the very long average life expectancies of populations in Blue Zones around the world and in parts of The US with large groups of Seventh Day Adventists. What these folks have in common is little to no red meat in their diets AND large quantities of vegetables. Completely anecdotal but their ages don’t lie. Many living to 100 or older.
8
What may need more emphasis is the impact of industrial farms (CAFOs) on the health of our communities. Most people have no clue where their meat comes from. The established public health data shows the impact to include contamination of the ground water systems with drug resistant bacteria, fungi and viruses. The bio-aerosols pollute the surrounding air 24/7 causing or exacerbating respiratory illnesses. The odors trap neighbors in their homes. The property values dramatically drop. Most of the corporate farms are owned by either out of state or out of country corporations. So all forms of meat produced in the large scale industrial farms create untenable health hazards well beyond cardiovascular conditions.
4
"Studies of red meat as a health hazard may have been problematic, he said, but the consistency of the conclusions over years gives them credibility."
Really? This emperor has no clothes.
1
When my son was three years old, riding in the shopping cart at the grocery store, he asked questions about the items for sale. As I pushed the cart past the beef section, he asked "Mommy, why is that meat all red?" I explained that it came from cows, so it contained blood which is red. In a few seconds, tears gathered, and he asked, "Who would do that to a cow?" I have never forgotten.
8
Nothing mentioned about the quality of the meat most Americans consume. Hominids have been eating meat for a few million years. However humans have been consuming American dietary meat with it's hormone, antibiotic infused and corn fed beef (an unnatural food for cattle and ruminates in general) for only a few generations. Although red meat is a natural human food. Industrial grown and processed beef and meat products are a totally new food outside of historical reference. When it comes to processed meats, the danger to the consumer is focused on the chemicals used in processing such as nitrates. The reported study reveals nothing new or worthwhile.
5
If people knew how farmed animals are treated, they would stop eating meat immediately. Even in the best conditions factory farming is horrible and it's growing as we consume more without conscience.
10
The unsaid elephant in the room is that our diet is not really that important to health, except in the extremes like diabetes or alcohol consumption. Our genetic make-up determines 80% of our life-expectancy and our overall general health once infectious disease is eliminated. This reality is so contrary to the American ideology of self-reliance and "can-do" attitude of controlling our own destiny, that we viscerally react against such health studies as these.
8
the argument for our genes seems valid when pitted against our diet....but the reason why people with similar genes have similar conditions is because FAMILIES EAT THE SAME. our genes are like seeds, you feed them badly, they will turn on and act....hooe this brings perspective
@lola4md Twin studies of those raised in separate families (and who therefore have different diets) suggest a very significant genetic component for chronic diseases. Go to Google Scholar and search for "twin studies diet morbidity mortality". You will find a lot like this: "results from family studies suggest that the maximal heritability of obesity phenotypes ranges from about 30% to 50% and that the major affectors of body fat content, energy intake and energy expenditure are also influenced by genetic factors."
If you think this is surprising, just wait a few years, some investigative reporter for a mainstream publication will figure out that much of the climate change scare only appears reasonable because of the way a few climate scientists have cherry-picked the data re: temperature increase, rising oceans, a melting arctic, etc. and it won’t take that much effort: just start at the same point in time (e.g., 100 or 150 years ago so you have a large enough sample), consider the quality and quantity of the data, consider whether the adjustments made to the data by climate scientists are actually justified, and consider the archives of newspapers around the world for the selected period of time. Just a bit of investigation will make the ‘meat is not that bad for you’ story pale in significance.
4
I can’t tell the gist of this post. Are you a global warming denier? The larger issue is how we can tell what is true. We have to go by consensus of experts. Such a method reveals that red meat is terrible for you and that the planet is warming and we are betraying our children. Of course there are Exxon scientists who deny this and there are cattlemen scientists who deny that. Step back and see the overall.
1
Excellent. So now we have the permission of the experts to press on with the destruction of the Amazon for ranching, increases in methane production from bovine metabolism, the egregious waste of water in factory farming, further worldwide extirpation of native species, and all so we can have our burgers ? With the unbridled population explosion in Africa, this report seems to be laying the foundation for the opening of vast new markets for beef....what an excellent marketing ploy this report is, as well as a clear blueprint for our accelerated demise. Who funded it ?
11
So, are you saying that it is appropriate to manufacture false studies concluding red meat is unhealthy for humans to support your environmental position that cattle agriculture is bad for the environment?
4
Exactly! Follow the money. This study is a fabrication. Setting aside the individual negative impacts on long term health which has years of supporting evidence, the global environmental harm ranchers cause is astonishing. The costs in fresh water consumption alone are astronomical! By 2040 fresh water will be more valuable than oil.
1
From where I'm sitting, we might as well be eating years off of our planet's future: "...oh, but it tastes SO good!"
The headline and text are both incredibly myopic; if we could manage to lift our gaze beyond our plates, we'd notice there's a rapidly-warming globe at the edge of our table, with factory-farms and the ENTIRE cattle and pork industry as a leading cause.
9
This topic is a very complex and nuanced issue. Industrial meat farming is often very harmful for everybody (animals, farmers, consumers, the environment) involved but that doesn’t mean we should villainize red meat so simply. I think there’s also a lot of damage done to the land, farmers, and the people who consume large amounts of GMO grains sprayed with weed herbicides that are used to make highly processed foods of very poor nutritional value. These foods have been linked with metabolic disease that has become so prevalent in this nation. Most of these “foods” don’t contain any meat at all and often times are super palatable which makes their overconsumption very easy. In fact it would be very easy to believe they were designed that way for greater consumption. If you eat less of one type of item you going to eat more of another. Most of these foods can be even classified as a vegetarian or vegan but I have little doubt in my mind that they can contribute to poor health. I think it is best to try to consider sustainability, health, and humane treatment of animals. Unfortunately this means that it is not going to be an easy binary question of whether or not redmeat is “bad” for you.
3
The larger issue is how to deal with giant populations of humans and live in a modern world without destroying the planet. So far we have not figured that out. However, simply turning off the modernity switch won’t work. We can mandate organic-only farming in a top-down political move and try to mitigate the increase in food prices through tax offsets for working people. We can embrace the Green New Deal, which says get rid of carbon producers and also protect the displaced workers affected by this huge change. I’m on board. Let’s do it. Is Texas and Oklahoma with me?
1
Beef. It's what's for dinner!
2
Yay, its ok to eat meat again!! Next week there will be an article saying meat is bad again, but this week I'll have a nice steak.
We know the western diet with lots of red meat leads to high incident of diverticulis.
Oh, yeah and beef contributes a great deal to climate change. There is that.....
Eat less of the stuff, people, the planet will benefit.
2
If you want to save the planet then vote out every Republican in Congress, but don’t ever take my delicious steak away.
Follow the money. Or, more classically, cui bono?
1
I eat such small amounts of meat that the health effects never affected me. What bothers me is killing animals and then using their carcasses for food.
4
Humans are omnivores. This means that we are genetically built and required to eat red meat. No amount of political correctness or politically biased global warming science can change nature.
Regardless the globalists will continue to attempt to control everything about our lives not only our diet (as has just been debunked) but energy (green new deal), healthcare (Obamacare), right to self defense (second amendment infringements) and the list goes on...
3
@Juergen Granatowski
It's flat out false that we're "required" to eat red meat. I don't eat any meat (fowl and fish included), and I'm perfectly healthy. Given how misinformed you are on this point, perhaps you should re-examine some of your other unfounded assumptions as well.
@Juergen Granatowski Your claim that we are required (genetically) to eat meat is technically false. After all, there are billions of vegetarians who live long enough to reproduce. If you can't get a detail like that right, I recommend doing a bit more research before contributing uninformed comments.
2
Buy the fix sized burger at McDonalds with all the stuff on it, add the apple slices, but drink a little thing of milk instead of a coke. Mickey D’s Is stopping the little plastic toy. Not sure what tge replacement will be - maybe a tint sticker. Kids love stickers and so do I.
My 102 year old mother would always say that the key to good health is to eat everything............ but in moderation. My 96 year old father was a carnivore AND cigarette smoker. Go figure!
4
Why publish outlier research about meat eating as if it could be a mainstream reason to ignore climate science and eat meat?
4
I’ve been in academe and there is no way this 3 year, international study was undertaken with no funding.
The numbers of people who consume meat and dairy has dropped considerably in the last 20 years and news articles are replete with reports of meat and dairy industries desperate to ramp up demand for their products. Suing soy milk companies to not use the word ‘milk?’ I suspect this ‘research ‘ is yet another desperate attempt.
My partner is a cardiologist who recommends a whole-foods, plant-based diet to his patients, the majority of whom are able to come off meds and see great improvement in their health from adopting this dietary lifestyle. Anecdotal? Perhaps. But backed by decades of similar results, I’m sticking with a meatless, dairy-less diet - for the health and wellbeing of myself, the planet and the animals.
6
Meat is dead and contains the negative energy of the slaughterhouse. Cooking destroys almost all nutrients. (Freezing isn't much better.)
I am 71 and follow a raw, vegan, organic diet. I walk as fast as I can every morning for an hour, practice yoga every day and meditate three times a day. I take no prescription drugs and have never felt better.
Wake up, people!
6
If God created it, he said you can eat it. Meats, fruits, vegetables, water. Moderation is the key in anything, don't overdue it. God did not create Beer, Cigarettes, Vapes, Drugs (including prescription), etc. I eat healthy and do not imbibe of these things nor of prescription medicine, one of the big killers of people.
I quit taking statins and no more cramps, bloating and all the side effects of them. Read the side effects on prescription drugs, don't take them. Stains did nothing for my Triglycerides over a 15 year period. I started eating healthy lost weight and Bingo. I'm 75 years old, it is never to late to wise up!
Who funded this study? Did I overlook it in the article?
On a personal note, as I have gotten older and struggled with some health issues, I have gravitated to a diet that still allows for meat consumption but in much smaller portions and more infrequently. I have found my digestion, skin, and sleep patterns have all improved. Granted this study has a very small sample size.
"Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group advocating a plant-based diet, on Wednesday filed a petition against the journal with the Federal Trade Commission."
Translation: We disagree with the study, so we're going to report the journal to the government.
It really speaks volumes about the authoritarian mindset of many people in the field of public health.
2
Odd that scientists would not advise eating less meat in light of the impact of animal agriculture on global climate change. See the article, "Value Meal" in the September 30, 2019 issue of the New Yorker for a recent treatment of the problem of methane production by cattle, its contribution to global climate change and the efforts to produce plant-based meat substitutes to limit the deleterious impact of cows on the environment.
At my age, 83, I don't think it matters whether I live much much longer at all. I like meat of all kinds, and occasionally have beef, pork, goat, even horse at times -- and enjoy it all.
But I now eat less and less of any of it - not because of potential health hazards, but because I simply cannot afford it.
Beef, especially, has gotten so high priced, that even if I wanted it, buying it would simply break my budget.
So it is a luxury I only indulge in about once a month.
Chicken, on the other hand, is much more affordable.
3
This article already feels dated. Buried in the final paragraphs is this statement: “Questions of personal health do not even begin to address the environmental degradation caused worldwide by intensive meat production.”
It’s 2019. Putting aside all discussion of how much (if any) meat is optimal for human health, what good is the health of humans if it comes at the cost of mass extinction?
18
Oh boy now we can stop shaming non vegetarians, finally. And maybe we can start educating people about birth control as a way to save the planet.
9
So the study would "harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research." There are legitimate arguments concerning reducing the high use of red meat having to do with climate change and animal welfare, but this argument is bogus on its face. The question, and the only real question here, is whether this study is valid, not whether it might be inconvenient if it is. (No opinion one way or the other on validity of the study. That is above my scientific pay grade.) The quote above amounts to "don't dare try to suggest our past opinions might have been ill founded because it might make us look bad."
3
"Some called for the journal’s editors to delay publication altogether. In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions 'harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.'"
I think it's safe to say that this credibility has been harmed more by generations of bad epidemiological studies, often made with corrupt (e.g. protecting financial interests of manufacturers of certain types of food products) motivations, and which tell us that OMG you're all going to DIE unless you stop eating [fill in the blank] that come up with contradictory results every few years. At some point you just stop paying attention and concentrate on quality, variety, and moderation.
4
My grandmother lived to 103 and her diet was "everything in moderation."
The aggressive and often confusing "research" on various diets has led me to prefer her diet over the years. I long ago stopped knee-jerking to dietary study reports that included the words "might" or "could" or "possibly." Micro-results in such studies are too often reversed six months or six years later.
Researchers go after grants for all kinds of research. It's their livelihood. But the rest of us can be happy with moderation. For many years to come.
7
Is that why some young people in their twenties are now being diagnosed with colon cancer? Could be their diet? Maybe the Meat Association paid for this new research. Same way some drug manufacturers provide money for research on their own drugs without being transparent of their involvement.
9
@Wayne
Inflammation caused by dairy over consumption is a factor, just my guess. Yes the kids these days are taller, but full of allergies!
My son cant handle dairy, bloody streaks in stool when baby. Now gets diarrhea. If he continued like this to his 20s im pretty sure he'd have an ulcer or colon cancer too. Needless to say, he eats mostly plant based food now. Daughter gets nasty eczema flare-ups and nasal & chest congestion when she eats beef or drinks milk.
Doctors keep brushing it off, saying they will outgrow it, prescribing adult strength medication etc.
I just cut back the dairy and beef, voila -symptoms vanish!!
Moderation please! And dont forget, your body gives u signals, be mindful and take note of how u react to certain foods! Don't push your body over the edge because some paper tells you that certain foods dont have a risk. Everyone is different.
1
Given that there are other factors, such as stress, salt, sugar, and genetics, that are difficult to control for, it seems obvious that the effect observed in studies for the consumption of red meat would be small. But if these factors were controlled In studies then it stands to reason that the effect would be much larger.
There’s also supporting evidence such as the fact that if cholesterol is sufficiently low, cardiovascular disease is virtually absent.
Given the practical limitations of research in this area one needs to decide whether to heed the evidence is available or to simply ignore it. We buckle our seatbelts, despite the fact that the chance of being injured or killed in an accident on the way to the supermarket is quite low. Clearly a precautionary approach would be to continue heeding the advice about redmeat. I most certainly will.
6
Food science breeds skeptics of science in general. They really need to stop contradicting themselves. Our climate depends on it.
4
It's well known that cross sectional and observational studies have high risk of bias, confusion factors, and no conclusions can be drawn from it. But evidence against red meat comes from a wide range of research including translational science, in vivo and in vitro findings about molecular pathways, tmao metbolite for instance. So is highly important to be careful with language here. I challenge this researchers instead of draw conclusion from uncertainty to leverage evidence in favour of red meat and expose funding. Just saying.
3
Oh yes, it "undermines" all sorts of things.... One wonders at the funding of the study, especially since if one were a "rancher" (shorthand for the million or so in N. Amer. who would/will benefit if eating habits change again), one would find people who could obscure any direct link.
But there have to be a dozen ways to reconcile the findings. When I saw that 4 or 5 was said to (still) be the average number of red meat meals consumers have, I had to wonder what pct of those were at fast food places. How many - literally - had fries with the burger or whatever? What kind of fat was used in the preparation?
I recognize that the study itself was very ambitious ... and that my "hypothesis" is tougher to test.
And then there's the VERY unscientific remark attributed to a scientist that "more educated people eat less red meat."
Huh? ... All that says is that the people who are most accustomed to reading and making "evidence-based" decisions do what one would expect. OR ... they are/were more likely to think of the other 2-3 downsides - "animal welfare" and environmental impact, principally.
I strongly believe that whether you have high cholesterol and are at risk for hardening of the arteries is more a factor of genetics than anything else. What statistics have not been paying enough attention to is the number attributed to HDL cholesterol or “good “ cholesterol . My personal total numbers add up to about 215 but that includes a very high number of HDL good cholesterol which is 100. The average HDL is somewhere around
60 . So having a very high HDL provides more protection because it literally washes out the bad cholesterol from your arteries. One of my doctors said I could eat as much meat as I wanted because of my extreme high good cholesterol . But it’s my genetics . I haven’t done anything to increase my good cholesterol, I was just born that way . And the opposite is also true , that those with heart disease are also most likely genetically predisposed to that . It seems that experts have ignored the importance of good cholesterol and only talk about bad cholesterol.
Having said that , I’ll be enjoying my grilled skirt steak tonight !
2
I wrote a diet book:
Eat real food.
Eat less.
Exercise more.
The publisher liked it.
He said I just needed to come up with 250 pages of filler.
15
The health of the planet is inversely correlated with the health of individuals. The linger people live, the greater the human population and the greater the stress on earth’s resources and habitats of non-human species. Arguments that advance healthier diets for humans are also healthier for the planet are logically flawed.
If elderly, healthy and thrifty people who generally drive and eat less than their younger counterparts all die off, it will not help the earth. Babies and the elderly have a smaller footprint than us. Why do our generation always insist on this scapegoat?
1
It’s not scapegoating, but mathematical logic, that determines the facts. The longer people live, the more resources people require. This is true even if older people use less resources, per capita, than younger folks.
@Jonathan Oppenheimer
I think that this is a very interesting point.
There is a lot of emphasis now on population control at the outset-contraception and limiting the number of children born. There is not nearly so much discussion about quality of life for the very old and extreme measures taken to prevent death. A bedridden elderly person on a lot of monitors and tube feedings is not using a lot of resources per se. But the huge infrastructure that we have created around this does. And more and more if you ask older people about it they reject this kind of lingering death. I'm sure your remarks and probably mine as well will result in some agitated discussion. And while I do know a few hale and hearty souls in their late 80's and early 90's, I know many more waiting and asking for release. And it is true that most self sufficient, healthy elderly people use fewer resources. They drive and eat less, buy less. But often they vote more and take a great interest in leaving a better world for the upcoming generations. If the conditions get bad enough in my own lifetime I would expect that a lot of us over 70 might volunteer to shuffle off this mortal coil.
1
Red meat, pork etc are nutrient dense foods that are quite healthy and help people with autoimmune diseases and people who are diabetic pre-diabetic or have metabolic syndrome. But they should be consumed as part of a low to no carb diet. The real health issue and the root cause of most of our high cancer rates and heart disease is our addiction to sugar and over consumption of refined carbohydrates.
7
One explanation for the apparent inability of nutritionists to formulate one set of guidelines for an optimal diet for all people is that such a thing may well not exist. Much of emerging medical science focusses on effects of an individual's genome in response to medicine and treatment, and it seem quite likely that similar effects could make the response to consuming various foods such as red meat very different in individuals. Perhaps some people are susceptible to health threats from red meat while others are not or are less so, and similarly for other types of foods. Perhaps nutritionists need to look at individual genetic variations in the way various fats are metabolized.
5
Putting processed and red meat in the same sentence is part of the problem and adds to the confusion and frustration. Bologna and grass-fed steak are miles away from each other in terms of processing, nutrition and environmental impact.
I don't eat processed meat but I eat steak, after YEARS of eating a meatless diet a la "Diet for a New America," which in the 90s I believed to be the holy grail of nutrition tomes. When I had a baby and nursed my son back in 2004 I craved red meat for the first time in my life. A friend helped me assuage my guilt by recommending another book, The Vegetarian Myth.
Factory-farmed meat is bad for the planet, the animals and us in terms of its Omega 3 to 6 ratio. Cows weren't meant to eat grain. They are ruminants. The whole four stomach thing you learned in school? Remember that? It's so they can eat grass. We only have one stomach, by the way. Our digestive systems more closely resemble a carnivore's than a vegetarian mammal. There's some food for vegetarian thought.
Grass-fed meat is far healthier for everyone, except the huge meat corporations and the lobbyists who support them. Unfortunately, it's also super pricey.
PS, The amino acid profile of animal versus plant-derived protein is significant for anyone suffering from mood disorders. The Mood Cure is another good book on the subject.
Do your own research. Advocate for yourself and be your own guinea pig. Life on this planet seems like one huge experiment anymore anyway.
11
@elise
A very interesting, thoughtful and well written comment. Thank you.
Quite apart from the health concerns, whether they are genuine or not, there is the very important question of the impact on the environmental that is caused by cattle farming both for beef and dairy. It is generally accepted that scientific evidence points towards the wisdom of reducing the amount of land given over to beef and dairy farming.
5
Shouldn't the cruelty to factory farmed pigs be a consideration in eliminating pork products from our diets?
15
Six months without red meat brings you low blood counts and a trip to the hematologist. That is what happened to me after a red-meat allergy scare, which I luckily did not have. beware the lone star tick.
2
I have like many other people eaten a whole.food plant based diet for over 5 years and have had no abnormality in my hemoglobin, blood counts at all....in fact my lab work has been phenomenal in so many ways.
sometimes the devil is in the details. heme iron - the iron from animal food and flesh has been associated with high rates of cancer...also remember these things are cumulative and gradual...hope this provides some clarity
Can these guys make up their minds? I mean, seriously...
3
Whoever pays them makes up their minds.
I’ve given up reading these periodic studies. If you live long enough, eventually the research will reverse itself! In my honest opinion there should be more attention paid to the role of genetics and it’s impact on an individual ‘s health.
6
As a physician, I focus on the individual patient’s situation.
If a patient is obese, diabetic and hypertensive, she/he are at high risk for cardiovascular events and stroke.
Doesn’t mean they will have one.
But I would encourage them to lose weight both to make their existing problems easier to treat and to help them feel better.
And also to reduce their risk of cardiovascular events and stroke.
I would recommend low calorie density foods, which would (hopefully) enable weight loss.
That is a reason I would recommend a shift from animal foods to lower calorie density plant foods.
Oh, and for most people, protein requirements can be met without eating animal foods.
7
Watching the sine wave of reports on things like coffee, wine, and red meat has been a hobby for years. I was particularly tickled when I found an article warning us about the overconsumption of kale!
6
i'll take a lamb chop over a hunk of kale any day!
6
Is nutritional advice for sale to the highest bidder?
8
Eat everything. Eat in moderation. Do not listen to any of the studies. Then you can not eat anything.
8
In no way am I encouraging or condoning the meat industry but the reason humans have such large brains is because our ancestors got the extra protein from meat.
6
Excellent point, but why is it that we are only able to use a fraction of our brain power?
4
The Meat Lobby at work...next we'll hear how obesity is healthy as well.
Underlying meat consumption as something we must reduce is the fact of millions of beef cows (ruminants) in feedlots eating tons of corn (ruminants should not eat corn) provided by the hundreds of trucks burning carbon to feed the cows, then given antibiotics to control disease in an overpopulated and unnatural feedlot, spuing methane (10x as dangerous to the climate than carbon), with the Amazon now burning to create more land to grow crops to feed cows and pigs.
Sure, we can all eat meat. A good steak from a beef cow that has been well raised is supposed to be a treat. Where is the discussion about what "moderation" looks like?
15
Vegan for 11 year and every year since my health results have been optimal, even impressing my doctors. Red meat, chicken, pork or fish, they all have cholesterol, an extreme cruelty aspect and devastating environmental harm. Why argue the point unless you are being paid by the beef industry which this irresponsible study was.
10
@Una So glad vegan works for you. I do not thrive on vegan diet. I eat small amounts of beef carefully sourced from humanely raised cattle raised by farmers who use regenerative methods that support the local ecosystem including wildlife and methads that enrich the soils. 🙏🏼
Every cardiologist I know (and there are very many as I spent most of my career working with them) avoids red meats and processed foods of all types. They have seen first hand the results of a high meat low fibre diet - they simply asked their patients about lifestyle. We also have tons of evidence (again, population based so not perfect) of people making lifestyle changes after cardiac events and seeing their bodies and their "numbers" become almost normal again. There is a place for meat in human diets, but not the prominent place it had for decades - the results of which are showing up in hospitals today. Why would we want to reverse that?
8
@E Campbell, I'm excited by the lessening impact on Social Security!
1
This is like reading about the latest fad diet.
Moderation is all one needs to do.
Eating red meat once or twice a week, then fish, then chicken and no meat is perfectly reasonable.
5
The studies that were analyzed in this meta-analysis looked at people who replaced beef, pork, and smoked meats with other meats like chicken and fish. Chicken and fish have cholesterol, saturated fat, and no fiber....just like beef. That is why there was no difference in heart disease. The issue isn't which type of meat is better......the issue is that a plant-based diet with minimal animal meat of ANY kind is the best. As far back as the 1940s and 1950s this was demonstrated in studies like The Seven Countries Study.
11
Vegetarian for more than a year: 20 pounds lost and cholesterol down and a good feeling that I'm doing something about animal care along with my health. Let's not forget about the antibiotics and other additives placed in animal food to encourage growth. The antibiotics may have added to the increase of problems like MRSA infections.
16
The focus should be on LESS not on MEAT.
Whether there is more or less red meat in folks diet is probably not very significant is the diet itself is too rich in calories and of poor quality.
I still remember this recommendation . Forgot who wrote it
" Eat food, Not too much, Mostly plants"
Food meaning what grandma thought of as food. Natural non processed items
Not too much meaning frequency and portion control
Mostly Plants as in omnivore. Steak OK but your veggies as well.
2
The average American eats 4 1/2 servings of read meat a week. I don't eat any red meat. My average is zero. That means someone out there is eating 9 servings of red meat a week for the national average to be 4 1/2. Every day of the week plus twice on weekends. That's a lot of meat.
However, context is important. I had a friend who hunts deer. His family ate venison almost every night during deer season. He would freeze portions for later too. The meat was served with an absolute abundance of fruits and vegetables grown in an enormous family garden. Practically a small farm. These were also canned or jarred for later.
Compare this to an old roommate who ate fast food every single day. Sometimes more than once a day.
They both qualify as heavy red meat eaters. However, one seems decidedly more healthy than the other.
Health isn't why I quit eating red meat though. If avoiding meat is healthy, I consider the benefit an added bonus. I'm not sure why exactly I started quitting. Like nutrition in general, the reasons are broad and varied. I think I mostly just didn't like my father's pork chops. Quitting meat was easier than explaining specific dishes I didn't want to eat.
Nowadays, I avoid most meat out of both preference and principle. I encountered "Fast Food Nation" at an age were many of the lessons stuck. Did you know it requires roughly 2,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef? You can a flush a toilet 550 times for 1 pound of beef. That'll get you thinking.
5
Shocking! Imagine the NYT publishing an article acknowledging that the evidence does not really appear to support the long held "scientific" conclusions. And even more unexpected - that the prescribed responses to them may be (probably are)unnecessary after all. A good article - precise, objective, well reasoned. Refreshing to know - dietary science and policy is not immutable.
1
Once again the meat industry’s mercenary corp of scientists attempt to discredit and obfuscate decades of bonafide research which concluded that eating meat is detrimental to ones health and that a plant-based diet is the way to a healthier life
Want proof? , just go to any hospital anywhere and ask how many of the cancer and heart patients are vegans.
4
Detailed reading of the article indicates that the results were driven by a marketing opinion study (ref 17) "guideline panel's assessment was based on the available evidence regarding values and preferences".
2
Noteworthy is the study found no down side to eliminating or reducing red meat from the diet. Outsize effects on climate, ethics of factory farming for red meat? Reason enough to severely cut back.
4
I’m curious how other, common recommendations stand up to this standard. For imstance, eating a Mediterranean, vegetarian or vegan diet.
2
THEY didn't fund the studies. Meat industry did.
The way industrial farming treats animals is atrocious. That is reason enough to eliminate red meat from our diets.
15
But hadn’t 97% of scientists said eating red meat was harmful? Wasn’t all that work peer-reviewed?
Gosh, if 97% of peer reviewed science could be wrong about this, what else could such credentialing be wrong about?
4
@Vincent Peer review doesn't catch all mistakes. It's mainly there to catch big, obvious mistakes. When working in areas like this where the results are ambiguous and we can't run good studies, many scientists will continuously disagree.
It's very different in high energy physics, biophysics, chemistry, etc. You can almost always construct an experiment which other people can replicate and use to verify or falsify your hypothesis.
all that red meat has a lot of greasy fat. So do fat chickens raised on wire.
2
Does it hurt to eat less red meat?
3
There have been similar sensational stories like this one written saying stuff like “Butter is Back”. Each and every time experts were able to show gross flaws in the study or identify undisclosed conflicts of interest.
6
A great way to transfer our tax money to our researchers, in and out of our universities, is a "grant". Write an application, get some government agency or company to fund a lab and a bunch of researchers.
But they don't give those bucks to repeat what others have "discovered" -- it has to be "proving" somebody else's "discovery" wrong or disputing a long-held belief.
Witness "half our medical knowledge is proven false every decade. But ... we do make (and commercialize) brand new stuff as well!
1
NY Times showed like the worst red meat on the picture: burned (increases cancer risk), sausages (nitrites added, which have been also linked to cancer).
Health officials say humans do need animal protein amino acids though because vegetarian protein often doesn't supply them.
1
Nutrition epidemiology is a challenging field, and without molecular data results that are based on self reported eating habits are not reliable However there are many reasons to limit the amount of red or pork (or farmed salmon) in diets regardless of what epidemiologists say: Respect for animals, reducing global warming, reducing calories in diet are just 3 of them
1
Hardly science - ““So they’re not saying meat is less risky; they’re saying the risk that everyone agrees on is acceptable for individuals.”. They just analyzed other nutritionists data. And yes - the size of the study is important- this group disputes the value of numbers. And vegetarians have lower instances of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.
1
@Barbara, I've known several people who gained a tremendous amount of weight switching to Vegetarian diets. It's all in the cheese-- rightly or wrongly.
1
I have a friend who only has red meat and desserts on her birthday and a few other special holidays throughout the year. It probably equates to one or maybe two serving per month at most. I think that approach is the way to go!
2
I have never subscribed to any dietary guidelines, as they always change like fashion standards. And I never trusted nutrition ‘experts’, as they do not do real science.
The government sponsored food pyramid enforced in schools and the military is the cause of the obesity epidemic in America.
Eat little, don’t smoke, don’t drink alcohol to excess, exercise, sleep plenty, stay healthy.
2
How is this argument different from climate change?
1
It’s going to be pretty hard to develop a placebo steak.
2
amen. had the same thought. observational data is sometimes the best we can get.
That is a picture of grease and fat, not actual red meat. I wouldn't put a fork of that junk in my mouth, but I live on real red meat. I buy an 8-10 pound loin tip roast every month from the cowboy butcher down the road, grass fed, grain finished. Tender, slow cooked roast beef and bright red. 225 degrees for 3 hours, no prep aside from salt and pepper in a big cast iron skillet. That and the vegetables out of my year round garden, and I'm skinny, strong and buff at 69 years old.
2
There are many good reasons to eat less meat, such as animal wellbeing or climate change. But, apparently, a case can’t be made that risk of cancer and heart disease is not one of those reasons.
I’ll still be reducing my meat consumption. Just not with the expectation that doing so will have any significant impact my risk of developing those diseases.
2
Eating body parts from cadavers (euphemistally called meat rather than what they actually are) used to be part of my daily routine. But as an old person, I feel better and am stronger having gone vegetarian years ago and avoid eating those included antibiotics in so many animal parts. Today I find chewing and eating dead body parts repulsive. Each to his own.
11
@There/Theree A juvenile reply with silly stereotype. I don't eat dandelions, kale is one of the healthiest foods as you should have learned in school. I eat to live rather to live to eat as Europeans often say about us Americans. And everything I eat tastes really good, to omnivores as well, when I take it to potluck dinners. Incidentally, you should have read that I said to each his own. I can equally say that millions disagree with you, to no point, except the obvious. As for statements about myself, most of us learn by high school that first person assertions may be true, false, or mistaken, but are incorrigible. Have a nice day.
People in America eat too much of everything (well, maybe not broccoli) and it’s killing them. The production of beef cattle is a significant contributor to climate change. Those are pretty obvious statements of truth, so... as your boy Michael Pollan wrote: eat food, not too much, mostly plants. You AND the planet will benefit. (If only it were that easy.)
3
Use common sense. Eat what you want. Just don't eat too much of anything.
5
Everything in moderation. After the low fat food hype in the 1980s, were everyone lived off of pasta with vegan red sauce, and diabetes still sky rocketed, I don't trust the food information pimps anymore.
Not that I'll be firing up the fried baloney sandwiches any time soon.
1
Please remember : "Meat" is a euphemism. You are eating the sliced up and ground up carcass of a dead, slaughtered animal. And you are trusting (most of the time) a corporation to do this so it's a very brutal, robotic killing process. When it's all packaged nicely and sitting on a store shelf, we see it as just another product. But it's not.
12
@Sage X
Yes, and humans have been consuming the flesh, fat, organs, and blood of other animals (just like many other animals do) for forever.
If you choose to adopt a dogma that tricks you into acting against your own self-interest in order to protect beings from death; then you don't understand life.
2
@MaryTheresa We also used to beat each other over the head with clubs, regularly killing our neighbors but thankfully that is not as widespread. I grew up on a farm. I know what's involved. Many people do not. And yet those same people are horrified at the thought of eating a dog or cat. Consistent? I think not.
1
It is concerning to me that this story is run on world vegetarian day- good luck last generation. The facts about the effects of meat production on the environment are indisputable.
4
Cutting meat and dairy out of your diet is the one thing that everyone can do, starting right now, to help save the planet. The impact is bigger than anything else you might do (Prius, reusable shopping bag, metal straw...)
The article is not saying your health suffers from a lack of red meat, only that it isn’t hurting you. But you live on this planet, right? If you destroy the thing that produces the food, you starve to death. You can argue that red meat doesn’t kill you, just like you can argue guns don’t kill people, (bullets do.)
5
When it comes to eating I believe in moderation in all things, but all of this back and forth never ending yammering that's done by the "experts," with a new dietary opinion based on new data coming out seemingly every other week, I tend to look at it this way. +1.4 Billion Indian's can't necessarily be wrong can they?
Their habits tend less towards the naked carnivore (meats) and more towards the omnivore (vegetables, spices, etc.). I suspect they are on to something....?
John~
American Net'Zen
I'm waiting for anew study that they were wrong all along....Smoking is actually good for you!
2
No, red meat is not the enemy but industrial farming is.
11
“The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and other groups have savaged the findings and the journal that published them.” Since these organizations and groups are only attacking “the findings” and “the journal” but not the underlying methodology that led to the findings, the attacks are agenda-driven instead of scholarly and for this reason alone they should not be trusted.
1
So now the NYTs is saying that animal fat does not coat the inside of people's arteries. I guess the laws of chemical properties are affected by the lobbying largesse from the beef industry... who knew? Not even Hawking or Einstein?
4
People are going to read this and approach based on what they already subscribe. People I know who eat meat do it primarily for the taste, texture and satisfaction over ethical or environmental concerns and this will reinforce that position. People like myself that are plant based will continue to eat based on those cited factors (ethical, environmental, perceived health) as well as in my case lowered cholesterol and general sense of well being having given up all meat which included fish and poultry.
It will be interesting to see how lab grown meat does in the marketplace...
2
I Always enjoy reading comments of people who have so many expert opinions about food production without ever getting their hands dirty producing anything to eat. Everyone seems to know which production method is best without really knowing the details of what goes into a crop. Take organic versus conventional farming for instance. We use animal waste as a primary source of npk for fertilizer in organic crop production. If given the choice, I'll pass on the organic products at the grocery store. They are usually over priced, over mature and of poor quality compared to conventionally grown food products. Also, I've never heard of any E-Coli outbreak in a conventionally fertilized field...
3
@Jeff There are E.Coli outbreaks from conventional fields all the itme. It happens when the cropworkers are infected and touch the produce and it's not properly cleaned. Or if the water source is contaminated. Manure is used to fertizlize conventinally farmed crops.
So basically everything you said is technically wrong except the part where mor epeople should be involved in manual food production.
So red meats are fine - what about the antibiotics that are fed to the cows (and pigs and chickens as well) and end up on our dinner plates and in our bodies, giving the bacteria more opportunity to build up the resistance that is making these antibiotics increasingly useless to us?
6
Recently the #NYT published an article explaining how it was that so many US citizens came to doubt science, why are there so many anti-vaxers, why there are so many who don't understand how climate science works, and so on.
Here we go again. I have no doubt that in the next several years, the flaws of this most recent body of work that counters the previous body of work, will be revealed. The true underwriters will most certainly have something to gain from this.
Admittedly, I haven't changed my dietary habits much either way. Bacon & Eggs only on the weekends. Only the guilt level really varies as I go through the years. Am I contributing to earlier poorer climate? Am I contributing to my earlier departure from this world? Man, it's hard to beat the smell and taste of bacon.
4
Consider the source of the meat and pork. It’s more expensive to buy grass fed small farm products but in moderate amounts of consumption it’s the best way to go. I no longer buy meat and pork from the grocery store. We have a great butcher who sources excellent products for the occasion when we eat meat or pork. It may sound elitist to some but it’s not a regular weekly purchase for us so the cost isn’t much of factor.
2
As hinted at in this article, a big part of the problem with formulating a generational dietary plan that does not end up being reversed, is that the studies are mono-focused. To discover wether red meat is an actual health threat, all of the fact-finding is centered on how much/how often, without including physical activity levels and other dietary factors such as alcohol, sugar, salt consumption. Or personal happiness.
The functional fact is that we know so little about the combined effects of dietary and lifestyle habits and choices.
And the wild cards: genetics, stress levels, personal fullfillment, care of the body.
Perhaps there is no way to study the net effect of one type of food with lasting certainty? All of my relatives ate what they wished, and most of then lived into their mid-nineties. Many of them drank alcohol daily, never deliberately exercised, and smoked until late middle-age. They all loved to laugh.
1
We are obsessed with food . Important to practice “ everything in moderation “ . Variety in our diet and less add exercise and enjoy life . No all in life is food .
2
This "news" is about 20 years old for the people who follow low carb diets and keep up with the research.
If this destroys public confidence in the disinformation spread by the American Heart Association and similar "official" pseudo experts, then that is absolutely a good thing.
They have probably killed more Americans with their bad low-fat, no red-meat advice than smoking.
4
The study doesn't erode public trust, it's experts giving advice that isn't supported by data that erodes trust...certainly mine. And, of course dietary research used for evidence-based advice should meet the same standards of evidence as drug testing; advice is either evidence based or it isn't.
3
@HL Except as the article states it is nearly impossible to design, let alone carry out, such a rigorous study on diet effects over the long term.
1
Red meat? Who cares. The study should of looked at different kinds of pizza. That would of been useful.
4
It would be interesting to know from what source Dr. Johnston's funding comes...
Wow, great decision to put out this pro-meat study (no doubt pushed by the meat industrial complex) when climate change is about to destroy the planet. Who, by now, doesn’t get the connection between eating meat and environmental degradation? It’s just pathetic that so many can’t look past their own dinner plate.
4
@Minkybear Anyone can choose any course of diet action, based on whichever criteria they choose.
The study studied the studies and said that they (the previous studies) don't strongly support the advice given - and all researchers agreed - but that others believed that mitigating the climate damaged and animal welfare, as well as probable health benefits, were worth the changes in diet from red meat.
1
I don’t care what this report says. I have been a vegetarian for more than 25 years and will stay that way. I cannot condone eating meat, pork or poultry when I know how these poor animals are raised. What miserable lives they have.
4
@Debbie Of course. The new study is simply saying that the previous research has weak evidence for the individual health benefits claimed
More red meat consumption means more cows and more methane. That's not healthy for anyone.
4
Just stop eating too much....the science on obesity is much less controversial.....it’s bad for your health and longevity.
Any sixth grader who is interested can do the math on, for example, saturated fat. Semantics around arteries won’t change what people see in their own lives and on the street (and in doctor’s offices and ERs). Whatever.
From the study:
“Omnivores are attached to meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects.”
It seems to me that, if anything, this is evidence that eating red meat weakens the ability to think critically. And that would explain all manner of problems plaguing the United States. 
4
Remember last time the meat industry squelched the findings that eating too much saturated fat, like from red meat, and the nation stopped eating fat, and started consuming snack wells and carbs like they're going out of style, and the nation became obese?
2
Listen to your body and in moderation may be better advice.
1
All these comments about eating grass fed beef. Grass fed beef is expensive and not all of are able to afford it on a regular basis.
As with any news on diet and the benefits or dangers of individual foods, ignore. The list of retracted statements that initially caused waves is endless. Just make sure that you eat varied and in moderation.
1
South Carolina has some of the most unhealthy, most obese people I have ever seen in my travels. They smoke more here, junk food is a staple, and a sedentary life style doesn't help. The whole state could use more education on health and nutrition - and climate change.
2
Nutrition “science” has been fatally flawed for years.
When people are more concerned about credibility of the people working, over scientific discussion, debate and finding less fallible theories, we don’t have science, We have scientism. Something that looks like it but is no different than the hodgepodge of advice that predated science with questionable results.
Any scientist that says don’t publish, don’t debate, when it comes to serious attempts at understanding is no scientist.
There are good scientists trying to come to a better understanding through science working on nutrition. Sadly, these large organizations are seldom among them. Trying to protect what they have told people for years over any advancement in knowledge.
They are as bad as Catholics with Galileo, and are equally trying to push nutrition cults over true nutrition science.
2
Unfotunately, nutritionists have played a big role in the public mistrust of science. Every year I show my students the old food pyramid with all the ‘good’ carbs (pasta, bread) at the base. With that disbanded we now have a round plate with ever shifting ratios of vegetables and meat/fish. You can’t keep publishing X one day then retract it for Y without the inevistable result: a public mistrusful of science, proclamations of ‘fake news’, obesity and Donald Trump as President.
1
i dont need an official study. ive got my own extended family, and so do you. red meat does not equate long life.
1
One by one, the myths perpetuated by scientific groups with hidden agendas are toppling. We are hammered with "Don't eat red meat!" "Salt is bad for you!" "High cholesterol will kill you!" When in fact, the things that actually will kill you before your time are sugar and your genetics. Keeping your weight down and exercising help, but not enough to offset bad genes. Eat a balanced diet, walk every day and don't eat sugar. The rest was decided by your ancestors.
2
I love steak, though I eat vegetarian about 90% of the time.
Throw it on the grill! Medium rare!
Also, I really love sausages.
2
with these "experts" one week red wine is bad for you! the next week it's good for you! this is the same with many things we eat, drink or do. they keep changing our minds. I stopped eating red me for years until a couple of years ago when I was diagnosed with being anemic. though it was primarily due to bleeding in my stomach, I still wasn't getting enough nutritional values to fight it. the doctor literally, as a joke, wrote me a prescription to eat steak 1-2 times per week. things have been fine ever since. just had a CBC last week and my red blood cell count was still in normal range. I told the doc no matter what I eat or what I do I'm going to die eventually. why can't I just enjoy myself - in moderation, of course.
I would have been much healthier without the last 20 years of guidelines where I went from skipping meals to grazing high-carb foods and being always hungry and often fatigued. I’m back to my old ways and feel so much better.
There has been a lot of carelessness on this issue by both the scientific community and the media. We are flooded with studies and recommendations of varying quality and meaning. Then the media, who often seem more verbally than scientifically/mathematically oriented, often go for the attention grabbing headlines as certainties rather than the nuanced read and expression.
Nutrition is a very hard subject to study, many studies being epidemiological rather than direct. These are usually better a giving us ideas on which direction to investigate than actual results. Add to that the seemingly huge number of confounding factors - individual differences in metabolism, exercise level, confounding foods (is it the burger or the fries), etc. - its a mess. I think the best advice is to experiment with different diets on yourself, and see what gives you the most vitality.
1
I never, ever have taken any kind of food advice from any authority. My only rule is no fast food or pre-prepared packaged stuffs. But you do have to have a good sense of food culture that you have been brought up with for that, which I was lucky to have been.
1
Another fine example of statistics not being understood by the masses, abused by the scientists and thus alarming the public. The salient line being: "people who eat a lot of meat are different in many other ways from those who eat little or none." The old adage less is more still holds.
3
I bet this "news" comes directly from the meat industry.
4
I know I'm going pretty far out on the limb, maybe to the point of being somewhat nutty, with the following as I am absolutely no expert. Maybe I'll attract some feedback that I can use.
Humans existed as hunter-gathers for well over 100,000 years of evolution. Humans evolved as omnivores.
A few take aways or rough thumbrules from this:
1) do not eat anything that did not exist in nature 10,000 years ago (EG margarine, trans fats, processed food, ...)
2) anything that was a regular part of their diet (EG red meat) is OK.
Red meat is pretty far down the list of causes for short lifespans.
I know I'm going to get: but they had a much shorter lifespan.
Some of the major contributing factors to a shorter lifespan: lack of food security, disease, lack of sanitation (EG cholera in 19th century London), or anything one could even remotely label healthcare did not exist until the 19th century (George Washington was bled to death with leeches in 1799). These factors still exist to this day in many parts of the world.
Animals are sentient beings. Who are we to kill and eat them? Eat beans, plants and grain. This will make you a healthier person both physically and mentally while doing less harm to both animals and the plant. Please.
5
Stop factory farming and other animal tortures, eat more organic plants, less meat but grass fed when you do, and buy sustainable fish.
3
“Erode public trust”? Is the implication that scientists should avoid doing their work because their results might not support prior views? Isn’t this kind of activity what science is all about?
2
I find this amusing
"
In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.
”
It is harmed.
A task Harvard with Willett themselves have achieved singlehandedly.
1
I know people on the left and right hate science when it does not concur with their bias but sadly we are carnivores and always have been. One can argue that we currently eat excessive amounts of protein but that is true of almost any dietary product. This insane idea that we can somehow live forever just by tweaking a few behaviours and diet is nonsense. We have lived for millions of years on meat and at least a hundred thousand on gluten. Nothing happened in the last 10-20 years that changed that.
1
How come the China Study and work of Esselstyn wasn't part of this meta study? ah right, it would destroy the picture.
3
I think issue here is a poor understanding of science, and how it works, among members of the public.
1
Most people, if they witnessed the slaughter of an animal - let alone had to do it themselves - would be so sickened as to be unable to eat its flesh. As such, it's only through the disconnect that they're able to enjoy eating meat the way they do, and in that respect, they're being dishonest with themselves.
Whether or not it's unhealthy to eat meat is beside the point, since it's possible, in general, to live healthily without it, or at least much less of it than we typically consume. It's a shame that articles like this will mostly serve to give people justification to continue eating meat, and most likely with more abandon, when there are compelling reasons not to beyond the matter of personal health, or personal enjoyment. If the well-being of animals isn't enough, the well-being of the environment should be. Ignoring your heart may only lead to needless suffering, but ignoring the earth and climate science will lead to catastrophe. Every individual sacrifice will add up.
4
Thank you so much. The responses to this article are so disheartening. I don’t understand people.
@Minkybear
Thank you for your affirmation. So many disheartening responses, indeed, and just the instructive evidence needed to give you the understanding you lament not having. Regrettably, far too much of "humanity" operates from a place of blind selfishness, small-mindedness, and/or callousness. The most comfort you can find in the face of this is knowing you're not completely alone.
It's pretty hilarious that anyone would once again fall for something like this. Now, whether eating meat is good for you or not, has been morphed into a 'debate'. Just like whether climate change is real or not, or in decades past, if cigarettes are good for you or not, they all become labeled a 'debate', not a 'fact' anymore.
And the reason for sowing doubts among the public is only to the benefit of BigAg corporations that are desperately trying to save their bottom lines, as more and more people abandon consuming flesh over the environmental degradation caused, the lowered health of meat consumers and the hourly torture and abuse of animals, all to fill already fat bellies.
Instead of being spoon-fed these latest 'findings', investigate where the money supporting these 'studies' came from.
3
well, there is always the environment and the enormous carbon footprint from factory farming to consider. That’s the best reason not to eat meat. I always say, eat someone you know. A local farmer who is your friend, who raises their livestock in a humane and sustainable manner, i.e. a few animals a year....
1
It is best to take every dietary advice with a pinch of salt.
3
Not to exceed 2400mg per day.
2
Although I actually eat a mostly plant based diet having meat only 2 or 3 times a year, I am increasingly convinced that genes and luck play a larger part in our health and longevity than many scientists are inclined to admit. In my mother's family of origin "essential" hypertension was common ('essential' meaning that the docs don't know a cause for it). Her dad died at 41 of a coronary; one brother at 48 of a stroke, her mom at 71 in heart failure. None of them were overweigh; none had diabetes.
Another relative developed cirrhosis of the liver and died in liver failure at 43. Though he drank beer, he was not a really heavy drinker. I have known folks who were falling down drunk on most days, but lived far longer.
Yes, there are things we humans do which can contribute to poor health and, apparently, even death. So, a healthy lifestyle does seem to help (perhaps more with how well we live than when we die). Yet, there seem to be many factors beyond our control affecting the outcome as well.
2
“important trends: a growing awareness of the environmental degradation caused by livestock production,“
Why mention this without going into some detail on it? The writer may prefer to stay on the personal health topic but tropical forest loss, runoff pollution and methane emissions are public health concerns. Public health eventually effects personal health, so why leave it out?
6
The environmental cost is reason enough to not eat red meat or to at least eat less of it.
6
But she didn’t leave it out. She just didn’t cover it in the detail you wanted. It certainly is important but the focus is on this recent report. She’s not writing a book here.
2
In a pluralistic society it’s taboo to suggest that all people are not equal BUT, it’s time to examine impacts on diet and drugs biochemically, according to phenotype. That’s a lot more work but it’s now necessary. Women and men can respond differently to drugs and diet for instance and people whose ancestors ate a great deal of meat or fish or plants for example, might have adaptations that make them more or less well disposed to continuing such diets. The continual advancement of one set of data only to have it withdrawn points to a greater influence on diet that has not been adequately accounted for.
2
The health consequences of eating a lot of beef are now unimportant compared to the environmental impact of raising it. We still need to stop.
13
Each one of us needs to be more aware of the impact of our choices on ourselves and the greater whole which does include eating less meat and more plant-based foods, less sugar which also means less carbs that become sugar etc We can really make a difference when we reduce food waste; smaller portions, eat leftovers and compost!
2
The only thing that would shake my confidence in the scientific community would be if they started burying new data because they find the results inconvenient.
1
The authors' logic is extremely poor here.
Essentially, the article says, "meat is only somewhat bad for you (only 1 to 18ish people in 1,000, depending on the disease, might get sick or die who wouldn't have if they had eaten 3 fewer servings of meat per week -- and that's hardly anyone.) And people really, really don't want to quit eating it. So, let's just recommend they keep eating exactly the same amount."
Um, what?
Recommendations should be the ideal diet. Not the "practical, what everyone is going to actually eat anyway diet."
Honestly, it seems like the committee wanted to draw the conclusion they came to, either for personal reasons (they all admit they eat red meat regularly) or to make media headlines (because, boy, do Americans like being told they don't need to change their eating habits). Looks like at least one of these two motivations just may have paid off.
2
If you have "a growing awareness of the environmental degradation caused by livestock production", but you remain blissfully unconcerned about the environmental degradation caused by exponential human population growth, than you are missing the problem entirely.
2
This is the problem with many previous studies of diet--they are observational and not experimental. Correlation does not prove causation.
Another problem is that with large enough numbers there is almost guaranteed to be "statistical significance" when statistical tests are run. Then the results are reported, especially to the public, as being a "significant" relationship between food and a particular health measure.
Instead of tests of statistical significance, what is needed is reporting of proportions. We need to know the proportion of people who eat red meat who get, say, cancer, and the proportion of people who don't who get cancer.
A study can achieve statistical significance, but when you look at the proportions you can see that the difference between red meat eaters and non-red meat eaters is meaningless.
This is what it sounds like the study reported here did.
We're having pork chops tonight. Yum!
1
I find it more than odd that the study combined red meat with processed meat
Are they suggesting a diet of hotdogs laden with nitrites is healtly
I find that more than hard to believe
6
There is no evidence that populations that are strictly vegetarian have no health problems. You can consume high sugar and high fat diet even if you are vegetarian. Fried foods and sweets have been shown to be just as bad as red meat. Moderation in everything ( including alcohol) and active life style is best combination.
7
It's interesting that scientists, looking at the same data, can't agree. It's also amusing that strongly held views, when questioned, lead to outrage. Scientists are supposed to be objective but, like politicians, emotion rules.
11
Its not the meat hutvthe sugar in our diets that is killing us. Dr. Lustig correlates the introduction of high fructose to the american diet as a hockey stick increase in obesity and heart disease. I have given up red meat and only eat fish and chicken. If I want meat I get a beyond meat or impossible burger which both taste great. CO2 emissions from cattle are alarmingly high as is the deforestation to plant soy and other grains to feed them. That should be enough of a reason to stop consuming large grazing animals.
5
The way in which the animal was raised is also critical. With Cattle, grass finished beef is more akin to Salmon with loads Omega 3 and other healthful oils. Corn finished cattle, more Omega 6, not good at all.
3
My daughter is a near vegan but will eat fish and eggs now and then. I eat everything, but as for meat and fish- it has to be farmed sustainably ( no bleached chicken or antibiotics laden beef for me). I love red blended wine, dark chelate, and vanilla ice cream, am a healthy specimen ( no prescription drugs, and am close to 80.
What should I possibly do differently?
p.s. I love salted peanuts and even potato chips now and then, curry, Chinese food. But no raw fish- ugh.
3
Translated: Fish has extra protein inside. Those tiny strings you see it fish meat are probably parasite worms Raw fish is no good. The parasite is live. And some can go to 130 cm in your intestines.
My observation as a medical doctor, immunologist, clinical researcher, is to avoid to eat chemicals with the food. I give the advice to my patients to eat red meat when they are in a special event, if the red meat is from grass fed animals. Once a month is enough to provide the natural nutrients we need. Almost all the serious studies, published in peers reviewed articles, showed that eating red meat increases the risk to develop heart diseases and cancers if the animals have chemical residues from their treatments. To decrease the global warming, it is good to change the lifestyle and the consumption of energy.
4
As someone who has a steak or hamburger maybe once a month, and chicken a couple of times a week, I’m not one to lecture anyone on what they should or shouldn’t eat.
But there is a human toll that stems from working conditions in meat and poultry processing plants, and hazards to communities in the form of runoff into local rivers, lakes, and streams.
Additionally, the cortisol levels in the animals rise as they approach mechanized slaughter, and, strange as it sounds, I feel uncomfortable ingesting their fear. I admire the work of Temple Grandin, who, working within the industry, understood the need to ameliorate the fear and terror the animals experience en route to slaughter.
If you can afford to do so, try shopping for locally raised meats and buy eggs from local farms. At least you know where your food came from.
3
I worry that these findings are going to be used the wrong way, especially with irresponsible headlines and subheadlines like the one on this article. They are going to be promoted by industries that sell beef and pork to sell more beef and pork. They are going to be embraced by people who just want to keep eating the way they always have. While I'm glad that we've more closely examined the physiological effects of these foods, the more important issue is the ecological effect of consuming so much of them. I don't meet a lot of vegetarians and vegans these days telling me that meat is unhealthy, and even fewer telling me about animal cruelty, but I sure do meet a lot who are worried about climate change and the practices of the meat industry.
4
I switched from a normal American diet that was on the healthier side of average to a vegan diet for about 3 months and my cholesterol dropped 35 points to 151. My weight also dropped and my other bloodwork improved across the board. Any time I want to lose weight I switch to a vegan diet. and my normal one is quite healthy itself. Over time I’ve noticed how big an impact meat consumption has on my body and how much more difficult it is for me to stay fit even if the only animal product I have is eggs.
10
For about half a million year our ancestors ate whatever they could catch, dig and find: rats, roots, vegetables and fruits. Let us do the same. This is how our body shaped at present time. Cavemen diet is the best for us.
4
Every day we must eat, and those of us who want to eat intelligently listen to what science says. But science is contradictory on this, and every minor experimental result is used as justification by ideologues and those with vested interests. Don’t despair: look carefully at the overall balance of evidence, and examine for consistency the explanations behind the various theories. The blindingly obvious result is that biologically raised meat is necessary for good health, and is a boon for the environment.
3
@Ian Green
Exactly. Well said. My 20-year career in the Yoga industry has led me to experiment from raw food vegan to every-kind-of-vegetarian, and even entertained the notion of breatharianism (not really). None of these diets were sustainable in the long-run, and I have observed close-up, perhaps thousands of people who have eliminated animal products from their lives to varying degrees. They generally look weak, and have various physical issues from skin/hair/nail disorders (lack of EFAs), pale skin (anemia), and a lethargy.
The, as you say, bindingly obvious result, has led to a diet of pastured beef, lamb, for, and chicken, raw pastured dairy, eggs, and the occasional facto-fermented vegetable.
I have known countless people who look to Yoga Philosophy to justify Vegetarianism & Veganism.
The actual fact is, in the ancient Ayurvedic texts such as the Charaka Samhita, all types of meat from A-Z are discussed in terms of the healthful benefits of each.
Historically, generally, experiments in vegetarianism were about stifling the sex hormones. Why?
Cuz it works.
1
Eliminating beef from ones diet most certainly will not make one healthier....the point was that it could or it would prevent heart disease. In today's climate changing world, the desire for red meat is a double edged sword. Animals raised for the food industry produce a concentrated higher amount of carbon than the same number of animals who are free on large tracts of land. A diet of less red meat is a win-win for man and the environment; both of which Mr. Trump chooses to ignore. His Administration is about fattening the coffers of the meat producing industry.
8
I come to this late and as a consequence it will be read by few. However I do have a number of issues, the article and comments typically confabulate 3 separate issues:
* dietary recommendations for red meat (and associated beneficial and detrimental consequences.
* the global impact of livestock farming including its impact on global warming
* the ethical and religious views about eating animals and their animal husbandry
The first is the global impact of livestock farming is often overstated and it is unfortunately again here in this article. The second is ethical and religious views often use the other two issues more as weapons to advance their point of view than to provide clarity. However the main purpose of this article was about health benefits and detrimental consequences. The following recent review https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1657063 comes to similar conclusions but has the benefit of taking a more critical look at population study methodologies and results and also reviews biological evidence of how humans have genetically adapted to a meat eating diet.
4
From my brief reading of the conclusions, it seems this study was trying to find clear biochemical evidence that red meat and processed meat actually affected the human organism in a way that would lead to an increased risk of cancer. They found only very weak evidence. This is a slap in the face for all those epidemiological studies that purport to study large populations and what they eat (very difficult), and then conclude that 'eating A causes B' - when there is no direct evidence at all, only that 'in a population of x (100s or 1000s), who tend to eat more of A, then there is a very slightly increased incidence of B. Extrapolation taken to the n'th degree and a fuzzy application of probability algorithms is just not good science.
6
On the subject of read meat consumption I think we are well past the point of discussion about its health risks. It is now well established that meat consumption is one of the main drivers of CO2 emissions and deforestation, and we know that it is not sustainable in the long term. Even though I am not a vegetarian I have voluntarily reduced my red meat consumption not out of health concerns, but out of environmental concerns.
If we all cut down our red meat intake by 80%, we could still enjoy the occasional grass-fed steak but we would reduce CO2 emissions far more than any campaign against air travel or against cars could ever achieve.
12
1) I would like to see comparative studies of organic beef consumption vs cattle treated with hormones and antibiotics, as I believe there are health implications to the latter.
2) red meat is more satiating than carbs, so eating less quantity can be satisfying. Low-carb diets are effective for weight loss. Carbs, particularly grains, are addictive and contribute to obesity.
3) Agriculture may not have the climate changing impacts of beef, however there are other environmental problems associated with modern farming: vast monocultural landscapes, GMO's, pesticide use, etc. Agriculture has been implicated in extreme declines in bird populations. Worst hit: grassland birds. (Which is worse for birds: agriculture or cattle ranching?)
4) which is worse, loss of bird-wildlife habitat to agriculture and cattle ranching locally? Or somewhere else? Our forests may not be as ecologically diverse as the Amazon, but North American birds are in crisis as more habitat is lost to food production.
It seems there can be no environmentally perfect diet when the underlying problem is simply too many people. And obesity statistics indicate too many people eating too much in general.
4
People keep turning to nutritionists and scientists to determine what to put in their bodies. Why don’t we pay more attention to what our bodies are telling us when we eat certain things, and let that be our guide? When I engage in intense physical activity, my body craves meat; when my partner engages in intense physical activity he craves vegetables. Isn’t that a sign that bodies are different and we should listen to what they say? In today’s rushed and frenzied modern world, that’s a tall order.
7
I occasionally crave milk and tuna fish...you are right, listen to your body!
A well-marbled porterhouse, consumed once a week, with several glasses of a complex, chatty red wine is the secret to a long and happy life!
6
A lot of people seem to find this research very threatening to their worldview. One thing we definitely know is that a modern western style diet, heavy in carbs and sugar is directly tied to diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer and any number of other maladies. The evidence linking these maladies to red meat and natural fats is weak to nil and is being exposed as such. I'm not knocking vegetarians and vegans. I respect their choice and the ones who do it right are benefitting from avoiding many of the perils of the modern diet. But I could do without the smug attitude by people who insist that they know what's best for the planet and for our bodies. The scientific consensus is shifting and it doesn't support a self-righteous anti-meat crusade anymore.
11
Again, no attempt is made to define the term "red meat". Is it the meat of mammals, regardless of color? Or is it all, and only, meat which is red, ie not including certain cuts of pork and veal, but including certain types of poultry and fish?
3
It's frustrating that this article mentioned the climate change aspect of red meat. Obviously it's important to talk about generally, but linking it to a discussion of the nutrition runs the risk of the "Horn effect". There are enough problems trying to navigate the complex and obscure world of nutrition already!
5
The US spends nearly $ 4 Trillion dollars each year on health care.
Nearly 2/3 of that expense is either directly or indirectly related to treating obesity or obesity related illness or syndromes. Such as:
Adult Onset diabetes and the wide spectrum of illness such as cardiovascular disease, renal disease, retinal disease etc that flow from diabetes.
Weight related major joint replacement.
Certain categories of cancer.
Roughly 2/3 of the US population is overweight and nearly half would meet the criteria of morbidly obese.
For nearly half of American families the cost of health insurance premiums accounts for nearly a 1/5 of gross income either directly or indirectly as a result of premium subsidies.
Worth some reflection
3
I always think that it's best to use evolution as a guide when it comes to diet. Did we evolve eating red meat? Absolutely. During winter months it might have been the only food available. But I suspect there is a big difference between eating a wild deer or antelope that feeds on grass and shrubs, and eating a steer raised on genetically modified corn and soy, antibiotics and growth hormone. This controversy reminds me of the one over eggs. Some say eggs are OK, other think they are nearly lethal. Well, did we evolve eating eggs? Yes. Did we evolve eating eggs all year round? No! Nowhere do birds lay eggs all year round. We've managed to trick chickens into laying all year round by artificially altering the photoperiod they experience, so they think it's always laying season. It seems whenever we try to outsmart nature we run into problems. Hydroponic lettuce? I don't think so.
2
There is a way to have one's meat and eat it too--i.e., reduce the environmental impact of raising livestock and avoid animal cruelty: eat only meat from 100% pasture-raised (grass-fed) animals, kept and slaughtered in accordance with humane and ethical animal wellfare-certification standards. (I know that vegans will protest that eating any animal is cruel, but some religions believe that plants also feel pain when reaped or pulled from the earth). Meanwhile, this omni-carnivore cannot achieve & maintain a healthy weight on a wholly plant-based diet, unless it consists solely of green leafy vegetables and extreme portion control of low-sugar fruits and legumes. Not all of us are built to be vegans.
4
@Sandy
Vegans ignore the real science that has proven plants feel pain when things are picked off from the main plant. They ignore the fact that plants have a communal communication network that warns of potential harm and that these plants change their chemistry in self defense.
And you pretty much nailed it, most humans are not able to tolerate a plant based diet. This shift to more vegetables and fruit has caused the explosion of diabetes. Fruits are nothing but sugar and they need to be eaten with the same frequency as a candy bar or cake.
4
My strategy is to eat whatever I want, as long as my caloric intake is proper, which regrettably at my age turns out to be about only 1,600 calories per day.
If my recollection is right, it was Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, who lost 27 pounds in 10 weeks subsisting almost exclusively on Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos and other treats by ensuring that he consumed fewer calories than he burned. His health profile across a multitude of dimensions improved dramatically.
In my almost 7 decades I have seen nutrition guidelines change over and over again. I think there is something to be said for simply managing your calories and your weight, and not worrying about the rest.
11
This is sensible advice; notice the furor (panic) of the people involved in giving the contradictory advice about not eating meat - their business model shred and livelihood under threat. All these extreme positions - no matter if for or against red meat if for or against the environment, etc - it always comes down to one group or another protecting their turf and ultimately their livelihood - and that is why such groups go to extremes like suing the publications that present an opposing view.....
Well, the bulk of a huge amount of evidence is that red meat is less healthy than poultry and fish, despite that it is not possible to test meaningfully long withdrawal diets. But the greenhouse gasses and burning rainforests matter too. And there are nasty antibiotic resistant bugs because of the cradle to grave antibiotics used in raising animals, which is biologically much more relevant than occasional brief courses of antibiotics in humans. So overall, the meat is not really good for us and our habitat in at least 3 important ways. I would say that this is pretty clear, Bradley Johnson. It might not have been your point, but it should have been.
3
But grazing animals, when grass fed, help preserve open land and don’t need constant antibiotics. I stopped being a vegetarian to support open lands because overbuilding if housescand suburban development is worse than false health warnings and environmental warnings that could never counteract commercial shipping. Remember when eggs were bad for us?
7
Grasslands raised and properly managed livestock sequester carbon in the soil, avoid the impacts of feedlots, and convert non-food (grass) to food (meat) in a healthy way. All humans should have economic access to reasonable amounts of sustainable animal protein and all animals should be respected and well treated.
4
I liked the claim that this clear-headed assessment of the evidence would “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”
Does “nutrition science” still have credibility in anyone’s mind? Especially when the application of genuine scientific method consistently debunks its claims.
8
This is flat out laughable. It shows that scientists are walking like zombies through life, unaware of what's going on outside of their little bubble.
The main problem they have is that they look for an absolute truth. If only they could adopt the perspective that there are different body types. Ayurveda recognized this thousands of years ago. Some modern diets take into account body/blood types too. Given there are different body types, it's obvious we cannot have a general rule for everybody that says a certain food type is good or bad. "Some apples are good for some people" is a way better rule than "Apples are good."
If more scientists did some exercise they could speed up their search for relevant advice. If a system is put under stress its weaknesses become more apparent, right? So if we exhaust ourselves on the treadmill we find out quicker what foods are detrimental for us (meaning "the individual on the treadmill"). So there is no need to ask people to stick to a diet. It's sufficient to simply become aware of our performance as a function of what we eat. If we eat something new and we have a hard time keeping our regular pace on the treadmill we can conclude it was not good for us, and we better stay away from this new thing.
This, and avoiding anything that gives us a rash, makes us sluggish, or makes us yearn for more, is all we need to find our optimal diet.
No doctor required. And don't wait for scientists! We are all dead and buried before they catch up.
The timing of this study seems rather suspect since the plant-based Impossible Burger is now available in a store near you.
4
My dad is almost 101 years old and is still eating cheesecake for breakfast. He has been eating processed food and all kinds of meat all his life. My vegetarian mother died at age 69.
7
I only have to look at my grandparents who ate red meat and lived to around 90. That’s good enough in my book.
4
I took care of my mother her last three years on this planet. When she first moved in with me, every day: 5 insulin injections plus a pill for diabetes. I nearly eliminated pork, red meat and heavily processed foods from her diet, playing with different combinations for several months. With that and 40 minutes of yoga/day, within a year, her blood sugar never again exceeded 150 (in senior care with insulin & 'diabetic diet' she was frequently over 300, sometimes over 500) and she never again had an insulin injection. It's just anecdotal. The processed foods and exercise probably made the greatest impact. But I believe that reducing pork and beef was also helpful.
1
The body is quintessentially a machine. All mechanical (moving) parts of any machine will eventually wear down. If you eat food that provides the best benefits and least wear and tear, the machine will love you for it and grant you more mileage.
2
One great reason to eat less red meat:
It's expensive and I can't afford it.
Whether it's good for you or bad, red meat is tasty, but I cannot afford it more than once a month or so.
That's just reality.
5
So again we're left hanging out there without dietary advice we can count on. So it goes. I'll continue to eat what I choose. I'll avoid eating huge amounts of meat. Two of my favorite meals are: a three-bean salad (actually four bean salad as I lose count easily): and a large garden salad (no cheese or meat). Both with lots of garbanzos. And then there is lots pf chocolate... You all can eat what you want.
2
I have read meta-analyses in the past that indicate that high red meat intake is associated with about a one per cent increase in lifetime absolute risk of colorectal cancer. I love meat, so I have decided that this risk is not enough to dissuade me from eating it. I eat meat, get the recommended colorectal cancer screening, and take statins to keep my lipid profile in an acceptable range. I am enjoying meat and attempting to mitigate the health risks of doing so. The scientific article that I think that the author of this NYT times article is referencing does not dispute previous data, but simply states that "The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty." I don't read this as an "all clear." If you eat red meat, you should realize that there may be health risks to doing so and that you are accepting those risks because you want to continue enjoying the red meat in your diet.
9
There are two sides to this coin: on one hand, nutrition science results were probably not the best quality over the years, and the conclusions were exagerated when communicatied to the public. Happens all the time with mediaal research as wel.
On the other hand, expecting medical grade evidence may be too much: you simply cannot run large trials for decades. The way the authors look at the evidence is a bit komt fashioned. It seems that the authors of this study did not have access to the individual data, which in the age of data science may be the only way to generatie meaningful conclusions.
Just do what I do: live in Italy where the food (all of it) is great and where the healthiest people in the world live. They eat everything from snails to wild greens. And they don't worry about "diets."
17
When citing the FAO report on the climate impacts of livestock please consider that in the report there are mitigation potential for reductions of 40% of the CO2 eq per year given on the same page as the impacts. These are available technologies and practices. Furthermore, the FAO report cited states that "Grassland carbon sequestration could further contribute to the mitigation effort by, with global estimates of about 0.6 GT CO2-eq per year". These grassland sinks could still be used for grazing livestock!
2
Whenever I see a bunch of conflicting studies, I come to the conclusion that the topic doesn’t have much effect one way or another. Health differences between meat eaters and vegans are small if any. And each diet presents different sets of challenges. There are many more important factors such as genetics and substance abuse. People have strong opinions but the science is not conclusive one way or another.
8
@Kim -- Please be informed about industry's role in generating the appearance of scientific conflict where there is consensus among the relevant experts. See Merchants of Doubt (book, documentary film) and Doubt is Their Product.
2
that is far from a logical thing to conclude from that premise.
Two things: A lot of what we consider obvious truths fall apart when the proper studies are done. And doctors, BTW, fall prey to the same common knowledge mistakes we all make.
The other is that nutritional science is almost an oxymoron. Are eggs good for you or bad for you? I can pretty much guarantee what is considered good nutritional advice now will completely change within 10 years.
7
Who sponsored the research? Seriously, decades of research linking red meat to cancer and general ill health are negated by a single study?
The health of all members of my family has improved dramatically since we started reducing red meat to a minimum and 'going organic'. I dismiss the new findings without reservation.
Reducing meat consumption in general also reduces global warming, another reason to avoid turning one's stomach into a graveyard for animals.
15
@Hamid Varzi
The findings aren't new, you've simply misunderstood them in the past as now, and overreacted to exaggerated interpretations. Which is the well explained phenomenon described in the article.
And it is perfectly fine for you to have your own opinion and act on it. But even the environmental impacts of meat consumption can be mitigated to a large extent. The moral choice of eating animal products belongs to you alone. What isn't fine is taking your opinion for fact and using that wilful ignorance of health outcomes to impose your choices on anyone else.
Regards.
2
I wonder why moderation can’t also be applied to the agriculture industry? It seems where the environment is concerned, eating meat is a black and white issue: the two options we’re presented with are supporting industrialized mega-farms and thus killing the environment; or giving up meat altogether, thus saving it. Just as the healthiest option for our own bodies seems to fall somewhere in the middle, I wonder if the same is true for the way we grow and raise our food.
3
Dr. Hu, of Harvard,said: "Studies of red meat as a health hazard may have been problematic, he said, but the consistency of the conclusions over years gives them credibility. " - What?? A large number of "problematic" (hence, flawed or not credible) studies are all of a sudden made credible by their numbers? This types of flawed thinking led to the 2008 financial melt-down, due to the similarly flawed assumption that a large number of shaky subprime mortgages bundled together are all of a sudden became AAA rated securities because of the large numbers. The bottom line is that there is ZERO evidence that eating reasonable amounts of organic grass-fed red meat is harmful to one's health in any way. If Dr Hu disagrees he should point to some credible independent studies.
7
I don't believe you limit meat for personal health...it is for the planets health.
9
Still bad for the planet in countless ways.
11
I’d like to hear what Gwyneth Paltrow thinks.
4
This is not good for science!!!
@Elhadji Amadou Johnson -- But it is science. It is not good for the public's perception of science as a static, final arbiter of how we should live our lives. Scientific discovery is always changing, revising. The public (and physicians and policymakers) need only to realize that nutritional advice is never absolute, never the last word, that it needs to be taken with a grain of, uh, salt. And probably that there is only so much you can control of your own health with food.
1
@Elhadji Amadou Johnson -- nor for science journalism, when such sensationalistic headlines eclipse a more measured analysis.
Give me bacon, or give me death.
Otherwise, why bother?
4
Think about how much valuable Wool you could get if you allowed the baby sheep known as Lambs to enjoy a long natural life. Wool is very warm as opposed to cotton or synthetics and keeps you warm, even when wet.
1
I love cows.
Especially, on my plate.
But, I plan to stop eating them.
When I die.
10
At this point there are so many reasons not to eat meat, particularly beef, that this is a moot point.
6
Surprised this got past the censors, but better late than never. The unholy alliance of religious fundamentalists and corporations in the latter 19th century (7th day adventists and grain producers) resulted in the moral and later pseudoscientific crusades against meat and animal fats and the promotion of high carbohydrate/sugar diets that have killed millions. Tobacco bought out processed foods industries in the 80s and has gone on to make hyperpalatable addictive processed foods that are sold to unsuspecting consumers on a spectrum from "health foods" to "at least it's not bacon" foods. These entrenched industrial interests and their paid lackeys and ideologists in academic "food science" institutions have fought a losing battle against real food science. You can hear their panic in their cries about this latest well done study. Finally, the last rebranding effort by the 7th day adventists and vegans is to push the unscientific myths about climate change and animal agriculture. Look up Alan Savory, multipaddock regenerative grazing, and Professor Frank Mitloehner (https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/climate-change-and-the-agriculture-sector) for a good critique of this belief.
4
@Uyd -- And what persuades you that this new study is good science, rather than an expression of industrial interests? What kind of nutrition study takes into account the personal tastes of consumers? "I like meat, THEREFORE it is good to eat"? ("I don' t like green leafy vegetables, THEREFORE they are not healthy for me?")
We don't eat meat or fish, period in our household. Why? Lots of reasons.
1. Meat is full of antibiotics and causes all sorts of health problems from heart disease to clogged arteries. I also don't believe in taking the life of other life forms because it is murder.
From Mountain Journal:
Susan Marsh asks: why is it that if a wolf preys upon a native wild ungulate, or even a domestic calf or sheep, it is called a cold-blooded killer, yet when a human hunter shoots an elk it is considered a "harvest" or when thousands of beef cows are sent to slaughterhouses little thought is given, in language, to the truth that those animals are involuntarily giving up their lives to feed humans?
https://mountainjournal.org/humans-misuse-words-to-justify-their-abuse-of-nature
2. Cattle is fed the stuff on the bottom of chicken coops.
https://www.poultryworld.net/UK/Articles/2018/1/Chicken-litter-as-animal-feed-becoming-trade-issue-235059E/
3. Fish: Salmon in Puget Sound were tested and all the fish that went thru the effluent of waste water were found to be loaded with drugs and metabolites.Fish is not fit to eat.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/puget-sound-salmon-do-drugs-which-may-hurt-their-survival/
2
Plants too ‘are another life form’......
1
The article sought comment from somebody not connected in any way with the study but funded by the meat industry and included it in a way which has misled people into wrongly believing the study itself was funded by the meat industry. Sad.
5
How much is the meat industry paying them? Enjoy Smoking!
C’mon, Ms. Kolata - I like your work. But the point is not solely about nutritional value - it’s the footprint, the environmental (or altruistic) impact, of eating meat. There are huge water and grain, distribution, and pollution costs of meat production. Nary a mention.
8
@Jet City 63
They were cited, and more than is needed to debunk fake nutritional advice. Environmental impacts can be mitigated as well but your dogmatic attitude is exactly the problem behind such static advice.
1
Cows contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. avoid their meat. good for the planet.
3
Called it. I don’t trust any food “science” at this point. Instead, I trust my gut. And my energy levels, quality of sleep, skin, and mood. Can we just stop with all of the food fads and pseudoscience and just eat reasonable portions of delicious food? Plz and thx
7
Eating meat is still bad for the animals..and the environment. There is always that.
4
I am vegan not because of my health. I am vegan because I am opposed to animal suffering. I do not want to contribute to factory farms.
4
Are the scientists in any way affiliated with Trump administration? Is this like the epa attacking California for its poor air quality and homeless pollution? I’m turning into a (Trump) science denier.
1
It is possible that what is bad for your health is simply, persistantly eating too many calories vs what you burn as is common in modern societies.
It is also possible that it is meat AND potatoes (that is animal fats together with high amounts of glucose in the blood and a rapid rise in insulin) that causes ill effects.
2
Am I the only one that lived in an old style farm until I was 18? It happened in the region of Galicia, Spain, in the 1950's. It was self sustainable farming consisting of agriculture and raising cows , pigs and hens. Corn, grass, vegies, and animals formed a self sustainable cycle. The problem is taht we were poor, the people did not enjoy it and emigrated to the cities and Hispanic America.In the USA farmers amigrated to the cities to work in industry. I would suggest that motivated people , college educated should move the the rural areas and practice ecological agriculture. Then have an informed opinion. By the way I eat a balanced diet. Hispanic Americans prepare food in a variety of ways, like delicious carne guisada, roce and bewans, chicken, etc, and do not eat many hamburgers and steaks.
3
This new pro-meat declaration is absolutely irresponsible on so many levels! Animal agriculture is destroying our planet! The World Health Organization concluded processed meat is a carcinogen! The Amazon is on fire because cattle ranchers want more land to graze cattle. The overwhelming amount of soy produced is fed to farm animals, creating artificial food scarcity! Animals eat so much more than they produce as meat or dairy! The overwhelming amount of antibiotics get fed to farm animals because they're kept in such horrible conditions they'd die otherwise! Wake up world. Don't allow a flawed conclusion, reached by biased meat eaters, to take center stage!
3
@Jane Velez-Mitchell -- publishing the (inconvenient) truth is irresponsible? The study was about the nutritional health effects of eating red meat, not the broader environmental impacts. Knowledge should go wherever the science leads, not be squelched because it doesnt fit a particular agenda. (And how do you know that the study's authors were meat eaters?)
“Studies of red meat as a health hazard may have been problematic, he said, but the consistency of the conclusions over years gives them credibility.... Nutrition studies, he added, should not be held to the same rigid standards as studies of experimental drugs.”
There’s an awful lot to unpack there.
The studies are poorly designed and/or executed, but because we have so many poorly designed and/or executed studies that come to the same conclusions, we need to believe them. Why is that? Biased, poorly designed and/or executed studies prove literally nothing. If decades of studies by nutrition “experts” commence with foregone conclusions the weight of those conclusions are still worthless.
Nutrition studies shouldn’t be held to the standards of drug studies? My whole life I have been told that I am what I eat. That my health is dependent on good nutrition. That if I don’t eat right, I will get sick and need drugs that have been studied, to Hugh standards.
I’m sorry, but these two statements do more to undermine the field of nutrition studies than anything else in this report. Disgusting.
3
A cow drinks 25 gallons of water per day
A pig eats 5 pounds of feed per day
Wildlife is vanishing due to deforestation
Precious wetlands ecosystems are destroyed to plant crops to feed cattle
The rainforest of this Planet is been burned to plant palm-oil tree and soybean
3
It takes a gallon of water to grow one almond.
Wow is this a skewdly-reported article! It cites one study without actually saying who did the study or why the study is citation-worthy, highlighting what this one study says; then as you read the lower-down part of the inverted-pyramid format, you find out that actually there are plenty of problems and caveats with this study. Why highlight it then? Why not give context first and then the conclusions - is it just so much more click-baity as written? But how in the world is that ethical??
In particular the assertion that "studies that observe groups of people are a weak form of evidence" - what? Later in the article it is explained that this is how nutrition studies work - the only way, actually. And that all the evidence still points to it being worth to lower red meat intake, just that that can't be dictated specifically and that some meat addicts may not be motived by health-based recommendations, and so may not care to follow guidelines. Can we please stop conflating things and have clear reporting??
1
factory farming is bad. that's why I don't eat meat. what the farmers do to mass produce all that meat is my objection. ditto for dairy.
For those who wish to dive deep into proven scientific studies, it is clear that meat has never been the problem nor has saturated fat. And to hear Doctors disagree with these current findings only confirms that most MD's have no clue about nutrition and dietary health. As a matter of fact when you read the outrageous dietary recommendations from the American Heart Association you realize that this is just the pharmaceutical industry propaganda at it's worst. I am not quite sure why they mentioned red meat and processed meats in the same study because they aren't the same thing. Processed foods of any kind are a problem. But a healthy diet high in animal protein and fat should be a mix from fish to chicken, pork and beef. Check out articles by Dr. William Davis, Dr. David Perlmutter, Dr. Mark Hyman, Dr David Diamond and dozen of others who will dissect the lies we have been told by Agra Business and Pharmaceutical Companies... as we just get fat and sick on a ridiculous and dangerous food pyramid!
2
Naturally the health of humans and the degradation of the environment on the humans' planet are the most mentioned drawbacks, while the lives of factory-farmed meat animals are mentioned only once. And the conditions are not described, to spare readers' feelings. If these animals could speak words, it is unlikely that factory farming could continue for even a month. Since they cannot speak words, what is perhaps the greatest and most prolonged crime of all time goes on and on and on, with scant changes.
2
Over the years studies have been perported to tell people what to eat have proven to be unsupported by thorough scientific analysis. We were falsely warned to change our diets in ways that often proved to actually harm our health: don't eat eggs; use margarine instead of butter; drink only low fat, skimmed milk; avoid red meat; and adopt a Vegan diet. I now want to see how nutrition studies were researched and by whom before I adopt the latest food fads and edicts.
12
The petitions and outrage in the scientific and nutrition community over this report is what erodes public confidence.
13
As a casual observer in a completely non scientific study; on many occasions I’ve observed customers in butcher shops and generally find them, and those serving them to be heathy looking happy people. Ever seen a grouchy butcher ? Then contrasting them with those frequenting health food stores and vegan eateries, I always find those customers anaemic and frail looking. If nothing else it’s an interesting observation!
10
Whatever. I'm vegan, always will be. If the best available evidence shows eating red meat is less unhealthy than we thought, then my meat eating loved ones won't be hurt by it as much as we thought they would be, which is great. Personally, I think meat is gross.
10
I think spinach is disgusting, but I avoid criticizing those who eat eat it.
5
But the “evidence” is non-existent.
Yes, there are certain apparent data and evidence that people with certain gene-sets who eat a lot of meat build up arterial plaque.
Especially if they also don’t exercise- and smoke.
What it comes down to, in the case of most of the nutritional data is that some humans, designed to be omnivorous, find eating meat “gross”.
I feel the same way about okra.
And a dozen culinary herbs that bring on cluster headaches are dangerous for me to consume.
Opinion is not a reason for throwing out garbage data and recommending reports that show their “data” is simply loose correlation between bunches of non-scientific observations.
You eat your okra.
I’ll save up and occasionally visit one of New York City’s shrines to aged prime porterhouse cooked over (properly filtered exhaust) hickory logs, wishing allergies didn’t prevent me from completing the meal with a snifter of Benedictine and brandy, one of the true miracles of medieval religion.
the most important part of this article is at the bottom:
"Researchers have estimated that, on average, beef has about five times the climate impact of chicken or pork, per gram of protein. Plant-based foods tend to have an even smaller impact." Beef also causes most of the clearing of the forestry we need to create air in our common home, our planet. That's what the Brazilian rain forest fires have been about. If you MUST have meat, get a buck, two does, and a rabbit hutch. you'll want for nothing.
9
Until a report comes out in a few years saying the opposite.
Read “The Blue Zones,” where particular clusters of people live a lot longer than the rest of us. It’s more than diet, but it’s not less than. Pre/post WWII Okinawa provides an excellent view of the impact of the western lifestyle in shortening longevity within one ethnic group.
6
The upshot of this article is that nutritional advice is mainly political. Organized interest groups are so invested in a particular position that they go ballistic when a major study disproves the received wisdom. We all advocate "evidence-based" public health advice, until the evidence challenges what we think we know. We have been brow beaten for 40 years about what not to eat, and all it has produced is a nation of guilt-ridden, stressed-out overweight people who obsess over what should be a pleasurable thing, food. Eat what you like and can afford and have time to prepare, and don't judge others who don't have the time or money to prepare their meals from scratch.
16
So basically thing eats thing eats thing eats thing. The exchange of protein. Since time immemorial. Until the Earth sinks into the dying sun. Got it.
Everyone else can argue it out for exactly no purpose whatsoever.
10
So what about the Cleveland Clinic studies of the hazards of carnitine in red meat?
Wasn't that study considered authoritative a few years ago?
1
I thought the goal of scientific research was to find the contradictions. Science and research is a human endeavor. thus behold the contradictions
2
Then there is the enduring question of the Chicken and the Egg.
If everyone eats more Eggs than Chickens, there will be more live Chickens to lay Eggs thus ensuring a continuous supply of Eggs and the prices of Chickens and Eggs substantially lower enabling more hungry people to be nourished.
1
Ok.
But eating no meat on Friday still seems like a good discipline to me.
1
How About Only On Friday? ✌🏼Then Everybody Wins. Except the cow.
1
There are awful lot of people commenting here, having accepted this new study as biblical truth to refute all nutrition science before this—yet I doubt a single one has read the new study, and precious few could do a proper evaluation of its science even if they did.
People believe what they want to believe—science not withstanding.
14
@Garbolity -- I have looked at the published paper (available online) and it is suspicious. to say the least.
Stop spending time and money to find a healthy way of eating.
Simple. Balanced food in moderation.
More important, serve quality food less.
While I was in the US for 2 years and dined mainly at the cafeteria, I gained almost 15 pounds. It was '70 and ironically, I learned the word "diet" and "jogging" in Nike shoes then.
In 2019, Americans are still talking about the same old "diet" every day at every occasion.
Where there's no will, there's no way?
3
I consume exceedingly small quantities of meat. My cholesterol readings are excellent with a predicted heart disease risk of half the normal range. I've been consuming a Mediterranean diet for twenty years at least. So why would I want to eat red meat? Well, I don't want to eat anything with a bigger brain than I or baby animals like lambs.
4
But we're supposed to believe that scientists can accurately predict what's going to happen to the planet in the future, when they can't even give us accurate information about what happened to our bodies in the past.
2
@Casey L.
Different science entirely. We can directly look into the dim past via ice cores, tree rings, direct observations of recorded temperature, weather and yes, climate. We can see and measure air pollution, carbon dioxide, oxygen. We have known for well over 100 years that man was changing the earth and our climate. Do your homework. PS-- science also brings you the device you are reading and typing on, and you don't question that! It brings you the clean water we drink-- well, it DID until the current admin decided we are not WORTH clean water or air. It brings you medicine, safer cars--- oh. Wait. Those are also being ripped away from us. Well, you get the point. Deciding what to eat is pointless if our water is toxic, our air unfit to breath, medical care unobtainable.
The one and only biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species began in Africa 300, 000 years ago.
Humans by nature and nurture crave fat, salt, sugar, habitat, water, kin and sex by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation.
But until the last 120 years we didn't live much beyond 35 years old. And until the last 10, 000 years we were active hunter gatherers. Domestication of animals and plants plus urbanization made it easier to find fat, salt and sugar in quantity while sedentary.
No one knows the long term health implications of these changes.
7
@Blackmamba False - people lived long lives in the past as well. In many languages the ancient phrase “My century” means “My life.”
2
The average age of all humans was low, due to the outsized impact of high infant mortality. People who made it past infancy lived much longer than the average of all humans, into their 60s on average 100 years ago.
6
I didn't choose to stop eating meat because of my health. I stopped eating meat because the factory farms and slaughterhouses are torture chambers. The animals have miserable lives and deaths.
59
@Linda
My guess is that you didn't enjoy eating meat very much in the first place.
Look, I think it's wonderful that you've stopped eating meat. Just remember, it's a free country and if people love eating meat and they're willing to pay for it, that's their choice.
What would you say to someone who was willing to pay a carbon tax to cover the environmental degradation caused by their meat? What if they were willing to make up for the environmental degradation by driving less, or using less chemicals on their lawn, for example?
The big problem is that the externalized cost of meat eating is high. We need to get the meat eaters to pay for the impacts of their meat eating.
1
Woody Allen, in his film "Sleeper," goes to sleep and wakes up 200 years in a future where deep fat, hot fudge, cream pies, and steak have been scientifically shown to be good for you. "Those were thought to be unhealthy, says the "Dr. Aragaon" character. "Precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true."
Prescient, no?
12
pick a copy of The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz
2
Thanks for the good laugh. This article is almost as funny as the one about Clarence Thomas a few days ago.
As always, who paid for the studies?
3
How can anyone be Dean of a prestigious school of public health and make a comment when they’re funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
No wonder many don’t trust people of science.
10
STOP.
Eat less red meat.
No brainer.
@Fortitudine Vincimus. You can do that while eroding your own healthy (and the health of the animals). I'll be over here eating grass fed beef 4-5 times a week. Yum
Want to cut your life short?
Eat fast food burgers, fries, drink sodas, smoke and, when you get home, load up on the beer, booze and the meds they tell you to take for that sore back.
That should do it.
Dr. Robert Atkins must be gloating from his grave! However, more seriously, isn't it the nitrates in preserved meat like sausages and bacon that are believed to do the real damage? To say nothing of the greater calorie count for all but the leanest beef.....Speaking as an unregenerate consumer of artificial sweeteners, I am suspicious of all "scientific" nutritional studies, though I do avoid fries and pizza, because of all the fat in them -- and to that extent, I accept calorie-counting as "science."
1
One can now envision the heads of vegans everywhere turning strawberry read over this news.
2