More Meat?
That equates to
More Animal Abuse
More Climate Abuse
More Cholesterol Abuse to your body
Preposterous--we all know meat is bad--this is a capitalist spin
102
Seven fewer cancer cases per 100,000 people and six less heart attacks comes to something like 2100 less cancer cases and 1800 less cardiac cases in our population. I assume that's annually. Four thousand less such cases doesn't seem negligible to me. That's a lot of sick people and a whole lot of filled hospital beds!
25
Just eat real food—and a bit of every type. As long as it’s not processed or contaminated with pesticides, it’s good.
50
There’s a hilarious scene in Woody Allen’s slapstick comedy “sleeper” where, having woken up a hundred years from now, the main character discovers that in the the future doctors have discovered that smoking cigarettes and eating red meat (preferably raw) are good for you. Watch Diane Keaton rip into a raw steak with her bare hands and teeth as you think about these new “findings.”
15
Nothing in our general diets is bad in MODERATION. The key.
24
I'm sure others will (and perhaps already have) made the same comment, but in truth we should reduce our intake of red meat because it's an environmental nightmare. We don't need to debate about whether there's a health benefit.
92
Obesity is the greatest risk factor for abdominal cancers and heart disease, so the focus of diet research should really be one thing -- how can diet help people maintain a healthy weight or to lose weight if they're obese. Everything else is inconsequential.
The American dietary establishment foolishly recommended a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet for 40 years because of flawed and outright dishonest research claiming that animal fat and dairy products would cause heart disease. By lowering the percentage of dietary fat in the American diet, these scientists (and journalists) helped cause the obesity epidemic that will lead to disease and premature death of 100 to 150 million people.
Little by little, all the pillars of the low-fat diet are being demolished. So before we adopt a new set of dietary guidelines, lets make sure it's backed by good research this time.
35
Dietary considerations are the least important factor for not eating meat. Factory livestock production and processing are far more detrimental to our planet than they are to our individual bodies. And it's just cruel as well.
We're no longer hunters with respect for the source of our foods. We're craven consumers of "tastes good" and "convenient", with no regard for the true cost of our lifestyle.
57
It seems any diet based on fear as opposed to enjoyment is going to be counterproductive to a person’s health.
Absent dietary restrictions related to allergies or religious beliefs, any food in moderation is okay.
11
Sadly, this is another health article with grossly inadequate quantitative information. Yes, it does give a few numbers, but those numbers are not enough to make sense of what the effects in question are. It reduces the number of heart attacks per thousand by one to six. Are those heart attacks over a whole lifetime, as one would guess from the phraseology? How many heart attacks are there per thousand over a lifetime, so we can compare the one to six number?
This article also dodges one of the larger questions raised by the new study, which is whether "experts" have been giving much stronger advice than is warranted by marginal statistical effects.
Please, the standard of reporting on health issues can be greatly improved. I am guessing that there is a certain amount of pressure to continue the status quo, with many stories about largely (but unadmittedly) marginal effects. Lots of people I know read those stories and assume experts are telling them important, and make unwarranted inferences and even lifestyle changes.
12
It seems to me that the studies that indicated we should eat less red meat suffer from the same flaws as the studies that indicated eating less red meat had no affect on our health (broadly speaking).
I would also like to know if the Times explained the underlying flaws of nutrition investigations when reporting the initial studies that indicated we should eat less red meat. I'm sensing there's some selective bias on that issue.
I question the motivations of those who are furiously backlashing at the new studies. Financial self-interest?
It seems to me the whole nutrition industrial complex is suspect.
12
Epidemiology tries to isolate one variable from a complex web of variables to determine that one variable’s effect on health. The problem with nutrition (and lifestyles in general) is that everything is so interconnected, trying to isolate a single variable may miss the forest from the trees so to speak.
All we can definitely say is that people living in certain places, like Japan or Loma Linda in California, tend to live longer than in the rest of the world. And many of these places do eat less or no red meat. But trying to isolate effects on that factor alone (and ignoring everything else about these lifestyles) may rub against the limits of epidemiology.
8
What is unfortunate is the "furious backlash". Thoughtful, responsible nutrition experts should view this as an opportunity to take a new look at the data and reflect a bit. If there was a furious backlash to every finding that contradicted conventional wisdom, science would never advance. Science is self-regulating and constantly critical. It deals with truth, but truth today. More work may reveal a different truth tomorrow. It happens all the time. That's its strength. In a nation that is increasingly anti-science and anti-intellectual it's troubling that its science community is contributing to the problem.
32
The best studies are right in front of us. Immediate family members with quadruple bypasses and a month and half hospital stay. Heart disease, stents, high blood pressure and all the medications that must accompany to keep going or stay alive. CHF - congestive heart failure is no picnic either. Their bodies slowly weakening ( dying ) with this chronic disease that has no cure. The stomach cancer was pretty brutal and deadly. Yes, they enjoyed their steaks, chops and luncheon meats. At least, for a time until the emergency room attendants announced the real deal. There's no confusion for me. I'll stick with my vegetarian foods and no looking back with regret. These days I'm leaning vegan and look forward to the feeling of peace that comes with it.
52
The main point against eating red meat is ethical not dietary: it's the suffering of animals and effect on the environment that matters.
63
The CO2 emissions and deforestation associated with consumption of red meat which contribute to climate change really are the main point we should be considering - for this not to be reflected in the article with recent demonstrations (500,000 in Montreal alone) and the UN report is a little disappointing.
30
The article says that one of the conclusions of this report is "For cancer, the group reports that decreasing meat consumption by three servings a week might result in seven fewer cancer deaths per 1,000 people. But there would be no effect on the risk of getting breast, colorectal, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic or prostate cancer."
The logical inference is that to reduce the chance of cancer deaths, one should decrease meat consumption.. 7 fewer cancer deaths per 1000 people works out to roughly 400,000 people in the entire US. So why does the report absolve red meat.
10
@A. Raymond No, the logical inference is that these observational studios have very a limited scientific basis, and as such they may only suggest a hypothesis to be tested by long-term, placebo-controlled clinical studies. Without such clinical studies reasonable researchers, government officials, and the media should be very careful about prescribing new diets for millions of people.
6
Exposure to red meat increases the gut flora that converts choline to TMA. TMA is converted in the liver to TMAO. People with high levels of TMAO have twice the risk of heart attack and stroke. The more red meat you eat the more choline from eggs and fish and meat are converted to TMAO. Three recent studies affirmed the risk of eating meat according to a news article in JAMA June 2019. If JAMA weren’t so expensive, we wouldn’t forget the science.
16
Nutrition research and advice is a huge industry built on sand. It assumes people react to the same food in the same way. Our bodies get used to the diets we grew up with, which vary enormously across income, culture and life experience. Further, these customary diets are more and more changing with life experience--from farm to factory to desk. from sourcing locally to internationally, and from home cooking to fast food. Some of these variations are better than others, in their regional and historical context, but no one is asking those questions, so we are really pretty much in the dark scientifically speaking.
7
If as much attention were paid to the corrupting influences of the food and beverage industry on nutritional research as there is to the proper standards of scientific research, it would be easier for the public to make informed judgments about the validity of nutritional research reports that surface in the media.
21
How come all these studies are based on nutritionally compromised populations? If one eats corn-fed beef, then you get a corn-dog body. If you eat farmed fish, then you are putting sub-standard proteins into your body.
Where are some studies based on people who solely eat organic beef raised on grass (New Zealand and Australia), and ocean fish?
Studies like that would tell us what to eat.
Actually I pay no attention to recommendations from IARC and studies like this latest one. They never elucidate the fact that every working unit of the body is made of protein. You want good health then eat high-quality protein, which can also include vegan proteins and micro-ionized whey protein.
9
My personal cholesterol levels dropped by 30%, triglycerides dropped by 45%, inflammation factors plummeted (from prior acceptable levels) within months when I went to "whole food plant based" eating. I'm NOT going back. I trust my body over "science" (and who paid for this research??).
69
@B. Manter Exactly, who paid for this 'research'?
7
Why is this so hard for people? Humans evolved eating meat. Our metabolism works well with animal protein.
Oh, I forgot ... so many people believe we were created in 6 days by a guy in the sky.
Anyway, the real problem is sugar. Big Sugar is sitting back in great relief, as the focus is off them.
62
@P H
Yes, humans evolved eating meat but in nowhere near the quantity that it is today. It was a supplement to a plant- and eventually grain-based diet, and the whole animal was consumed unlike today.
19
@P H
True: Human beings evolved eating meat. But beef-related diseases (colon and prostate cancer, atherosclerosis and its effects like heart attacks, etc.), usually hit humans over 50, when reproduction is out of reach for most of them and they become useless from an evolutionistic point of view.
Moreover, killing older individuals and creating space for new "evolved" entries, beef favors evolution.
Disasters, plagues, cataclysms: all of them favor evolution, but this doesn't mean they are good. Indeed, I'm sure they are really bad.
Since I am over 50, I prefer not to eat too much beef (and sugar, I agree): I would like, instead, to live a long life in good shape...
6
Woody Allen’s “Sleeper” is looking more prophetic all the time.
11
We should be more concerned with being fat. Just look at the woman in the photo.
11
@Steve, be concerned about how fat, or not fat, you are.
In the meantime, please stop making judgements about other people’s bodies.
How do you know that the woman pictured hasn’t just given birth, is on a medication that has changed her metabolism and caused her to gain weight or has a medical condition that has affected her weight?
The world would be a much better place if we all just minded our own business when it comes to other people’s bodies.
7
Are onions suspected in causing human
Physiognomy/ health problems,?
I rarely ate onions until I made it to 70 years plus.
For whatever reasons I add them to soups and
egg/egg whites, because now they actually
taste pleasantly, but still cause tears!
Would somebody please endorse onions!
Do vegans consume them, or are they frowned
upon.
I like them on bagel sandwiches and plain bread
too, with almost any condiments with or without
red meat.
Hooray, so far as I know, does anybody bash
them, and why?
5
@Robert Cohen: I eat onions with just about every meal. Growers have developed deliciously sweet onions that I can eat cut up into cottage cheese or as thick slaps on a sandwich. Good all by themselves on some great bread with mayo.
The ones I buy by the 3 pound sack are called Sun Onions and are sweet as apples. They keep perfectly in the fridge crisper.
2
@Robert Cohen You are a breath of fresh air!
I LOVE onions: yellow, sweet, red, whatever. I stuff them into whatever dish I can and as a result I'm called a good vegan cook! The ones that make your eyes water: they are old. Don't buy any more onions from the store you purchased them from. Fresh ones shouldn't do that.
No bashing here: I join you in your praise for onions!
2
Follow the money!
14
Honestly, this is in no way surprising to many of us who have been paying attention. Humans are persistence hunters by nature, and you don't hunt for grains.
13
Yes you do, it’s called gathering
23
There are great, very scientifically sound environmental reasons not to eat much red meat. That said, there is much that is amusing about this episode.
Nutrition "science" is basically junk science. It's not their fault, the limitations on what is possible are real. But their argument seems to be: because we are not able to do real science we demand that you accept our junk science as real science. Not very persuasive.
42
@Greg "There are great, very scientifically sound environmental reasons not to eat much red meat."
There are great, very scientifically sound environmental reasons not to eat much plant based food: Google glyphosate and insectides. Come on, people, we can solve this if we come out into the real world and give up some of our suffocating egotism.
8
@BrendaStarr
The answer isn't to stop eating plants. The answer is to stop voting for corrupt politicians who allow chemical companies to poison us for profit.
10
@BrendaStarr Whatever ill environmental affects are associated with plant based food apply to red meat as well. What exactly do you suppose those cows are eating?
8
But why no word on the study being funded by the Beef industry. ? And not one word on any other impacts on our lives from meat production, such as climate change, overwhelmed pig effluent pools contaminating entire counties, riverways.. Antibiotics and meat production - I mean it is the traditional 'blind men describing an elephant" story..
30
@grace thorsen And why no mention of the vegetarian problem .... glyphosate?
1
@grace thorsen It is not funded by the beef industry. There was no conflict of interest in the funding.
6
@BrendaStarr You are comparing apples to oranges. Glyphosates is a concern which the organic movement is addressing. But it has nothing to do with meat consumption.
5
Due to this meaty problem making news, I was prodded to research.
Came up with "The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability" by Lierre
Keith, a 20-year vegan who now eats meat. She insists that we are designed to be meat-eaters. She also blames her veganism for permanent damage to her body.
Don't take my word for it, though. Check out her book, or, if you're tightwadish like me, read the free sample of it on NOOK. It's a game-changer psychologically for me: I was convinced from high school that meat was bad for you. (Incidentally, I tried to be a vegetarian once and ended up in the hospital with a zero protein count. I ate a pork chop in the hospital and immediately got better. Lesson learned for me.)
It's something to chew on.
17
@Jim Muncy Right you are! I got sucked into the big vegetarian gaslight in the 70's. After 3 years of this lie, I had chronic diarhea, and heartburn so bad that I kept a giant jar of anti-acid next to by bed so I could get a little sleep at night. There were big patches of red, itchy, scaly skin all over me, especially at the corners of my mouth, and horrendous tooth decay. All I could think of was eating: when do we eat? Only 3 hours, 13 minutes and 27 seconds til dinner ... 25 seconds ... 23 ... 22... It's time for the rediculous vegan fairytale to go away. A friend of mine finally convinced me to try the Atkins diet; I didn't like it either but was impressed by the interesting "side effects": immediate cessation of digestive problems, loss of red, itchy skin, and the first clean dental checkup in years.
I can't help adding one more observation: every vegetarian I have known has been pale and wasted looking; a vegan in one of my college classes was jiggly, overweight, pale and ill-looking, and couldn't seem to stop inserting the word vegan into every conversation. I have rarely encountered such an unhealthy looking creature.
11
@BrendaStarr
Thank you for this information. My son and his wife are vegetarians; they were vegan till very recently.
They take multiple vitamins to make up for any nutrition loss, but I doubt that it helps sufficiently.
Who knew? I really thought I was doing a great thing for my health by going vegetarian when just the opposite was the truth. I fell for it, but, in my defense, the propaganda was massive, pervasive, and nonstop from health professionals, who we must, to some degree, trust. It's hard figuring out everything for yourself.
12
@Jim Muncy Anecdotal evidence does not equal scientific evidence. As horrendous as your experience might have been, it proves nothing.
I see from Brenda's overtly-dramatic comment you have a pity party going on. But my experience is very different than yours (and hers). That is why I wonder whether different people have different dietary needs. So let's respect the struggle to attempt pure scientific methodology rather than indulge in stories we tell one another. It's the elephant and the blind men: we simply don't know the whole truth yet.
Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. It's just a story.
11
I'm happy the NYT brought in Ms Kolata to simplify the brouhaha.
One complication remains: "processed meats" were combined as one entity with "red meats." To the best of my understanding, processed meats carry very specific health risks well beyond the other. This should be clarified as well.
FWIW: yes, rely on vegetables, grains, fruits and nuts. Even if you do eat a little beef, pork or chicken, and fish. There are no studies anywhere that suggest that that more vegetables are detrimental to anyone, and many that indicate this is the way to go.
12
A largely unknown FACT, is that two of the most common 'preservatives in practically all processed foods, BHA, and BHT, were invented as film preservatives during WW2. They are both nitrosamines which are proven to be cancer causers. Have another couple of slices of that processed ham kids! Death cures all diseases!
7
@Mike OD And you have another bowl of that delicious glyphosate drenched salad!
4
Think of the following statements from this article the next time someone repeats the canard that it is scientific fact that human activity causes climate change:
--but the statistical analyses are difficult and, many experts say, not particularly reliable in a system as complex as human nutrition.
--“The rules of scientific proof are the same for physics as for nutrition,” he said in a telephone interview. But unlike experiments in physics, where investigators can control variables and determine causality, in nutrition “you can’t conduct the experiment.”
--a difference “between evidence for drawing a scientific conclusion, and making or recommending an action. The standards of evidence for the former are scientific matters and should not depend on extra scientific considerations” he added. “The standards of evidence for the latter are matters of personal judgment or in some cases legislation.”
3
@SHerman Are you saying that measuring gas in the atmosphere is not accurately measurable, or that observing the affects of certain gases in a closed system is not scientifically reproducible?
Or are you just saying that scientists cannot possibly determine if humans are the cause of certain gasses from things like cars because cars and humans are both complex and since nutrition is complex therefor there is no way to know anything about cars?
Or maybe it is the Gods controlling the humans, making them drive the cars, therefor not "human activity"?
What are you trying to say here?
3
Beef eating is NOT hurting our climate and environment.
This is hysteria and not science.
There is a natural food chain on this planet.
Humans eat meat like many other animals eat meat.
There is plenty of empty space on this planet -did you ever look out the window of the plane when you fly coast to coast- for all the cattle to graze.
Yes we should raise and put down our beef cattle more humanely.
But let's stop this nonsense that we should all be vegans and that burping cows is causing global warming.
Put your energy elsewhere...
22
It’s not correct to say that beef consumption is ecologically benign. It’s not “burps”, it’s bovine waste that is improperly discarded. Methane is chiefly produced from biological matter, such as bovine waste. It is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It’s also more remediable than CO2 emissions because it dissipates faster.
Anytime someone uses the “just look out the window” response to ecological harm, they show a lack of understanding. You won’t see forest cleared in Brazil for cattle grazing by looking out your window, for example. Out your window, you won’t see the Chinese purchasing that Brazilian beef due to US-tariffed beef. These things mandate more than “common sense.”
36
@Full Name: Thanks, Austin. And all that open land may look like cow heaven, but much of it does not contain enough fresh water to support domestic animals.
Things look so very easy if you don’t look deep.
8
Just plain wrong. But go ahead and believe it, head bobbling.
4
All the while ignoring the environmental impact of red meat production...
21
@J Oberst
The environment always gets short shrift.
But ...
"Nature Bats Last!"
5
Eating food we love is one of life's great pleasures. This paper certainly devotes a large portion of space and words to all things food.
Like many others, my craving for red meat, steak, etc. is perfectly natural and normal. Of course beef cattle can be raised and put down humanely (and I think it's scientific nonsense, that will also soon be disproved, that cow-belching is causing climate change: how ridiculous does that sound?) So I love love love these recent findings.
Enjoy your steaks!
7
@Full Name:
-Please consider that there might be nothing "natural" about your craving for red meat and steak. It might very well be a learned response.
-"cow-belching"? Please learn more about this issue, as this is a political trope that has been long been disproven. It is the methane in bovine waste that is so destructive. In enough numbers to satisfy Americans' "natural" red meat tendencies it is environmentally destructive. That has been established by the scientific community for decades.
2
Eating meat, from murdered sick, frightened, suffering animals, rendered in corporate, abstracted and completely cruel 'animal processing' plants is inhumane first and foremost and horrible for our planet. That's quite enough for me to reject it completely.
31
The meat industry is still evil. This is a desperate bid to save it as people catch on to how awful it is.
17
There are wonderful parallels to smoking and climate change in these new "studies." This is all about "mudding the waters." This way nothing of substance changes. Science tells us what would be best for human heath and for the planet's survival. EAT LESS MEAT and MOVE TO A PLANT BASSED DIET.
25
@Son Of Liberty I know that like mathematics, what I am saying is part of a "Left Wing Conspiracy" but I would also encourage all meat eaters to spend a day at a commercial slaughterhouse and then get back to me.
5
Nothing unexpected. All this says is there is little to no risk from average levels of red and processed meat consumption. So go ahead and have a ham sandwich for lunch 2-3 times a week, a big steak on the weekend, or have a cheeseburger or pork chop for dinner on a recurring basis. As long as you aren't gobbling down a pound or more of the stuff a day, it's not a problem, particularly if you're eating a light breakfast as most people do these days. The data showing health problems is based on people who overeat across the board, including eating substantial portions of meat three times a day. The notion that a serving of steak should be no bigger than 3.5 ounces is absurd, unless you're eating that four times a day.
9
Most of my 83 years I kept hearing how bad coffee was and that it would kill you, now in the past few years it cures more diseases than kale. Just this week 6 cups cure gall bladder problems. Harvard and the Heart Association can’t admit they were wrong, they have too much invested. Anstel Keys never admitted he was wrong about low fat. So I will keeping avoiding eggs and shell fish and eat more margarine just as my government says. At least after 50 years they were right about smoking. But I had learned about coffin nails from Louis Lamour before WW2 twenty years ahead of the government.
11
I find this new meta-analysis problematic. There are indeed issues with validity in many nutritional studies, but waiting for perfect evidence doesn’t mean no action can be taken. We have to use any and all evidence to guide our choices in the present.
The methods used in this new meta-analysis to review the data regarding meat consumption and health outcomes are very restrictive. They throw out all preclinical and animal evidence and dramatically reduce the weight of observational studies. This virtually guarantees a null result. To then take a null result and say there isn’t enough evidence to make personal recommendations is a page right out of Big tobacco’s playbook.
It may surprise that applying this same method of meta-analysis to the current evidence on tobacco-smoking would also result in a null finding (since there are no, and for ethical reasons can be no randomized controlled trials).
Keep this in mind when considering what to do with this latest meta-analysis. They basically knew in advance that their methods would bias toward a null result. For me, this discredits their effort.
18
The bad guy isn’t red meat, it is fruit, sugar, fructose and processed carbs that raise insulin too much. Healthy fats and moderate amounts of protein do not. The world is facing a diabetic and obesity health crisis. Red meat is irrelevant. We are unable to handle sugar and processed carbs. They will kills us slowly. Wherever you are right now, count the obese people you see. Then count the fit people you see. Count them at Costco or Walmart.
20
Fruit is good for you, because it has fiber. It's juice and food with ADDED sugar that you want to svoid.
6
The risk gains/losses are minor, and that's just a risk percentage change, not anything specific to your life.
Also, stop saying "saving a life" when all that it means is extending it some amount of time. All lives come to an end. People who die from heart attacks are often old already, and a slightly higher risk of a longer life often just means cancer and Alzheimers or myriad other issues will be more likely for your older body.
3
Falling out of an airplane without a parachute should not be deemed risky because: 1) the data is limited, 2) the data is anecdotal, and, 3) you can't show causation without double blind studies.
17
Without getting into the ecological benefits of reducing meat consumption (a whole different argument), note that humans are omnivores. We have a long evolutionary history from prehuman to modern man where we ate meat when we could get it. Natural selection made us this way. It is not surprising that limiting meat has only marginal health benefits (if it has any).
As the article succinctly points out, nutritional studies do not follow the same rigorous standards of proof that physics or even psychology does. Indeed, nutritional science is very nearly an oxymoron. I can pretty much guarantee that whatever recommendations it makes now will not manage to last for 10 years, and many of the new ones will be diametrically opposed to the current ones.
Michael Pollan may be closest to the truth. Eat real food (i.e., avoid manufactured food products) in moderation and emphasize leafy vegetables.
27
#1- Many "bad bacteria" thrive on saturated fats found in meats. These are related to many diseases.
#2- What animals eat goes into meat and into you, Pesticides, microplastics, wheat products , antibiotics etc.
#3- Direct correlation with dementia and amount of meat eaten in all societies
#4- 30 gallons of water needed for 1 pound meat
#5- Lots of carbon and methane produced by meat production and can be reduced considerably by reducing meat consumption. (about 20% of climate warming gases).
#6- Average American consumes 280 pound of meat per year, most in world. Reducing this by ½ would have very significant environmental effects.
54
@RichardHead As to your #2 (no, really), are you seriously equating wheat products with pesticides, antibiotics and micro-plastics?
9
@RichardHead And what about agriculture production's emissions/water/fertilizer/pesticdes and shipping around the world 24x7x365 that's necessary to feed all those people where local veggies won't be fresh most of the year.
6
@RichardHead
Re: #6- "Average American consumes 280 pound of meat per year"
That's more than 3/4 pound of meat per day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
What more needs to be said?
4
Actually, the science is pretty clear. It doesn't seem to matter much what you eat as long as your diet is varied, includes lots of fresh veggies and fruits, whole grains and nuts, and doesn't overdo any food type from refined carbohydrates, to sugars, to fats, to meats, to dairy. Low fibre, high sugar, high fat diets are definitely bad -- they alter the composition of gut bacteria, foster diabetes, and encourage weight gain. Supplements and extracts do not compensate for poor diet. Foods aren't nutraceuticals; there are no "health foods" and no deleterious ones -- eating too much of anything from blueberries to nachos will get you in trouble. Variety and moderation are the key messages. Meat, however, does have a big black mark against it: current production methods (factory farming of pigs, cattle, chicken) are not environmentally sustainable. Moreover factory farming of animals exposes us to novel pathogens and risk of zoonotic epidemics. Mind you, factory farming of cereals, soya and corn isn't much better from an environmental point of view, destroying the soil and polluting waterways while wasting prodigious amounts of fresh water. Fish farming destroys natural stocks and generates tremendous pollution. So there are good science-based, ethical reasons to watch what we eat, notably centred on how what we eat is produced.
103
@Cephalus Or have fewer people to feed? Food is only one aspect of the "pollution costs" associated with each human being, and farm land is not a freebie if you switch from animals (often on ranch land, not fertile fields) to more plant growing and shipping as you can't grow in fields all year round in most places where population centers are (so it's more shipping).
3
@Cephalus Thank you for a comprehensive, understandable response to this study which conflates so many people. Thank you.
1
A dear friend once told me of an old Arabic proverb his mom constantly quoted to him: "Eat as you like, but dress as others want you to." It's an arbitrary but easy to remember criterion for drawing the line in how you alter your behavior to accommodate others. Eating as you like does not free you from the consequences of poor or unfortunate choices, but if you are willing to brave the consequences of your choices, I say carry on and don't be bothered by the meaningless drone of constantly trumpeted new studies with marginally ambiguous results. I myself stopped eating red meat regularly a few years ago and I am content with my choice. Unless someone comes up with a peer-reviewed, nearly bulletproof controlled study demonstrating some largely undeniable result, I am not changing my dietary behavior based on the eddies and tides in the current thinking by nutritionists. Not happy with some trumpeted finding? Wait a month.
12
It's very difficult for me to go against a lifetime of recommendations from the USDA, CDC, and the preponderance of the medical community in the US. Maybe, they are associative recommendations, maybe not. Doesn't mean they aren't true. If you're already an at-risk person for cancer or heart disease, do you want to take on any more risk, even a small one?
For me, the proof is in how I feel. I've had almost no meat for the last two years and I feel more energetic and much more able to control my weight. Still, I do eat low-fat dairy and fish.
1
@Ron A Step it up and quit the dairy and fish - you will feel even better!
2
@Ron A, Good for you! Do what works for you and try not to get bothered by the confusing studies coming out each day. Good health and long life to you!
Is publication of this research a strategy right out of Big Tobacco’s playbook? In “The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?,” two university professors examined the tools Big Tobacco used during “decades of deceit and actions that cost millions of lives." Planting confusion and doubt in the minds of consumers with seemingly contradictory research was key.
As an immigrant to Canada, I have often been surprised by the cozy relationship between the food industry here and those who are supposed to be regulating it. Years ago, Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation was caught trading its seal of approval for industry money. The Dairy Farmers of Canada, a powerful entity, provide teaching resources to schools.
To what degree do the Canadian agricultural and food industries financially support its universities? To what degree do those industries influence research, dietary guidelines, principles taught to our kids? These are all searing questions consumers need to understand.
34
Why on earth would this writier not bother with even one sentence concerning the huge impact beef eating has on our climate and environment? If we want to slow down the catastrophe we seem to be hurtling toward, eating less meat is one precaution we can all take.
191
@Caroline P.
I think it's because that's a discussion that's better served in an article about climate change, along with curbing carbon output, burning down forests, driving less, etc.. This study is strictly about personal health.
31
@Ron A
Yes, this study is about personal health, but the massive detrimental impact that the beef industry has on climate and ecology is also a personal health issue. That our culture, writers, the Times do not make that explicit connection is irresponsible.
95
@Caroline P. And what about the impact of dairy, which is even worse? Dairy cattle produce far more methane and manure, and require far more fuel and fertilizer to produce their feed, than beef cattle do, but you don't hear anyone complaining about that.
12
A controversy over the health findings, perhaps. But it's pretty cut and dry when it comes to knowing that if you eat an animal, an animal suffered and was killed as a result. That is pretty simple equation that I choose to no longer be a part of. Add to that the simple fact that our human appetite for animals is a destructive environmental force so I don't see why there needs to be even one more reason. But it's easy to ignore even these simple reasons. I did for years until I read more, learned more, thought about it all more. Buts it's easy not to think about. Especially when we keep using euphemisms like the word "meat" when we mean animals.
69
@Lucy
How do you know the animal 'suffered' and what logic is it that it was 'killed as a result' (of suffering) ? That might apply to feedlot beef but some of us raise free-range, grassfed cattle. These animals make good use of land that is not otherwise 'usable'. They self-fertilize it and their hooves make little dents to hold rainfall. Grazing stimulates grass growth. Grass growth is good because (wait for it) grasslands are one of the most efficient, and one of the fastest, carbon sinks available.
Yes animals get killed, mostly surplus young males. That's sort of a fact of life in the animal husbandry world. But we are looking at the issue from an individualistic perspective. If you think of a herd of cows (goats, alpacas, whatever) as a group entity, which requires management and 'pruning' to stay healthy (understanding that these animals cannot survive without human protection), then the question can be framed differently. Is it more 'moral' to simply let the herd die out because otherwise 'animals suffer', or is it more 'moral' to maintain the herd despite the 'loss' of some herd animals ? This is not just an abstract argument in the case of rare, heritage breeds which have traits we may need in the near future and whose gene pools need to be conserved through responsible animal husbandry now.
6
Here is the golden rule: Eat or drink whatever you like as long as you do so in moderation. It is not so much about WHAT you eat or drink, but HOW MUCH of it.
49
@Burr Brown
I agree with you. It doesn't matter how it happened but once you become obese, you become at risk for many diseases, and it becomes very hard to go back.
1
@Burr Brown Perhaps, but no matter what you eat, life ends one way or another. Dying from old age while healthy isn't common, and diseases get worse as you age, and treatments get more expensive.
1