What happens when there’s no will or the will is invalid?
USDA rule speeding up pork lines and reducing inspectors should be set aside, consumer group and union argue

Researchers who say red meat isn’t that harmful after all are wrong

Red Meat in Packages in StorePublic health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer, and other diseases.

However, recently, an international group of researchers conducted an analysis and concluded that the advice, widely given by health officials and advisors, isn’t backed by reliable scientific evidence.

If there are health benefits from eating less red meat, they’re small, the researchers said. They contend the advantages are so small that they can be seen only when looking at large populations, and aren't sufficient to tell consumers to change their meat-eating habits.

Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada, is the leader of the group that published the new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The average American eats about 4½ servings of red meat a week, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 10 percent of the population eats at least two servings a day.

The new analysis

Over three years, a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives, were directed by Johnston. The investigators said they had no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding. However, after the study was released, a New York Times article reported Johnston does have ties to industry.

The group reviewed 61 articles reporting on 55 populations, with more than 4 million participants. The researchers also looked at the few randomized trials linking red meat to cancer and heart disease, as well as 73 articles that examined links between red meat and cancer incidence and mortality.

Marion Nestle, nutritionist, and other health officials say the new research is faulty.

“This is a good example of what I call nutritional nihilism, an approach that insists that because observational studies are based on self-reported information and necessarily flawed, their conclusions are unscientific and should be discounted,” Nestle said in a blog post. “Therefore, because we can’t do more rigorous studies, we should not advise the public about diets best for health or the environment.”

Nestle’s concerns are:

  • The effects are small but that's true of nutrition studies in general. The small effects show benefits from eating less meat. The authors could easily have interpreted their work as suggesting that eating less meat might be useful. This is an example of interpretation bias.
  • The authors took a strictly science-based approach to a problem strongly affected by social, economic, and political factors and values.
  • The studies look at previous studies that compared people who eat meat to those who eat less. The authors excluded studies of vegetarians compared to meat-eaters.
  • They look at meat outside its context of calories.
  • The authors didn’t look at the totality of the evidence; they excluded laboratory and animal studies that can be more closely controlled.
  • They excluded studies of environmental impact, which has a significant bearing on human dietary practices (meat production adds more greenhouse gases than vegetable production).
  • The conclusions fall into the category of “everything you thought you knew about nutrition is wrong.” This rarely happens. Science usually works incrementally, not in one enormous reversal like this.

Do the authors really believe that all those other committees and commissions urging less meat were wrong and continue to be wrong? Nestle asks, adding their strictly science-based approach seems unrealistic.

Nestle said the papers come across to her as a concerted attack on dietary guidelines (national and international), on nutrition science in general, and on nutritional epidemiology in particular.

“The meat industry and its supporters will love them,” she said.

Nestle said attacks on the quality of nutrition research have been coming from many sources lately: the food industry, but also statisticians (John Ioannidis at Stanford is making a career of this), and some scientists (usually with ties to food companies). The criticisms themselves are not new.

“What is new is the vehemence and level of effort to discredit observational studies, particularly those based on self-reports of dietary intake," Nestle said. “Yes, nutritional epidemiology has flaws, but the methods have been useful in many instances, as argued convincingly by two of its leading practitioners.”

In looking at nutrition research, she thinks it’s essential to evaluate the totality of information available: laboratory, animal, human epidemiology, and clinical studies — and to do this in the context of what people actually eat and the number of calories they consume, as well as adding in a hefty dose of common sense.

“Common sense is what’s missing in these studies,” Nestle said. She asks whether the authors really believe that:

  • Meat eaters are healthier than vegetarians?
  • Eating more meat is better for health?
  • Meat eaters are less obese and have less heart disease and cancer than those who eat less?

“If not, the conclusions make no sense,” she said.

Most of the authors report no financial ties to the food industry, Nestle said. “I would love to know the back story about why they chose to do these studies and to interpret them in this way.”

See the Consumer Reports article “Nutrition: Healthy Eating — Does It Matter How Much Meat You Eat?" for more information on the study, including the impacts of eating meat on the environment.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

irma may

It is important


Hi Irma,

Yes, people need to know about this.



Interesting feedback about this study. The scientists in the study say they had no connections, but they were organized by someone who did. It's like hiring scientists who work for the oil industry to study the effects of oil production on the arctic.


I can't imagine having 4 servings of red meat per week. I usually stick to fish or chicken. However, every once in a while I may have a burger or filet.


Hi Jennifer,

Yes, the study seemed fishy -- even though it was a red meat study -- from the beginning. I thought like Marion Nestle, a nutritionist, that the meat industry will really like this. I was glad to read her post and quote from it about a movement within nutrition research where some researchers want to discredit nutritional research because it's based on reports from people.



Hi Rebecca,

I agree. Four servings of red meat a week is a lot. I usually eat chicken or fish, but I occasionally make a stew in the crockpot in the winter. I especially like lamb occasionally. I need to get into the habit of using chicken in the stews.


vipar gremmy

The food needs to be balanced. In the diet should be proteins fats and carbohydrates. There shouldn't be a lot of protein. For the body there is a limit of protein that it can process. The problem of nutrition in society is very important. You look at how many overweight people!

gehex geiopmali

Red and white meat was always in people's diets. Even when no one knew about nutrition. It is important to cook the meat properly and take into account the combinationofof of meat with other products. Today, meat cooked according to different recipes is the most popular product in America. When they talk about the harm of meat, they talk about carcinogens. But there is a simple remedy - lemon. Lemon is able to remove from meat up to 98% of carcinogenic substances that cause tumor diseases. The discovery was made by 13-year-old girl Lauren Hodge. For her discovery, Lauren was awarded the Google Science Fair Award. Now many nutritionists advise to include lemon water in your diet. If you notice something in Japanese cuisine while eating a glass of water with lemon is the norm. And the Japanese are the healthiest nation and nation of centenarians. On the benefits of lemon water you can find information on BetterMe - https://betterme.world/articles/lemon-water-health-benefits/
It contains a lot of vitamin C and helps to curb hunger, increasing the feeling of satiety. In addition, it is considered an excellent detox because of its effect of emptying the stomach.


Red meat is obtained from various sources. But the main source is from beef, as it is the healthiest choice among others, such as lamb or pork. The level of cholesterol inside beef is known to be the lowest among others. However, this does not mean that there is no risk from its use. However, there are a number of health risks associated with eating beef. But with proper control, this risk can be eliminated.


All bodybuilding athletes are aware of the benefits of red meat in which muscles develop well. Therefore, it is not surprising that they always consume large portions of low-fat red meat as a daily menu, as they require a high protein content in food. In addition, in combination with the right amount of carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins, minerals and growth hormone (read more at los angeles hgh clinic https://losangeles.hghtherapydoctor.us/ ) this meat can benefit the whole body.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)