Home  »  News

A new study says it is okay to eat red meat




Excerpt of article by Derek Bres




  • A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found little correlation between red meat consumption and health problems.


  • A number of organisations immediately contested the evidence, claiming it to be based on an irrelevant system of analysis.


  • Beef and dairy production is one of the leading drivers of climate change, forcing humans to weigh personal health against the environment.



It is perhaps fitting that just as McDonald’s introduces meatless burgers, a new study, published in the journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, is overturning years’ worth of dietary recommendations that we eat less red meat. Not that everyone is taking the study as the final word, however.



A panel of fourteen researchers and three community members from seven countries (reporting no conflicts of interest), directed by Dalhousie University epidemiologist, Bradley Johnson, studied 61 articles on all-cause mortality that included a total of four million participants. The team also reviewed dozens of trials linking red meat to cancer, heart disease, and mortality. The team concluded that the evidence between red meat, both unprocessed and processed, and health problems is “low to very low.”



The study took three years to complete. Researchers from a range of cultures were included to ensure diversity of thought, while each professional was vetted for perceived conflicts of interest. When considering both processed and unprocessed red meat, 11 researchers voted for adults (age 18 and over) to continue eating recommended allowances and not cut down. In each study, three researchers offered a “weak recommendation” for reducing intake.















For the record, the average American adult consumes an average of 4.5 servings of red meat per week.



Organizations such as The American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society immediately came out against the study, with some groups suggesting that the journal withhold publication. They believed that not only would this information contradict years of findings, but it would “erode public trust in scientific research.