Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The theory that red meat is bad for human health and causes obesity, diabetes, heart
disease, cancer and even premature death is not substantiated by rigorous science.
The newly released EAT-Lancet report, as many reports before it, have managed to cast
red meat as the nutritional boogeyman by relying on a weak kind of science:
epidemiology.
A prominent example of this was the World Health Organization’s 2015 designation of
red meat as a carcinogen (for colorectal cancer). But this decision depended entirely upon
epidemiological data which showed that the “relative risk” of getting this cancer for red
meat eaters, compared to non-meat eaters, was only 1.17 to 1.18. Relative risks below 2
are generally considered in the field of epidemiology to be too small to establish a
reliable correlation.
This is the kind of weak science upon which the EAT-Lancet report is based.
The fact is, there is no evidence to back up claims that red meat is bad for health.
Randomized controlled trials on humans, considered the gold standard of scientific
research, do not support the idea that red meat causes any kind of disease.
Incidence of T2 diabetes
Epidemiology has given us some spectacular health failures over recent decades:
hormone replacement therapy, anti-oxidant vitamins and caps on dietary cholesterol, to
name a few.
Read the EAT Lancet report with great caution, as it lacks any kind of scientific rigor and
only serves to misguide Americans on their nutritional health.
At best, epidemiological studies can show only association and cannot establish
causation, which means that the data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove
them. Observational studies that link nutrition with disease generally find tiny differences
in risk (relative risks of 1-2) which are not enough to generate confidence that an
association is real.
Epidemiological studies rely on self-reported food surveys which can often be imprecise.
Researchers from the Mayo Clinic tested "memory-based dietary assessment methods"
and found that the nutritional data collected was "fundamentally and fatally flawed.”