For years, public health authorities have drawn concerns over the risk of red meat consumption, especially for older adults, over its linkage to heart related diseases, cancers, and other ailments. But a recent study has shown that red meat consumption may not be as harmful as it has been made to appear.
This was the assertions of a 40-man panel of researchers and three community representatives from ten countries. According to the leader of the research team, and an epidemiologist at the Dalhousie University, Canada, Bradley Johnston, “the certainty of evidence for these risk reductions was low to very low”.
During the course of the study, the group said it reviewed 61 articles reported on 55 populations, with more than four million participants. The researchers also looked at random trials linking red meat to cancer and other heart diseases – which is relatively low – as well as 73 articles that examined any links between red meat and cancer incidence and mortality.
In each study, the scientists concluded that the links between eating red meat and diseases and death were small, and the quality of the evidence was low to very low.
The new research has, however, met with fierce criticism from many public health researchers. In a statement by scientists at Harvard University, they warned that the conclusion of the research was capable of harming “the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research”. 14 heavyweights in Nutrition signed a letter demanding a retraction of the review. They were all however members of a group called the True Health Initiative which advocates for a plant-based diet.
Understanding why it was considered unhealthy
Nutritional guidelines are mostly based on what medicine calls epidemiological studies which are based on observations and events. So patients are observed and told to note their diet and based on this, conclusions are reached as to what may have caused a deteriorating health condition.
In 1961, the American Heart Association warned the world to limit the consumption of red meat, based on this. It said this would prevent heart disease. But later studies showed otherwise.
Nina Teicholz of the Nutrition Coalition says while the kind of studies that say red meat causes cancer is based on a narrow differing rate of about 1.5, the observation studies which say smoking, for example, causes cancer was based on a differing rate of about 9 – 25. She says low differing rates are not enough evidence for causation.
Earlier, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health studied more than 121,000 men and women for 24 years. They all submitted their diet every four years. Of this number of people, 24,000 persons died and it was discovered that the death rate among those who ate red meat was higher. This led scientists to propose that eating unprocessed red meat increases the chances of dying “prematurely” by 13% while that of processed meat goes as high as 20%
No longer at risk?
Reports say the consumption of red meat has increased over the years due to the increase in population. Meat production has also increased from 70 million tonnes in early 1960 to more than 300 million tonnes.
The most recent survey shows that the United States and Australia top the table for annual meat consumption along with New Zealand and Argentina with more than 100kg per person, which is equivalent to 50 chickens and half a cow each.
In Africa, an average Ethiopian consumes around 7kg, Rwandans 8kg while Nigerians consume 9kg, ten times less than the average consumption in Europe.
According to a United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the high consumption of meat and dairy by the West fuels the impact of global warming, suggesting that a switch to a plant inclusive diet could help tackle the effects of climate change.
While the impact of red meat consumption on the environment and climate may be agreed on, there is still a wide concern on how healthy the consumption really is. Scientists who are fighting this new study say it is not just about meat but the constantly eroding trust in science. They argue that the conflicting report which has become the norm may make people begin to take scientific findings less seriously.
