Understanding Red Meat's Impact on Health: A Critical Review
Written on
Red meat has long been a topic of debate regarding its health implications. Experts often provide conflicting views, largely due to the chaotic nature of nutrition research and the influence of funding sources.
A review from 2016 highlighted 26 studies that concluded soft drinks do not contribute to diabetes or obesity; however, all were funded by the food industry. Conversely, 34 studies indicated the opposite, with only one being backed by such sources. This discrepancy raises concerns about biases in food-related research, including studies on red meat, dairy, fats, and plant-based products.
A commentary in the respected journal JAMA Internal Medicine confirmed that food companies frequently manipulate research to favor their interests. While a plant-based diet is generally recognized as healthy, the consensus around red meat is less definitive. This article aims to investigate whether red meat is detrimental to health by scrutinizing the funding sources of pertinent studies.
Before diving in, I should mention my own biases: I avoid processed meats but occasionally consume unprocessed red meat and may profit from this article. Though nutrition isn't my primary field, I hope this perspective enables me to remain impartial.
Dietary guidelines from various organizations, such as the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the World Health Organization, often recommend reducing red meat consumption, especially processed types, due to potential links to cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers.
Despite the validity of these guidelines, numerous studies have criticized them for insufficient systematic reviews and an over-reliance on observational data.
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
A 2018 article in Nutrition Reviews analyzed dietary guidelines from over 30 countries, revealing that most were updates based on existing guidelines rather than systematic reviews. Systematic reviews involve a rigorous process where multiple researchers identify and analyze studies, ensuring a balanced selection without bias.
If quantitative methods are used for data synthesis, the review is termed a meta-analysis; otherwise, it remains a systematic review.
Observational Studies
A 2019 paper in the Annual Review of Nutrition highlighted significant flaws in how dietary guidelines are developed, including a lack of systematic evaluations and acknowledgment of the evidence's limitations. Observational studies can illustrate associations but do not establish causation.
For instance, a correlation between ice cream sales and murder rates is intriguing but misleading without understanding the underlying factors. I examined some studies cited by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer and found them to be observational.
Nonetheless, observational studies can provide valuable insights and suggest possible causal relationships, warranting further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish definitive conclusions. Unfortunately, more than 70% of nutritional research relies on observational methods, making it challenging to implement large-scale RCTs.
Overall, the current dietary recommendations to limit red meat intake are flawed due to the reliance on observational studies and the absence of systematic reviews.
Recent Controversial Recommendations
In November 2019, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a paper titled “Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium,” prompting a reevaluation of red meat's health implications.
Researchers from multiple countries conducted a comprehensive systematic review on health outcomes associated with red meat. They employed the GRADE methodology for quality assessment, analyzing only the highest-quality studies. Reduced red meat consumption was defined as three fewer servings weekly, given the average American consumes about 4.5 servings.
Conflicts of Interest
This study received no industrial funding, and most researchers disclosed no conflicts of interest. However, one lead author faced criticism for not reporting a funding source from Texas A&M AgriLife Research, which argued it was a public agency. Despite this, the remaining authors had no significant conflicts, making this systematic review one of the most unbiased regarding red meat.
Systematic Review Results 1: RCTs
After reviewing over 13,000 papers, the researchers identified 12 RCTs, primarily focusing on unprocessed red meat. Only three studies were funded by the meat industry, while the majority received support from governmental or academic sources. Ultimately, only one trial met quality standards, as others suffered from biases and methodological flaws.
The results indicated no statistically significant reduction in mortality rates associated with decreased red meat consumption, although a trend towards fewer deaths was observed.
Systematic Review Results 2: Observational/Cohort Studies
The team identified 62 observational studies, and after rigorous quality checks, only 23 studies with 1.4 million participants were further analyzed. The findings suggested that lowering unprocessed and processed red meat intake could lead to a slight decrease in disease-related deaths. However, the clinical significance of these findings was minimal.
The analysis revealed that reducing unprocessed red meat intake could potentially lower the risk of cardiovascular mortality and type 2 diabetes, albeit with low certainty.
Cancer Risk Observations
In examining cancer outcomes, the results showed that decreasing unprocessed red meat consumption could reduce overall cancer mortality slightly but had no significant effect on cancer incidence across various types.
The authors noted the challenges in drawing definitive conclusions due to the limitations of observational studies and the potential confounding factors that could skew results.
Overall Recommendation
Based on the accumulated evidence, the authors suggested that individuals may continue consuming both processed and unprocessed red meat. However, they emphasized that this recommendation is weak and based on low-certainty evidence, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding red meat's health effects.
The authors acknowledged that observational studies have inherent limitations and should not be viewed as conclusive. A diverse panel reviewed these recommendations, and while most agreed, some raised concerns.
Previous meta-analyses suggesting greater health risks associated with red meat consumption were criticized for flawed methodologies. The authors concluded that this systematic review represents the most rigorous assessment available.
Finally, the authors noted several limitations in their review, including the predominance of observational evidence and the inability to evaluate the impact of cooking methods or animal welfare concerns.
Additional Context
An article from Healthline indicated that unprocessed red meat, particularly when cooked properly, may not be harmful and could even support muscle growth due to its nutrient content. Nevertheless, some experts continue to advocate for reduced red meat consumption based on long-standing observational research.
Overall, the scientific community largely supports the conclusions of this systematic review. If the findings were widely disputed, the paper would likely have faced retraction.
An article in the New York Times pointed out that the latest research aligns with prior findings regarding red meat risks. While the authors of the review did not claim that meat consumption is less risky, they argued that the established risks are manageable for individuals.
Ultimately, due to the inherent flaws in observational nutritional research, results should not be regarded as conclusive. Experts urge the public to remain aware of these uncertainties when making dietary choices.
The authors of the red meat paper contended that it is unlikely for red meat to be a direct cause of disease, as significant causative factors typically show a more pronounced effect. For example, smoking dramatically increases lung cancer risk, establishing a clear causal link.
Going forward, it may be more beneficial to focus on broader health factors, such as maintaining a healthy weight and regular exercise, rather than fixating solely on red meat consumption.
Thanks to Joe Duncan for prompting this exploration of conflicting evidence surrounding red meat and cancer.