The dispute lays bare problems with
nutrition research long acknowledged in the
scientific world: Nutrition studies are almost
never conclusive, and whatever supposed
risk and benefits there are to any food are
often oversimplified.
“People like bumper sticker guidance,” said Dr.
Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition at Harvard
who has led studies tying meat to bad health.
Now health experts are wrestling with how solid
scientific findings should be before guidance is
issued, how to address biases that might skew
conclusions and whether the pleasure we get
from eating should be considered.
The scrutiny is likely to spill over to other
dietary advice as obesity becomes an ever
more critical public health concern, and people
become increasingly frustrated with flip-
flopping messages.
MEAT TWO WAYS
The papers analyzed past studies on red and
processed meat and generally corroborated the
links to cancers, heart disease and other bad
health outcomes. But they said the chance of
any benefit from eating less of them appeared
small or negligible.
For every 1,000 people, for instance, cutting
back on red meat by three servings a week was
linked to seven fewer deaths from cancer. For
some other health measures, like strokes, the
difference was smaller or nonexistent.
What’s more, the researchers said there’s little
certainty meat was the reason for the differences.
Uncertainty is common in nutrition research.
Image: J. Scott Applewhite