The authors also argue the individual being
asked to change their behavior should be
considered. For those who regularly eat and
enjoy meat, cutting back on it may seem drastic
if all they are getting in return is small reduction
in risk, if any at all.
“Recommendations should consider the values
and preferences of people who actually bear
the consequences,” said Bradley Johnston,
lead author of the papers, who specializes in
research methodologies.
TILTING THE EVIDENCE
Given the uncertainties of nutrition science,
another long-running concern is the potential
for findings to be skewed by personal beliefs or
financial incentives.
The latest papers were no exception, with critics
and supporters each pointing to factors that
could have influenced the others’ position.
Critics noted Johnston, the lead author,
undermined another dietary recommendation
in the past. He previously led a study funded by
the food industry that challenged guidelines to
limit added sugars, which serves the interests
of many food companies. That paper initially
said the authors independently wrote the
plan for the study. After emails obtained by
the Associated Press showed the industry
group sent “requested revisions,” the paper
was corrected to say the group reviewed and
approved the plan.
Johnston and supporters of the papers
countered, saying critics have long advised
people to limit meat and could feel the need to
defend their position.