The back-and-forth underscores the difficulty
of ruling out the biases any researcher is likely
to have, given the amount of industry money in
nutrition research and the strong beliefs people
often have about food.
Meat is an especially polarizing topic, given
the animal welfare and environmental
consequences that come with it.
That could further confuse people about who or
what to believe, or they just focus on research
that backs up what they want to believe.
LOST IN TRANSLATION
Wherever researchers stand on meat, there’s
agreement that the nuances of nutrition science
often get lost in translation. Foods are often
labeled as good or bad, even when researchers
try to be nuanced.
Take red meat. The advice to “limit” it often
doesn’t specify by how much, which could lead
people to think cutting back is good regardless
of the context. But in poorer countries, red meat
might help improve diets. In richer countries,
Willett said the benefits of cutting back would
vary depending on what replaces it, and that
pizza might not be an improvement.
Still, Willett and others who criticized last week’s
papers say the many Americans who eat red
meat once a day or more could benefit from
eating less.
There’s no consistent recommendation for
an acceptable amount. The American Cancer
Society’s experts say “a few” servings a week or
less. A study by Willett, which also addressed the
environmental impact of food, advised a limit of
one serving a week.