The I Eat Meat campaign may be over the edge, but it is consistent with the findings of nutritionists. According to them, red meat is necessary for health. What's the problem?
Nutrition especially...
Nutrition research is constantly challenged. And the results are often very contradictory. While in one decade a certain food (or dietary pattern) is considered to be beneficial to health, in a few years everything may be completely different. In any case, the dietary recommendations published in the Annals of Internal Medicine have now caused an unexpected stir. According to the guidelines, people do not need to cut down on red meat (pork and beef) if they want to be healthy. This is in spite of previous research which, on the contrary, has linked not only red meat but also industrially processed meat products to health complications such as heart disease and cancer (especially of the bowel and rectum). And also despite all the scientific support for a plant-based diet.
"For most people - although obviously not everyone - eating red and industrially processed meat is the right approach," argued Bradley Johnston, an associate professor in human health and epidemiology and one of the authors of the published paper. According to him, it is healthy for a person to consume three to four servings of red meat per week.
Consternated scientists
Of course, the above-quoted conclusions immediately sparked a rather fierce debate across professional circles. According to Dr. Frank Hu, chairman of Harvard University's nutrition department, this is a very irresponsible recommendation. In his opinion, the consumption of red and industrially processed meat is generally associated with a higher risk of mortality. Yet a modest reduction in red meat consumption could hypothetically reduce mortality across the population by 7.6%.
Restricting meat consumption is not beneficial?
To some extent, the recommendations described here go against existing trends. The published study involved 14 experts in fields ranging from nutritional epidemiology to dietetics to internal medicine. The conclusions are then based on five different reviews of previous red and processed meat consumption, covering both health outcomes and cultural preferences. This scientific panel also focused on the "absolute risks" associated with meat consumption rather than the "relative risks," which Johnston says can skew the magnitude of the effects. "If the baseline risk of disease in a population is 2% and then reduced by 1%, this is a 50% relative risk reduction, but in reality it is only a 1% reduction in absolute risk," he clarified.
Thus, the researchers agreed that there is minimal evidence that reducing meat consumption can reduce the risk of cancer or other related diseases. "For most meat eaters, there are very few benefits that would accrue from reducing meat consumption," says Johnston. However, it should be added that other impacts of meat production and consumption, such as ethical or environmental issues, have not been considered.
A bit of another meat lobby
In any case, the study has provoked a similarly strong reaction to the current Czech campaign, Žeru maso (I eat meat). And there is another possible parallel. The aforementioned research on the harmlessness of red meat was subsequently de facto discredited, as it turned out that its leader, Bradley Johnston, had received funding for a meta-analysis of saturated fats from AgriLife Research, one of the "branches" of Texas A&M University, which is partly funded by the meat industry. So it's not clear whether the researchers were deliberately trying to make saturated fat look harmless, or even beneficial.
What to believe?
While annual meat consumption in the Czech Republic is around 80 kg per person (and over time, consumption of chicken meat in particular has been rising, while interest in pork - which still accounts for about half of the total - and beef has been falling), meat consumption in the US has been rising slowly year on year. However, environmentalists in particular believe that meat consumption should be reduced. On the other hand, however, the nutritional benefits associated with meat consumption should not be overlooked, and it should not be completely absent from the human diet. However, the ideal ratio of meat to other foods is still a question on which there is no universal agreement. However, given that many of us still eat more than enough meat, it is at least debatable to what extent it is still appropriate to stimulate this consumption systematically...
