In this file:
· National Pork Board sees balance in new red meat study
· Researchers Claim No Benefit to Reduce Intake of Beef and Red Meat in Your Diet
· Once untouchable, the case against red meat is officially on the ropes
· Cattlemen delighted with new report refuting red meat link to heart disease, cancer
· Are Impossible and Beyond burgers better or worse than red meat?
National Pork Board sees balance in new red meat study
By Mark Dorenkamp, Brownfield
October 1, 2019
The National Pork Board is confident the new report on red meat consumption and human health will bring balance to previous dietary research.
NPB’s Adria Huseth, who is a registered dietician, tells Brownfield the findings are based on the most comprehensive review of evidence to date.
“One thing consistent in research prior to this is inconsistency, if that makes sense.”
Huseth says what she means is previous data connecting red meat to cardiovascular disease and cancer has less merit.
“So there can be confidence that they’ve taken all the other studies into account when doing these meta-analysis.”
more, including audio [8:38 min.]
Researchers Claim No Benefit to Reduce Intake of Beef and Red Meat in Your Diet
Oklahoma Farm Report
01 Oct 2019
A series of papers were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that conclude Americans do not need to reduce their intake of red and processed meats as it provides little to no benefit for health. These scientific reviews were conducted by researchers from Dalhousie University and McMaster University in Canada, together with Spanish and Polish Cochrane Centers. However, several media reports are calling these papers are controversial for the conclusions that have been drawn.
The website WEBMD.Com report that these studies say "it’s OK to eat them because researchers couldn’t find any links to health problems like heart disease and cancer.
"Not surprisingly, the studies have created an uproar among leading health and nutrition researchers who have long said eating too much of them is bad for your health. Several groups, one of which includes an author of one of the papers, sent letters to the journal’s editor requesting that publication be postponed for further investigation.
“It’s the most egregious abuse of data I’ve ever seen,” says Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who was among the signers of the letter. “There are just layers and layers of problems.”
Shalene McNeill, PhD RD, Executive Director of Nutrition Science, Health and Wellness at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff offered the following statement in light of the studies published by the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"We support scientific discovery and a greater understanding of beef’s role in health to help consumers make informed choices about what they eat. A new series of systematic reviews published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine finds the evidence supporting the health benefits of reducing red and processed meat to be low to very low certainty...
Once untouchable, the case against red meat is officially on the ropes
Faced with new research, health authorities may have lost control of a decades-old narrative that red meat is bad for you
By: Paul Scott, Grand Forks Herald (ND)
Oct 1st 2019
ROCHESTER, Minn. — A day after one of the most prestigious medical journals in the country declared the evidence against red meat to be small and weak, howls of protest rang out from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and a host of other organizations aligned around the longstanding message that eating red meat will increase your risk of heart disease and cancer.
The science, it now appears, was never quite there to make those claims.
The charges that only weak evidence existed against beef were first raised on Tuesday, Oct. 1, as a global consortium of 19 researchers from seven countries issued four papers in the Annals of Internal Medicine. This so-called NutriRECS Consortium, whose members were selected for their lack of conflicts of interest and skill in evaluating the quality of scientific evidence, undertook a systematic review of the content and quality of hundreds of studies involving millions of subjects, research purporting to show the harms of eating red meat.
That evidence may have been buried in journals all these years, but its conclusions have changed the way Americans eat. As a result of the longstanding advice to curtail the consumption of red meat, Americans have cut back heartily on steaks, hamburgers and roasts over the last three decades, eating nearly 28 percent less as of 2014 according to federal food availability surveys . During this same period, an era in which diabetes and obesity has skyrocketed, consumption of replacement meats chicken and pork has risen, as has that of processed foods. Critics say that widespread dietary shifts like these highlight the unintended consequences of any formal pronouncements on foods to be avoided in the name of health.
The NutriRECS researchers arrived at their conclusions after organizing the collected dietary literature on red meat and health according to a widely-accepted system for ranking scientific evidence known as GRADE. Among its methods, GRADE weights the findings of randomly controlled dietary trials more heavily than those of observational studies commonly produced to show a link between meat and illness, evidence filled with confounding variables like the truthfulness of dietary logs and the tendency of people who follow diets to undertake other health promoting behaviors. GRADE also places a higher value on findings from studies that are not funded by private interests.
Critics have long asserted that the Dietary Guidelines and their prohibitions against meat are not based on the best evidence...
Cattlemen delighted with new report refuting red meat link to heart disease, cancer
by Jim Lefko, News4SanAntonio (TX)
October 1st 2019
Eating red meat may actually be much safer than the general public has been led to believe. A new international study refutes widely-held public opinion linking meat to both cancer and heart disease.
Area cattlemen are optimistic beef prices might be headed up in the near future as a result of the new research.
"I eat a lot of beef," says Pleasanton's Logan West. "My family eats a lot of beef. I think it's a safe source of food."
Ralph Davis, a Guadalupe County cattleman, agrees.
"Beef is good for you," he says. "It's actually good for you, eaten in moderation."
Despite harsh protests from national experts - including a former Heart Association nutrition expert who calls the research "fatally flawed," reaction was less critical locally.
"The danger of red meat alone for the general population appears to be minimal," says Dr. Fred Campbell of UT Health. "I think you can celebrate with red meat periodically without any danger at all."
He did caution that people in high risk groups, such as diabetics or patients with kidney problems, continue to monitor their protein intake.
"The major issue with meat, I believe, is going to be an association long-term with certain cancers, perhaps colon cancer," Campbell says. "However the evidence is just not strong enough in the minds of most researchers and experts.
"If people believe they can eat more red meat, they may also make the mistake of using a higher fat-containing red meat. That could be very dangerous for people at high risk for heart disease or stroke."
The new report comes from three years of independent research by more than a dozen people in seven countries, according to the New York Times.
Davis says a recent visit to his heart doctor verified the shift away from meat restrictions, particularly when it comes to steak.
"He said if you want to eat one a day, that's fine," Davis says, noting his doctor also recommends: "When you're eating a steak, make it the size of your hand. Don't eat the large one."
The pro-meat report brought West to the Atascosa Livestock Exchange Tuesday for the weekly cattle auction. He had an ulterior motive too...
Are Impossible and Beyond burgers better or worse than red meat?
By Hannah Sparks, New York Post
October 1, 2019
Health experts have a beef with fake meat.
Plant-based meats — lab-grown alternatives that look, smell and taste like the real deal — have never been bigger. Grocery stores and upscale restaurants now stock shockingly realistic riffs on beef, sausage and chicken, made by cutting-edge companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat. Even fast-food restaurants are on board: You can buy a cowless Impossible Whopper at Burger King, a vegetarian Beyond Sausage Breakfast Sandwich at Dunkin’ and chicken-free Beyond Fried Chicken at an Atlanta KFC. The trend, fueled by health and environmental concerns over meat consumption, is only growing: Investment firm UBS estimates that the plant-based-protein industry will be worth $85 billion by 2030.
But everyone’s so excited about science and burgers, they’re overlooking one major point: that “plant based” isn’t synonymous with “good for you.”
“Right now, the terms ‘plant based,’ ‘vegetarian’ or ‘vegan’ are really enjoying this public reputation of being healthy,” Rachel Lustgarten, a registered dietitian at Weill Cornell Medicine, tells The Post. “But terms like those don’t really speak to what the makeup of that food is.”
Dr. Sean Heffron, a cardiologist at NYU Langone, puts it more bluntly.
“I don’t know that it’s a healthier choice than real meat,” says Heffron. “If I was presented the option [of fake or real fried chicken], I would probably eat the real chicken.”
Initially, the heart doctor was curious, in particular, about the new red-meat substitutes. He hasn’t eaten red meat or pork in 25 years, and spends many of his days advising people to cut back on red meat, which has been linked to heart disease and high levels of low-density lipoprotein, known as LDL or the bad cholesterol.
“I’ll be honest,” he says. “I was tempted. But then I read what’s in them.”
To taste anywhere near as good as real meat, he explains, “plant-based burgers have to replace [ground beef’s natural fats] with something.”
Specifically, Lustgarten says, plant-based patties have to nail “that rich, meaty mouthfeel that people are looking for.” For that, you need “a pretty significant” amount of fat — and “oil is a straight fat source.”
For some brands, that means adding lots and lots of coconut oil — which is heavy in saturated fats, a “major driver of high LDL cholesterol,” says Heffron. “And as a cardiologist, LDL cholesterol is our enemy.”
more, including links