Should we eat less red meat? There’s no solid evidence behind that advice, dietary expert panel says

file cw y a

Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

But on [September 30], in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.

If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.

The new analyses are among the largest such evaluations ever attempted and may influence future dietary recommendations. In many ways, they raise uncomfortable questions about dietary advice and nutritional research, and what sort of standards these studies should be held to.

Already they have been met with fierce criticism by public health researchers. The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and other groups have savaged the findings and the journal that published them.

Read full, original article: Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosateโ€”the world's most heavily-used herbicideโ€”pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint โ€” Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-12.14.04-PM
The FDA wants to make many popular prescription drugs OTCโ€”a great idea. Hereโ€™s why itโ€™s unlikely to happen
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-02_20_13-PM
How RFK, Jr.โ€™s false vaccine claims are holding up $600 million to fight diseases in poor countries
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-11.56.24-AM
โ€˜Science moves forward when people are willing to think differentlyโ€™: Memories of DNA maverick Craig Venter
Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-11.15.51-AM
Paraben panic: How a flawed study, media hype, and chemophobia convinced the public of the danger of one of the safest classes of preservatives
Screenshot-2026-04-30-at-2.19.37-PM
5 myths about summer dehydration that could damage your health โ€” or even kill you
viva-la-vida-watermelons
Misinformation and climate change are endangering summer watermelons
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-27-2026-11_27_05-AM
The myths of โ€œprocessโ€: What science says about the โ€œdangersโ€™ of synthetic products and ultra-processed foods
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpointโ€”โ€œMiracle moleculeโ€ debunked: Why acemannan supplements donโ€™t work
Drinking lots of water can help reduce the effects of aging
Nanoplastics in drinking water: MAHA activists forge science-based bipartisan coalitionย 
Screenshot-2026-05-04-at-12.54.32-PM
How Utah became the countryโ€™s supplement capitalย  โ€” and a haven for unregulated, ineffective and fake products
circular-bioeconomy-should-focus-on-sustainable-wellbeing
GLP podcast: What's wrong with 'doomsday' environmentalism? It's false.
79d03212-2508-45d0-b427-8e9743ff6432
Viewpoint: The Casey Means hustleโ€”Wellness woo opportunism dressed up as medical wisdom
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.