It’s almost unheard of for medical journals to get blowback for studies before the data are published. But that’s what happened to the Annals of Internal Medicine in fall 2019] as editors were about to post several studies showing that the evidence linking red meat consumption with cardiovascular disease and cancer is too weak to recommend that adults eat less of it.
Annals Editor-in-Chief Christine Laine, MD, MPH, saw her inbox flooded with roughly 2000 emails—most bore the same message, apparently generated by a bot—in a half hour. Laine’s inbox had to be shut down, she said. Not only was the volume unprecedented in her decade at the helm of the respected journal, the tone of the emails was particularly caustic.
Subsequent news coverage criticized the methodology used in the meat papers and raised the specter that some of the authors had financial ties to the beef industry ….
But what has for the most part been overlooked is that [some critics of the papers] have numerous industry ties …. with companies and organizations that stand to profit if people eat less red meat and a more plant-based diet.
Read full, original article: Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists