Our mission is to educate and inspire farmers, ranchers, and consumers about the importance of sustainability, regenerative farming, and biodiversity in our food systems.

Why did they lie and claim red meat is bad for you? A new study contradicts this misguided conclusion, and demonstrates that the old lie is based on weak evidence.

For years, studies have been linking red meat consumption to a range of health issues, from heart disease to cancer. However, these studies often come with significant methodological limitations. In a groundbreaking effort, health scientists at the University of Washington have undertaken a comprehensive review of decades of research on red meat consumption, introducing an innovative approach to assessing health risks in the process. The results challenge some long-held beliefs and underscore the complexity of interpreting dietary research.

One of the primary issues with previous studies is their reliance on observational data, which struggles to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship. Factors like confounding variables—such as individuals' overall diet, smoking habits, or exercise levels—can skew results. Additionally, much of the data is based on self-reported dietary information, which is prone to inaccuracies. Moreover, the reported effect sizes in these studies are often minor, raising questions about the practical significance of the findings.

A Novel Approach to Research

The University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) embarked on an unprecedented endeavor to scrutinize the connections between red meat consumption and various health outcomes. In doing so, they developed a new rating system to communicate the associated health risks more effectively. The findings challenge some commonly held concerns about the impact of consuming red meat.

The researchers stated, "We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and ischemic heart disease. Moreover, we found no evidence of an association between unprocessed red meat and ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke."

Recognizing the ongoing challenges in health science, the IHME scientists devised the "burden of proof risk function." This statistical method allows researchers to quantitatively evaluate and summarize risk evidence across different risk-outcome pairs. This function translates data into a one- to five-star rating system, providing a clearer picture of the strength of the relationship between behavior or condition and health outcome.

Reevaluating Red Meat's Reputation

When applied to red meat consumption and its potential health implications, the burden of proof function yielded ratings that were generally low. No health outcome warranted a rating greater than two stars. This challenges the notion that eating red meat poses a significant direct health risk.

Dr. Steven Novella, a Yale neurologist and president of the New England Skeptical Society, commented, "The evidence for a direct vascular or health risk from eating meat regularly is very low, to the point that there is probably no risk." He suggested that the real risk might lie in not consuming enough vegetables, as meat consumption might displace the intake of nutrient-rich plant-based foods.

Future Implications and Insights

The IHME team's innovative approach holds promise beyond the realm of red meat research. They plan to use the burden of proof function to assess various health risks, creating a comprehensive and accessible database. This approach could aid not only consumers in making informed choices but also policymakers in developing targeted health education programs. Dr. Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor of health metrics sciences at IHME and a lead author of the study, highlighted this potential: "Health researchers can also use this analysis to identify areas where current evidence is weak and more definitive studies are needed."

As dietary science continues to evolve, the University of Washington's groundbreaking study serves as a reminder of the nuanced nature of research and the importance of considering multiple perspectives when evaluating health risks associated with our dietary choices.