logoThe People's Perspective on Medicine

Is Meat OK to Eat Now? Do Food Flip-Flops Make You Mad?

Public health experts have told us for decades that red meat causes heart attacks and cancer. But new studies question that dogma. Is meat OK after all?
Cc0 from https://pixabay.com/en/barbecue-meat-grill-sausage-food-820010/

There’s another huge reversal in dietary advice. This is the biggest yet! First we were told to avoid eggs, and then we learned eggs are just fine. We were warned to use margarine instead of butter, and then it turned out that trans-fats in most margarines were worse for our health than butter. For decades we’ve been told that eating red meat, especially processed meat, is almost tantamount to a death wish. Is red meat OK after all? Are you thoroughly confused or do these flip-flops drive you crazy?

Have You Read the Headlines?

Depending upon your news service you could read very different accounts of the latest research. Is meat OK or bad for your health. Here are just a handful of conflicting headlines:

“Is meat really that bad for you?” (BBC, Oct. 3, 2019)

“Steak is back on the menu, if a new review of risks of red meat is to be believed” (Reuters, Sept. 30, 2019)

“Red and processed meat are OK to eat, controversial new guidelines claim. Don’t believe it, leading experts say” (CNN Sept. 30, 2019)

“New Studies on Red and Processed Meat Are a Big, Fat Nothingburger” (Union of Concerned Scientists, Oct. 2, 2019)

“Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice” (New York Times, Sept. 30, 2019

What Does the Research Reveal? Is Meat OK?

The current issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine (Oct. 1, 2019) has created an epic earthquake in nutrition land. It presented four different analyses of nutritional data showing that any health hazard from eating red meat is modest at best. Here is a link to an editorial in the Annals. It is written by Dr. Aaron Carroll and Dr. Tiffany Doherty and  provides a thoughtful overview of the data: 

1) One meta-analysis reviewed the results of 100 studies including a total of 6 million participants. It revealed that dietary patterns, including the amount of meat people usually consume, don’t have a big impact on people’s likelihood of getting cancer and dying prematurely.

2) Another analysis looked at cohort studies that considered how reducing red meat consumption affects the risk of cancer and early death. It too involved 6 million people in 118 studies. It showed only a small benefit from reducing the amount of meat people eat.

3) A third study looked at cardiovascular consequences of eating meat. You guessed it: the risk in these cohort studies was tiny.

4) Finally, the researchers analyzed results from randomized controlled trials comparing diets with different amounts of meat. Such studies are considered the gold standard for medical research. In these 12 studies, red meat had:

“little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.”

Nutrition Establishment Fights Back! Meat OK? Not on Your life!

The backlash has been intense. Many nutrition scientists strongly disagree with the conclusions of these analyses. Public health organizations have been calling for reduced consumption of red meat for decades.

NPR offered the following quotes from renowned nutrition experts: 

“’I am outraged and bewildered,’ says nutrition scientist Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. 

“’This is perplexing, given the … clear evidence for harm associated with high red meat intake,’ says Frank Hu, the chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“Gardner and Hu are among a group of scientists who signed a letter to the journal’s editor requesting the papers be held pending further review. Others include Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts University, as well as Eric Rimm and Dr. Walter Willett, also of Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.”

Our Conflict of Interest:

We have interviewed Dr. Walter Willett and Dr. Christopher Gardner many times on our syndicated public radio show.  We have also spoken with Dr. Mozaffarian. We appreciate their research and understand their outrage. They have all been strong advocates of a plant-based diet. We have also interviewed Dr. Aaron Carroll who co-wrote the editorial in the Annals of Internal Medicine

That said, we try to remain objective about new research. We admit that we are not always successful, but we do try. Is meat OK? Listen to our interview with Dr. Aaron Carroll to get his perspective on a variety of “risks,” including bacon and wine. He will explain in understandable language how to make sense of various kinds of research including case-control studies and randomized controlled trials. You will also learn about absolute risk and relative risk. Find out about the pros and cons of wine and spirits. Here is a link to the free podcast.

Show 1141: Which Health Risks Should You Worry About?

So, Is Meat OK or Not?

As we mentioned, Dr. Carroll co-authored a very sensible editorial in this month’s Annals of Internal Medicine. He puts the new research into perspective.

Here are a few of the observations the editorial provides:

“There is controversy over whether consumption of meat, and what kind of meat, leads to poor health outcomes, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. Although many studies report health risks, many—some even examining the same data sets as those reporting a significant risk—do not. Some reviews of the literature conclude that processed meat is carcinogenic, and red meats are ‘probably carcinogenic’. Other reviews conclude that evidence supporting the association between red meat consumption and colon cancer and cardiovascular disease is weak.”

Dr. Carroll and his colleague carefully analyze the four new studies in the Annals of Internal Medicine that conclude reductions in red meat consumption have marginal health benefits. There are also new guidelines in the journal that do not recommend red meat reductions.

The editorialists note:

“This is sure to be controversial, but it is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date. Because that review is inclusive, those who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence with which to build an argument.”

“Research suggests that presenting an individual with information that opposes their beliefs could result in them holding on more tightly to those beliefs.”

The authors also point out that there are other reasons besides health that might inspire people to reduce their meat consumption. Animal welfare and environmental conditions are both considerations. Here is an article in The New York Times that Dr. Carroll has also written about this very issue (New York Times, Oct. 1, 2019). 

The Real Problem With Beef

Reader Feedback Welcome:

What do you think? Is meat OK or should it be shunned? Who should decide food policy? Should decisions be based on science or beliefs? Are you fed up with food flip-flops? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Rate this article
4.3- 98 ratings
About the Author
Joe Graedon is a pharmacologist who has dedicated his career to making drug information understandable to consumers. His best-selling book, The People’s Pharmacy, was published in 1976 and led to a syndicated newspaper column, syndicated public radio show and web site. In 2006, Long Island University awarded him an honorary doctorate as “one of the country's leading drug experts for the consumer.” .
Show 1141: Which Health Risks Should You Worry About?
Free - $9.99

Common sense and paying attention to the way studies are conducted and interpreted can tell you which health risks a real menace.

Show 1141: Which Health Risks Should You Worry About?
  • Carroll, A.E., and Doherty, T.S., "Meat Consumption and Health: Food for Thought," Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1, 2019, DOI: 10.7326/M19-2620
  • Valli, C., et al, "Health-Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Consumption: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review," Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1, 2019, DOI: 10.7326/M19-1326
  • Zeraaker, D., et al, "Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for All-Cause Mortality and Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies," Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1, 2019, DOI: 10.7326/M19-0655
  • Han, M.A., et al, "Reduction of Red and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Mortality and Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies," Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1, 2019, DOI: 10.7326/M19-0699
  • Vernooij, R.W.M., et al, "Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies," Annals of Internal Medicine, Oct. 1, 2019, DOI: 10.7326/M19-1583
Join over 150,000 Subscribers at The People's Pharmacy

We're empowering you to make wise decisions about your own health, by providing you with essential health information about both medical and alternative treatment options.

comments (44 total)
Add your comment

Why can’t each individual just eat what keeps them healthy & feeling good? (Not too many M & M’s haha)

I love the People’s Pharmacy but this article was fairly useless. It seemed to mildly defend the new study but did not really articulate the basis for those who are troubled by it.

There has been a lot of reporting on studies that show meat consumption can lead to health problems and early death (I note that was not discussed when reporting the new study). Were those reports inaccurate? If not, why are they being discarded now?

I think the moderation point is correct. I also think it is worth mention that observational studies are problematic. Using huge numbers (6 million etc.) makes this analysis seem more powerful than it is.

Eating excessive meat is unquestionably bad for the environment. Eating processed meat is surely bad for you. Keep it moderate and clean and you are probably OK.


We completely agree with you that observational studies (epidemiology) “are problematic.” Sadly, most of the studies that you are referring to that “show meat consumption can lead to health problems,” are observational.

You must have missed the part of our article that refers to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Here is what we wrote:

Finally, the researchers analyzed results from randomized controlled trials comparing diets with different amounts of meat. Such studies are considered the gold standard for medical research. In these 12 studies, red meat had:

“little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.”

Please do not shoot the messengers. We tried to report on this comprehensive analysis of four studies fairly. We did not come with preconceived ideas of what they should have discovered.

What they’re not saying in the new meat study is that a lead researcher, Bradley C. Johnston, has ties to the red meat industry from as early as 2016. He felt that he didn’t need to disclose that fact. Johnston also received money from a sugar lobbiest right before he released a study that showed sugar wasn’t that bad for you either.


In yesterday’s ‘New York Times’, page A19 there is an article about this research. It states that one of the researchers involved in this study, Dr. Bradley C. Johnson, has links to a meat trade group. Not surprising considering the ‘results’ of the study.

People have been eating beef for years. I eat a variety of meat of fish and have meatless meals mixed in. Having a variety of foods lends itself to moderation. I appreciate the plant-based diets as they have contributed many wonderful recipes utilizing fruits and vegetables, but most people need the protein and B12 from meats.





We are very sympathetic to your perspective. That said, we would have NO-zero-nada-nothing-in the way of new drugs if we adhered to your demand for independent researchers. Drug companies sponsor virtually ALL the research on medications and they obviously have a vested interest in the outcomes.

The people who did this research are scientists. The reviewers from the Annals of Internal Medicine are also good scientists. If the research were bogus it would not have been published.

Every couple of month/years you hear all the “experts” screaming how bad meat, eggs, milk are for everyone. My simple thought is….if our food ie meat vegtables and dairy were not contaminated with GMO’s Growth Hormones and Antibotic’s everyone would be alot healthier. Happiness is not lisening to the “experts”.

I believe moderation is the answer. Long long ago, refrigeration was not available and when an animal was butchered, the family and neighbors go together and they enjoyed meat for a few days. Then, they went without meat for several weeks or maybe months.

Biblically, meat is ok. I go by what my healthy parents and grandparents ate.. at 78yrs, so far healthy.

Curiously we have to learn that whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts that you prepare yourself and non-carbonated water is the most healthful diet. It would seem intuitive. I guess it shows how young a species we are.

* Be nice, and don't over share. View comment policy^