tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/red-meat-4304/articlesRed meat – The Conversation2024-02-25T19:09:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2239602024-02-25T19:09:48Z2024-02-25T19:09:48ZA ‘war on red meat’? No, changes to Australian dietary guidelines are just a sensible response to Earth’s environmental woes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577506/original/file-20240223-24-czbzv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C5599%2C3732&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Official dietary advice in Australia <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/eating-green-ideology-official-diet-advice-to-warn-of-climate-impact/news-story/7deeaf36dea21fcc8a443e006312e42d">is set to warn</a> of the climate impact of certain foods. The move has raised the ire of farmers, meat producers and others who branded it “green ideology” and a “war on meat”.</p>
<p>Critics say the The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which is behind the change, is overreaching and should not expand its remit beyond providing nutritional advice. We strongly disagree. </p>
<p>Having <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-7707-6">explored</a> the scientific evidence about the harm food can cause to both the planet and human health, we firmly believe environmental information about food choices should be prominent in dietary guidelines. </p>
<p>Human health depends on having a safe, liveable planet and the state of our planet is inextricably linked to food systems. It’s entirely sensible that consumers are informed about whether their food choices are sustainable.</p>
<h2>‘A thorough review of the evidence’</h2>
<p>Australia’s <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf">dietary guidelines</a> were released in 2013. The document provides general information about the environmental sustainability of food, but it’s buried in an appendix and the recommendations are fairly inconclusive.</p>
<p>The guidelines are currently under review and will be updated in 2026. The NHMRC says feedback from the public suggested sustainability information should be more accessible and explicit in the new guidelines. In fact, it said one in three people surveyed nominated the change as a priority. </p>
<p>The NHMRC says developing or updating its guidelines involves:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a thorough review of the evidence, methodological advice on the quality of these reviews, drafting of the guidelines, public consultation and independent expert review of the final guidelines. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It said the dietary recommendations would first consider Australia-specific health impacts, followed by sustainability and other factors – an approach in line with guidelines overseas.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="assortment of fruit and vegetables" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577508/original/file-20240223-28-raav9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577508/original/file-20240223-28-raav9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577508/original/file-20240223-28-raav9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577508/original/file-20240223-28-raav9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577508/original/file-20240223-28-raav9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577508/original/file-20240223-28-raav9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577508/original/file-20240223-28-raav9k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia’s dietary guidelines are under review.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Critics come out swinging</h2>
<p>Australians are among the <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-type?country=CHN%7EUSA%7EIND%7EARG%7EPRT%7EETH%7EJPN%7EBRA%7EOWID_WRL%7EESP%7EDEU%7EAUS">world’s biggest</a> meat eaters. However, recent trends indicate Australians’ beef consumption is <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com/au/bed/meat-consumption/43/">in decline</a>. </p>
<p>Meat creates <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00358-x">almost 60%</a> of greenhouse gas emissions from food production, and <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216">red meat has the highest</a> environmental footprint out of all food choices. </p>
<p>Perhaps unsurprisingly, the change to dietary guidelines has prompted opposition from some quarters. In a report in The Australian, for example, Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/eating-green-ideology-official-diet-advice-to-warn-of-climate-impact/news-story/7deeaf36dea21fcc8a443e006312e42d">said</a> the moves:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>go well beyond the policy intent of the Australian Dietary Guidelines to provide recommendations on healthy foods and dietary patterns […] [the] review process must not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to drive ideological agendas at the expense of the latest nutritional science.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He said the industry’s concerns were not related to its progress on sustainability, about which it had “a strong story” to tell.</p>
<p>The newspaper also quoted a Central Queensland cattle farmer, who said perceived misinformation about the health impacts and sustainability of red meat production were rife in the media, public policy and nutritional advice.</p>
<p>Conservative media outlets also weighed in on the changes. Sydney radio station 2GB <a href="https://www.2gb.com/war-on-meat-diet-advice-to-include-impacts-on-emissions/">declared</a> the move a “war on meat” and host Ben Fordham <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/war-on-meat-aussie-farmers-screwed-over-again-as-ben-fordham-slams-new-dietary-guidelines-which-could-soon-promote-an-ideological-climate-agenda/news-story/6f06f2101304ea898d124284d79da506">claimed</a> farmers were being “screwed over again”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meat-and-masculinity-why-some-men-just-cant-stomach-plant-based-food-174785">Meat and masculinity: why some men just can't stomach plant-based food</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="pieces of steak" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577510/original/file-20240223-24-prqgez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577510/original/file-20240223-24-prqgez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577510/original/file-20240223-24-prqgez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577510/original/file-20240223-24-prqgez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577510/original/file-20240223-24-prqgez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577510/original/file-20240223-24-prqgez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577510/original/file-20240223-24-prqgez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australians are among the world’s biggest meat eaters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The global picture</h2>
<p>The upcoming changes are not unprecedented globally. Environmental sustainability is highlighted in the official dietary guidelines of at least <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00246-7/fulltext">ten other countries</a>. They include Sweden which introduced <a href="https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/sweden/en/">climate-friendly food advice</a> in 2015. </p>
<p>The title of the <a href="https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/matvanor-halsa--miljo/kostrad/rad-om-bra-mat-hitta-ditt-satt">Swedish guidelines</a> translates to “Find your way to eat greener, not too much and be active!” Among the recommendations are to: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Eat less red and processed meat, no more than 500 grams a week. Only a small amount of this should be processed meat.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But other nations have struggled to include sustainability advice in official dietary guidelines. In the United States, for example, lobby groups <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/26/usda-diet-guide-myplate-climate-crisis">prevented the change</a>, despite the recommendations of government-appointed nutritionists.</p>
<h2>Dietary officials have not overreached</h2>
<p>The Australian dietary guidelines already suggest limiting red meat consumption on health grounds. </p>
<p>Research has shown <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/cutting-red-meat-for-a-longer-life">regular consumption of red meat</a>, especially if it’s processed, contributes substantially to the risk of premature death. A high intake of red meat has been <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext">associated with</a> cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, cancers and type 2 diabetes. </p>
<p>Adding information about the environmental effects of red meat health simply reinforces the benefits of eating less of it.</p>
<p>The link between food, the natural environment and health is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985113/">well-established</a>. Even before food is produced, vegetation is cleared to create space for crops and livestock. This leads to both the release of carbon dioxide and biodiversity loss, among other harms. </p>
<p>When it comes to meat, the digestive systems of sheep and cattle <a href="https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/dpi/climate/climate-science-and-policy/climate-policy-environment/values-of-mixed-farming-systems#:%7E:text=The%20farming%20of%20beef%20and,trapping%20heat%20in%20the%20atmosphere.">produce a lot of methane</a>, a potent greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gas emissions are also created when food is processed, transported, stored and disposed of. Food packaging contributes to pressure on landfill and creates pollution.</p>
<p>All these processes threaten human health. Researchers have <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext">called for</a> a global transformation of food systems, to ensure they operate within Earth’s limits.</p>
<p>The role of NHMRC is to protect public health in Australia. It makes sense, then, that it provides consumers with information about which foods cause the least environmental damage – and by extension, are also good for their personal health. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/442869/original/file-20220127-18-167q53l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Excavator on forest cleared for livestock" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/442869/original/file-20220127-18-167q53l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/442869/original/file-20220127-18-167q53l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442869/original/file-20220127-18-167q53l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442869/original/file-20220127-18-167q53l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442869/original/file-20220127-18-167q53l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442869/original/file-20220127-18-167q53l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442869/original/file-20220127-18-167q53l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clearing land for food production is a major source of biodiversity and vegetation loss.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A rightful part of the public health agenda</h2>
<p>Dietary guidelines are a government tool to influence food consumption towards good choices. They are based on the best available evidence, and evolve along with our understanding of food and its impacts. </p>
<p>Of course, even if Australia’s guidelines are changed to incorporate environmental advice, this does not guarantee everyone will make healthy and sustainable food choices. Such a shift requires major behaviour changes, of which dietary guidelines are only one component. </p>
<p>Arming consumers with the right information about food sustainability however should be part of the federal government’s public health agenda.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223960/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dora Marinova receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Diana Bogueva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Human health depends on having a liveable planet and this is inextricably linked to food systems.Dora Marinova, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin UniversityDiana Bogueva, Research Fellow, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2079272023-08-06T20:00:33Z2023-08-06T20:00:33ZIs red meat bad for you? And does it make a difference if it’s a processed burger or a lean steak?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538681/original/file-20230721-6326-7bnydt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C8%2C5742%2C3819&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A juicy burger is a staple in many Australians’ diet. Yet research shows regularly eating red meat can increase your risk of developing <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad336/7188739?searchresult=1">type 2 diabetes, heart disease</a> and <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext">certain cancers</a>.</p>
<p>But is eating a beef burger worse for your health than eating a lean grass-fed steak? And how much red meat should we really be eating?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/talking-about-eating-less-red-and-processed-meat-provokes-strong-feelings-thats-why-this-new-evidence-based-report-is-welcome-209234">Talking about eating less red and processed meat provokes strong feelings. That's why this new evidence-based report is welcome</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Types of red meat</h2>
<p>First of all, it’s good to clarify that <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240074828">red meat</a> refers to all mammalian muscle meat. So that includes beef, lamb, pork, veal, mutton and goat. </p>
<p>Then we can distinguish red meat types by how the animal has been raised and how the meat is processed. Here are some key terms to know.</p>
<p>Conventional meat, also called grain-fed, is meat from animals that are grass-fed for part of their lives and then given a grain-based diet for the remainder. Most red meat available in major supermarkets is grain-fed.</p>
<p>Grass-fed meat comes from animals that have grazed on pasture for their entire lives. This means grass-fed meat tends to have higher levels of unsaturated fats than conventional meat, and is why some <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/5/646">research</a> suggests it’s healthier. Grass-fed meat is also likely to cost more.</p>
<p>Organic meat is seen as a premium product as it has to meet <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/export/controlled-goods/organic-bio-dynamic/national-standard">government standards</a> for organic produce. For example, meat labelled as organic cannot use synthetic pesticides or use hormones or antibiotics to stimulate growth. </p>
<p>Processed meats have been preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by adding chemical preservatives. Examples include sausages, ham, bacon and hot dogs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Sausages and salamis" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538683/original/file-20230721-17-8jb0lp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Salami and other smallgoods are processed meats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is the nutritional value of red meat?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/five-food-groups/lean-meat-and-poultry-fish-eggs-tofu-nuts-and-seeds-and">Red meat</a> contains many nutrients that are important for health, including protein, vitamin B12, iron and zinc. Red meat is a good source of iron and zinc as they are more easily absorbed by the body from meat than from plant foods. </p>
<p>Red meat is often high in saturated fats, but this can <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/ausnut/ausnutdatafiles/Pages/foodnutrient.aspx">range widely</a> from less than 1% to over 25% depending on the cut and whether it’s trimmed of fat or not. Minced meat typically ranges from 2% to 9% saturated fat depending on whether its extra lean or regular.</p>
<p>To limit intake of saturated fats, opt for leaner mince and leaner cuts of meat, such as pork tenderloins or beef steak with the fat trimmed off.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5243954/">Wagyu beef</a> (which simply translates to Wa = Japanese and Gyu = cow) has been touted as a healthier alternative to conventional red meat, as it tends to be higher in unsaturated fats. But research is limited, and ultimately it still contains saturated fat. </p>
<p>Processed meats, such as bacon, salami and sausages, contain beneficial nutrients, but they are also high in saturated fat, sodium and contain preservatives.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-a-meaty-question-are-barbecues-bad-for-your-health-10685">Here's a meaty question – are barbecues bad for your health? </a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is red meat bad for your health? And does the type matter?</h2>
<p>It’s widely reported eating too much red meat is bad for your health, because it can increase your risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. </p>
<p>But most of the evidence for this comes from observational studies, which cannot determine whether red meat intake actually causes the condition. </p>
<p>Most evidence is observational because it’s simply not ethical or feasible to ask someone to eat large amounts of meat every day for many years to see if they develop cancer.</p>
<p>So let’s take a look at the evidence:</p>
<p><strong>Heart disease and type 2 diabetes</strong></p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z">review</a> of 37 observational studies, the authors found weak evidence of an association between eating unprocessed red meat and heart disease and type 2 diabetes. </p>
<p>But for processed meat, a recent <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2626/7188739">review</a> showed that for each additional 50g of processed meat consumed per day, the risk of heart disease increased by 26% and the risk of type 2 diabetes increased by 44%, on average.</p>
<p><strong>Cancer</strong></p>
<p>Leading international organisations have declared there’s strong evidence consumption of red and processed meat <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/diet-activity-and-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-and-processed-meat/">increases the risk of colorectal cancer</a>. </p>
<p>For example, in a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/1/246/5470096?">study</a> of nearly 500,000 people, each additional 50g of red meat consumed per day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. And each additional 25g of processed meat consumed per day, equivalent to a slice of ham, increased the risk by 19%.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/">research</a> has linked consumption of red and processed meat with increased risk of other types of cancer, such as lung, pancreatic and breast, the evidence is not consistent.</p>
<p>It also matters how red meat is cooked. For example, cooking a steak over a high heat, especially an open flame, chars the outside. This causes <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet">chemical compounds</a> to form that have been shown to cause cancer in very high doses in animal models, and some studies in humans have found an <a href="https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/16/12/2664/260099/Meat-and-Meat-Mutagen-Intake-and-Pancreatic-Cancer">association</a> with increased cancer rates.</p>
<p>When it comes to how the animal was raised or its breed, based on current evidence, it’s unlikely the nutritional differences will have a substantial impact on human health. But research is limited in this area. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Steak" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538687/original/file-20230721-21-pcuc0r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Roasting is better than cooking over an open flame.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">jose ignacio pompe/unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-we-still-need-to-cut-down-on-red-and-processed-meat-124486">Yes, we still need to cut down on red and processed meat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How much red meat should you eat?</h2>
<p>Our national <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55a_australian_dietary_guidelines_summary_book.pdf">dietary guidelines</a> recommend the average adult eats a maximum of 455g of cooked lean red meat per week (or less than 65g a day, equivalent to one small lamb chop). This is also what’s recommended by the national <a href="https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/diet-and-exercise/meat-and-cancer-risk">Cancer Council</a>.</p>
<p>For heart health specifically, the national <a href="https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/getmedia/d5b9c4a2-8ccb-4fe9-87a2-d4a34541c272/Nutrition_Position_Statement_-_MEAT.pdf">Heart Foundation</a> recommends eating less than 350g of cooked, unprocessed red meat per week (or less than 50g a day).</p>
<p>Many dietary guidelines around the world now also recommend limiting red meat consumption for environmental reasons. To optimise both human nutrition and planetary health, the <a href="https://eatforum.org/lancet-commission/eatinghealthyandsustainable/">EAT-Lancet commission</a> recommends consuming no more than 98g a week of red meat and very low intakes of processed meat.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-eat-red-meat-the-nutrition-and-the-ethics-47934">Should we eat red meat? The nutrition and the ethics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>So what does all of this mean for your diet?</h2>
<p>The bottom line is that red meat can still be enjoyed as part of a <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/five-food-groups/lean-meat-and-poultry-fish-eggs-tofu-nuts-and-seeds-and">healthy diet</a>, if not eaten in excess. Where possible, opt for unprocessed or lean cuts, and try to grill less and roast more. Consider swapping red meat for lean chicken or fish occasionally too.</p>
<p>If you are looking for alternatives to meat that are better for your health and the environment, minimally processed plant-based alternatives, such as tofu, beans and lentils, are great options.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-the-nutrients-you-need-without-eating-as-much-red-meat-110274">How to get the nutrients you need without eating as much red meat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207927/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Livingstone receives funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant (APP1173803) and a National Heart Foundation of Australia Vanguard Grant (ID106800).</span></em></p>Most of us are vaguely aware we shouldn’t eat too much red meat, but why? And does the type of meat make a difference?Katherine Livingstone, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2092342023-07-16T20:00:36Z2023-07-16T20:00:36ZTalking about eating less red and processed meat provokes strong feelings. That’s why this new evidence-based report is welcome<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537222/original/file-20230713-24-5i48tc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C0%2C4813%2C3216&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Emotions can <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34588091">run high</a> when the topic of how much red and processed meat to eat is raised. For many of us, eating these foods is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666315001166?casa_token=VNY4M7HKk9cAAAAA:dNNXkbFr6wo5Q8gb1EG7J2kB379GhNJVZ23ArvxhFLlsm-_2K_mEacVE8PLUr-UZRIX7EGmBaBw">culturally important</a> – often tied to specific dishes and traditions.</p>
<p>That’s why this week’s landmark <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240074828">new report</a> from the World Health Organization (WHO) is welcome. The report focuses explicitly on what the science says about how red and processed meat affects our health – and the health of the ecosystems on which we depend. </p>
<p>What does it say? Moderation is important. In high-income countries, we tend to eat too much red meat, which boosts the risk of some cancers and heart disease. We should treat processed meat, such as salami, with even greater caution, as the link to cancer risk is even clearer.</p>
<p>If you want a quick take-home, it’s this: eat less red meat, avoid processed meat and choose meat farmed under better conditions. But this is not always easy or affordable for everyone. So most importantly, we need changes to the policies that affect how our food systems operate so that our well-being and the health of the planet are prioritised.</p>
<h2>What does the evidence say about red meat and our health?</h2>
<p>Red meat is a rich source of many <a href="https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/61245">important nutrients</a>, including iron, B-vitamins and all essential amino acids. These are compounds essential for human growth, development and good health.</p>
<p>Importantly, these nutrients are not exclusively found in red meat. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.806566/full">Beans and legumes</a> are also high in iron and B-vitamins, though in less easily absorbed form. Many cultures have developed healthy diets without an over-reliance on red meat by including beans and legumes. </p>
<p>In populations that experience food insecurity, red meat can be an important source of nutrition. In these contexts, it doesn’t make sense to advise people to avoid red meat.</p>
<p>But in other parts of the world, red meat intake is too high. Australians are some of the world’s biggest <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352550922002147?via%3Dihub">red meat eaters</a>, which puts us at higher risk of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35291893/">chronic diseases</a> such as bowel cancer and cardiovascular disease. Both of these are amongst Australia’s top killers. </p>
<p>Processed and ultra-processed meats such as ham and chicken nuggets come with even greater health risks, especially when consumed in excess. The WHO considers processed meat a <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat">Group 1 carcinogen</a>. That means there’s strong evidence linking consumption to cancer risk.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cc0639en/cc0639en.pdf">way we produce</a> red and processed meat comes with a host of other health issues, such as antimicrobial resistance due to overuse of antibiotics, as well as the risk of new zoonotic animal-to-human diseases. Intensive farming done on industrial scales poses <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090904">particular risks</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="processed meats" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537224/original/file-20230713-17-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Processed meat consumption has a clear link to cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does the evidence tell us about red meat and the environment?</h2>
<p>Ruminant livestock need grass, which often means farmers chop down the trees or shrubs previously there, making pasture inhospitable for native species. In feedlots, these animals are often fed on grains or soy. Producing the volumes needed - of both animal feed and livestock - means felling more forests. That’s why we can clearly link increased livestock farming to <a href="https://www.unnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/Livestock-Paper-EN_WEB.pdf">damaged biodiversity</a>. </p>
<p>There are issues on the climate front, too. Livestock production accounts for <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf">up to 78%</a> of all greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Of this, cattle farming <a href="https://academic.oup.com/af/article/10/4/14/5943514">contributes 80%</a>. </p>
<p>In Australia, livestock farming is generally less intensive compared to the United States. Even so, deforestation to make room for cattle is still a major issue in Australia. In the last five years, <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/12/15/australia-beef-deforestation-climate-brexit-trade-deal/">13,500 hectares</a> have been cleared for beef cattle operations in Queensland alone.</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be so destructive. Mixed farming systems, where <a href="https://theconversation.com/intensive-farming-is-eating-up-the-australian-continent-but-theres-another-way-130877">cattle graze</a> on land covered by trees and native grasses, is less destructive. </p>
<p>So are farming methods built around <a href="https://theconversation.com/regenerative-agriculture-is-all-the-rage-but-its-not-going-to-fix-our-food-system-203922">agro-ecological principles</a> where the health of the land and fairness <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z#:%7E:text=FAO%20(2018d)%20first%20described%20the,2020">are prioritised</a>. </p>
<p>As global heating escalates, it will pose increasing challenges for livestock farmers (and livestock animals). Increases in extreme weather have <a href="https://academic.oup.com/af/article/9/1/3/5272569">major implications</a> for animal welfare, farmer livelihoods and food security. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="grassy woodlands cattle" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537223/original/file-20230713-15-4hds6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Grassy eucalypt woodlands used for cattle farming in subtropical Queensland.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tara Martin</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does the evidence say about industrial farming?</h2>
<p>Many farmers care greatly about the welfare of their animals and the environment. </p>
<p>But meat production in many parts of the world is now <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901122002490">dominated by large corporations</a>. To maximise production, these companies rely on intensive farming techniques such as feedlots and extensive use of antibiotics. These techniques are spreading as low- and middle-income countries such as China and Brazil gain more appetite for meat. </p>
<p>Industrial scale farming comes with real costs. If we can make meat production better, we will lower the risk of antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic diseases, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, and improve the lives of workers and the animals themselves.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/organic-grass-fed-and-hormone-free-does-this-make-red-meat-any-healthier-92119">Organic, grass fed and hormone-free: does this make red meat any healthier?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Knowing this, what should we do?</h2>
<p>If we leave the situation as it is, intensive farming and red and processed meat consumption will continue to increase. </p>
<p>But this is not sustainable. To improve the health of people and the planet we need to change how we produce meat. And we need to consume more diverse diets. These changes have to be sensitive to the local context.</p>
<p>Changing what we eat must involve governments. Just as governments have a role in encouraging food manufacturers to avoid carcinogens or dangerous chemical additives, they have a role in promoting healthy diets from food systems that are sustainable over the long term. </p>
<p>What does that look like? It could be investing in agro-ecological farming practices, tackling corporate concentration of meat production, penalising <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-017-9660-0">antibiotic overuse</a> and subsidising healthy options like beans and legumes. Taxing the riskiest meat-based foods, such as heavily processed meat, is <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204139">another option</a>. </p>
<p>Sensible policy-making may also help shift <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329319300394?via%3Dihub">cultural norms</a> in which meat is so highly valued.</p>
<p>Could we just swap red meat for different meat? It’s not that simple. The majority of chickens are <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/%20environmental-impacts-of-food#dairy-vs-plant-based-milk-what-are-the-environmental-impacts">intensively farmed</a>, too, meaning antibiotic resistance remains a risk. Ultra-processed plant-based meats may <a href="https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.834285620056561">also pose problems</a> for human health. </p>
<p>A better option is to focus on minimally-processed whole foods (think brown rice, nuts and pulses) and sustainably-produced foods from animals. But we need action from the government to make these options affordable and convenient.</p>
<p>Importantly, the WHO report does not say stop eating red meat – it simply lays out the evidence about what it does to your health. It also points to ways of farming livestock that are less destructive and outlines ways to reduce our habitual consumption.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="mediterranean diet" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537225/original/file-20230713-19-56laau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wholefoods, fresh fruit and vegetables and moderate quantities of sustainably produced meat offer a better path for us and for the environment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/intensive-farming-is-eating-up-the-australian-continent-but-theres-another-way-130877">Intensive farming is eating up the Australian continent – but there's another way</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209234/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Sievert received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for previous work related to this topic. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Sacks receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and VicHealth.</span></em></p>Too much red meat – and especially processed meat – is linked to cancer and heart disease. But moderation is the key – alongside better farming practicesKatherine Sievert, Research Fellow in Food Systems, Deakin UniversityGary Sacks, Professor of Public Health Policy, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1999992023-02-21T06:10:47Z2023-02-21T06:10:47ZAs veganism grows in popularity, some people are still eating meat with friends – could a ‘social omnivore’ diet work for you?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510307/original/file-20230215-24-83aaqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6749%2C4270&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eating meat only when it is served in a social setting is a growing dietary trend.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/happy-young-couple-having-breakfast-cafe-1281404749">Bobex-73/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s Sunday and your family are sitting at the dinner table. There’s a bird roast, gravy and then there’s your vegan brother Tom. Your mum’s upset that he will not try a bit of the gravy on his vegetables and Grandpa is surprised that chicken even counts as meat. </p>
<p>We can be certain that the dinner conversation will soon circle around to how “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25865663/#:%7E:text=Recent%20theorizing%20suggests%20that%20the,their%20choice%20of%20eating%20meat.">normal, nice, necessary and natural</a>” meat eating is. These are the four main rationalisation strategies that omnivores use to defend their dietary choices.</p>
<p>A vegan’s intentions are good. Most of them avoid using animal products because they don’t want to cause animals harm. But this can put your relationships under strain. When people first go vegan, “<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.958248/full">eating with others</a>” is one of the main reasons it ends up not working out.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Quarter life, a series by The Conversation" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/quarter-life-117947?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">This article is part of Quarter Life</a></strong>, a series about issues affecting those of us in our twenties and thirties. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.</em></p>
<p><em>You may be interested in:</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/long-covid-a-range-of-diets-are-said-to-help-manage-symptoms-heres-what-the-evidence-tells-us-197821?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">Long COVID: a range of diets are said to help manage symptoms – here’s what the evidence tells us</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-running-can-help-you-cope-with-stress-at-work-198362?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">How running can help you cope with stress at work</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/hope-from-despair-how-young-people-are-taking-action-to-make-things-better-184859?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">Hope from despair: how young people are taking action to make things better</a></em></p>
<hr>
<p>But a new type of meat-reducer is emerging: the “<a href="https://www.bonappetit.com/story/social-omnivore-vegetarian-meat">social omnivore</a>”. This growing trend refers to people who will go for a kebab with their friends but will not eat meat when at home or on their own. It’s hard to say how common the phenomenon is, but the mantra is to avoid eating meat where you can and avoid social conflict when eating out. </p>
<p><strong>Barriers to eating less meat:</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510608/original/file-20230216-28-weqj5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A chart showing common barriers to meat reduction actions showing " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510608/original/file-20230216-28-weqj5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510608/original/file-20230216-28-weqj5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510608/original/file-20230216-28-weqj5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510608/original/file-20230216-28-weqj5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510608/original/file-20230216-28-weqj5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510608/original/file-20230216-28-weqj5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510608/original/file-20230216-28-weqj5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Self-reported barriers for not sticking to planned daily meat reduction actions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Frie et al (2022)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why don’t you eat meat?</h2>
<p>There are many reasons to <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1906908116">avoid eating meat</a>. No other food releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or causes more habitat destruction than meat. Red meat in particular is also associated with an increased risk of heart disease, certain cancers and suffering a stroke. </p>
<p>Then there’s the uncomfortable truth that sentient animals have to die in order for us to eat meat. </p>
<p>What kind of meat-avoiding diet is right for you will depend on your underlying motivations. If you see meat as murder, then you will have to go all the way and follow a vegan diet. Around <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/01/20/meet-britains-vegans-and-vegetarians">2%–3%</a> of people in Britain currently declare themselves to be vegan.</p>
<p>If you feel that consuming dairy is okay, becoming vegetarian may be a better option. The vegetarian population stands at <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/01/20/meet-britains-vegans-and-vegetarians">5%–7% of British people</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A cow in a cleared forest." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510315/original/file-20230215-2700-ey90p6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510315/original/file-20230215-2700-ey90p6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510315/original/file-20230215-2700-ey90p6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510315/original/file-20230215-2700-ey90p6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510315/original/file-20230215-2700-ey90p6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510315/original/file-20230215-2700-ey90p6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510315/original/file-20230215-2700-ey90p6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cattle farming is a leading cause of global deforestation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cow-cleared-land-deforestation-1466277293">Nuntiya/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But if your dietary choices are driven by concerns for your health or the environment, an occasional meaty treat should not make you question your identity. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201234">Research</a> from 2012 found that even by eating half as much meat and dairy, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 19% and prevent almost 37,000 deaths each year in the UK. </p>
<p>If this diet reflects you, then you can join the 13% of Brits who eat meat only occasionally – called “<a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/consumer/articles-reports/2021/05/31/what-making-flexitarians-us-and-uk-shift-towards-m">flexitarians</a>”. </p>
<p>A social omnivore is a kind of flexitarian with a very clear rule about when they will eat meat: when it is served in a social setting. This can be much more effective than a general flexitarian intention to eat “less meat”. In this case, how much less meat or when to have it are decided on a moment-to-moment basis. </p>
<h2>Clear rules</h2>
<p><a href="https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12265">Research</a> shows that a gap exists between our good intentions and behaviour. Whether it’s exercising more or eating fewer calories, we all tend to suffer from optimistic bias. This is the mistaken belief that we are closer to our goal than we really are.</p>
<p>If your intentions are not underpinned by clear rules, this gap can quickly become a gulf. We have to make many decisions about what to eat every day, and often under time pressure. If there are no clear rules to follow, we may <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01973533.2018.1449111?journalCode=hbas20">fall into old habits</a> rather than follow our good intentions.</p>
<p>Setting rules can help change behaviour because they reduce the cognitive load of multiple decisions every day. At the University of Oxford, we tested whether an online programme, called <a href="https://optimisediet.org/">Optimise</a>, could help prospective flexitarians reduce their meat consumption more effectively. </p>
<p>The programme involves completing a questionnaire to establish how much meat you currently eat before choosing from a range of different strategies each day for nine weeks to reduce your meat intake. </p>
<p>These might include suggestions like: “avoid the meat and fish aisle when shopping” or “go to a vegetarian or plant-based restaurant”. At the end of the programme, you will have a set of meat-reducing strategies, or rules, to put your low meat-eating intentions into practice. </p>
<p>In 2020, we <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-022-02828-9">trialled</a> the programme on 151 meat eaters. After five weeks, the programme led to a 40g per day reduction in meat intake. This equates to between one and two fewer rashers of bacon each day.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman making a hand sign to refuse a hamburger, french fries and fried chicken." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510318/original/file-20230215-20-bl6kgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510318/original/file-20230215-20-bl6kgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510318/original/file-20230215-20-bl6kgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510318/original/file-20230215-20-bl6kgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510318/original/file-20230215-20-bl6kgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510318/original/file-20230215-20-bl6kgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510318/original/file-20230215-20-bl6kgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants in the Optimise trial ate less meat after five weeks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/woman-making-hand-sign-refuse-hamburger-1930759184">Blue Titan/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Is it going to make a difference?</h2>
<p>Given the largely linear association between meat intake and harm to health and the planet, any reduction in the amount of meat you consume is likely to be beneficial. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://eatforum.org/lancet-commission/eatinghealthyandsustainable/">report</a> from the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health (a global group of scientists who define targets for healthy diets and sustainable food production) suggests that a diet that is both healthy and sustainable should contain no more than 98g of red meat, 203g of poultry and 196g of fish per week. That’s plenty for an occasional feast with friends.</p>
<p>Big journeys begin with small steps. Becoming a social omnivore today will be better for your health and the environment than a plan to become a vegan tomorrow.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199999/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Jebb receives funding from The Wellcome Trust 'Our Planet Our Health' programme</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elisa Becker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>More people are opting for a “social omnivore” lifestyle – could it save the planet, your health and your social life?Susan Jebb, Professor of Diet and Population Health, University of OxfordElisa Becker, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1808592022-04-18T19:57:32Z2022-04-18T19:57:32ZPlant-based patties, lab-grown meat and insects: how the protein industry is innovating to meet demand<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457569/original/file-20220412-21-scscs0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4808%2C3100&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/asian-happy-boy-eating-hamburger-burger-539830786">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/australians-buy-more-dairy-and-meat-substitutes-2020-21#:%7E:text=The%20amount%20of%20dairy%20and,Bureau%20of%20Statistics%20(ABS)">As demand for alternative protein sources grows</a>, Australians are increasingly looking for options that are healthy, sustainable and ethically made. </p>
<p>At CSIRO, we have produced a “<a href="https://www.csiro.au/protein-roadmap">protein roadmap</a>” to guide investments in a diverse range of new products and ingredients. We believe plant-based patties, lab-made meat and insects are just some of the foods set to fill Australian fridges by 2030.</p>
<p>The roadmap sketches out the foundations for a future with greater choice for consumers, and better outcomes for Australian producers across all types of protein. </p>
<h2>Changing protein preferences</h2>
<p>Australia is one of the world’s largest per-capita <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/prices--markets/documents/trends--analysis/soti-report/2789-mla-state-of-industry-report-2021_d11_single.pdf">beef consumers</a>, but there has been a steady decline in consumption over the past two decades.</p>
<p>The most <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/marketing-beef-and-lamb/consumer-sentiment-research">common reason</a> for eating less red meat is cost, followed by concerns related to health, the environment, and animal welfare. </p>
<p>At the same time, meat consumption among the middle class in <a href="https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/cf68bf79-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/cf68bf79-en">countries such as China and Vietnam has been rising</a>.</p>
<p>This shift in demand is creating an opportunity for protein producers to expand and diversify.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-are-trashing-our-health-and-the-planet-180115">Ultra-processed foods are trashing our health – and the planet</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Producing plant-based protein locally</h2>
<p>The plant protein industry is still small in Australia. However, it is <a href="https://www.foodfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/03/Food-Frontier-2020-State-of-the-Industry.pdf">ramping up rapidly</a>.</p>
<p>The total number of plant-based protein products on grocery shelves has doubled over the past year to more than 200. <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/australians-buy-more-dairy-and-meat-substitutes-2020-21#:%7E:text=The%20amount%20of%20dairy%20and,Bureau%20of%20Statistics%20(ABS)">Recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics</a> shows demand for these products has increased by about 30% in the past two years. </p>
<p>Plant-based food products are made by processing various plant ingredients (such as wholegrains, legumes, beans, nuts and oilseeds) into food products, including breads, pasta, and alternatives to meat and dairy. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A bird's eye view of a plant-based patty in one hand and a cup of legumes in the other hand." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457557/original/file-20220412-12-mny4zn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457557/original/file-20220412-12-mny4zn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457557/original/file-20220412-12-mny4zn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457557/original/file-20220412-12-mny4zn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457557/original/file-20220412-12-mny4zn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457557/original/file-20220412-12-mny4zn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457557/original/file-20220412-12-mny4zn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Legumes are often used to create plant-based patties.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mans-hands-holding-plant-based-non-1802315809">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lupins, chickpeas and lentils can be turned into plant-based burgers, while protein powders can be made from faba or mung beans.</p>
<p>Most plant-based products available now are either imported or made in Australia using imported ingredients, so there is plenty of room for Australian producers to enter the industry. </p>
<h2>The story behind the steak</h2>
<p>Meat will continue to be a staple in many people’s diets for years to come. </p>
<p>When we do eat meat, Australian consumers are increasingly asking questions about where their meat came from. On this front, “digital integrity” systems can be a useful solution.</p>
<p>These systems track everything from the origin of ingredients, to nutrition, sustainable packaging, fair trade and organic certifications. They also keep a record of associated labour conditions, carbon footprint, water use, chemical use, animal welfare consideration, and impacts to biodiversity and air quality.</p>
<p>One example is made by Sydney-based firm NanoTag Technology: a unique micro-dot matrix pattern printed on the packaging of meat products which, when scanned with a pocket reader, <a href="https://www.nanotag.co/food">verifies</a> the authenticity of the product. Buyers can see the product’s pack date, batch number and factory of origin.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An array of beef cattle in a farm house." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457559/original/file-20220412-19-w3dpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457559/original/file-20220412-19-w3dpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457559/original/file-20220412-19-w3dpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457559/original/file-20220412-19-w3dpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457559/original/file-20220412-19-w3dpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457559/original/file-20220412-19-w3dpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457559/original/file-20220412-19-w3dpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We’re becoming more interested in the story behind the steak.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/beefs-standing-herd-barn-they-eating-1845608137">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Seafood is also an <a href="https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20-001.pdf">important source of healthy and low-fat protein</a>. Demand is growing for local, inexpensive white-flesh fish such as barramundi and Murray cod.</p>
<p>While Australia produces 11,000 tonnes of white-flesh fish annually, it also <a href="https://ecos.csiro.au/new-everyday-supermarket-fish/">imports almost ten times</a> this amount to help meet annual demand. </p>
<p>Responding to this demand, the Australian aquaculture industry has <a href="https://ecos.csiro.au/new-everyday-supermarket-fish/">ambitions to reach 50,000 tonnes of homegrown produce</a> by 2030.</p>
<h2>Fermented foods</h2>
<p><a href="https://ecos.csiro.au/whats-brewing-precision-fermentation/">Precision fermentation</a> is another technology for creating protein-rich products and ingredients – potentially worth A$2.2 billion by 2030.</p>
<p>Traditional fermentation involves using microorganisms (such as bacteria and yeast) to create food including yoghurt, bread or tempeh. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An array of fermented foods shot from above." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457564/original/file-20220412-14-orw4hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457564/original/file-20220412-14-orw4hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=258&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457564/original/file-20220412-14-orw4hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=258&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457564/original/file-20220412-14-orw4hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=258&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457564/original/file-20220412-14-orw4hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457564/original/file-20220412-14-orw4hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457564/original/file-20220412-14-orw4hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fermentation can create nutritious plant-based milk, yogurts, tempeh and more.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fermented-food-probiotics-kefir-kombucha-sauerkraut-1673466124">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In precision fermentation, you customise the microorganisms to create new products. The US-based <a href="https://theeverycompany.com/">Every Company</a>, uses customised microorganism strains to create a chicken-free substitute for egg white. Similarly, <a href="https://perfectday.com/">Perfect Day</a> has created a cow-free milk. </p>
<h2>Man made meats</h2>
<p>Still want to eat meat, but are concerned about animal welfare or environmental impacts? Cultivated or cell-based meat is biologically similar to the regular variety, but the animal cells are grown in a lab, not a farm. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A close up of lab grown meat production." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457566/original/file-20220412-30687-1qdbnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/457566/original/file-20220412-30687-1qdbnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457566/original/file-20220412-30687-1qdbnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457566/original/file-20220412-30687-1qdbnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457566/original/file-20220412-30687-1qdbnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457566/original/file-20220412-30687-1qdbnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/457566/original/file-20220412-30687-1qdbnv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An array of companies are working towards biologically identical, lab-grown meat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/meat-sample-open-disposable-plastic-cell-1317402761">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Australian company <a href="https://www.thechainsaw.com/vow-foods-cell-based-meat-seed-funding-2021-1">Vow</a> is making pork and chicken, as well as kangaroo, alpaca and water buffalo meat using cells from animals. These products are not yet commercially available, though chef Neil Perry did <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/vow-food-neil-perry-lab-grown-meat/">use some of them to create a menu in 2020</a>.</p>
<h2>Edible insects</h2>
<p>Edible insects, such as crickets and mealworms, have been part of cuisines around the world for millennia, including Australian First Nations Peoples. </p>
<p>Insects have a <a href="https://research.csiro.au/edibleinsects/">high nutritional value</a>, are rich in protein, omega-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, folic acid and vitamins B12, C and E.</p>
<p>Insect farming is also considered to have a low environmental footprint, and requires less land, water and energy. </p>
<p>Australian company <a href="https://circleharvest.com.au/">Circle Harvest</a> sells a range of edible insect products including pastas and chocolate brownie mixes enriched with cricket powder.</p>
<p>Protein is vital to our health. However, until now its production has placed strain on the health of most other ecosystems. CSIRO’s protein roadmap offers not only sustainability, but also more choice for consumers and opportunities for Australian producers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/emerging-tech-in-the-food-transport-and-energy-sector-can-help-counter-the-effects-of-climate-change-180126">Emerging tech in the food, transport and energy sector can help counter the effects of climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180859/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Wynn works for the CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Colgrave is affiliated with both CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government; and Edith Cowan University wherein she receives grant funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>A new ‘protein roadmap’ produced by CSIRO reveals foods set to fill fridges by 2030 as health, environmental and ethical concerns push consumers away from meat.Katherine Wynn, Lead Economist, CSIRO Futures, CSIROMichelle Colgrave, Professor of Food and Agricultural Proteomics, CSIROLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1729032021-12-13T14:29:41Z2021-12-13T14:29:41ZDiners more likely to choose a vegetarian option when 75% of the menu is meat-free – new research<p>Farming animals for food is responsible for around <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/infact/red-meat-beef-vegan-environment-b1912454.html">14.5%</a> of global greenhouse gas emissions. If left unchallenged, the influence of this industry alone would probably make it impossible for the world to meet its target of limiting global warming to <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-global-emissions-must-peak-by-2025-to-keep-warming-at-1-5-c-we-need-deeds-not-words-165598">1.5°C</a>.</p>
<p>Reducing meat consumption is one area where small changes in everyone’s behaviour can have a big impact across a country. Animal-based foods need <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010">huge amounts</a> of land and energy to make: and they produce <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/meat-dairy-greenhouse-gas-emissions-b1919103.html">twice</a> as many greenhouse gas emissions compared with their plant-based counterparts. If every person in the UK were to switch just one beef or lamb-based meal a week to a plant-based option, the nation would enjoy an <a href="https://theecologist.org/2019/jun/07/swapping-one-meal-day">8%</a> reduction in domestic emissions. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-scientists-make-plant-based-foods-taste-and-look-more-like-meat-156839">plant-based</a> food sector has been experiencing huge growth recently, with higher quality, more visible meat alternatives on offer and companies such as the plant-based substitute <a href="https://www.beyondmeat.com/">Beyond Meat</a> becoming <a href="https://thebeet.com/two-powerhouse-plant-based-brands-top-times-most-influential-companies-list/">household names</a>. Yet <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00228-X/fulltext">consumption trends</a> in the UK tell a different story. While there has been a small reduction in the amount of red meat eaten over the last ten years, we are currently eating more poultry than ever before. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext">Research</a> suggests that for peak personal and planetary health, each of us shouldn’t eat more than 98g of red meat and 203g of poultry per week. That’s around one portion of red meat and two of poultry – or one steak and two chicken sandwiches. For a <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00228-X/fulltext">typical UK adult</a>, that means at least halving their daily meat consumption.</p>
<h2>Our research</h2>
<p>While it may seem intuitive that increasing the availability of plant-based food will make us eat more of it, very little is known about whether this actually works in practice. I wanted to determine exactly how far meat availability needs to decrease to affect meat eaters’ food choices.</p>
<p>To investigate this, I and my colleague <a href="https://www.wri.org/initiatives/better-buying-lab">Sophie Attwood</a> presented meat eaters with menus that had different amounts of meat and vegetarian dishes. Menus were composed of either 25% (menu A), 50% (menu B) or 75% vegetarian dishes (menu C), and participants were asked to make hypothetical choices about what dishes they would order.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101721">Our results</a> showed that making vegetarian food more available does significantly encourage sustainable food choices. Participants who usually ate meat only shifted their choice to vegetarian food when these items made up 75% of the menu, but not when menus were equally meat and vegetarian, or when menus were 75% meat. In fact, the likelihood of a participant choosing a vegetarian meal was almost three times greater when the menu was 75% vegetarian compared to when the menu was 50% vegetarian.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437194/original/file-20211213-23-10gwbkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Three different food menus" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437194/original/file-20211213-23-10gwbkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437194/original/file-20211213-23-10gwbkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437194/original/file-20211213-23-10gwbkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437194/original/file-20211213-23-10gwbkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437194/original/file-20211213-23-10gwbkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437194/original/file-20211213-23-10gwbkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437194/original/file-20211213-23-10gwbkc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">These hypothetical menus were shown to participants in our research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Clearly, meat eaters are able to change their eating habits and explore new options. But this <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721419884313">tipping point</a> only occurs when ample vegetarian options are present.</p>
<p>While the exact mechanism behind this is unknown, we think that increasing the availability of vegetarian food may implicitly suggest socially acceptable norms for behaviour – or just provide customers with a wider range of options that they might not have previously considered.</p>
<p>This type of intervention is known as “<a href="https://theconversation.com/nudging-people-towards-changing-behaviour-what-works-and-why-not-27576">nudging</a>”. It involves modifying the context in which a decision is made, in order to make a certain course of action more appealing. One popular example of a nudge that attempts to steer people away from choosing unhealthy food is reducing the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/18/removing-sweets-from-checkouts-could-help-tackle-obesity-study">accessibility</a> of chocolate bars and sweets by moving them away from checkout tills in supermarkets.</p>
<p>These interventions have several advantages over other tactics used to change people’s behaviour: they are cheap, easy to put in place across a wide area, and much less difficult than, for example, trying to persuade individuals of the benefits of <a href="https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-34/january-2021/shift-sustainable-diets">pro-environment diets</a>. Also, they are less politically sensitive than more dramatic interventions, such as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-14/u-k-urged-to-tax-sugar-salt-in-fight-against-junk-food-diets">increasing tax</a> on or banning meat products.</p>
<p>Our work highlights the potential that restaurants and cafes have for promoting sustainable eating behaviour among meat eaters. However, the ratio of meat-to-vegetarian dishes currently offered in most dining establishments needs to be reversed, so that vegetarian options vastly exceed the number of meat dishes. </p>
<p>Put simply, if the food service sector is to get serious about tackling the climate crisis, we need more than just one or two additional vegetarian items added to our menus.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172903/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Parkin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Menus that are three-quarters vegetarian help meat eaters choose more climate-friendly options, a tactic that restaurants could use to help fight climate change.Beth Parkin, Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1686262021-10-08T08:11:47Z2021-10-08T08:11:47ZMeat eating drops by 17% over a decade in the UK – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425265/original/file-20211007-23-19wzn7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3788%2C2997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/world-vegan-day-vegetarian-sheep-cauliflower-1542201788">DOERS/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To rein in the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from livestock farming and to reduce diet-related diseases, people in the UK must eat 30% less meat by the end of the decade, according to <a href="https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/">a recent report</a> commissioned by the government. Vegan and vegetarian diets might seem more popular than ever, but is the country on track to slash meat consumption by a third?</p>
<p>To find out, we analysed trends from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey. The data we looked at came from four-day food diaries completed by around 1,000 people in each survey year.</p>
<p>Between 2008 and 2019, the average amount of meat eaten each day per person in the UK fell from 103.7g to 86.3g – a total reduction of 17.4g a day, or <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00228-X/fulltext">just under 17%</a>. This included a 13.7g drop in daily red meat consumption, a 7g reduction in processed meat, and a 3.2g increase in white meat.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Black trays containing different types of red meat." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425274/original/file-20211007-18619-1qfkynm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Red meat consumption fell by the most in the new survey.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/different-types-meat-plastic-boxes-packaging-348847544">Natalia Lisovskaya/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, to meet the 30% by 2030 target, our research suggests that the rate at which people in the UK are reducing their meat consumption has to nearly double in the next ten years. Here’s what else our analysis of UK diet trends revealed about the country’s evolving relationship with meat.</p>
<h2>Trends in meat eating</h2>
<p>The National Diet and Nutrition Survey is the only survey to capture nationally representative data on the food people are eating in the UK. This means that the mix of people surveyed resembles the general population with regards to demographics such as age, gender, ethnicity, income and region.</p>
<p>To accurately estimate how much meat the survey respondents were eating, we excluded all the other components of dishes containing meat. If a person wrote that they ate beef lasagne for dinner in their food diary, for instance, we only measured the quantity of beef and excluded all other ingredients. </p>
<p>And to understand how these changes in meat consumption might affect the environment, we compared them with information on the environmental impact of rearing a gram of meat (beef, pork, lamb and poultry) from a <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaq0216%22%22">global database</a>. We estimated the consequences for six different indicators of environmental impact, including greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of land used for livestock farming.</p>
<p>Each day, people in the UK now eat 5.7g less beef, 3.9g less lamb and 4.2g less sausage. But at the same time, people are eating more white meat, mostly chicken. This <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6689198/">flight to white</a>, as food scientists are calling it, reflects similar trends seen in other countries. It could be because health guidelines tend to emphasise the risks of eating too much red and processed meat, which is linked to colorectal cancer, while offering little evidence for health problems <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2021.1949575">from eating poultry</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A partially sliced grilled chicken breast." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/425277/original/file-20211007-22785-hijfke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">White meat consumption is on the rise.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/partially-sliced-grilled-chicken-breast-black-504699331">Moving Moment/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As far back as 2010, a <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/339309/SACN_Iron_and_Health_Report.pdf">committee of scientists</a> which advises the government on nutrition recommended adults in the UK with high intakes of red and processed meat – over 90g a day – reduce their daily intake to a maximum of 70g. Our analysis suggests that in the most recent survey year (2018-19), 34% of respondents were exceeding this recommendation – 26% of women and 43% of men. But this is at least down from 53% in 2008-09.</p>
<p>The proportion of vegetarians and vegans in the UK is also increasing steadily, with 5% of respondents foregoing meat or all animal products in 2018-19, up from 2% in 2008-09. </p>
<p>White people and those born in the 1980s and 1990s ate the most meat, while the youngest (those born after 1999) and oldest (those born before 1960), and those with Asian heritage were eating the least. There was no difference in intake between genders or household income brackets.</p>
<p>We were particularly surprised to find that respondents born after 1999 (so-called Generation Z) were the only subgroup to be eating more meat over time – even though they’re still eating among the least overall. Though it’s important to note that respondents in this group were aged 19 years and younger and so their eating habits as children are more likely to reflect their household’s.</p>
<p>We estimated that the overall changes in meat intake equate to a 35% reduction in the amount of land and a 23% reduction in the amount of freshwater needed to rear livestock, as well as a 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture overall.</p>
<p>Although this seems positive, this 17% reduction in meat intake still falls short of dietary targets for a healthy and sustainable food system. Understanding these trends within sub-groups of the UK population could help public health policymakers to tailor strategies, and help researchers and public health professionals to refine messaging to accelerate this reduction in meat consumption.</p>
<p>The environmental data used here are based on averages from global food production systems, so the estimates in relation to UK consumption are approximates. We were also unable to determine from the survey data whether respondents were buying British meat, which would have a lower environmental impact than meat that has been imported from elsewhere.</p>
<h2>How to eat less meat</h2>
<p>Though <a href="https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/plant-based-push-uk-sales-of-meat-free-foods-shoot-up-40-between-2014-19">39% of people</a> in the UK are currently trying to reduce their meat intake, whether for health or environmental reasons, progress is slow. We recently developed a list of 26 daily strategies for reducing meat consumption, which we refined through focus groups with members of the public, for an <a href="https://optimisediet.org/">online programme</a>.</p>
<p>Here are six strategies which participants in the programme rated as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/jul/17/i-tried-an-app-to-reduce-my-familys-meat-consumption-and-it-worked">most effective</a> for helping them to cut meat from their diets:</p>
<ol>
<li>Make at least one of your main meals vegetarian.</li>
<li>Double the veg, halve the meat in your meals.</li>
<li>Set a maximum number of animal products to eat today and stick to it.</li>
<li>Try a new vegetarian recipe.</li>
<li>Make your lunch and dinner vegetarian.</li>
<li>Eat only plant-based snacks throughout the day.</li>
</ol><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168626/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cristina Stewart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>But the national goal of cutting meat intake by 30% over the next ten years is likely to be missed.Cristina Stewart, Health Behaviours Researcher, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1279582019-12-19T13:50:43Z2019-12-19T13:50:43ZShould you avoid meat for good health? How to slice off the facts from the fiction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307749/original/file-20191218-11939-at7ajp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Meat is a very popular food for most Americans. Its nutritional value is a topic of much debate.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/people-eat-food-man-eating-barbecue-1162627036">puhhha/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>More than half of Americans who make New Year’s resolutions <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2018/12/13/new-years-resolutions-2019-exercise-healthy-eating">resolve to “eat healthier</a>.” If you’re one, you might be confused about the role meat should play in your health. </p>
<p>It’s no wonder you’re confused. One group of scientists says that reducing red and processed meat is a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4">top priority</a> for your health and the planet’s. Another says these foods <a href="https://doi.org//10.7326/M19-1621">pose no problems</a> for health. Some of your friends may say it depends, and that grass-fed beef and “nitrite-free” processed meats are fine. At the same time, plant-based meat alternatives are <a href="https://theconversation.com/americans-especially-millennials-are-embracing-plant-based-meat-products-124753">surging in popularity</a>, but with uncertain health effects.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vO-AtYoAAAAJ&hl=en">cardiologist and professor of nutrition</a>, I’d like to clear up some of the confusion with five myths and five facts about meat.</p>
<p>First, the myths.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307807/original/file-20191218-11946-wxhnuo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307807/original/file-20191218-11946-wxhnuo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307807/original/file-20191218-11946-wxhnuo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307807/original/file-20191218-11946-wxhnuo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307807/original/file-20191218-11946-wxhnuo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307807/original/file-20191218-11946-wxhnuo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307807/original/file-20191218-11946-wxhnuo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Red meat, while very popular, has not been shown to have health benefits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/raw-fresh-marbled-meat-steak-seasonings-255809239">Natalia Lisovskaya/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Myth: Red meat is good for health</strong></p>
<p>Long-term observational studies of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175149">heart disease</a>, <a href="https://www.aicr.org/continuous-update-project/colorectal-cancer.html">cancers</a> or <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/105/6/1462/4569801">death</a> and <a href="https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035225">controlled trials</a> of risk factors like blood cholesterol, glucose and inflammation suggest that modest intake of unprocessed red meat is relatively neutral for health. But, no major studies suggest that eating it provides benefits. </p>
<p>So, while an occasional serving of steak, lamb or pork may not worsen your health, it also won’t improve it. And, too much <a href="https://doi.org//%2010.1007/s11154-014-9303-y.">heme iron</a>, which gives red meat its color, may explain why red meat increases risk of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2368">Type 2 diabetes</a>. Eating red meat often, and eating <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-processed-meat-is-bad#section8">processed meat</a> even occasionally, is also strongly linked to <a href="https://www.aicr.org/continuous-update-project/colorectal-cancer.html">colorectal cancer</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Myth: You should prioritize lean meats</strong> </p>
<p>For decades, dietary guidance has focused on lean meats because of their lower fat, saturated fat and cholesterol contents. But these nutrients <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-019-0206-1">don’t have strong associations</a> with heart attacks, cancers or other major health outcomes. </p>
<p>Other factors appear more important. Processed meats, such as bacon, sausage, salami and cold cuts, contain high levels of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-136">preservatives</a>. Sodium, for example, raises blood pressure and stroke risk, while the body converts nitrites to cancer-causing <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6831466">nitrosamines</a>. Lean or not, these products aren’t healthy.</p>
<p><strong>Myth: Focus on a ‘plant-based’ diet</strong> </p>
<p>“Plant-based” has quickly, but somewhat <a href="https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/issues/15_4/current-articles/Plant-Based-and-Unhealthy_2556-1.html">misleadingly</a>, become a shorthand for “healthy.” First, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018585">not all animal-based foods are bad</a>. Poultry and eggs appear relatively neutral. Dairy may have metabolic benefits, especially for reducing body fat and Type 2 diabetes. And, seafood is linked to several health benefits. </p>
<p>Conversely, many of the worst foods are plant-based. Consider white rice, white bread, fries, refined breakfast cereals, cookies and so on. These foods are high in refined starch and sugar, representing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.13771">42% of all calories in the U.S.</a>, compared to about 5% of U.S. calories from unprocessed red meats, and 3% from processed meats. </p>
<p>Either a “plant-based” or omnivore diet is not healthy by default. It depends on what you choose to eat.</p>
<p><strong>Myth: Grass-fed beef is better for your health</strong></p>
<p>Conventional livestock eat a combination of forage (grass, other greens, legumes) plus hay with added corn, soy, barley or grain. “Grass-fed,” or “pasture-raised,” livestock eat primarily, but not exclusively, forage. “Grass-finished” livestock should, in theory, only eat forage. But no agency regulates industry’s use of these terms. And “free range” describes where an animal lives, not what it eats.</p>
<p>“Grass-fed” may sound better, but no studies have compared health effects of eating grass-fed versus conventional beef. Nutrient analyses show <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.08.010">very modest differences</a> between grass-fed and conventionally raised livestock. You might eat grass-fed beef for personal, environmental or philosophical reasons. But don’t expect health benefits. </p>
<p><strong>Myth: Plant-based meat alternatives are healthier</strong> </p>
<p>Products like Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat are clearly better for the environment than conventionally raised beef, but their health effects remain uncertain. Most nutrients in plant-based alternatives are, by design, similar to meat. Using genetically engineered yeast, Impossible even <a href="https://impossiblefoods.com/heme/">adds heme iron</a>. These products also pack a lot of salt. And, like many other <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008">ultra-processed foods</a>, they may lead to higher calorie intake and weight gain. </p>
<p>So, what are the facts?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307809/original/file-20191218-11939-19rsnbp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307809/original/file-20191218-11939-19rsnbp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307809/original/file-20191218-11939-19rsnbp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307809/original/file-20191218-11939-19rsnbp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307809/original/file-20191218-11939-19rsnbp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307809/original/file-20191218-11939-19rsnbp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307809/original/file-20191218-11939-19rsnbp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sausages wrapped in bacon are a double whammy of unhealthy meat, as both bacon and sausage are processed meats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/pigs-blankets-sausages-wrapped-bacon-strips-612579671">MShev/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Fact: Processed meats are bad for health</strong> </p>
<p>Processed meats contain problematic preservatives. Even those labeled “no nitrates or nitrites added” contain nitrite-rich fermented celery powder. A current <a href="https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/2019%20Petition%20No%20Nitrates%20Added%20CSPI%20CU_COMPLETE.pdf">petition</a> by the Center for Science in the Public Interest asks the FDA to ban the misleading labeling.</p>
<p>Besides the sodium, nitrites and heme, processed meats can contain other <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108608">carcinogens</a>, produced by charring, smoking or high-temperature frying or grilling. These compounds may not only harm the person who eats these products; they can also cross the placenta and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2018.10.003">harm a fetus</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Fact: A meatless diet is not, by itself, a healthy diet</strong></p>
<p>Most diet-related diseases are caused by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.13805">too few health-promoting foods </a> like fruits, nuts, seeds, beans, vegetables, whole grains, plant oils, seafood and yogurt. Additional health problems come from too much soda and ultra-processed foods high in salt, refined starch or added sugar. Compared to these major factors, avoiding or occasionally eating unprocessed red meat, by itself, has modest health implications.</p>
<p><strong>Fact: Beef production is devastating the environment</strong></p>
<p>In terms of land use, water use, water pollution and greenhouse gases, unprocessed red meat production causes about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906908116">five times the environmental impact</a> of fish, dairy or poultry. This impact is about 20 times higher than that of eggs, nuts or legumes, and 45 to 75 times higher than the impact of fruits, vegetables or whole grains. A 2013 <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf">UN report</a> concluded that livestock production creates about 15% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, with nearly half coming from beef alone. </p>
<p><strong>Fact: Plant-based meats are better for the environment</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://impossiblefoods.com/mission/lca-update-2019/">Production</a> of plant-based meat alternatives, compared to conventional beef, <a href="http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/publication/CSS18-10.pdf">uses</a> half the energy, one-tenth of the land and water, and produces 90% less greenhouse gas. But, no studies have yet compared plant-based meat alternatives to more natural, less processed options, such as mushrooms or tofu. </p>
<p><strong>Fact: Many questions remain</strong></p>
<p>Which preservatives or other toxins in processed meat cause the most harm? Can we eliminate them? In unprocessed red meats, what exactly increases risk of Type 2 diabetes? What innovations, like feeding cows <a href="https://phys.org/news/2019-05-cultivate-seaweed-slashes-greenhouse-emission.html">special strains of seaweed</a> or using <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338">regenerative grazing</a>, can reduce the large environmental impacts of meat, even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.138">grass-fed beef</a>? What are the health implications of grass-fed beef and plant-based meat alternatives? </p>
<p>Like much in science, the truth about meat is nuanced. Current evidence suggests that people shouldn’t eat unprocessed red meat more than once or twice a week. Grass-fed beef may be modestly better for the environment than traditional production, but environmental harms are still large. Data don’t support major health differences between grass fed and conventional beef. </p>
<p>Similarly, plant-based meat alternatives are better for the planet but not necessarily for our health. Fruits, nuts, beans, vegetables, plant oils and whole grains are still the best bet for both human and planetary health.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127958/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Mozaffarian reports research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gates Foundation; personal fees from GOED, Nutrition Impact, Bunge, Indigo Agriculture, Motif FoodWorks, Amarin, Acasti Pharma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, America’s Test Kitchen, and Danone; scientific advisory board, Brightseed, DayTwo, Elysium Health, and Filtricine; and chapter royalties from UpToDate; all outside the submitted work. </span></em></p>Confused about whether meat is good or bad for you? You’re not alone. Various studies, some of which were funded by the meat industry, have added to the confusion. A noted expert sorts it out.Dariush Mozaffarian, Dean of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1277022019-11-28T18:27:54Z2019-11-28T18:27:54Z‘Cultured’ meat could create more problems than it solves<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303324/original/file-20191124-74572-14lc5xm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=196%2C257%2C7983%2C4046&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Artificial meat may soon be on supermarket shelves.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/download/confirm/1424197331?src=fbe94603-2aa1-4692-ba69-b6266d74dbbf-1-39&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat">Cultured or <em>in vitro</em> meat</a>, also called <a href="https://www.gfi.org/clean-meat-the-clean-energy-of-food">“clean meat”</a> by its supporters, is meat <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10616-017-0101-8">produced in a laboratory</a> using bioengineering techniques.</p>
<p>In 2013, Mark Post, professor at Maastricht University, presented the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZExbQ8dkJvc">first hamburger made of cultured meat</a>. Since then, the dream of being able to create and consume meat based on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_agriculture">“cellular agriculture”</a>, without livestock farming, has gained support among both animal-rights activists and, especially, players in the industry. A large number of start-ups have been created, with many sponsored by <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/future-meat-technologies-a-lab-grown-meat-start-up-raises-14-million-dollars.html">big names in the food industry</a>. The ambition is to market cultured beef, poultry or fish meat at an affordable price by 2020 or 2022.</p>
<p>With this goal in mind, in 2018 the US Food And Drug Administration established a <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-and-fda-deputy-commissioner-anna-abram-emerging-food">regulatory framework</a> and this has opened the way for the marketing of these products.</p>
<p>So, is artificial meat a true food revolution or an impossible utopia?</p>
<h2>What will the global diet be in 2050?</h2>
<p>According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm">conventional meat production</a> accounts for a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions (18%) and land use (30%), as well as global consumption of water (8%) and energy. The FAO also estimates that meat consumption will <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm">double by 2050</a>, while meat production is already close to its peak. What’s the solution to this problem?</p>
<p>According to Mark Post, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZExbQ8dkJvc">“cows are very inefficient”</a>, with a “bioconversion rate” <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010">estimated at 15%</a>. In other words, to produce 15 grams of meat, you need 100 grams of vegetable protein. The only way to produce meat sustainably is to increase the efficiency rate.</p>
<p>Different methods have been considered in the past, such as producing meat made of plant- or <a href="https://theconversation.com/eating-insects-is-good-for-you-and-the-planet-118675">insect-derived proteins</a>. These alternatives, however, don’t always satisfy consumers due to cultural preconceptions and the difficulty of mimicking the taste and texture of conventional meat. <em>In vitro</em> meat could help bypass these problems.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2o0MCZwL_VE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“First lab-grown burger tried and tested in London” (EuroNews, 2013).</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How is meat grown?</h2>
<p>In concrete terms, the first step is to isolate a small number of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosatellite_cell">satellite muscle cells</a> from an adult animal. The physiological function of those satellite cells is to participate in muscle regeneration: they are not yet muscle cells, but stem cells that are able to multiply and, under the influence of certain hormones, to differentiate into muscle cells.</p>
<p>The satellite cells are grown in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioreactor">bioreactors</a>, which are sterile enclosures containing nutrient liquids, under stimulation with growth factors to induce rapid proliferation. They are then transformed into muscle cells and mechanically assembled into muscle tissue and then a consumable artificial steak… </p>
<p>According to the website of <a href="https://www.mosameat.com/technology">Mosa Meat</a>, the Dutch company founded by Mark Post, the production of cultured meat would significantly reduce the environmental impact of meat production as well as the risk of infectious diseases transmitted from animals to humans. Moreover, the company asserts that the taste of cultured meat is close to that of conventional meat.</p>
<p>Cellular agriculture has also been touted by Paul Shapiro, author of the bestseller <em>Clean Meat: How Growing Meat Without Animals Will Revolutionize Dinner and the World</em> and CEO of the <a href="https://www.bettermeat.co/">Better Meat Company</a>. He asserts that cultured meat is the key to feeding a world population that will reach around 9.5 billion by 2050, while respecting animals and preserving the environment.</p>
<h2>Higher environmental costs than originally thought</h2>
<p>As indicated by a 2011 study, cultured meat can offer many advantages over conventional meat: It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es200130u">78-96% and require 7-45% less energy and 82-96% less water</a>. However, more recent research suggests that over the long term, the environmental impact of lab-grown meat could be higher than that of livestock. Unlike the previous research, these studies considered not only the <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005/full">nature of the gases emitted</a>, but also the <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614">energy costs of the infrastructures</a> required for cell culture.</p>
<p>Animals have an immune system that naturally protects them against bacterial and other infections. This is not the case for cell culture, and in a nutrient-rich environment, bacteria multiply much faster than animal cells. To avoid producing a steak made up of more bacteria than meat, it is essential to avoid contamination, and that requires a high level of sterility.</p>
<p>In the pharmaceutical industry, cell cultures are carried out in highly controlled and sanitized “clean rooms”. Sterility is most often guaranteed by using disposable plastic materials. This significantly reduces the risk of contamination, but generates plastic waste, whose level in ecosystems is <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768">already alarming</a>. Some of the culture materials are made of stainless steel and can thus be steam sterilized or washed with detergents, but these treatments also have an environmental cost.</p>
<p>While few studies have been done on the environmental impact of the pharmaceutical industry, the available data suggest that its carbon footprint may be <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618336084?via%3Dihub">55% higher than that of the automotive industry</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303991/original/file-20191127-112517-1325q1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303991/original/file-20191127-112517-1325q1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303991/original/file-20191127-112517-1325q1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303991/original/file-20191127-112517-1325q1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303991/original/file-20191127-112517-1325q1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303991/original/file-20191127-112517-1325q1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303991/original/file-20191127-112517-1325q1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">US Department of Agriculture meat inspectors and graders at work.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/45380683774">Preston Keres/USDA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Importantly, we should not forget that livestock fulfils many functions other than just the production of meat. It contributes to the recycling of large quantities of plant waste that cannot be consumed by humans and <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301">produces fertilizer</a>. Furthermore, pastures capture and store carbon. What will replace them if meat is produced by cell culture? This means that it is extremely complex to evaluate the long-term environmental cost of a transition from conventional to cultured meat.</p>
<h2>Anabolic hormones and endocrine disruptors: significant risks</h2>
<p>In animals, muscle volume increases slowly, and it takes time for muscular satellite cells to multiply. To obtain what an animal produces over several years in just a few weeks <em>in vitro</em>, it is necessary to continuously stimulate proliferation of the satellite cells with growth factors, including <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid">anabolic sex hormones</a>.</p>
<p>These hormones are present in animals and humans, as well as in conventional meat. They stimulate protein synthesis in cells, resulting in increased muscle mass. They can therefore be rightly described by industry as “natural growth factors”. However, overexposure to them has established deleterious effects. In Europe, the use of growth hormones in agriculture has been prohibited since 1981 by <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31981L0602&from=en">directive 81/602</a>. This ban was confirmed in 2003 by <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003L0074&from=FR">directive 2003/74</a> and validated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2007. What will the final concentration of these hormones be in cultured meat?</p>
<p>In addition, a growing number of studies have documented the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668919300079?via%3Dihub">toxicity of commonly used plastic products</a>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor">Endocrine disruptors</a>, compounds that can interfere with the hormone system and disrupt it, can be <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0265203031000109495?journalCode=tfac19">transferred from plastic packaging to food</a>. Unsurprisingly, the same phenomenon has been documented in <a href="https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=32046">cell cultures grown in plastic containers by <em>in vitro</em> fertilization</a>.</p>
<p>Unless the use of plastic in the production of meat by cell culture is tightly controlled, the meat could be contaminated with endocrine disruptors and other substances before it is even packaged.</p>
<h2>Healthy and sustainable nutrition also means education</h2>
<p>Cultured meat is presented today as a high-tech product that has the potential to be both ecologically and morally responsible. But it can only become an alternative to traditional meat by conquering the world market – in other words, by being affordably priced for consumers and profitable for producers, and that requires high-volume, low-cost production techniques. Will the impacts on health and the environment still be taken into consideration with the transformation of the scale of production?</p>
<p>It’s also important to remember to that high consumption of meat is detrimental not only to the environment but also to <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324">human health</a>. However, many consumers are <a href="https://sustainableearth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42055-019-0010-0">not aware or decline to accept such conclusions</a>.</p>
<p>To achieve a diet that is both sustainable and healthy, it is therefore essential to improve information and education to stimulate an informed debate on the crucial issue of meat consumption.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127702/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Muraille received funding from the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS-FRS), Belgium.</span></em></p>According to some, meat “grown” in a laboratory would only have advantages: an end to animal abuse, preservation of the environment… But the reality is less idyllic.Eric Muraille, Biologiste, Immunologiste. Maître de recherches au FNRS, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1246652019-10-07T15:49:26Z2019-10-07T15:49:26ZRed meat study caused a stir – here’s what wasn’t discussed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295634/original/file-20191004-118244-1202azj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/372695809?src=tZD-YpgJRwWverFANTfm4A-1-50&size=medium_jpg">Photology1971/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Accurate, consistent dietary advice seems increasingly hard to find. For instance, a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49877237">widely reported study</a> recently claimed that people don’t need to reduce their consumption of red and processed meat for health reasons. The report <a href="https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-papers-looking-at-red-and-processed-meat-consumption-and-health/">sharply divided scientific opinion</a>, with some experts praising it as a “rigorous” assessment, others <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-we-still-need-to-cut-down-on-red-and-processed-meat-124486">questioning it</a>.</p>
<p>Nutrition sceptics could cite many similar examples of conflicting opinions, such as the safety or dangers of <a href="https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/opinion/comment/saturated-fat-guidelines-to-reduce-coronary-heart-disease-risk-are-still-valid/20068191.article">saturated fat</a> or of <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/nutrition-vitamins-on-trial-1.15459">nutrition supplements</a>. Such contradictions only further deepen public mistrust in nutrition research. </p>
<p>But reliable advice matters, especially for the increasing numbers of people who respond differently from the general population. Dietary advice usually draws on scientific research that has pooled results from studies on large populations, but this can mask huge variations in risk between individuals within those populations.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-food-causes-weight-gain-firm-evidence-at-last-116980">Ultra-processed food causes weight gain – firm evidence at last</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>One size does not fit all</h2>
<p>A study that doesn’t differentiate high-risk individuals in a low-risk general population can produce a skewed overall risk estimate. It also mistakenly reassures high-risk individuals that their risk is the same as everyone else’s. But a one-size-fits-all policy in nutrition makes no more sense than calculating the average shoe size in a population and recommending that everyone wear that size. Even <a href="https://profilebooks.com/the-tiger-that-isn-039-t.html">statisticians</a> agree that “the mean is an abstraction. Reality is variation.” </p>
<p>A simple public health campaign is warranted if the strength of the association between cause and effect is high for the whole population, as it is with smoking and lung cancer. But most individual nutrients and foods have only weak associations with risk when evaluated across a whole population. It is individuals in high-risk subgroups who need to be most concerned. </p>
<p>For instance, people who are overweight or obese tend to respond differently to others. A high-carbohydrate diet <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837285">increases their risk of coronary heart disease</a>, yet is of far less concern for those who are lean.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295636/original/file-20191004-118209-19jt3t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Overweight people should avoid a high-carbohydrate diet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/205272349?src=8phDW1bX-_wzMTA4opxpLQ-1-59&size=medium_jpg">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Overweight and obese people also often have higher blood insulin levels. This is a sign of being metabolically unhealthy, increasing the risk of many chronic diseases. </p>
<p>Obesity is often considered a risk factor for colon cancer. Yet it is not obesity itself that increases a person’s risk of getting colon cancer, it is high insulin levels. There is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27046222">no increased risk</a> of colon cancer for obese people who retain normal insulin levels. So studies that only measure associations between obesity and colon cancer – without taking into account the degrees of metabolic health in these obese people – may produce lower estimates of risk for everybody, inadvertently downplaying the real dangers for some of the group studied. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/not-all-processed-meats-carry-the-same-cancer-risk-64622">Not all processed meats carry the same cancer risk</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Unfortunately, few people know their insulin status, though it is at least as important for disease risk as <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-weight/bmi-calculator/">body mass index</a> (BMI).</p>
<p>Another group whose risk from diet can be dramatically higher than average are people with pre-cancers (for example, abnormal cells that are associated with an increased risk of developing into cancer). Folic acid, for instance, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29529163">may help protect</a> against colon cancer in people free of the disease, but existing precancerous growths in the colon are more likely to become full-blown cancer with a high intake of folic acid. Yet few people know if they have a pre-cancer and so assume their risk is the same as everyone else’s. </p>
<h2>Mediterranean diet</h2>
<p>Most public health campaigns fail to take these differences between individuals into account, but <em>you</em> can take them into account – at least to some extent. Personalised nutrition programmes that include genetic screening are now available, though only a few genes are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23093344">sufficiently understood</a> to be of any real value. It may be more useful to have a basic health risk assessment that measures biomarkers for disease risk, such as cholesterol, blood sugar, insulin and inflammation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/drink-a-glass-of-olive-oil-every-day-the-mediterranean-way-to-a-long-life-48837">Drink a glass of olive oil every day – the Mediterranean way to a long life</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A more general strategy – but one supported by a huge amount of evidence – is to hedge your bets with a proven <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29898951">healthy dietary pattern</a>, such as the Mediterranean diet. Many nutrients act together in this diet and the outcome is less likely to be influenced by variations between individuals. Instead of joining the nutrition sceptics pouring scorn on contradictory advice, it is better to protect yourself by adopting a proven healthy eating pattern that has stood the test of time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124665/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Hoffman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Red meat and processed meat seemed to get the all clear in a recent study but not everyone agrees.Richard Hoffman, Lecturer in Nutritional Biochemistry, University of HertfordshireLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1244862019-10-03T08:27:33Z2019-10-03T08:27:33ZYes, we still need to cut down on red and processed meat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295347/original/file-20191003-49369-majr3s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eating lots of red meat increases your risk of cancer and a range of chronic diseases. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/1175573005?src=O7BdVrbpuFR0l-1x4l29yw-1-1&size=huge_jpg">Sailing Gypsy/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/research-check-25155">Research Checks</a> interrogate newly published studies and how they’re reported in the media. The analysis is undertaken by one or more academics not involved with the study, and reviewed by another, to make sure it’s accurate.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Judging by some media headlines this week, you’d be forgiven for thinking researchers, clinicians and the <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/guidelines/australian-dietary-guidelines-1-5">Australian Dietary Guidelines</a> have it all wrong when it comes to eating red and processed meat:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1178787855570739202"}"></div></p>
<p>But that’s not the case. </p>
<p>The World Cancer Research Fund <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/exposures/meat-fish-dairy">continuously evaluates the evidence</a>. To reduce your risk of bowel cancer they advise <a href="https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-meat-and-avoid-processed-meat">limiting your weekly intake</a> of unprocessed cooked red meat to 350-500g. For processed meat, the advice is to eat little, if any at all. </p>
<p>This is consistent with advice in the <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/guidelines/australian-dietary-guidelines-1-5">Australian Dietary Guidelines</a> to reduce risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers.</p>
<p>So, why all the headlines? </p>
<p>This week’s coverage comes from four <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review">systematic reviews</a> published in the journal <a href="https://annals.org/aim">Annals of Internal Medicine</a>. The four reviews looked at the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and death (during the follow-up period) among those with the highest versus lowest intakes of red and processed meats. </p>
<p>The authors also published recommendations advising that people shouldn’t change their meat eating habits, implying they shouldn’t cut back on meat. This is in direct opposition to national and international guidelines. </p>
<p>Let’s take a closer look at what the evidence says and how the authors got to their conclusions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-you-can-eat-and-avoid-to-reduce-your-risk-of-bowel-cancer-120084">Here's what you can eat and avoid to reduce your risk of bowel cancer</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Review 1: heart disease, diabetes and cancer</h2>
<p>This <a href="https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2752327/patterns-red-processed-meat-consumption-risk-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes-systematic">systematic review of 105 existing studies</a> looked at associations between low and high intakes of red and processed meat combined, rates of death during the study follow-up, and getting heart disease, diabetes and cancer. </p>
<p>When the authors pooled data from all studies, they found lower intakes of red and processed meats were associated with significantly lower relative risks of many conditions, although absolute risks were small. </p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk">Relative risk</a> compares disease rates in one group (high meat eaters) to another group (lower meat eaters), while <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_risk">absolute risk</a> takes into account how common the disease or likelihood of dying from the condition is in the first place. </p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>Compared to people who ate the <em>most</em> red and processed meat, people with <em>lowest</em> intakes were:</p>
<ul>
<li> 24% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes </li>
<li> 14% less likely to die from heart disease</li>
<li> 13% less likely to die from any cause</li>
<li> had a 15% lower risk of a non-fatal stroke. </li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-a-vegetarian-diet-increase-your-risk-of-stroke-123083">Will a vegetarian diet increase your risk of stroke?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Review 2: cancer</h2>
<p><a href="https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2752321/reduction-red-processed-meat-intake-cancer-mortality-incidence-systematic-review">This review examined</a> the relationship between intake of red and processed meat, and cancer incidence and death. It included 118 studies from 56 groups of people. </p>
<p>This review looked at the data in a slightly different way. Risk was assessed based on reducing intakes of meat to three serves per week. This level of intake was set based on the authors’ conclusion that people weren’t likely to reduce their intakes below this level. However, it’s unclear exactly how much meat those with “high intakes” consumed. </p>
<p>The results indicated that lower intakes of red meat were associated with a 7% lower risk of death from any cause compared to those with higher intakes.
For processed meat, there was an 8% lower risk of dying from any type of cancer and a 23% lower risk of dying from prostate cancer. </p>
<h2>Review 3: heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes</h2>
<p><a href="https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2752320/red-processed-meat-consumption-risk-all-cause-mortality-cardiometabolic-outcomes">This systematic review examined</a> the association between red and processed meat, and a lower life-expectancy, heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes. There were 61 studies on 55 cohorts of people. </p>
<p>This review also looked at health risk, with the lowest-intake group consuming three serves a week.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295386/original/file-20191003-52801-15jo105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295386/original/file-20191003-52801-15jo105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295386/original/file-20191003-52801-15jo105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295386/original/file-20191003-52801-15jo105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295386/original/file-20191003-52801-15jo105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295386/original/file-20191003-52801-15jo105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295386/original/file-20191003-52801-15jo105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s best to limit your intake of processed meat as much as you can.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/111092333?src=uHwrcy0xuqsoy_i6NJFl_A-1-19&size=huge_jpg">MSPhotographic/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For a lower intake of red meat, there was a 7% lower relative risk of death from any cause, a 10% lower risk of dying from heart disease, a 6% lower risk of stroke, a 7% lower risk for having a heart attack, and a 10% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes. </p>
<p>For processed meat, a lower intake was associated with an 8% lower risk of dying from any cause, a 10% lower risk for dying of heart disease, a 6% lower for having a stroke, a 6% lower risk of having a heart attack, and a 22% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes. </p>
<h2>Review 4: low vs high intake in randomised trials</h2>
<p><a href="https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752326/effect-lower-versus-higher-red-meat-intake-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes">This review evaluated</a> the impact of lower – versus higher – red meat intakes on the incidence of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer outcomes in 12 randomised trials. </p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial">Randomised trials</a> are a type of study where one group is given a treatment or intervention at random; the other group is given a different or no intervention, or given usual medical care or advice.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>While the researchers identified 12 eligible trials, they were so varied – ranging from having just 32 participants followed for one year, up to over 48,000 women followed over eight years – that it makes the review results almost meaningless. </p>
<p>The recommendation ended up being predominantly based on that one large trial – of postmenopausal women advised to follow a low-fat diet. The authors found no difference in health outcomes when they compared the combined red and processed meat intakes of women in the low-fat group compared to the usual-care group. </p>
<h2>What’s the problem?</h2>
<p>The studies include <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/int/latest/news-updates/red-and-processed-meat-still-pose-cancer-risk-warn-global-health-experts">a number of shortcomings</a>. </p>
<p>First, red and processed meat were not consistently separated out across the reviews. This is a problem because <a href="https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-meat-and-avoid-processed-meat">research shows</a> processed meats increase the risk of health problems from very low intakes. For red meat, health risks don’t increase until a certain threshold. That’s why red and processed meat cannot be considered the same food group. </p>
<p>Second, the researchers decided to exclude <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_study">cohort studies</a> (where participants are observed over time without any specific intervention) with fewer than 1,000 participants. This means some fairly large studies will have been excluded, which could alter the results. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295387/original/file-20191003-52832-sdgw3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295387/original/file-20191003-52832-sdgw3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295387/original/file-20191003-52832-sdgw3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295387/original/file-20191003-52832-sdgw3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295387/original/file-20191003-52832-sdgw3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295387/original/file-20191003-52832-sdgw3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295387/original/file-20191003-52832-sdgw3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yes, you still need to put a limit on snags.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/grilling-sausages-on-barbecue-grill-bbq-636121997?src=kxYnOTLR8LcVlHGqNdH1ng-1-1">Encierro/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Third, when talking about a small reduction in absolute risk, the researchers don’t acknowledge the potential impact at the population level. </p>
<p>In these studies, the difference in the actual number of diagnosed diseases or deaths was relative small between those with the lowest meat intakes compared to the highest. This difference ranged from three fewer people per 1,000 people having a stroke, to 15 fewer per 1,000 people dying from any cause. </p>
<p>But a small reduction in disease at the population level can translate to thousands of people not experiencing a particular health condition over time.</p>
<p>Finally, the authors don’t present full diagrams, called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_plot">Forrest Plots</a>, to allow us to see how much individual studies influence the overall results. This would show whether the studies are all having about the same effect, or if the results are due to just one or two particular studies. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/health-check-does-processed-meat-cause-bowel-cancer-15294">Health Check: does processed meat cause bowel cancer?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How did they come to their conclusions?</h2>
<p>While the authors of these reviews used similar data to other international reviews <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer">such as that undertaken by the World Cancer Research Fund</a>, a major difference is in how the results are <em>interpreted</em>. </p>
<p>The researchers used an extremely <a href="https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html#h.svwngs6pm0f2">stringent approach</a> to evaluate the quality of the evidence. This led to authors downgrading every outcome to a “low” or “very low” certainty of evidence. </p>
<p>Based on their assessment of the evidence, the authors advised adults to continue their current unprocessed meat and processed meat intakes, which they termed as a “<a href="https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from">weak recommendation</a>” with “low certainty evidence”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/confused-about-your-cancer-risk-from-eating-meat-heres-what-the-figures-mean-49888">Confused about your cancer risk from eating meat? Here's what the figures mean</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While the authors question the validity of observational cohort studies, the reality is that long-term randomised controlled trials would be impossible, and unethical to conduct. You can’t assign large numbers of people to a lifetime diet high in processed and red meat, versus a low meat diet, and then wait for ten to 20 years or more to see what diseases they get and what they die from. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30041-8/fulltext">Poor diets</a> are a leading contributor to chronic disease and need to be addressed with preventative health policies. If all Australians ate like the current dietary guidelines, <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/burden-disease-study-illness-death-2015/contents/table-of-contents">we could expect to see</a> heart disease drop by 62%, as well as 41% less type 2 diabetes, 34% fewer strokes and 22% less bowel cancer. <strong>– Clare Collins</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind peer review</h2>
<p>This is a reasonable critique of <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/">these reviews</a> and has picked up the fact that the methodology used to assess studies automatically graded the results from cohort trials as low or uncertain. This ignores the fact that large, long-term, well-conducted cohort studies involving over six million people have yielded valuable data on dietary patterns and health.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/int/latest/news-updates/red-and-processed-meat-still-pose-cancer-risk-warn-global-health-experts">many criticisms of the reviews</a> include that the authors:</p>
<ul>
<li>omitted some studies and rejected others such as the <a href="https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/clinical-trials/2010/02/23/19/10/lyon-heart-study">Lyon Heart Study</a> because its results seemed to be too good to be true</li>
<li>excluded studies comparing vegetarian diets with those containing meat</li>
<li>ignored social, political and economic factors that influence food selection</li>
<li>ignored the fact that no diet can be judged on the basis of a single food.</li>
</ul>
<p>Part of the recommendation was based on their paper which found that most meat-eaters were reluctant to eat less meat and doubted their ability to prepare meals without meat.</p>
<p>The self-appointed panel who did these the reviews did not agree on the conclusions, with three out of the 14 recommending a reduction in red and processed meat. Interestingly, only two of the 14 personally consumed more than the amount of red meat recommended in most dietary guidelines.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27992898">previous paper by some of the same authors</a> rejected guidelines that recommend consuming less sugar. On that occasion, four of the five authors declared funding during their study from the International Life Sciences Institute, a major lobby group for processed food companies. <strong>– Rosemary Stanton</strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124486/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare Collins is affiliated with the Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, the University of Newcastle, NSW. She is an NHMRC Senior Research and Gladys M Brawn Research Fellow. She has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Meat and Livestock Australia, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the Australian Dietary Guidelines update and the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosemary Stanton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The advice is still to limit your red meat intake to a maximum of 500g a week. So why did some headlines tell us otherwise this week?Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1244292019-10-02T04:15:15Z2019-10-02T04:15:15ZWhat’s made of legumes but sizzles on the barbie like beef? Australia’s new high-tech meat alternative<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295148/original/file-20191002-101494-ac111w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A punter photographs a spread of v2food, which is working to provide a wholly Australian plant-based alternative to meat.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tara Pereira</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a revolution taking place in burger joints and supermarkets across Australia. Plant products that taste and behave like meat are increasingly making their way onto the plates of consumers as concern grows over the environmental impact of food production.</p>
<p>This week the <a href="https://v2food.com/nutrition">CSIRO launched its plant-based meat venture, v2food</a>. Over the next year we plan to develop a range of wholly Australian meat alternatives to be sold in supermarkets and restaurants across the country. The products include protein from legumes, fibre from plants, and oils from sunflower and coconut.</p>
<p>Hungry Jack’s will be the first major fast food chain to stock our product. Meat-free burger patties will soon be available in their stores. Our mince will also be available in grocery stores in the near future.</p>
<p>The venture is a partnership between CSIRO, Main Sequence Ventures (CSIRO’s investment fund) and food retailer Competitive Foods Australia.</p>
<p>The alternative protein market is already worth billions of dollars in the United States. A recent CSIRO analysis of <a href="https://theconversation.com/health-and-sustainability-market-could-be-worth-25-billion-to-australian-producers-by-2030-122856">emerging food trends</a> in Australia estimated the revenue from domestic consumption and exports of plant-based protein products could be A$6.6 billion in 2030.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295149/original/file-20191002-101499-l7eqbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295149/original/file-20191002-101499-l7eqbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295149/original/file-20191002-101499-l7eqbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295149/original/file-20191002-101499-l7eqbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295149/original/file-20191002-101499-l7eqbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=711&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295149/original/file-20191002-101499-l7eqbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=711&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295149/original/file-20191002-101499-l7eqbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=711&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hungry Jack’s will soon offer a plant-based burger patty alongside traditional meat options.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dave Hunt/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>There’s a science to getting a meaty taste from plants</h2>
<p>v2food’s plant-based meat alternatives are not solely designed for vegans. Meat-eaters are a key target, particularly those who are concerned about the impact of food production on the environment.</p>
<p>Building a burger out of plants that will appeal to a meat-eater is no simple task. The product not only has to have the texture of meat but also the flavour, including that chargrilled taste, and should perhaps even “bleed” like meat cooked just right on the barbecue.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-vegetarianism-healthier-we-asked-five-experts-112133">Is vegetarianism healthier? We asked five experts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It took US companies Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-a-startup-that-makes-fake-meat-from-plants-caught-the-attention-of-bill-gates-and-the-founders-of-twitter-2015-7?r=US&IR=T">several years</a> to bring a “beef” product onto the market. CSIRO’s specialists in food texture and flavour science achieved this in eight months.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295151/original/file-20191002-101465-1s09jgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295151/original/file-20191002-101465-1s09jgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295151/original/file-20191002-101465-1s09jgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295151/original/file-20191002-101465-1s09jgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295151/original/file-20191002-101465-1s09jgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295151/original/file-20191002-101465-1s09jgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295151/original/file-20191002-101465-1s09jgs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1129&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">v2food’s mini hotdogs and sliders. CSIRO food scientists and nutritionists helped develop the products.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tara Pereira</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Known as sculptured food, the plant-based meat alternatives we’re working on comprise different ratios of plant proteins combined with carbohydrates from varying sources.</p>
<p>By studying the interactions of the ingredients at a molecular level and analysing the textures resulting from different processing techniques, it has been possible to develop products with the most appropriate texture, structure and bite – from soft to fibrous to cartilaginous.</p>
<p>Through formulation and processing, we coaxed proteins and carbohydrates to interact in different ways to form different textures.</p>
<p>We have also ensured the products are nutritious by introducing components such as pre-biotic fibres for a healthy gut, omega-3 plant-based or algal oils and micronutrients that provide extra vitamins and minerals.</p>
<h2>More sustainable than meat</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0594-0.epdf?referrer_access_token=6tNIJCcXMazZlzAfgRi71dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M2ZckU8PFAjFp2beHrcOXhMGtzE8nzrDqubMx9ONW9ULSbbQ_WUw8pvU9o1FaesDGn7Yyqm7rBefxpvX03Wpn9fVoWCmNUMPUJaksaTZag7YHqVuReazO6_biSFBudf0fo2_DKzyNTaIKyTK4Iuxp7tpl7fPwJrWv85CogEUuSnsQ9AdQHF4LkpZHfMiYl558qP0i6uGuTstvERNFrGr3v_E1KpZK84cX4qaGEUh5_IiX_HQ7lH9hoEbY6vHOB4BhDSK-n2FHz83Vc36GCOVaO&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com">Meat production’s environmental impact</a> has been the main driving force behind the development of plant-based protein alternatives. It contributes to climate change through the greenhouse gases emitted by livestock and deforestation to create grazing land.</p>
<p>As we developed the product we assessed the environmental impacts of different ingredients and made the most environmentally friendly choices. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-meat-on-your-plate-is-killing-the-planet-76128">Five ways the meat on your plate is killing the planet</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We still have a way to go in reducing v2food’s environmental profile. For example, the processing technology required to make the meat alternatives doesn’t yet exist in Australia, so we sourced a soy protein from offshore and combined this with other natural ingredients rich in carbohydrates.</p>
<p>Within the next year, v2food will have the equipment to process local ingredients, which will go a long way towards providing a more sustainable alternative.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295153/original/file-20191002-101474-1a1kzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295153/original/file-20191002-101474-1a1kzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295153/original/file-20191002-101474-1a1kzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295153/original/file-20191002-101474-1a1kzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295153/original/file-20191002-101474-1a1kzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295153/original/file-20191002-101474-1a1kzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295153/original/file-20191002-101474-1a1kzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Meat on display at a Woolworths supermarket in Everton Park, Brisbane. The v2food venture is catering to meat eaters concerned about the environmental impact of food production.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Peled/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Plant-based products we’re working on, such as the burger patty, have less fat than their meat counterparts sold in fast food chains - in particular less saturated fat. They contain similar amounts of protein and have the added bonus of fibre, which is not found in animal protein and is inadequate in the diet of most Australians.</p>
<p>There is still room for improvement and nutritionists and food technologists are working on ways to make v2food products healthier and more nutritious - for example, bringing down the salt content.</p>
<p>Animal protein sources including red meat, poultry and seafood remain important components of a healthy diet in Australia because they provide nutrients that contribute to a healthy diet, including high-quality protein, iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and healthy omega-3 fats.</p>
<p>In Australia, chicken and red meat comprise 70 per cent of both lean meats and their alternatives. So incorporating plant-based meat alternatives can increase the diversity of protein sources in our diet.</p>
<h2>What does this mean for Australian agriculture?</h2>
<p>For now, v2food is calling its product “meat made from plants”. There are calls - in Australia and abroad - to limit the use of terms such as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-15/push-to-ban-milk-meat-seafood-labels-on-plant-based-produce/11513754">meat, milk and seafood</a> to animal-derived products. However, global protein demand is expected to grow to such an extent that all protein producers, whether they be cattle farmers or legume growers, will be called on to fill the gap. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295156/original/file-20191002-101465-1omxnv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295156/original/file-20191002-101465-1omxnv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295156/original/file-20191002-101465-1omxnv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295156/original/file-20191002-101465-1omxnv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295156/original/file-20191002-101465-1omxnv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295156/original/file-20191002-101465-1omxnv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/295156/original/file-20191002-101465-1omxnv6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Currant and mint kofta by v2food.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tara Pereira</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the US, demand for Canadian yellow peas - a main ingredient in plant-based protein products - is outstripping supply. We’re mapping out what the supply chain might look like for plant-based proteins in Australia and the opportunities for plant breeders, growers and producers. Once we have the required processing capability within Australia, this will open the door to higher value uses of legumes.</p>
<p>By harnessing innovation across science disciplines of food, agriculture, sustainability and nutrition, we can achieve a healthy, sustainable and locally grown and produced product.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124429/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australian supermarkets and fast food chains will soon be stocking a homegrown meat alternative that tastes and feels like meat and even sizzles on the barbecue.Martin Cole, Deputy Director of Agriculture and Food, CSIRO, CSIROMary Ann Augustin, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Agriculture & Food, CSIROLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1216282019-08-20T20:04:57Z2019-08-20T20:04:57ZWill eating chicken reduce your risk of breast cancer?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288491/original/file-20190819-123710-1h4xz5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C0%2C4896%2C3261&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">While this research has merit, it doesn't exactly tell us eating chicken reduces risk of breast cancer. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">From shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/research-check-25155">Research Checks</a> interrogate newly published studies and how they’re reported in the media. The analysis is undertaken by one or more academics not involved with the study, and reviewed by another, to make sure it’s accurate.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>You might have seen <a href="https://www.survivornet.com/articles/new-study-links-red-meat-to-increased-breast-cancer-risk-but-poultry-may-decrease-risk/">headlines</a> recently claiming eating chicken reduces a person’s risk of breast cancer.</p>
<p>These reports were based on <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijc.32547">a new study</a> published in the International Journal of Cancer this month which examined the links between breast cancer and consumption of red meat and poultry.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1159243417181937664"}"></div></p>
<p>It found women who ate chicken had a lower risk of developing breast cancer than those who ate red meat.</p>
<p>As with all observational studies, this research cannot show cause and effect. The correlation between eating chicken and a lower risk of breast cancer may have more to do with consuming large quantities of red meat than it does with chicken having any protective qualities.</p>
<h2>The study</h2>
<p>Over almost eight years, researchers followed 42,000 women aged 35-74 involved in the <a href="https://sisterstudy.niehs.nih.gov/english/about.htm">Sister Study</a> in Puerto Rico and the United States. The Sister Study, funded by the US National Institutes of Health, is currently tracking a large cohort of women with view to better understanding the causes of breast cancer.</p>
<p>Some 1,536 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed among the cohort over the eight-year period. The researchers considered this alongside information on participants’ meat consumption habits, gathered through a series of standardised questionnaires. </p>
<p>An analysis of the women’s diets showed those who consumed the most red meat (beef, veal, pork, lamb, game meats) had a 23% higher risk of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer than those who consumed small amounts. </p>
<p>By contrast, the women who consumed the most poultry (lean chicken, turkey, duck, goose, quail and pheasant) had a 15% lower risk than those who consumed the least poultry. </p>
<p>The effects were particularly striking in post-menopausal women.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/research-check-is-white-meat-as-bad-for-your-cholesterol-levels-as-red-meat-118390">Research Check: is white meat as bad for your cholesterol levels as red meat?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Notably, neither the red meat group nor the poultry group necessarily ate only one or the other. So it’s likely women eating a lot of poultry were eating less red meat, while women who ate less poultry included more red meat in their diets.</p>
<p>The researchers predicted breast cancer risk would be reduced even further if the women who ate a large amount of red meat switched to poultry.</p>
<p>They accounted for many confounding factors including obesity, age, income, education level, total energy intake, percentage of energy from fat, consumption of vegetables, fruit and dairy products, how long the women breast-fed their infants and their use of hormone therapy.</p>
<p>Even considering all these factors, there was still a significant relationship between invasive breast cancer and a high consumption of red meat.</p>
<h2>Limitations</h2>
<p>The Sister Study involves women with no previous diagnosis of breast cancer themselves, but all have sisters who have had breast cancer. Since some cases of breast cancer have a <a href="https://www.bcna.org.au/understanding-breast-cancer/breast-cancer-in-the-family/?gclid=CjwKCAjwkenqBRBgEiwA-bZVtoSj54mYgg7qaJsjzWHVby2Te1umMzPB_ezPQWvH6QlAqNoGWSM68xoCpJMQAvD_BwE">genetic component</a>, we should remember this group may have greater susceptibility to breast cancer than the general population.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the study did not identify any women who avoided all meat, so it doesn’t tell us if a vegetarian diet would have further reduced the risk of breast cancer.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-taste-for-beef-and-growing-appetite-for-chicken-78100">Three charts on: Australia's declining taste for beef and growing appetite for chicken</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Red meat and cancer</h2>
<p>Previous studies looking at red meat and breast cancer have reported conflicting results. </p>
<p>One large <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29274927">British report</a> found a small increase in breast cancer with processed meat, but not fresh red meat. </p>
<p>Another major <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijc.31848">review</a> confirmed the processed meat results and found only a very small increase in breast cancer related to fresh red meat.</p>
<p>Other studies have looked at poultry consumption and breast cancer. None have found significant correlations with breast or other cancers. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821634/">Several</a> have found inverse relationships similar to those seen in this study.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288495/original/file-20190819-123754-t54hcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288495/original/file-20190819-123754-t54hcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288495/original/file-20190819-123754-t54hcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288495/original/file-20190819-123754-t54hcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288495/original/file-20190819-123754-t54hcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288495/original/file-20190819-123754-t54hcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288495/original/file-20190819-123754-t54hcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A high consumption of red meat, particularly processed red meat, has been associated with increased cancer risk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">From shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Red meat has more definite links with the risk of certain cancers. The World Cancer Research Foundation recommends limiting red meat (beef, lamb, pork, goat) to <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/colorectal-cancer">reduce the risk</a> of colorectal cancer. At this stage, it has not extended this advice to <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/breast-cancer">breast cancer</a>.</p>
<p>Health concerns about red meat intake also lie in its links to <a href="https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/nutrition-basics/aha-diet-and-lifestyle-recommendations">heart disease</a>, which are supported by <a href="https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eating-red-meat-daily-triples-heart-disease-related-chemical">research evidence</a>.</p>
<h2>It’s about quantity</h2>
<p>It is useful to look at the quantity of meat consumed by those with the lowest incidence of breast cancer in this study. It was small – no more than 340g of red meat a week, or equivalent to about two average-sized red meat portions a week. </p>
<p>By contrast, the highest incidence of breast cancer occurred in those with a weekly consumption of 775g or more. </p>
<p>The greatest benefit, according to the researchers’ modelling, appeared in women who substituted lean poultry for red meat.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/confused-about-your-cancer-risk-from-eating-meat-heres-what-the-figures-mean-49888">Confused about your cancer risk from eating meat? Here's what the figures mean</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Adding a small amount of red meat to a plant-based diet is unlikely to cause health problems. In modest quantities, red meat can actually make a valuable nutritional contribution, adding iron, protein and vitamin B12. </p>
<p>But problems with red meat relate to the quantity consumed – more is not better.</p>
<p>Sustainability concerns around the methods of red meat production also relate to the quantities consumed. Earlier this year, the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext#%20">Eat-Lancet Commission’s healthy reference diet</a> for sustainable food systems recommended a 50% reduction in global consumption of red meat.</p>
<p>So while this new research doesn’t provide enough evidence to suggest eating chicken is protective against breast cancer, women who currently consume a lot of red meat may find it useful to know poultry is an acceptable alternative.</p>
<h2>Blind peer review</h2>
<p>The analysis presents a fair, balanced and accurate assessment of the study. In this study, the researchers looked at the impact of consumption of different types of red meat and white meat, and the way the meats were cooked, on the rates of breast cancer. </p>
<p>The researchers showed red meat consumption (which in this study included beef, lamb, veal, pork and game meat) increased the risk of invasive breast cancer, while consuming poultry (including chicken, turkey, ducks, goose, quail, pheasant/game birds) reduced the risk of invasive breast cancer. There was no association shown between the way the meat was cooked and breast cancer risk. <strong>– Evangeline Mantzioris</strong> </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-the-nutrients-you-need-without-eating-as-much-red-meat-110274">How to get the nutrients you need without eating as much red meat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121628/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Recent reports suggested eating chicken could reduce the risk of breast cancer. In the study, those who ate chicken were at lower risk – when compared to women who ate large quantities of red meat.Rosemary Stanton, Visiting Fellow, School of Medical Sciences, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1183902019-06-14T02:13:09Z2019-06-14T02:13:09ZResearch Check: is white meat as bad for your cholesterol levels as red meat?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279285/original/file-20190613-32351-b3p1tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Whether you're eating red meat or white meat, a lean cut is the healthier way to go.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">From shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You’ve probably heard eating too much fatty red meat is bad for your health, while lean meat and chicken are better choices. So, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/04/health/white-meat-red-meat-cholesterol-study-trnd/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-06-04T19%3A00%3A11&utm_source=twCNN&utm">recent headlines</a> claiming white meat is just as bad for your cholesterol levels as red meat might have surprised you.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1138468506951983104"}"></div></p>
<p>The reports were triggered by a paper published in the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqz035/5494812">The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition</a> earlier this month.</p>
<p>The study did find lean white meat had the same effect on cholesterol levels as lean red meat. While this might be construed as good news by lovers of red meat, more research on this topic is needed for a clearer picture.</p>
<h2>How was this study conducted?</h2>
<p>The researchers set out to compare three diets: one where the main dietary source of protein came from eating red meat (beef and pork), another where it came from poultry (chicken and turkey), and a third where it came from plant foods (legumes, nuts, grains and soy products). </p>
<p>They wanted to measure the impact of these diets on specific categories of blood fats, as markers of heart disease risk. They tested blood fat markers including <a href="https://labtestsonline.org/tests/ldl-cholesterol">low density lipoprotein cholesterol</a> (or LDL, commonly known as “bad cholesterol”), <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolipoprotein_B">apolipoprotein B</a> (apoB), and the ratio of total cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol (or HDL, commonly known as “good cholesterol”).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-the-nutrients-you-need-without-eating-as-much-red-meat-110274">How to get the nutrients you need without eating as much red meat</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The researchers also wanted to know whether blood fat levels changed more when the background dietary patterns were high in saturated fat, derived mostly from full-fat dairy products and butter, or when they were low in saturated fat. </p>
<p>To achieve this, 177 adults with blood cholesterol levels in the normal range were randomised to follow either a high-saturated fat diet (14% of total energy intake) or a low-saturated fat diet (7% of total energy intake).</p>
<p>Within these two groups they were further randomly assigned to follow three separate diets for four weeks each: red meat, white meat, and plant protein sources. The main protein sources in the meat groups came from lean cuts of red and white meat. In the plant diet, protein came from legumes, nuts, grains and soy products.</p>
<p>Participants met research staff weekly to collect their food products and received counselling on following their specified diet. Participants were asked to maintain their physical activity level and keep their weight as stable as possible so these factors did not bias the results.</p>
<p>To eliminate any carry-over effects from eating one type of protein to the next, participants were given between two and seven weeks break in between each diet and told to return to their usual eating patterns.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/organic-grass-fed-and-hormone-free-does-this-make-red-meat-any-healthier-92119">Organic, grass fed and hormone-free: does this make red meat any healthier?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What did the study find?</h2>
<p>Some participants dropped out along the way, so in the end researchers had results from 113 participants.</p>
<p>Blood concentrations of LDL cholesterol and apoB were lower following the plant protein diet period, compared to both the red and white meat periods. This was independent of whether participants were on a background diet of high- or low-saturated fat. </p>
<p>There was no statistically significant difference in the blood fat levels of those eating red meat compared to those eating white meat.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279292/original/file-20190613-32347-16keup2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279292/original/file-20190613-32347-16keup2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279292/original/file-20190613-32347-16keup2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279292/original/file-20190613-32347-16keup2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279292/original/file-20190613-32347-16keup2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279292/original/file-20190613-32347-16keup2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279292/original/file-20190613-32347-16keup2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We’re often told to limit our consumption of red meat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">From shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Eating a diet high in saturated fat led to significant increases in blood levels of LDL cholesterol, apoB, and large LDL particles compared with a background diet low in saturated fat.</p>
<p>So, all the dietary protein sources as well as the level of saturated fat intake had significant effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apoB levels.</p>
<h2>How should we interpret the results?</h2>
<p>Although the test diets only lasted four weeks each, this study is important. It’s rare to see intervention studies that directly compare eating different types of meat and sources of protein and the impact on heart-disease risk factors. This is partly due to the challenge and expense of providing the food and getting people to follow specific diets. </p>
<p>Most studies to date have been <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_study">cohort studies</a> where people are categorised based on what they eat, then followed up for many years to see what happens to their health. </p>
<p>One review of cohort studies found no greater risk of stroke in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29460808">those who eat more poultry compared to less poultry</a>, while another showed <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28855166">a higher risk of stroke</a> among those eating more red and processed meat relative to poultry intake. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-eat-red-meat-the-nutrition-and-the-ethics-47934">Should we eat red meat? The nutrition and the ethics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are a few things to keep in mind with this study. First, the researchers used the leanest cuts of both red and white meats, and removed all visible fat and skin. If participants were eating fatty meat, we may have seen different results. </p>
<p>The significant variation in breaks between different diets (ranging from two to seven weeks) may have also affected the results. Participants with a longer break would have had more time for their blood cholesterol levels to change, compared to those with shorter breaks.</p>
<p>Finally, in reporting their results, it would have been better to include all 177 participants who began the study. People who drop out often have different health characteristics and leaving them out may have biased results.</p>
<p>This short-term study does not provide evidence that choosing lean white meat over red meat is either better or worse for your health.</p>
<p>But the findings are consistent with <a href="https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/food-and-nutrition">recommendations from the Heart Foundation</a> to include a variety of plant-based foods in our diets, foods containing healthy types of fat and lower amounts of saturated fat, and in particular, to choose lean red meat and poultry. – <strong>Clare Collins</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind peer review</h2>
<p>The article presents a fair, balanced and accurate assessment of the study. In this study, they showed lean red meat and lean white meat (with all visible fat and skin removed) had the same effect on blood fat levels.</p>
<p>Importantly, plant protein sources (such as legumes, nuts, grains and soy products) lowered blood fat levels compared to the red and white meats, and this was independent of whether the participants had been placed on a background diet low or high in saturated fats. This study did not look at the impact of a fish-based diet on blood fats. <strong>– Evangeline Mantzioris</strong></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-taste-for-beef-and-growing-appetite-for-chicken-78100">Three charts on: Australia's declining taste for beef and growing appetite for chicken</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/research-check-25155">Research Checks</a> interrogate newly published studies and how they’re reported in the media. The analysis is undertaken by one or more academics not involved with the study, and reviewed by another, to make sure it’s accurate.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118390/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare Collins is affiliated with the Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, the University of Newcastle, NSW. She is an NHMRC Senior Research and Gladys M Brawn Research Fellow. She has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Meat and Livestock Australia, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the Australian Dietary Guidelines update and 2017 evidence review on dietary patterns for the Heart Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Evangeline Mantzioris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Researchers looked at whether it’s better to eat red meat, poultry or plant protein sources for heart health. While a plant-based diet was the clear winner, red meat and white meat scored the same.Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1006992018-07-31T21:57:33Z2018-07-31T21:57:33ZThe rise of the conscious carnivore<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230054/original/file-20180731-136667-1jynbxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's barbecue season, a time of year that usually makes the meat industry happy. But an increasing number of Canadians, especially those under 35, are cutting out meat from their diets -- a trend that should be causing serious alarm for meat producers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The August long weekend approaches, and many Canadians will celebrate with picnics and barbecues. Meat often plays a central role when choosing the menu for gatherings among family and friends. But it seems eating meat is becoming increasingly controversial, as is selling it.</p>
<p>In foie gras-friendly France, for example, there’s been an increasing number of <a href="http://www.france24.com/en/20180704-french-butchers-government-protection-anti-meat-terrorism-vegan-activists">reported anti-meat incidents</a>. In recent weeks, several butcher shops and slaughterhouses were sprayed with fake blood. Other protesters choose to use words, voicing concerns about meat consumption. There are no such reports in Canada yet, but something is clearly afoot.</p>
<p>For years, voluntarily committing to a special diet was a tacit choice. These choices are now allowing a growing collective to go on the offensive. Estimates from a recent wide-ranging <a href="https://www.dal.ca/faculty/management/news-events/news/2018/04/05/release__canadians_are_confused_about_food_recalls.html">Dalhousie University study</a> suggest that Canada harbours more than 2.3 million vegetarians, and upwards of 850,000 vegans.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/young-canadians-lead-the-charge-to-a-meatless-canada-93225">Young Canadians lead the charge to a meatless Canada</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The number of vegetarians in Canada is almost equivalent to the population of Montréal, one of Canada’s largest cities. </p>
<h2>Vegetarians and vegans are mostly under 35</h2>
<p>But what is more worrisome for the meat industry is that 52 per cent of all vegetarians are under the age of 35. As for vegans, that number is 51 per cent. </p>
<p>The younger generation influences our food economy much more significantly than older generations. That’s because these numbers can only go up in time.</p>
<p>These days, becoming a vegetarian or even a vegan, or other types of self-imposed special diets, points to a much-politicized movement against the meat industry. The plant-based diet narrative is overpowering almost everything else. <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/4155690/vegan-dining-restaurants-canada/">A growing number of grocers, processors and restaurant chains are offering plant-based options now</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230004/original/file-20180731-136655-45l14o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230004/original/file-20180731-136655-45l14o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230004/original/file-20180731-136655-45l14o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230004/original/file-20180731-136655-45l14o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230004/original/file-20180731-136655-45l14o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230004/original/file-20180731-136655-45l14o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230004/original/file-20180731-136655-45l14o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The meat industry’s bad dream: A vegan beet and carrot burger with avocado, not a trace of animal protein in sight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What may make matters worse for the meat industry is what’s coming up this fall. Health Canada is due to publish its <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-taste-of-whats-to-come-inside-the-big-revamp-of-canadas-food-guide/article35728046/">long-awaited new food guide in November</a>. Many believe the next food guide will be very different than the current one. Plant-based choices will be strongly encouraged and eating more animal proteins will be frowned upon. </p>
<p>Switzerland just released <a href="https://lenews.ch/2018/06/18/swiss-meat-consumption-three-times-too-high-according-to-new-guidelines/">its new food guide in July</a>, encouraging consumers to reduce their meat consumption by 70 per cent. It’s happening everywhere. </p>
<p>It’s true that many Canadians see the food guide as pointless policy, but institutional buyers do look at it, and so do schools. Training programs for dietitians and nutritionists will likely be modified as well. Over a generation, the food guide will ultimately change our relationship with food.</p>
<h2>Awareness has increased</h2>
<p>All of this is happening quickly, and for several reasons.</p>
<p>Consumers are more aware of vegetable protein alternatives. We can thank social media for this, as information has become more readily available to consumers. There are scant new health-related studies encouraging consumers to take in more animal proteins. And if we add environmental and animal welfare concerns to the health argument, the case for eating meat is getting weaker by the day.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-changing-your-diet-could-save-animals-from-extinction-81061">How changing your diet could save animals from extinction</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But perhaps just as important, consumers are starting to figure out that plant-based diets are less expensive. <a href="https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=beef&months=12&currency=cad">Sources of vegetable proteins like chickpeas or lentils are much cheaper</a> than beef, pork or chicken. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230005/original/file-20180731-136664-rnzw0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230005/original/file-20180731-136664-rnzw0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230005/original/file-20180731-136664-rnzw0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230005/original/file-20180731-136664-rnzw0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=587&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230005/original/file-20180731-136664-rnzw0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230005/original/file-20180731-136664-rnzw0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230005/original/file-20180731-136664-rnzw0k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Americans are the world’s biggest meat eaters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Americans are by far the biggest consumers of meat in the world. The average American eats almost 100 kilograms of meat per year. Australia, Argentina and France are the other significant meat eaters. </p>
<p>Canada is ranked ninth, <a href="https://www.producer.com/2018/06/beef-consumption-up-slightly-in-canada-for-second-year/">with yearly meat consumption per capita at about 70 kilos</a>. Canada is also the 10th largest producer of meat in the world, all commodities combined. These figures have not moved in a few years, but many expect consumption per capita for all of these countries, including Canada, to decrease. </p>
<p>Many in the meat industry are still in denial, but a profound societal change is happening in how we embrace and relate to animals as a food source. </p>
<h2>Consumers want choice</h2>
<p>Our culinary traditions, including our love for barbecuing, will no doubt remain. But things are getting a little more complicated. As a result, the meat industry will need to befriend the plant-based movement in some way. </p>
<p>It’s no longer about one choice over another, but rather selecting ingredients that can co-exist and be appreciated by the marketplace. The refrain in agriculture has often been to dominate the market over other commodities. Consumers today expect choice, discovery and flexibility in addition, of course, to good prices and convenience.</p>
<p>The meat industry is certainly being challenged these days <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-13/wework-tells-employees-meat-is-permanently-off-the-company-menu">by more vocal groups advocating against meat consumption</a>. Some are suggesting we ban meat consumption altogether. </p>
<p>Meat deserves its continued place in our diets. But the meat industry should also recognize that balance is necessary. Selling to the average meat-lover is very different from courting a conscious carnivore. An increasing number of consumers are speaking out, and the meat industry should listen and try to understand where the market is going.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100699/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sylvain Charlebois does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There have been an increasing number of reported anti-meat incidents around the world as more consumers second-guess their relationship with animal proteins. How can the meat industry adjust?Sylvain Charlebois, Professor in Food Distribution and Policy, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/894892018-01-03T23:47:40Z2018-01-03T23:47:40ZLess meat, more choice: A look at key food issues in 2018<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200575/original/file-20180102-26163-1kcbxdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Health concerns about red meat consumption, as well as the environmental impact of meat production, have fuelled an increased demand in plant-based proteins among Canadians. These calves are shown on the Grazed Right cattle ranch near Black Diamond, Alta., in 2016.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Food is <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/2031908/do-you-want-to-know-whats-in-your-food-canadians-want-more-transparency/">increasingly in the day-to-day consciousness</a> of Canadians. Consumers are hearing more about food in the media and in the broader conversation. </p>
<p>They’re also seeking more information about their food, including where it comes from and how it’s produced. New issues of interest regularly emerge. </p>
<p>Here are a number of <a href="https://www.uoguelph.ca/fare/files/Food%20Focus%202108_Final%2BAODA.pdf">key trends</a> you can expect to be in the forefront for 2018:</p>
<h2>Increasing choice and micro-markets for food</h2>
<p>As consumers are learning more about food, different attributes are becoming more important for various individuals. Food is becoming less a commodity and more a specialized, individual choice.</p>
<p>Producers and processors are responding to these evolving demands by offering more choices and niche products. There are also increasing choices on where food can be purchased — from smaller-footprint neighbourhood shops to big-box stores.</p>
<p>The challenge becomes balancing the costs of choice and the value that choice brings. Retailers, food services, processors and producers need to determine which products and services to develop and offer, as well as asking the question: “How much choice do consumers really want?”</p>
<p>There are significant supply-chain implications, both positive and negative, arising from providing more variety. Do consumers want more choice of standard food products, or do they want entirely different foodstuffs? </p>
<h2>The rise of alternate proteins</h2>
<p>On that front, there is increasing interest in alternate sources of protein. Nielsen, the global data measurement company, reports that <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/ca/en/insights/news/2017/plant-based-proteins-are-gaining-dollar-share-among-north-americans.html">43 per cent of Canadians</a> are trying to get more plant-based proteins into their diet. </p>
<p>With only six per cent of Canadians identifying as vegetarian and two per cent as vegan, this 43 per cent represents a significant portion of the population determined to eat less meat. Indeed, we’ve seen a 25 per cent decrease in <a href="http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/market-information-by-sector/poultry-and-eggs/poultry-and-egg-market-information/industry-indicators/per-capita-disappearance/?id=1384971854413">red meat demand</a> over the past decade. </p>
<p>The phenomenon is driven by increasing concern over the <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/cutting-red-meat-for-a-longer-life">health effects</a> of eating too much meat as well as the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/">environmental impact</a> of meat production. While the science on both issues remains contentious, it’s clear that consumers are eating less meat or, to a smaller degree, not eating meat at all.</p>
<p>That’s meant an increase in demand for plant-based proteins, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a01b86c4-52a9-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb">insect proteins</a> and cultured meats. We’ll continue to see growth in this area as more products become available in both retail and food services.</p>
<h2>Antibiotic use in meat production</h2>
<p>There’s been a lot of discussion in Canada <a href="http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/majority-of-canadians-oppose-animal-cruelty-would-pay-more-at-the-grocery-store-to-ensure-welfare">about animal welfare</a> over the past five years. </p>
<p>The next issue we expect will get substantial attention is antibiotic use in meat production. Its use has animal welfare implications, but there are also a wide range of other potential repercussions that make it a much more complex issue than animal welfare.</p>
<p>The World Health Organization has called for a <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/antibiotics-animals-effectiveness/en/">reduction</a> in antibiotic use in meat production, particularly in healthy animals.</p>
<p>Reducing the use of antibiotics, particularly those used in human medicine, is important. But the complete removal of antibiotics from livestock production could have significant negative implications for animal health and welfare. Going forward, great care needs to be taken to strike the right balance among human health needs, consumer preference and animal health.</p>
<p>The appropriate balance can be undermined by opportunistic marketing with over-simplistic taglines on food products regarding antibiotic use.</p>
<h2>Restaurants matter more</h2>
<p>Canadians are spending an increasing proportion of their food dollar outside of the home. We spend <a href="https://www.restaurantscanada.org/research/">$80 billion</a> a year in restaurants, and restaurant spending is growing more quickly than grocery store spending.</p>
<p>Food delivery services and meal packages <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-grocerant-how-smart-grocery-stores-are-becoming-hybrids-86641">are blurring the lines</a> between restaurants and grocery stores. Visits to restaurants are more frequent, and dining establishments influence food choices as we shop. Their ability to communicate directly with consumers through personal interactions, mass marketing and social media means food service is shaping our thinking about food and the choices we make in grocery stores. </p>
<p>For example, consumers at the grocery store can choose between eggs with attributes ranging from conventional to omega-3 to organic to free range, but the consumer buying an egg sandwich from a fast-food outlet has no choice about the type of egg used — that decision has been made by the restaurant.</p>
<p>However, the restaurant serving chèvre omelets made from “cage-free” eggs and goats free to roam and graze at will can create demand for those eggs and that chèvre at the retail level.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200568/original/file-20180102-26160-tytaaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200568/original/file-20180102-26160-tytaaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200568/original/file-20180102-26160-tytaaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200568/original/file-20180102-26160-tytaaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200568/original/file-20180102-26160-tytaaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200568/original/file-20180102-26160-tytaaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200568/original/file-20180102-26160-tytaaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Canadians are increasingly engaged in food, including where it comes from and how it’s grown – a trend expected to grow in 2018. A grocery store customer is seen here in late 2015 at a Loblaws grocery store in Toronto.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Minimum wage increases</h2>
<p>Substantial minimum wage increases are happening in both Alberta and Ontario. Other provinces, most notably British Columbia, have indicated that they intend to raise theirs in the years to come. </p>
<p>Minimum wage increases have the potential to have a major impact in the food sector. </p>
<p>Restaurants employ more than 1.2 million people in Canada, and most of them work at or close to minimum wage. Food retail employs more than 500,000 people in Canada, and again, most of these employees work for minimum wage. Substantial increases in minimum wages will push companies to change how they function, and could reduce overall employment. </p>
<p>While many farm activities will be exempt from minimum wage requirements, higher wages in other sectors could make an already difficult labour situation worse on farms. Farms relying heavily on manual labour, such as fruit and vegetable operations, will feel the impacts of higher wage costs, which therefore could result in more mechanization and automation.</p>
<h2>Food prices</h2>
<p>We expect an annual increase in food prices overall of two per cent to 2.5 per cent in 2018 (similar to <a href="http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/cpis08a-eng.htm">2017</a>). Price increases for specific products cause consternation, but consumers can often offset rising prices by modifying purchases in the short run. A <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/soaring-price-for-trendy-cauliflower-causes-problems-for-restaurants-1.3408168">number of factors</a> can cause unexpected fluctuations in prices, most notably extreme weather events and exchange rate fluctuations. </p>
<p>In the absence of these factors, prices will generally increase at the rate stated above although there is considerable volatility between product and within the year.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89489/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael von Massow receives funding from Longo's Grocery chain in support of his research to understand consumer food choice behaviour. He has also received funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alfons Weersink receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce McAdams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Canadians are increasingly invested in their food – where it comes from, how it’s produced, and whether it’s healthy. Here are some predicted food trends for 2018.Michael von Massow, Associate Professor, Food Economics, University of GuelphAlfons Weersink, Professor, University of GuelphBruce McAdams, Professor in Hospitality, Food and Tourism, University of GuelphLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/699742016-12-08T02:29:26Z2016-12-08T02:29:26ZWhy iron is such an important part of your diet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148984/original/image-20161207-25753-1lmyqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Iron is contained in many vegetarian foods, and there are yummy ways to enhance how much you absorb. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/516747673?src=SP9vbt4Ziya_qzzBMJHH1w-3-25&id=516747673&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock/Uber Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>According to the <a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/ida/en/">World Health Organisation</a>, iron deficiency – a condition where your body doesn’t have enough of the mineral iron – is a global public health problem of “epidemic proportions”. It is the single most prevalent nutrient deficiency in developing and industrialised countries, and the most common cause of anaemia. </p>
<p><a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00277-010-1144-5">Anaemia</a> occurs when our red blood cell count and/or haemoglobin levels are too low, resulting in an inability to transport sufficient oxygen throughout the body. Iron is required in order for haemoglobin to transport oxygen. </p>
<p>This week <a href="https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/correcting-iron-deficiency#r3">Australian Prescriber</a> published an update on the problem of iron deficiency in Australia. Young women, children and disadvantaged groups are at <a href="http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/9076267">highest risk</a>. Around 12-15% of women who are pregnant or of reproductive age and 8% of preschool children in Australia are estimated to have <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/193/9/diagnosis-and-management-iron-deficiency-anaemia-clinical-update?0=ip_login_no_cache%3D5b5ca34fad730a23f7740f2b74d0b0e4">iron deficiency anaemia</a>. Iron deficiency without clinical anaemia is <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/126/5/1040.full.pd">even more widespread</a>. </p>
<p>Although vegetarians and vegans are broadly thought of as being at high risk of iron deficiency due to an absence of red meat in the diet, there is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172127">little evidence</a> to <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/199/4/iron-and-vegetarian-diets">support</a> this. However restricted diets can confer higher risk if not well balanced, for instance in <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/iron-and-vegetarian-diets">young overweight women</a> who are trying to lose weight.</p>
<h2>Why is iron important?</h2>
<p>Iron has an <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098299700000066">essential role</a> in numerous <a href="https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/correcting-iron-deficiency#r3">metabolic pathways</a> in the body, including transport of oxygen in the blood, DNA synthesis, breathing, immune function and energy production. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/correcting-iron-deficiency#r3">Symptoms</a> of iron deficiency include tiredness, neurobehavioural disorders like <a href="http://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/10/558.long">attention deficit hyperactivity disorder</a> and <a href="http://www.webmd.com/brain/restless-legs-syndrome/restless-legs-syndrome-rls#1">restless leg syndrome</a> (a nervous system disorder that creates an irresistible and sometimes unbearable urge to move the legs), and cognitive impairment in children. Iron deficiency can have a <a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/ida/en/">serious impact</a> on health and productivity. </p>
<p>Iron is essential for the developing <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/126/5/1040.full.pdf">brain</a>. Iron deficiency with and without anaemia in infancy can have long term negative impacts on brain function and behaviour, and even when levels are corrected, those effects may not be completely reversed.</p>
<p>Maternal anaemia can result in <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/5/1280s.short">preterm birth</a>, and along with high blood pressure or diabetes can compromise <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/126/5/1040.full.pdf">fetal iron levels</a> in pre-term or term infants. </p>
<p><a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/126/5/1040.full.pdf">Breastfeeding</a> provides adequate iron to meet infant needs up to the age of six months. However from seven to 12 months the requirement for iron increases significantly (up to 11 milligrams per day), and must be provided via solid food in addition to breast milk.</p>
<p>It’s important to understand problems can be caused by both too little as well as too much iron. Hence iron concentrations in the body are <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098299700000066">carefully regulated</a> and professional advice must be sought before supplementing with iron. </p>
<h2>Causes of iron deficiency</h2>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/correcting-iron-deficiency#r3">lots</a> of <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/193/9/diagnosis-and-management-iron-deficiency-anaemia-clinical-update?0=ip_login_no_cache%3D5b5ca34fad730a23f7740f2b74d0b0e4">complex</a> causes of iron deficiency and anaemia, and they should be carefully investigated before being addressed.</p>
<p>Poor dietary intake is an important cause of iron deficiency, particularly when requirements are increased during infancy, menstruation and pregnancy.</p>
<p>Iron is one of a number of essential nutrients we need to get through our diet. Iron deficiency is therefore one of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-29/resurgence-of-the-rare-condition-of-scurvy-among-diabetics/8073136">several casualties</a> of <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737422319">poor dietary patterns</a> in Australia and other westernised countries, characterised by excessive intake of highly processed foods and inadequate intake of nutritious whole foods.</p>
<h2>Iron requirements</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/199/4/iron-and-vegetarian-diets">Dietary iron requirements</a> vary by age and gender. The recommended daily intake (average daily intake that is sufficient to meet the needs of the majority of people) for males varies from eight to 11 milligrams a day for ages one to 18 years, and eight milligrams for all other ages. </p>
<p>Women have higher requirements. For ages 14-50 years, recommended daily intakes range from 15 milligrams (14-18 years) to 18 milligrams a day. Needs are higher during pregnancy, jumping to 27 milligrams per day. However during lactation they are slightly less, at nine to ten milligrams a day.</p>
<p>Iron requirements for vegetarians have been estimated as 1.8 times more than non-vegetarians, however this conclusion was based on <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/iron-and-vegetarian-diets#0_CBBJFGAA">limited research</a>.</p>
<h2>Dietary sources of iron</h2>
<p><a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/5/1233S.long">Dietary iron</a> is obtained in the form of <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/199/4/iron-and-vegetarian-diets">haem iron or non-haem iron</a>. Haem iron sources include red meat, poultry and fish, while non-haem iron comes from a variety of plant foods such as legumes, wholegrains, green leafy vegetables, nuts, seeds, fresh and dried fruit. These plant sources are core components of both vegetarian and vegan diets.</p>
<p>Non-haem iron is believed to be <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/5/1233S.long">less available</a> than haem iron. This is because plant foods contain substances that can inhibit absorption of iron.</p>
<p>However, vitamin C can enhance non-haem iron absorption thereby counteracting these inhibitory effects. To address this in your diet, you might like to try:</p>
<ul>
<li>eating hummus that contains chickpeas and lemon juice </li>
<li>lemon juice drizzled over Indian dal or <a href="http://helfimed.org/recipes/red-lentil-soup/">lentil soup</a></li>
<li>salads containing high vitamin C sources such as red capsicum or tomato as a side dish</li>
<li>kiwi fruit, strawberries, papaya or a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice with muesli</li>
<li>a side dish of <a href="http://helfimed.org/recipes/steamed-vegies/">lightly steamed</a> broccoli, cauliflower and/or brussel sprouts - good sources of vitamin C – which can be boosted with lemon juice (plus extra virgin olive oil, garlic and salt for ultimate flavour and nutrition)</li>
<li>mixing baby spinach in salads - green leafy vegetables contain iron and vitamin C, a complete package.</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/196_10_040612_supplement/sau11494_fm.pdf">Soaking and sprouting</a> legumes, wholegrains and seeds makes the iron more available from these foods. </p>
<p>It is important to note the absorption of non-haem iron varies considerably, and has been shown to be <a href="http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/pdf">higher</a> in people who have greater iron requirements. This suggests the body adapts to low iron by increasing its absorption. </p>
<p><a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/5/1233S.long">Vegetarians</a> who follow a balanced diet have been shown to have higher iron intake than that of non-vegetarians and there is <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/196_10_040612_supplement/sau11494_fm.pdf">little evidence</a> of lower iron status.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148988/original/image-20161207-13648-1olunxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148988/original/image-20161207-13648-1olunxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148988/original/image-20161207-13648-1olunxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148988/original/image-20161207-13648-1olunxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148988/original/image-20161207-13648-1olunxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148988/original/image-20161207-13648-1olunxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/148988/original/image-20161207-13648-1olunxi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Foods such as red meat, spinach, nuts, seeds and legumes are good sources of dietary iron.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/527187667?src=7zaxtIY4FJYErFDQGkGrtw-1-0&id=527187667&size=medium_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A table of the iron content of foods commonly available in Australia is provided <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/196_10_040612_supplement/sau11494_fm.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<p>Iron is an essential nutrient with a range of critically important functions in the body and brain. Assessing iron stores and causes of anaemia is complex and should be performed by a professional. </p>
<p>We can ensure adequate intake of iron by eating a healthy balanced diet with a variety of whole foods including (but not limited to) meat as well as plant sources.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69974/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Parletta (formerly Sinn) has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is currently employed by a National Health & Medical Research Council Program Grant. </span></em></p>Iron deficiency affects more than one in ten Australian women before they reach menopause. Better dietary choices can be part of the solution.Natalie Parletta, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Freelance Science Writer, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/479342016-02-25T19:04:39Z2016-02-25T19:04:39ZShould we eat red meat? The nutrition and the ethics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110906/original/image-20160210-3281-1hobspn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are lots of things to consider when pondering whether we should eat red meat.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/68532869@N08/16246927599/">Guilio Nepi/Japanexperterna.se/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many types of red meat and red meat products are available, from farmers’ markets, to supermarkets, to restaurants. The impacts of their production and consumption on human health, animal welfare and the environment are complex. </p>
<p>So what should we be thinking about when we’re deciding whether or not to eat red meat?</p>
<h2>The nutrition</h2>
<p>Consuming lean products and different cuts, or muscles, of meat from cattle, sheep, pig, goat and kangaroo is recommended in the <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf">Australian Dietary Guidelines</a> as part of a balanced diet. Lean refers to animal muscle tissue that has lower amounts of total fat and saturated fat compared to higher-fat alternatives. </p>
<p>Most lean red meats are cuts, rather than processed products such as hot dogs or canned meat. Cuts provide many beneficial nutrients, including: protein, vitamin B12, zinc, iron and unsaturated fat (such as omega-3 polyunsaturated fats). </p>
<p>In comparison, fattier red meat cuts and most processed meat products provide higher amounts of potentially harmful nutrients, such as saturated fats, salt and sodium nitrate. </p>
<p>In general, horse and kangaroo meats <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.2740330814/pdf">have been reported to</a> have the lowest total fat and highest polyunsaturated fat contents. Beef and sheep meats have the highest total fat and lowest polyunsaturated fat. Grass-fed beef is a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00197.x/">better source of omega-3 polyunsaturated fats</a> compared to grain-fed beef, although fish provides significantly more omega-3 than any red meat. </p>
<p>Australian livestock is mostly grass-fed in fields, rather than grain-fed in feedlots. This is better for both nutrient levels in the meat and animal and environmental ethics. Feedlots are more common in the United States, for example.</p>
<p>The type of grain that is fed to an animal affects its muscle nutrient composition, as well as shelf-life, taste, colour and quality. For example, pigs can be fed on a certain amount and type of <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174003000226">linseed to increase omega-3 polyunsaturated fat</a> in their meat.</p>
<h2>Associations with ill health</h2>
<p>The links between red meat products and human health are not fully understood, but you may have seen <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/processed-meats-cause-cancer-says-un-agency/6886882">recent media reports</a> about processed meat and cancer risk.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110911/original/image-20160210-3260-ns1djs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110911/original/image-20160210-3260-ns1djs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110911/original/image-20160210-3260-ns1djs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110911/original/image-20160210-3260-ns1djs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110911/original/image-20160210-3260-ns1djs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110911/original/image-20160210-3260-ns1djs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110911/original/image-20160210-3260-ns1djs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110911/original/image-20160210-3260-ns1djs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Eating red meat probably increases your risk of cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is likely that eating <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">less processed meat</a> will reduce your risk of getting cancer. It’s also probable eating <a href="https://theconversation.com/confused-about-your-cancer-risk-from-eating-meat-heres-what-the-figures-mean-49888">less red meat</a> will reduce your cancer risk. </p>
<p>Similarly, if unsaturated fats – especially polyunsaturated fats – replace saturated fats (for example, in red meat) in someone’s diet, the risk of coronary heart disease <a href="http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=2445322&resultClick=3">might be reduced</a>. Further, processed meats have been linked to a higher incidence of <a href="http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.short">coronary heart disease and diabetes</a>.</p>
<h2>The ethics</h2>
<p>The ethics of consuming food, including animal produce, is a fraught topic for both animal welfare and environmental damage. The vast scale of commercialised livestock production is overwhelming. </p>
<p>Yes, <em>any</em> food that humans consume comes with consequences, especially when that food is mass-produced. However, with red meat, efficiency and cost can outweigh animal welfare when animals become <a href="https://theconversation.com/animal-welfare-an-urgent-issue-with-a-long-slow-solution-9598">“a commodity, a unit in the production line”</a>. And there is huge environmental damage from <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607612562">livestock production</a>, such as methane from manure and enteric fermentation (that is, farts!).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100582/original/image-20151102-16507-1n201dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100582/original/image-20151102-16507-1n201dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100582/original/image-20151102-16507-1n201dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100582/original/image-20151102-16507-1n201dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100582/original/image-20151102-16507-1n201dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100582/original/image-20151102-16507-1n201dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100582/original/image-20151102-16507-1n201dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100582/original/image-20151102-16507-1n201dc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Animal rights and greenhouse gas emissions should also be taken into account.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/en/cows-food-eat-farm-lower-saxony-552946/">from pixabay.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf">Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations</a> stated in 2006: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It must be hoped the animal welfare and environmental aspects of food consumption will be highlighted in future revisions of the <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/198/1/australia-s-dietary-guidelines-and-environmental-impact-food-paddock-plate?0=ip_login_no_cache%3D489dd38529cad9a01f9585a688e09e88">Australian Dietary Guidelines</a>.</p>
<h2>What can you do?</h2>
<p>You probably care about your health, and hopefully you care about other animals and the environment. Luckily, you can do a few things to try to improve all of these aspects of red meat and red meat product consumption:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>When (or if) you eat red meat: choose leaner options that have less total and saturated fat, such as lean beef mince in place of standard beef mince; choose meats that contain more polyunsaturated fats, such as kangaroo or grass-fed beef (I don’t envisage many Australians eating horse, which is also higher in these fats); avoid processed meat such as bacon, sausages and salami; and buy from retailers and eat at <a href="http://www.featherandbone.com.au/what_we_do/about_us">restaurants</a> where the red meat is sourced from more ethical, smaller-scale, local and sustainable farms</p></li>
<li><p>Eat less red meat (<a href="http://www.meatfreemondays.com/">Meat Free Mondays</a> is one good idea)</p></li>
<li><p>Join the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4802.01995?OpenDocument">4% of the Australian population</a> following vegetarian or vegan eating habits.</p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47934/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Reynolds is a registered nutritionist and the owner of The Real Bok Choy <a href="http://www.therealbokchoy.com">www.therealbokchoy.com</a>, a nutrition and lifestyle consultancy.</span></em></p>The impacts of red meat production and consumption on human health, animal welfare and the environment are complex.Rebecca Reynolds, Lecturer in Nutrition, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/518782016-01-14T04:39:03Z2016-01-14T04:39:03ZHow red meat has become leaner in South Africa over the last four decades<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106068/original/image-20151215-23176-wo2k27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When fat is trimmed off red meat it compares favourably to other lean meats. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Understanding the composition of food and its chemical content is the first step to managing your diet well. It is particularly important to know the composition of meat, since the fat content of meat has changed over time. </p>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajas/article/view/121445">research</a> shows that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>different species have different fat content;</p></li>
<li><p>that this has changed over the last 40-plus years; and</p></li>
<li><p>that the fat content of red meat is lower in South Africa than in the US and Australia. </p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Less fat to go around</h2>
<p>Fat is an <a href="http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/three-functions-fat-body-3402.html">essential component</a> of our bodies. It insulates the body from cold and helps our bodies absorb and transport fat soluble vitamins. It is also a rich source of energy and important for hormone production. </p>
<p>Every gram of fat in our bodies provides us with 37 kilojoules of energy. Other energy providing nutrients such as carbohydrates or proteins only produce 17 kilojoules of energy for each gram.</p>
<p>Although all meat contains fat, the fat content of South African red meat has decreased dramatically over time. <a href="http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajas/article/view/121445">Data</a> on the physical composition of South African beef shows this. Today’s meat has higher muscle content and less fat content.</p>
<p>In 1972 beef contained about 22.8% of fat, 63.5% of muscle and 13.9% of bone. By 2010 this dropped had to 18.6% fat, 64.8% muscle and 16.9% bone. Figures from 2014 show that there is now only 11% fat in a piece of beef with 72% muscle and 17.3% bone. </p>
<p>This decline in fat content means that South African beef can now be classified as lean. This is reflected in the latest draft <a href="http://www.saafost.org.za/Legislation/2014/D/2014-5%20Food%20labelling%20Guidelines%20for_R429.pdf">regulations</a> on the labelling and advertising of foods, which states that meat with a fat percentage of between 5% and 10% can be classified as “lean”. </p>
<p>The reduction in fat has been driven by a number of factors. These include farmers choosing lean breeds and meat being trimmed at retail outlets and then again at home before it is cooked. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105452/original/image-20151211-22337-1uhp4gz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105452/original/image-20151211-22337-1uhp4gz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=228&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105452/original/image-20151211-22337-1uhp4gz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=228&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105452/original/image-20151211-22337-1uhp4gz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=228&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105452/original/image-20151211-22337-1uhp4gz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105452/original/image-20151211-22337-1uhp4gz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105452/original/image-20151211-22337-1uhp4gz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The quest for leaner meat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">supplied</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajas/article/view/121445">study</a> also compared data from the <a href="http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/">US</a> and <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/nutrientables/nuttab/Pages/NUTTAB-2010-electronic-database-files.aspx">Australia</a> and found that <a href="http://www.samic.co.za/downloads/Redmeat.pdf">South African</a> lamb and mutton leg cuts contain notably less fat. </p>
<p>But not all fat is bad. Meat also contains “good fats”. Nearly half of the fat in South African red meat consists of healthy mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Diets high in monounsaturated fatty acids from olive oil, fish and certain meats like lamb offer protection from coronary heart disease and certain types of cancers.</p>
<p>Lamb and mutton are also natural sources of conjugated linoleic acid. A high intake has been <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/5/1203.long">linked</a> to reductions in heart disease, cancer and cholesterol levels.</p>
<h2>Knowing what you eat</h2>
<p>Red meat, trimmed or not, compares favourably with other animal source foods such as chicken and pork. The <a href="http://www.sajcn.co.za/index.php/SAJCN/article/view/747/1079">data</a> shows that a roasted lamb loin chop trimmed of fat contains 7.8% fat while a roasted chicken drumstick without the skin contains 9.8% fat. A slice of roast leg of lamb, untrimmed, contains 11.7% fat, while an untrimmed grilled pork loin contains 13.9%. </p>
<p>Whether you are on the <a href="http://www.goodhousekeeping.co.za/en/diet-health/banting-for-beginners/">banting</a> bandwagon which recommends a low carb high fat diet, or steering clear of any fat, in the era of “you are what you eat”, knowing what is in your food gives you the power to make informed food choices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51878/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicolette Hall consults to the Red Meat Industry of South Africa and Lamb and Mutton SA. She has received funding from RMRDSA. She is affiliated with the Institute of Food, Nutrition and Well-being at the University of Pretoria. </span></em></p>There has been a drastic reduction in the fat content of red meat in the last 40 years. South African red meat can now be classified as lean.Nicolette Hall, Researcher in Human Nutrition, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/499242015-11-01T11:07:42Z2015-11-01T11:07:42ZCancer and meat – too much hype?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100138/original/image-20151029-15358-4dy0mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A report released by the World Health Organisation has ranked red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans, possibly causing bowel cancer. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The World Health Organisation’s <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">report</a> warning of the link between processed meat and an increased cancer risk has taken the globe by storm and resulted in a flurry of overwhelmingly negative publicity around meat and meat <a href="https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=display/ReleaseDetails/i/116609">products</a>. </p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">International Agency for Research on Cancer</a>, every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of bowel cancer by 18%. The panel ranked red meat lower, evaluating it as probably carcinogenic to humans, possibly causing bowel cancer. </p>
<p>The International Agency for Research on Cancer is part of the World Health Organisation. Its mission is to co-ordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. Although the report published a review of scientific findings, it has nevertheless led to misleading reports. </p>
<h2>A problematic study</h2>
<p>The agency represents the opinion of a selected group of 22 scientists from ten developed countries including Australia, the US, Sweden, Belgium, France and the Netherlands. Its evaluation did not introduce any new evidence. It was based on existing scientific literature, and the opinion it offered is not based on consensus in the <a href="http://www.beefusa.org/newsreleases1.aspx?newsid=5418">global scientific community</a>.</p>
<p>There are two key issues around process that we believe weaken the agency’s findings. The two are: majority agreement on the findings, and that a hazard – and not a risk – assessment was done. </p>
<p>The final classifications were based on a majority agreement and not on unanimous consensus of all members of the working group. These types of evaluations are historically based on unanimous <a href="http://www.beefusa.org/newsreleases1.aspx?newsid=5418">consensus</a>. </p>
<p>Also, the agency conducts hazard analyses, not <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_analysis">risk assessments</a>. This distinction is important. It means that for this case study, it considered whether meat at some level, under some circumstance, could be a hazard. Each substance is classified according to its potential hazard. Processed meat has been placed in Group 1: carcinogenic to <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">humans</a> along with tobacco. Red meat has been placed in Group 2A: probably <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">carcinogenic</a>. </p>
<p>Since the 1970s, the agency has reviewed more than 900 products, substances and exposures. More than 400 have been identified as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, or possibly carcinogenic to <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/">humans</a>.</p>
<p>However, frequency, intensity and potency of exposure to any hazard plays a large role in determining the potential risk. The IARC’s report has published a risk for processed meat. It warned against the risk of eating 50 grams of processed meat each day – the equivalent of two slices of ham – saying it could increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. </p>
<p>Cancers are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/">worldwide</a>, with about 14 million new cases and 8.2 million cancer related deaths in 2012. Nearly one million cancer deaths per year are attributed to tobacco smoking while 600,000 cancer deaths each year are as a result of alcohol consumption. Another 200,000 cancer deaths a year are as a result of air pollution.</p>
<p>The most recent estimates by the <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/">Global Burden of Disease Project</a> show that across the globe, 34,000 cancer deaths per year are attributed to diets containing high intakes of processed meat. </p>
<p>In this context, the amount of cancer-related deaths attributed to excessive consumption of processed meats compared to other hazards are relatively small. </p>
<p>Quantifying the estimates further mean that increasing your risk by 18% when consuming more than 350 grams of processed meat per week, you increase your chance to develop colorectal cancer from <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/go-ahead-have-that-blt-for-lunch/article26979606/">56 in 1000 to 66 in 1000</a>. </p>
<p>The agency is not saying that processed meat is as dangerous as <a href="http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/">smoking</a>. The risk from processed meat and red meat remains smaller than tobacco smoke, alcohol consumption and air pollution. </p>
<h2>Down this road before</h2>
<p>It is not the first time a misleading message has put into the public domain. </p>
<p>In 1995, the <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/311/7020/1589">UK Committee on Safety of Medicines</a> issued a warning that oral contraceptive pills increased the risk of potentially life-threatening thrombosis twofold. </p>
<p>The news provoked great anxiety and many women stopped taking the pill. This led to unwanted pregnancies and nearly 13,000 additional <a href="http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-069872/en/">abortions</a> in the next year in England and Wales. </p>
<p>Yet, when this daunting “twofold risk” was <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4830">investigated</a> it was revealed that the incidence of thrombosis had increased from one in 7000 women who did not take the pill to two in 7000 women who do.</p>
<h2>A balanced diet</h2>
<p>After the International Agency for Research on Cancer released the report, the assistant director-general of the World Health Organisation, <a href="http://www.gazzettadelsud.it/news/english/164255/People-should-limit--not-eliminate--some-foods--WHO-official.html">Oleg Chestnov</a>, announced that some foods needed to be limited as part of a healthy diet but did not need to be eliminated:</p>
<p>He said the document linking red meats to cancer was aimed mainly at politicians, so that they can regulate the sector appropriately within their borders.</p>
<p>Most governments throughout the world promote balanced approaches to <a href="http://www.fao.org/nutrition/nutrition-education/food-dietary-guidelines/en/">diets</a> based on scientific evidence. They encourage moderate consumption of foods from all the food groups. </p>
<p>This is the sensible approach. Scaring people is not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49924/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicolette Hall consults to the Red Meat Industry of South Africa. She receives funding from Red Meat Research and Development South Africa for research not related to this topic. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hester Carina Schönfeldt consults to the South African Red Meat Industry. She is affiliated with Red Meat Research and Development South Africa. </span></em></p>The World Health Organisation’s report on the increased cancer risk with eating processed and red meat has been met with mixed reactions.Nicolette Hall, Researcher in Human Nutrition, University of PretoriaHettie Carina Schönfeldt, Associate Professor of Human Nutrition at the Institute of Food, Nutrition and Wellbeing, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498882015-10-30T04:08:54Z2015-10-30T04:08:54ZConfused about your cancer risk from eating meat? Here’s what the figures mean<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100255/original/image-20151030-20167-1obvecl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Methods of communicating relative risk to the public are often confusing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/b-tal/163450213/in/photolist-frJ48-6jVDrj-a3eRUW-7o37h4-dF2kfy-xSKtM3-45cqRN-9btpV5-2aG48A-zDxYmj-weYd8-h4yNV6-cdx6N3-9bfGvL-5WksQ6-nGtSb-eoKTfj-bTci2-4nasi8-398sRb-D2Gaj-cvL8q1-gvMnZ-8uts1c-d48xXC-x2N2-MX2qn-8xyKpN-63UskT-6znZE-8CExD3-e1L6W4-c4Rw4G-dpHVtD-7jf2C5-nXMLQ-4vTpFL-FMNav-6LZ96M-6N51SL-7iNtsT-iqKpmj-72j5yj-dM5ip5-7rYJ5k-6M4hgW-d2LRVu-9bFkti-6N1iga-z78tQo">Brian Talbot/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">recent report</a> on processed meat and risk of bowel cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This method of communicating risk led to confusion and some <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/why-is-the-world-health-organization-so-bad-at-communicating-cancer-risk/412468/">hostile reactions</a>. Scientists can explain risks of cancer and other diseases in several ways; some are easier to understand than others.</p>
<h2>Relative risk</h2>
<p>The IARC statement is based on a summary of many epidemiological studies assessing the relationship between meat consumption and bowel cancer, including a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342453">study by one of us</a>. </p>
<p>Epidemiology is the science of studying the distribution and determinants of disease in populations. At its heart lie comparisons of the frequency of disease for people exposed or not exposed to a particular substance, environmental condition or lifestyle. </p>
<p>In this case, IARC was comparing the risk of bowel cancer for people who eat 50 grams of processed meat per day with the risk for those who don’t eat processed meat at all. </p>
<p>The 18% increase means the risk of developing bowel cancer is 1.18 times higher for those who eat 50 grams of processed meat per day compared to those who eat none. The figure 1.18 is known as “relative risk”. </p>
<p>Put this way, the increase is quite small. By contrast, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15880414">men who smoke cigarettes</a> have about 20 times the risk of developing lung cancer as men who do not smoke. Expressed as a percentage, the increase in risk due to smoking is 1,900%.</p>
<p>A potential problem with presenting relative risk in the format IARC uses is that many people will incorrectly conclude that if they ate processed meat, they had an 18% (almost one in five) chance of getting bowel cancer. Thus, they were misled.</p>
<p>Presenting relative risks to the public in any format is not very informative. A better way to communicate the effect of specific risk factors is to present what is known as the “absolute risk”.</p>
<h2>Absolute risk</h2>
<p>Australians fortunate enough to live to the age of 85 have an 8.2% chance of being diagnosed with bowel cancer over their lifetime; this is the “lifetime risk”.</p>
<p>If we assume that a quarter of the Australian population eats 50 grams per day of processed meat, then the lifetime risk for the three-quarters who eat no processed meat would be 7.9% (or about one in 13). For those who eat 50 grams per day, the lifetime risk would be 9.3% (or about one in 11). </p>
<iframe src="https://charts.datawrapper.de/TS2hV/index.html" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Although our estimate that one-quarter of the population eat 50 grams of processed meat daily is not likely to be correct, changing this proportion does not have much effect on the two absolute risks.</p>
<p>Of course, this naive calculation assumes everything else is equal; that people who eat processed meat differ in no other ways that affect risk of bowel cancer from those who do not.</p>
<p>But we know many factors contribute to risk of bowel cancer – being overweight, alcohol consumption, being physically inactive and family history, to name a few. With so many variables driving risk, it is clear no two people are likely to have exactly the same risk profile. </p>
<p>Cancer Research United Kingdom <a href="http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/">presented the risks</a> in this way. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Out of every 1,000 people in the UK, about 61 will develop bowel cancer at some point in their lives. Those who eat the lowest amount of processed meat are likely to have a lower lifetime risk than the rest of the population (about 56 cases per 1,000 low meat-eaters).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you only expect to live to 65, your chance of getting bowel cancer is 2.9% if you don’t eat processed meat and 3.4% if you eat 50 grams each day. Of course, if you indulge more, the risk increases, but to similar proportions for each additional 50 grams per day.</p>
<p>Absolute risks allow people to personalise the effects and to better compare them. Yes, calculating absolute risk requires a strong assumption that there are no other differences between people who are exposed and not exposed. But we still believe that being able to compare absolute risks is more informative and less likely to mislead than relative risks.</p>
<h2>Population attributable fraction</h2>
<p>Another useful way of communicating the burden of cancer due to a risk factor is to calculate what is known as the population attributable fraction – that is, the fraction of cancer that is due to the risk factor. </p>
<p>Researchers <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26437727">recently estimated</a> that 18% of bowel cancers in Australia could be attributed to consumption of red and processed meat (they did not have data to allow them to separate the effects of processed and red meat). This equated to about 2,600 cases in 2010.</p>
<p>The increase in risk due to red and processed meat is small, but together they account for many cases because Australians eat a lot of meat.</p>
<p>A lot of public money, via taxes or donated funds to cancer organisations, is invested in research. There is a moral imperative to report the findings of such research, but rarely is one study definitive. </p>
<p>So major reviews by IARC are vital to bring together the best assessment of the evidence about what does and does not contribute to cancer risk. And people want to know. </p>
<p>The best cancer is the one you never get. Given we know <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26437735">the cause of about one-third of cancers in Australia</a> (smoking, alcohol, lack of exercise and nutrition factors), it is not unreasonable to give the best available information to people about what we know. </p>
<p>But clearly we have a way to go in better communicating what these risks really mean and how people can use this information in their daily choices. </p>
<p>Luckily, decades of solid evidence underpins some pretty simple advice to stack the cancer odds in your favour. For most people:</p>
<p>Do more: physical activity, eating fruit and vegetables</p>
<p>Do less: drink alcohol, eat high-calorie food, processed and probably red meat, expose skin to intense sunlight</p>
<p>Don’t: smoke.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49888/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dallas English works for The University of Melbourne and the Cancer Council Victoria. He has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for research on diet and cancer.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Terry Slevin works for the Cancer Council Western Australia and has been involved in research on the communication of cancer risk. He is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia. </span></em></p>There are several ways scientists can explain risks of cancer and other diseases; some are easier to understand than others.Dallas English, Professor at University of Melbourne and Research Fellow, Cancer Council VictoriaTerry Slevin, Adjunct Professor, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology at Curtin University. He is the Education and Research Director Cancer Council WA and Chair Occupational and Environmental Cancer Committee , Cancer Council AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/491762015-10-27T18:38:13Z2015-10-27T18:38:13ZWhy meat is important in the global battle against food insecurity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99864/original/image-20151027-4985-1ob3hq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Consumption of chicken has been rising in Africa. This is a short-term solution to improving food insecurity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/James Akena</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The increase in the world’s population has led to challenges in maintaining a balanced diet in both the developed and the developing world. More than two billion people worldwide suffer from “hidden hunger” or <a href="http://www.fao.org/post-2015-mdg/did-you-know/detail-news/en/c/211122/">micronutrient deficiency</a>. </p>
<p>The inadequate intake of essential micro-nutrients is detrimental to the mental and physical development of children and reduces the productivity and work capacity of <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209531191460753X">adults</a>. </p>
<p>Over the last two decades, there has been a significant reduction in food insecurity with the number of hungry or undernourished people decreasing from <a href="http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2014/en/">18.7% to 11.3%</a>. But, globally, food insecurity continues to be a daunting challenge. The prevalence and severity of food insecurity varies at regional, national and household levels. At least two-thirds of the world’s food-insecure households are found in developing countries.</p>
<p>The current food security threats go beyond insufficient food quality. Nutritional value, safety and the distribution of the available foods all have an impact. In addition, outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and mass food contamination have been frequently reported as threats to food safety – a consequence of the rising pressure to rapidly increase food production.</p>
<p>Good quality meat has the potential to reduce food insecurity and poverty. It should be considered a tool to eliminate “hidden hunger”. This would require making sure it is evenly distributed across the world.</p>
<p>But there are several limitations that may contribute to the slow progress of using meat to conquer food insecurity worldwide. </p>
<h2>A bad side to eating meat?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174009002514">Science</a> has shown that lean meat is good for you. This is because it <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174009001764">contains</a> properties that positively moderate lipid profiles in the body. This in turn has a positive impact on long-term health by producing polyunsaturated fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid <a href="http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=3551">(CLA)</a>. </p>
<p>Some polyunsaturated fatty acids can help <a href="http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Polyunsaturated-Fats_UCM_301461_Article.jsp#.Vi-eFG7qnIU">reduce bad cholesterol</a> levels in the blood and can lower the risk of heart disease, stroke and breast cancer. Linoleic acid contains fat fighting, insulin lowering properties which suppress the development of cancer in different areas of the body. This is the case even at relatively low dietary levels.</p>
<p>This is true of lean, unprocessed meat. <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-everything-gives-you-cancer-but-eating-too-much-processed-meat-certainly-can-49812">Processed meat</a> is a different story. A recent <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">report</a> by the World Health Organisation classifies processed meat as a carcinogen in the same category as plutonium and alcohol. It cautions that eating 50g of processed meat a day, which is the equivalent of up to two slices of bacon, increases the chance of developing colorectal cancer <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621">by 18%</a>.</p>
<p>The same report acknowledges that meat is a rich source of nutrients and that eating meat and meat products also has health benefits. The moderation of meat consumption rather than eliminating it from one’s diet remains the most reasonable recommendation.</p>
<h2>The poor can’t afford meat</h2>
<p>The biggest problems around the consumption of meat relate to, on the one hand eating too much, and on the other cost and distribution.</p>
<p>South Africa provides an interesting case study. As living standards have improved, people’s diets have got <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2013-09-13-00-growing-wealth-lets-sa-make-both-ends-meat">better</a>. This includes more meat and fruit and vegetable consumption. The increase in the amount of meat being eaten is linked to an increase in <a href="http://foodstuffsa.co.za/food-trends/food-trends-2015/4016-trends-in-the-south-african-meat-market">average income</a> over the last two decades.</p>
<p>The increased demand for meat has led had two consequences: an increase in meat-related <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet">health threats</a> such as cardiovascular diseases among the wealthy; and a rise in prices, making it less affordable for the poor.</p>
<p>South Africa, as a nation of fervent meat eaters, ranks 11 out of 15 top meat eating countries in the <a href="http://foodstuffsa.co.za/food-trends/food-trends-2015/4016-trends-in-the-south-african-meat-market">world</a>, with more than 50.7 kg of meat being consumed per capita each year. </p>
<p>At the same time, most South Africans are not eating the food-based dietary <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-as842e.pdf">recommendations</a> of 80g to 90g lean cooked meat per day. This is because just over half the South African population is <a href="https://theconversation.com/food-insecurity-is-a-reality-for-millions-of-south-africans-living-in-informal-settlements-48519">categorised</a> as food insecure or vulnerable to food insecurity and cannot achieve the recommended intake. </p>
<h2>Other factors influence meat consumption</h2>
<p>Despite its contribution as a complete nutrient source, meat has a bad reputation. Although scientific <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174009002514">research</a> has shown its multiple health benefits, consumers still question its safety. </p>
<p>And a large proportion of the worlds’ population adheres to religions with strong traditions around food consumption, especially meat. Consumption is often limited by intrinsic factors or lack of adherence to specific production, slaughter and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096399691530017X">processing methods</a>.</p>
<p>In addition, organisations have been set up to speak against meat consumption in the name of <a href="http://sayasblog.com/2015/08/12/animal-rights-and-liberation-a-christian-and-animal-lover-scientists-opinion/">animal protection</a>, declaring it more a luxury than a need.</p>
<p>It is critical to consider these perspectives in the discourse on global food security. </p>
<h2>The consumption guide</h2>
<p>It is important for consumers to pay attention to the quality and quantity of the meat they consume – and how they prepare it. Setting personal health goals, such as consuming just enough to meet the average nutrient requirements, is key.</p>
<p>Chicken as a meat source can be viewed as a short term stepping stone. <a href="http://foodstuffsa.co.za/food-trends/food-trends-2015/4016-trends-in-the-south-african-meat-market">Chicken consumption</a> has increased dramatically over the years, mostly due to its health qualities and lower cost.</p>
<p>Misconceptions about meat and its affect on health need to be tackled head on. Human beings were born omnivores. Meat has been part of their diet through the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-diets-of-early-humans-explain-our-eating-habits-46481">ages</a>. This is one of the reasons it should be considered as part of any diet, as well as part of the solution to food insecurity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49176/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Meat has health benefits. And good quality meat could also be the solution to the food insecurity problems that plague two-thirds of households in the developing world.Voster Muchenje, Professor of Meat Science and the co-host of the NRF SARChI Chair in Meat Science, University of Fort HareYonela Zifikile Njisane, PhD Student, Department of Livestock and Pasture, University of Fort HareLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498122015-10-27T11:00:41Z2015-10-27T11:00:41ZNot everything gives you cancer, but eating too much processed meat certainly can<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99804/original/image-20151027-5004-a9q5b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eating two slices of bacon every day increases your risk of bowel cancer.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yesterday, the cancer arm of the The World Health Organization <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf">released its evaluation</a> on how likely red and processed meats are to cause cancer. </p>
<p>The verdict? Consumption of processed meat is classified within group 1 – alongside known carcinogens including asbestos, tobacco, arsenic and alcohol. It causes bowel cancer, and is implicated in stomach cancer. </p>
<p>Experts concluded that every 50-gram portion of processed meat daily (that’s two slices of bacon) increases the risk of bowel cancer by 18%.</p>
<p>Red meat ranked lower, in group 2A. It was evaluated as probably carcinogenic to humans, possibly causing bowel cancer. It was also implicated in pancreatic and prostate cancers.</p>
<p>Health authorities responding to these evaluations might reasonably focus their messaging on people who eat red and processed meat five or more days per week. Evidently, these are the people most at risk. </p>
<p>But the results of their efforts can be caricatured or misunderstood by the suggestion that processed meat is now ranked with tobacco smoke and asbestos.</p>
<h2>Not the same risk</h2>
<p>Placing processed meat in the same category as tobacco doesn’t mean you have the same risk of getting cancer if you eat bacon every day than if you smoke a pack of cigarettes each day. </p>
<p>The equivalence between smoking and eating processed meat exists when it comes to strength of evidence for cancer causation. But otherwise indicating similarity is a distortion, particularly because of the respective burdens of cancer. </p>
<p>Lifetime smoking increases risk of lung cancer 50-fold. But worst case scenarios in relation to processed meat or red meat rarely reach more than two-fold. The 18% increased risk means risk is multiplied by 1.18. </p>
<p>Moreover, meat is a food as distinct from a poison such as asbestos, and so these findings must be understood with the subtlety of reason.</p>
<p>In some media, the findings are already being dismissed with the commonly convenient phrase that “everything causes cancer”.</p>
<p>Authorities drawing attention to carcinogens are characterised as fanatics who believe stepping outside to be a problem, while staying indoors means you’re exposing yourself to cancer risk from every second consumer product. Not so. </p>
<p>Everything does not cause cancer. Overt hazards such as smoking, drinking alcohol, deliberate exposure to sunlight and certain types of pollution, trump all the consumer product scares the papers or the internet can provide. </p>
<h2>Rigorous evidence</h2>
<p>The WHO determination was made by an arm of the organisation headquartered in Lyon, France: the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). </p>
<p>The branch <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/">evaluates the weight of evidence</a> that an agent can increase the risk of cancer by getting together working groups of expert scientists to review published studies in the area. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/99808/original/image-20151027-5007-t8a790.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Smoking and deliberate exposure to sun are overt hazards.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">fromshutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The IARC’s evaluations are referred to as monographs.</p>
<p>Twenty-two of us were invited by IARC as members of a working group to evaluate the carcinogenicity of red and processed meat. </p>
<p>I was elected Chair of the group which then had sub-groups variously addressing exposure, epidemiological data (that is, studies involving cancer in specified human populations), animal data and biological processes (“mechanisms”) mediating cancer development in particular circumstances. </p>
<p>We reviewed more than 800 epidemiological studies of the relationship between meat and cancer in several countries and continents with varying ethnicities and diets. </p>
<p>These included prospective cohort studies (in which, say, 500,000 or more people provide information about all aspects of their lifestyle whose relevant records are recovered when some are diagnosed with cancer). </p>
<p>These were seen as more informative than case-control studies (in which cancer patients and a similar group of controls are asked, in this case, what they ate 20 or more years ago). </p>
<p>There were also multiple, published meta-analyses (when multiple cohort studies are collated). </p>
<p>Red meat was defined as fresh meat from cattle, sheep, pigs and similar animals and specifically excluded poultry.</p>
<p>Processed meat was meat (most red, but sometimes including poultry) which had been cured, smoked or similarly treated to enhance preservation and/or flavour. This includes ham, bacon, frankfurts, salami, and the like.</p>
<p>The working group did not address the recognised nutrition values of meat, including its provision of protein, iron and range of micronutrients, nor, for that matter, did we address the enjoyment of eating meat.</p>
<p>All determinations of risk were adjusted for other factors, including body weight and calorie intake, and smoking and alcohol intake.</p>
<p>More than 200 publications addressed how small quantities of known carcinogens, either present in cooked meat or which are formed during the digestion of processed meat, may explain cancer causation in the present context. </p>
<p>They showed these compounds may be absorbed and metabolised to reactive intermediates able to bind to DNA and produce mutations.</p>
<p>So the data from such mechanistic studies supplemented the epidemiological studies in providing evidence of cancer causation. It also established options for prevention.</p>
<h2>A better understanding</h2>
<p>As our understanding of cancer increases, subtlety and insight – rather than elimination and prohibition – may underpin cancer prevention. The information now before us exemplifies that trend.</p>
<p>The recognised causes of cancer have now been expanded, providing a better basis for nutrition advice. Many people stand to benefit.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernard Stewart was Chair of the IARC Working Group set up to evaluate the carcinogenicity of red and processed meat.</span></em></p>The World Health Organisation has determined that eating processed meat definitely causes cancer, while eating red meat probably does.Bernard Stewart, Professor, Paediatrics, Cancer and related disorders, Epidemiology, Biochemistry and Cell Biology , UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/480072015-09-24T20:15:42Z2015-09-24T20:15:42ZExpert is as expert does: in defence of US dietary guidelines<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96033/original/image-20150924-17074-xcuzy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The main thrust of the advisory committee’s report is that diets should be focused on whole foods, not specific nutrients.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/8263905087/">U.S. Department of Agriculture/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>National dietary guidelines have become an easy target for those looking for a scapegoat for bad diets in prosperous countries. And an article just <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962">published in the BMJ</a> about the scientific evidence for the US dietary guidelines provides further needless fuel for the fire.</p>
<p>In February 2015, an advisory committee of 14 experts appointed to review research evidence and inform the government of the relevant science underpinning the US dietary guidelines issued a <a href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/">570-page report</a>. Among its conclusions, the report recommended guiding the population to dietary patterns that are:</p>
<ul>
<li>rich in vegetables, fruit, whole grains, seafood, legumes and nuts </li>
<li>moderate in low-fat and non-fat dairy products and alcohol (among adults) </li>
<li>lower in red and processed meat, and </li>
<li>low in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages and refined grains.</li>
</ul>
<p>The report also recommended limiting marketing of unhealthy foods to children, clearer food labelling, and greater consideration of sustainability issues. </p>
<p>The report generated much angst. This was not unexpected – because so many people feel they’re experts in nutrition, and because it upset many <a href="http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf">groups with vested interests</a> in maintaining the current US diet with its high levels of meat, junk foods and drinks. </p>
<p>The advisory committee received more than 29,000 written responses to its recommendations. <a href="http://www.sugar.org">The Sugar Association</a>, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Chicken Council <a href="http://union-bulletin.com/news/2015/mar/14/meat-industry-wages-war-new-guidelines/">all challenged the report</a>. </p>
<p>Senators <a href="http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-extension-public-comment-period-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee">complained directly to Congress</a>, <a href="http://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=2cbe42da-eac8-48c1-a820-44a392b57195">especially upset</a> that health and nutrition experts <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-blogs/samuel-lee-gammage/who-will-win-battle-over-sustainability-dietary-guidelines-americans">should consider sustainability</a>. <a href="http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/blog/us-dietary-guidelines-report-%E2%80%93-whats-fuss-over-sustainability">Others</a>, including <a href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/06/16/the-new-focus-on-sustainability-the-dietary-guidelines-for-americans-and-for-our-planet/">experts in the field</a>, were <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2015/03/my-plate-my-planet-support-sustainability-in-dietary-guidelines/">supportive of its inclusion</a>. </p>
<p>A congressional hearing on the report has been scheduled for October 7.</p>
<h2>People in glass houses</h2>
<p>The recommendations also met with displeasure from those who promote high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets. And this week the BMJ has unfortunately given voice to one such person. US journalist and author of <a href="http://thebigfatsurprise.com/">The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet</a> Nina Teicholz has published an “investigation” into the report and its authors.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96030/original/image-20150924-17087-1o9rtjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A new advisory report on US dietary guidelines has upset many in the meat and junk food industries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/9375507295/in/photolist-fhtVFv-ff52LL-ff52BN-4z5AkF-6CMYYq-6CMZ9s-7cXRW8-4z5D48-4z5vot-4z5yqD-4z9T2w-4z9TrA-4z5za8-y4gkiG-4z9TJL-a95RFU-4z5BKM-4z5DiH-e1iERv-5kk29W-aj1328-5B1sk7-sMsxA-e1NAEK-4z9RyY-czfSzC-h">Paul Townsend/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In line with the arguments of her book, Teicholz criticises the scientific report for the 2015 guidelines. She claims the advisory committee didn’t conduct thorough reviews of recent evidence and failed to identify their conflicts of interest. </p>
<p>But, after a close look, I could find little evidence of conflict of interest among the committee members. Its members were carefully selected to provide balanced viewpoints on the scientific evidence, and to not represent the viewpoints of any specific group. They conducted public meetings and also invited various other experts to present data. </p>
<p>It’s hard to understand Teicholz’s criticism of such an extensive, systematic and practical report. The methodology <a href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/05-methodology.asp">the panel used</a> was thorough, clearly outlined and followed strict scientific guidelines.</p>
<p>Over a two-year period, the committee examined a vast amount of data in a detailed and scientifically rigorous way. Its answers to science-based research questions were published at the <a href="http://www.nel.gov/">USDA Nutrition Evidence Library</a> (NEL). The committee also used systematic reviews that pay great attention to sources and types of bias, and graded all this evidence according to strict and well-defined criteria. </p>
<p>Perhaps in keeping with her own conflict of interest in promoting the ideas in her book and the listed conflicts in the BMJ piece (honorariums from the restaurant, meat and dairy industries), Teicholz is especially critical of the advice concerning saturated fat. The US diet is high in saturated fat, with much of it coming from vegetable oils hydrogenated for use in commercial frying, pizzas, pastries, cakes and desserts, biscuits, savoury and sweet snack foods. Some of it comes from a high intake of processed and fatty meats, including burgers. And cheese is a major source. </p>
<h2>Saturated fat controversy</h2>
<p>The advisory committee’s report doesn’t ignore the recent controversy over saturated fat and heart disease. In fact, it <a href="http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/11-chapter-6/d6-2.asp">specifically discusses major studies</a> of randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies conducted between 2009 and 2014. The committee placed particular emphasis on reviews that looked at what <em>replaces</em> saturated fat in most diets, a move suggested by authors of recent research reviews that reported a lack of relationship between total intake of saturated fat and heart disease. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.cochrane.org/CD011737/VASC_effect-of-cutting-down-on-the-saturated-fat-we-eat-on-our-risk-of-heart-disease">best evidence</a> still points out that when saturated fats are replaced with polyunsaturated fats, cholesterol levels improve and the risk of cardiovascular disease declines. But the key is where these polyunsaturated fats come from; getting them from deep-fried foods or snack foods, for instance, won’t improve heart health.</p>
<p>The claim by some critics that the committee’s report advocates a low-fat or high-carb diet is wrong. Indeed, the report specifically notes that swapping saturated fat for sugar and refined grains is useless. Instead, it recommends foods high in unsaturated fats, echoes the recommendation from the <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/">World Health Organization</a> that added sugars be limited to no more than 10% of total daily calories, and recommends big reductions in refined grains.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96031/original/image-20150924-17062-11jw54q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The US diet is high in saturated fat, with cheese being a major source.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cogdog/8690615113/">Alan Levine/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Teicholz claims the committee ignored many studies of low-carbohydrate diets. But, as the report notes, most have been small, short-term, often pilot or case-control studies that rely on subjective recall of information (both of which rate poorly as evidence). When you look at <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652">published trials</a> of such diets being undertaken for six months, there’s little difference in weight-loss outcomes compared to more balanced approaches.</p>
<p>Teicholz accepts that effects of low-carb diets are not maintained in the long term but defends them with reference to only <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0056190/">one meta-analysis of stricter low-carb diets</a>. It’s an odd choice since the authors include “grey” literature, which is not peer reviewed, and comes from organisations outside of academic publishing channels. Her chosen study also concludes that, in the long term, and when compared with conventional therapy, results of even strict low-carb diets appear to be of little clinical significance. </p>
<p>Had the advisory report made recommendations on this basis, Teicholz would have a valid complaint.</p>
<h2>Eat food, not nutrients</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/eat-food-not-nutrients-why-healthy-diets-need-a-broad-approach-45823">food sources</a> for fats or carbohydrates matter; talking in broad terms of these macronutrients fails to distinguish between healthy foods and junk foods. The main thrust of the advisory committee’s report is that diets <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039">should be focused on whole foods</a>, not specific nutrients. And that makes a lot of sense.</p>
<p>Consider this: bacon, lard, olive oil and nuts all contain saturated fat to some extent. Dietary patterns containing plenty of the latter two are linked to health benefits. As for the first two, back slowly away from the bookshop when anyone is trying to sell you on these being the keys to good health and weight loss. The report notes evidence showing benefits for dietary patterns that favour olive oil and nuts.</p>
<p>Teicholz is not the only one to complain about the committee’s report. Nor is this anything new. Dietary guidelines produced in other countries, <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/n55">including Australia</a>, also attract mud-slinging. Sadly, this serves to confuse the public and leads some to abandon advice because “experts are always changing their minds”.</p>
<p>So it’s not surprising that lobbyists for the sugar and meat industries as well as companies marketing junk foods <a href="http://blog.aicr.org/2015/06/25/lobbyists-move-to-weaken-the-dietary-guidelines-help-us-protect-them/">have been vocal</a> about the US report. It’s just a pity that a reputable journal such as the BMJ decided to publish such an article from a journalist rather than an expert scientific appraisal.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48007/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>National dietary guidelines have become an easy target for those looking for a scapegoat for bad diets in rich countries. And a BMJ article about draft US guidelines adds further fuel for the fire.Rosemary Stanton, Nutritionist & Visiting Fellow, UNSW SydneyTim Crowe, Associate Professor in Nutrition, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/271582014-06-03T20:26:42Z2014-06-03T20:26:42ZRed meat’s a tasty treat but too much can give you cancer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49866/original/yrfh5z86-1401427587.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eating a little red meat is good for building and maintaining muscle.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/anotherpintplease/8673600976">Mike/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are many good reasons to eat red meat, including as a source of protein and iron, but having too much of the stuff significantly increases your risk of cancer.</p>
<p>Recent <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-014-1637-z">research from China</a> has found that a diet of just 100 grams of red meat per day increases the risk of gastric (stomach) cancer by 17%. What’s more, there are a large number of studies demonstrating a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13668-012-0035-x">link between red meat consumption and bowel cancer</a>. </p>
<p>Bowel cancer is the <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129542359">third leading cause of cancer death</a> in Australia. It kills more than 4,000 people each year (three times as many people as the number who died from vehicle crashes in 2012). Stomach cancer is the 12th leading cause of cancer death and kills 1,000 people each year.</p>
<p>For those who love backyard barbecues, this is very bad news. But why does red meat increase the risk of cancer and is there a safe level of consumption?</p>
<h2>Cancer-causing molecules</h2>
<p>Red meat includes beef, veal, lamb, mutton, pork, and goat. Their red colour comes from a protein in the muscle called <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/400480/myoglobin">myoglobin</a>. The purpose of myoglobin is to store oxygen in muscle cells in a way that’s similar to how heamaglobin carries oxygen in the blood stream. </p>
<p>White meats, such as fish and chicken, don’t contain this protein at levels anywhere near as high. </p>
<p>Myoglobin is broken down during digestion and forms a family of carcinogenic compounds called N-nitrosoes. The target of nitrosoes is the DNA inside cells, which they change through a process called methylation. </p>
<p>The long-term effect of too much methylation is that the cell stops producing the right amount of the essential proteins and enzymes it needs to maintain normal function – and it becomes cancerous. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, there’s no safe level of N-nitrosoes in the body. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00365976">In an old study with rats</a> using the chemical N-nitrosodiethylamine as a model chemical, researchers found a dose of 0.000075 grams per kilogram of body mass each day was enough to induce cancer.</p>
<h2>Helping cancer spread</h2>
<p>Just as bad is the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=13444">discovery by Australian researchers</a> that bad cholesterol (low density lipoprotein) helps cancers migrate to new areas in the body. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49867/original/n24z855c-1401427767.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49867/original/n24z855c-1401427767.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49867/original/n24z855c-1401427767.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49867/original/n24z855c-1401427767.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49867/original/n24z855c-1401427767.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49867/original/n24z855c-1401427767.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49867/original/n24z855c-1401427767.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The amount of cholesterol increases if the meat is processed, like these sausages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/formalfallacy/4240905944">Victor Bayon/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All cells in the body have velcro-like molecules on their surface called integrins, which cause them to stick together. Bad cholesterol helps promote more integrins on the surface of cancer cells so when they move away from their site of origin, they’re able to stick and take residence in new areas of the body. </p>
<p>Conversely, good cholesterol like that found in fish, nuts and high-fibre foods, helps keep integrins on the inside of cancer cells, making them less likely to spread and re-attach.</p>
<p>Red meat is very high in cholesterol and the amount of cholesterol increases if the meat is highly processed (say goodbye to sausages). To reduce the amount of cholesterol you’re getting, choose cuts that are lean or have had excess fat removed.</p>
<h2>Safe consumption</h2>
<p>You shouldn’t cut red meat from your diet entirely. You need some of it to get enough protein (for building and maintaining muscle) and iron (for the production of blood).</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/five-food-groups/lean-meat-and-poultry-fish-eggs-tofu-nuts-and-seeds-and">department of health</a> recommends a diet consisting of 65 grams of cooked red meat per day (or 90 to 100 grams of uncooked meat). To put this into perspective the average steak size is between 200 and 350 grams. </p>
<p>But to really reduce your risk of bowel and stomach cancer, it isn’t enough to just reduce the amount of red meat you eat. A balanced diet that’s low in fats and sugar is also needed. </p>
<p>If you have a family history of bowel cancer, then it’s important you get tested regularly and encourage other family members to do the same. This is especially important for people over the age of 50.</p>
<p>If you would like more information on either bowel or stomach cancer and the factors that can increase your risk of getting the diseases, visit the <a href="http://www.bowelcanceraustralia.org/bca/">Bowel Cancer Australia</a> and <a href="http://www.cancer.org.au/about-cancer/types-of-cancer/stomach-cancer.html">Cancer Council Australia</a> websites.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance for research into anticancer drugs.</span></em></p>There are many good reasons to eat red meat, including as a source of protein and iron, but having too much of the stuff significantly increases your risk of cancer. Recent research from China has found…Nial Wheate, Senior Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.