Research shows no need to reduce red meat consumption

Eating less red or processed meat has very few health benefits and most people should continue to tuck into their favourite cuts, according to new research. 

However, Kiwi experts have criticised the study and its recommendations, which they say go against almost all other guidelines.

Researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland reviewed several studies on the relationship between meat consumption and human health. 

In 12 controlled trials involving about 54,000 people, they were unable to find a statistically significant or important association between meat consumption and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer.

READ MORE:
* Which is worse for your health, bacon or sausages?
* Siri's sex and sexual health advice comes up short compared to Google in new study
* Added sugar: harmful for health, but hard to track, Royal Society says

In 'cohort' studies, which followed millions of participants over a long period of time, there was a very small reduction in risk among people who consumed three fewer servings of red or processed meat each week.

However, that link was 'very uncertain'.

Ethical or environmental reasons for reducing meat consumption, although recognised as valid and important concerns, didn't impact individual health and were not considered, the researchers said.

Based on their reviews, a panel of 14 international experts recommended most adults should keep eating their current levels of red and processed meat, estimated at three to four times a week in North America, Europe and New Zealand.

The reviews and recommendations, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, have been met with scepticism from local experts.

Professor Nick Wilson, from the University of Otago's department of public health, said the findings were out of sync with other major reviews.

That included a World Health Organisation review of more than 800 studies, which led to the classification of red and processed meat as probably carcinogenic and carcinogenic respectively.

"Other lines of evidence indicate hazards of processed meat – it is invariably high in salt, which is a proven risk factor for raised blood pressure and cardiovascular disease," Wilson said.

"Many forms of meat are also high in saturated fat, which is also a risk factor for cardiovascular disease."
 

Overall the evidence for mainly plant-based diets being healthy was overwhelming, he said.

"In particular, the Mediterranean diet, which is low in meat, has been consistently found to be associated with a lower risk of chronic diseases.

"But we need both healthy diets and a liveable planet, which is why shifting to sustainable food systems – from 'paddock to plate' or from 'seed to sewage' – should be the dominant consideration around the world."

Academic and dietitian Dr Andrea Braakhuis, from the University of Auckland, said the reviews were interesting but not in contrast to recommendations by leading nutrition guidelines.

"The evidence that highly processed meat should be limited is a little more convincing than red meat as a whole.

"The nutrition guideline recommending the least amount of red meat is the EAT Lancet planetary diet, which recommends around seven grams a day of red meat."

That recommendation was based on climate change, not health, and was modelled off high input farming. Even so, red meat is still suggested as part of a healthy diet," Braakhuis said.

The conclusion that there was no significant benefit to reducing red meat consumption was weak and more research was warranted, she said.

Rod Jackson, professor of epidemiology at the University of Auckland, said the types of studies reviewed were themselves flawed and he didn't think the findings were meaningful.

Both randomised controlled trials and cohort studies had inherent biases and were not useful in medium- or long-term examinations of the effects of common foods like meat on 'hard' outcomes like coronary disease, cancer or death, he said. 

"The misinformation given to the public, based on the result of these two types of seriously flawed study designs, have led to huge confusion and likely harm.

"This includes the conclusions of these latest articles."

Jackson said all the available evidence needed to be looked at, including short-term and whole-population studies, biochemistry and pathology.

"This is messy and requires people with serious expertise and experience, but evidence is messy.

"It doesn't matter how many meta-analyses of randomised trials and cohort studies are done and how many millions of people are included. They are still seriously flawed."