1/15 NEWS: The most rigorous study ever conducted on the evidence for/against the health impacts of red meat published today. FINDING: "No compelling evidence that reducing consumption of red or processed meats will be beneficial to an individual." nytimes.com/2019/09/30/hea…
2/More than 100 studies including 6 million+ participants were analyzed making it the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date. "Those who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence with which to build an argument," from annals.org/aim/fullarticl…
3/Study shows that decades of dietary advice & official guidelines telling consumers to avoid red meat was been built on poor quality studies. "It may be time to stop producing observational research in this area," a sentiment which may explain sharp reaction from @HarvardChanSPH 
4/Despite these new findings, @American_Heart & @AmericanCancer say they will stick to their current meat recommendations, in effect, saying they will ignore the most comprehensive study ever undertaken on this topic nytimes.com/2019/09/30/hea…
5/The new reports are based on three years of work by a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives, directed by Dr. Bradley Johnston. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.
6/The authors reversed decades of dietary guidance based on the totality & quality of the evidence using the GRADE methodology recommended by @theNASEM review of US Dietary Guidelines. @USDANutrition pls find GRADE standard systematic review outcome here: annals.org/aim/fullarticl…
7/Their systematic review, "To evaluate the association between red & processed meat consumption & all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, quality of life, and satisfaction with diet among adults" can be found here: annals.org/aim/fullarticl…
8/Their systematic review, "To evaluate the possible causal relationship between intake of red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence," can be found here: annals.org/aim/fullarticl…
9/Their systematic review, "To identify and evaluate evidence addressing health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption," can be found here: annals.org/aim/fullarticl…
10/The editorial which accompanied these studies in @AnnalsofIM states, "The field of nutritional epidemiology is plagued by observational studies that have conducted inappropriate analyses, accompanied by likely erroneous conclusions." Please find here: annals.org/aim/fullarticl…
11/This reversal on red meat recommendations lands the same week as @Dmozaffarian's review of the health impacts of dairy finding no negative impacts/some positive, no justification for low fat versions & time to revisit dairy dietary guidelines. Find here academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-a…
12/As public health & scientific bodies, including @theNASEM, demand higher standards of evidence in nutrition policy, we are seeing major pillars of diet advice that have stood for decades fall. Bad policy, built on bad science has had devastating unintended consequences.
13/These new studies do not dismiss the environmental impacts of these nutrient dense, whole foods, but they change the terms of the debate. Instead of meat & dairy being sold to the public as "lose/lose" on false health pretenses, consumers can make better informed decisions.
14/The tradeoffs are not as clear as many believe. Consider the implications of 40+ years of incorrect dietary recommendations: in the US, we spend 16% of our GDP treating diet-driven chronic disease & the carbon footprint of the pharma industry exceeds that of the auto industry.
15/15 Diet-driven healthcare costs are bankrupting many national economies. We MUST improve nutrition science, policy & public health if we are going to have any scope for the spending required for climate mitigation & adaptation. greenbiz.com/article/inconv…
For friendlier format:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1178824…
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1178824…
