There have been many articles written about healthcare policy and recommendations for the food pyramid, which were not about health at all. You may also be aware of the recommendations that we avoid red meat and processed meats due to concerns about these foods that are linked to heart disease, cancer, and other ills.
The NY Times recently reported that that information that was widely disseminated is not backed by good scientific evidence. Apparently, any health benefits from avoiding many of these foods are small and telling someone to eat less meat was clearly an overreach of public policy.
These new findings have created an uproar in the scientific community. You can read about it in this fascinating article from the NY Times
Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.
The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings “erode public trust,” critics said.
By Gina Kolata Published Sept. 30, 2019
Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.
But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.
If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.