In a review published last week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, scientists came to a concerning conclusion. Red meat appeared healthier in studies that were funded by the red meat industry.
Of course, this is not surprising to anyone familiar with nutrition research, which often has conflicts of interest because of a lack of federal funding. But it is yet another example of how industry-linked studies might shape the way people understand, and potentially misunderstand, the health consequences of what they eat.
Past research funded by the sugar industry, for instance, has downplayed the relationship between sugar and health conditions like obesity and heart disease. And studies funded by the alcohol industry have suggested that moderate drinking could be part of a healthy diet.
Miguel López Moreno, a researcher at Francisco de Vitoria University in Spain who led the new analysis, said in an email that he wanted to know if similar issues were happening with the research on unprocessed red meat. Processed meats like bacon and sausage have consistently been linked with heart disease risk, he said, but the evidence for unprocessed red meats like steaks and pork chops has been “far more mixed.Found
What the New Review Found
Dr. Moreno and his team from research institutions in Spain analyzed 44 clinical trials published between 1980 and 2023. The studies looked into how eating unprocessed red meat might influence participants’ risk for developing cardiovascular disease, including by measuring their cholesterol, blood pressure and triglyceride levels.
The 44 studies, half of which were conducted in the United States, included adults who ate either unprocessed red meat or a comparison diet for several weeks or months. Some of the studies included healthy adults, while others focused on those with risk factors for cardiovascular disease, like high cholesterol or obesity.
What This Means for Future Nutrition Research
When any food industry group — including one unrelated to the meat industry, like a soy or nut group — pays for research, the goal is often to promote and sell more of their product, said Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine, epidemiology and population health at Stanford University.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
That’s one reason nutrition experts worry about the Trump administration’s proposed $18 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, which could result in more industry-sponsored research.
This does not “bode well” for the future credibility of nutrition science, said Marion Nestle, an emerita professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University.
When food industry groups pay for nutrition research, she said, it’s good for marketing their product, but not for science.
During a webinar last week, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of the N.I.H., told members of the American Society for Nutrition that the agency was going to “focus” on nutrition under his leadership, though he did not get into any specifics on funding.
The experts we spoke with were not so optimistic. Nutrition research has already been under-resourced in the United States; less than 5 percent of the N.I.H.’s budget was allocated to nutrition research in 2023, for instance. That’s a “minuscule” amount, Dr. Tobias said.
The red meat study is “an excellent example” of why the N.I.H. should be investing in nutrition research in the United States, Dr. Tobias added. “Otherwise, we depend on industry to lead the way, with little assurance it acts in the pure interest of public health.”
Comments
Post a Comment