“knowledge is power.”

Well, today we're going to give you more power

to control your diet and lifestyle

by giving you the facts.

Welcome to the Nutrition Facts Podcast.

I'm your host, Dr. Michael Greger.

Today we conclude our series

on how industries impact dietary and health guidelines.

Did you know that the meat industry's own study

concluded that meat consumption increased the risk of cancer,

heart disease, diabetes, and premature death.

Here's the story.

A series of papers published in the Annals of Internal Medicine

that largely discounted all but the highest quality randomized studies

reached a conclusion directly contrary to the public health advice

we've heard for years. They suggested that we should

continue our current consumption of both red and processed meat.

The authors based their exclusion of evidence on the so-called GRADE

criteria, which were mainly developed for evaluating evidence from drug trials.

We need randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for drugs,

but strictness of these criteria would probably cause evidence for just about

every dietary, lifestyle, and environmental factor related

to chronic disease to be graded as "low" or "very low" evidence.

If the GRADE criteria were used to evaluate the evidence

for other factors related to diet, such as inadequate fruits

and vegetables or too much soda or alcohol,

or whether or not exercise is good, or safe sex,

or sleep, smoking, air pollution,

none of the current recommendations on these issues would be supported

by high- or even moderate-quality evidence using the drug trial criteria.

But even after ignoring major parts of the available evidence,

they still found an association between meat intake

and an increased risk of cancer. And not just cancer.

They found that adherence to dietary patterns lower in red or processed meat

intake may result in a decreased risk for premature death, cardiometabolic

disease and mortality, meaning the risk of getting and dying of diseases

like heart disease and type 2 diabetes,

as well as the risk of getting cancer and dying from cancer.

Yet, they still concluded in their dietary guideline recommendations:

continue your current red meat consumption,

continue your processed meat consumption.

Forget the whole premature death thing, cancer, heart disease, diabetes—

just keep eating your burgers and bacon.

So you have these dietary guidelines developed by some self-appointed panel

that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption,

despite their own findings that high consumption is harmful to health.

How did they square that,

contradicting the evidence generated from their own meta-analyses?

There's only one body of evidence.

They found the same risk that all the other reviews found.

So they're not saying meat is less risky; they're just saying

the risk is acceptable. Well, you do have to consider the risk and benefits.

Well, we've covered the harms.

Their own data show that a moderate reduction in red and processed meat

consumption can reduce total mortality by 13%, heart disease mortality by 14%,

cancer mortality by 11%, and type 2 diabetes risk by 24%.

What are the benefits? In short, omnivores enjoy eating meat.

Uh, okay...

Given peoples' attachment to their meat-based diet,

the associated risk reduction in our leading killers, like cancer,

heart disease, diabetes, is not likely to provide sufficient motivation

to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat.

So therefore, eat up!

In fact, they even say straight out that unlike the other dietary guidelines

suggesting we limit consumption of stuff because of like the cancer thing,

these other guidelines have paid little or no attention to the reasons

people eat meat,

whereas they did a systematic review of preferences regarding meat

consumption, and people who eat meat enjoy eating meat.

Maybe that's even why they do it.

They're generally unwilling to change their meat consumption,

even in response to health concerns, so the panel believed —

the panel, you'll remember, with generous support of a group

getting millions every year from the meat industry —

the panel believed that for the majority of individuals,

the desirable effects, like lowering your risk

of family-devastating cancer and heart attacks

associated with reducing meat consumption probably do not outweigh

the undesirable effects, like having to give up all that yummy meat.

This is what led them to make their recommendation

to "continue current consumption."

That sounds like something straight of the journal, Meat Science.

Why should we keep eating red meat? Because of the enjoyment.

People also like to smoke.

They like to drink soda. They like to have unsafe sex.

It's kind of like saying we know motorcycle helmets can save lives,

but some people still prefer the feeling of the wind in their hair.

So let's just tell people to not wear helmets?

But you'll actually see this argument.

Complying with dietary recommendations imposes a "taste cost" on consumers,

so how about socially desirable dietary recommendations

that are most compatible with consumer preferences,

you know, that best balance health benefits against "taste cost."

So like hey, even if science told us that eating butter is unhealthy,

its taste justifies the continuation of using it.

What do you expect from NutriRECS, the meat-industry-partnered panel

that also published the paper criticizing the sugar guidelines,

funded by the soda and candy industries?

They aim to produce nutritional guideline recommendations

based on the preferences of patients.

So what's next? Just telling people to eat doughnuts and ice cream all day?

Yet the Annals published the meat papers with a press release saying,

"No need to reduce red or processed meat consumption for good health."

Using the same methodology and rationale,

they might as well have said,

"No need to quit smoking for good health" or

"No need to exercise for good health."

As Dr. Katz, Director of Yale's Prevention Research Center put it,

"Guidelines opposing the very data on which they purport to be based

are not science; they are anti-science."

In our next story,

Big Meat downplays the magnitude of meat mortality.

Across the board, a series of studies

published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found

a statistically significant association between lower consumption

of red and processed meats and lower total mortality,

meaning living a longer life,

lower cardiovascular disease mortality,

as well as lower risk of dying from cancer.

Yet remarkably, the authors of these studies concluded

that people should ignore all the other dietary guidelines, and

keep eating meat to their heart's content — or rather discontent.

They offered three reasons why their panel reached a conclusion at odds

with other contemporary dietary guidelines that advise people

to cut down on meat. One reason is taste.

In short, people who enjoy eating meat, enjoy eating meat.

I did a whole video on this.

But in short, taste preference probably shouldn't be a major factor

in developing dietary guidelines.

Many people don't want to quit smoking, stop drinking, or exercise more,

but that doesn't change the science;

it shouldn't change the public health recommendations.

A second reason they explain why their recommendations differ

from everyone else's is that other guidelines didn't use

the so-called GRADE approach. No wonder, since GRADE was

mainly developed for evaluating evidence from drug trials.

There are grading systems for diet and lifestyle approaches,

but the meat panel chose to inappropriately apply GRADE,

which could similarly be misused to undermine recommendations

about tobacco, air pollution, trans fats, you name it.

I've got three videos delving deep into all that, but this video

is about the third reason they give for ignoring meat reduction advice.

Other guidelines didn't highlight the very small magnitude

of the meat effects. In other words, even if meat

does cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and death,

it doesn't cause that many heart attacks,

doesn't kill that many people,

cause that much cancer to offset all the juicy taste benefits.

Of course, it matters what people replace the meat with.

Replacing even 3% of calories from animal protein with plant protein

is linked to living longer, but eggs were the worst.

Yes, replacing red meat protein with plant protein sources

may lower overall mortality more than 10%,

but getting rid of egg protein

and we're talking more than 20% lower risk of premature death.

So if someone reduces meat consumption by swapping a burger

for an egg salad sandwich, that particular reduction in meat

could mean more mortality.

But maybe they concluded there was such a small effect only because

major bodies of evidence were omitted, and relevant studies excluded

because the authors didn't like the results.

It's not that there aren't tons of randomized controlled trials

about meat; it's just that they appeared to cherry pick

a few to fit their agenda,

discarded studies that even met their own criteria,

and wrongly rejected randomized controlled trials clearly showing

that meat increased risk factors like cholesterol or blood pressure.

Like why wasn't PREDIMED included, or the literally hundreds

of randomized trials on the DASH diet?

What about the Lyon Diet Heart Study, which involved

randomizing individuals to a more Mediterranean diet