In a letter to the editor of the Ann Arbor News on April 1, 2009 entitled Meat-laden diet proves unhealthy, Albert Everett latches on to the recent National Cancer Institute study about the dangers of red meat. He made so many poorly reasoned points that I couldn't help but respond. Here's the letter that I sent to the News:
Mr. Albert ("Meat-laden diet proves unhealthy", April 1, 2009) makes the unfortunate mistake of confusing correlation with causality. Just because open umbrellas are seen when it is raining does not mean that the umbrellas caused the rain. The observational studies that he cites cannot be used to prove causality though it is very good at generating hypotheses that might be tested at a later date. That is, these studies raise questions that are possibly worthy of future investigation, but they should not influence our decision making. In this case, I don't believe that confirmatory studies will ever be found because so many other studies have found exactly the opposite (that is, saturated fat providing health benefits). Remember that humans lived for 99% of our history primarily as a hunter and meat eater; we couldn't have changed the direction of our evolution so quickly since the dawn of agriculture. You may make the choice not to eat meat, but that doesn't mean that it is the healthy choice.
Further, in the recent Archives of Internal Medicine report, the subjects did not differ just in the amount of red meat they ate. The subjects that ate more red meat also ate more junk food, smoked more, drank more, didn't exercise, etc. And so they were less healthy. I don't see any reason that meat should be implicated any more or less than any of the other factors. In fact, who knows if meat had any effect at all. From this study we can't know anything at all about the effects of meat. Maybe it was the bun with the meat and the colas they drank. Who knows?
Two other studies were recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition related to this discussion. Neither was reported in print or by TV. One was a meta-analysis of 13 other studies; it found no evidence of a relationship between animal fats or animal proteins and colorectal cancer. The second study showed that vegetarians don't live any longer than non-vegetarians; further, it showed that vegetarians also have a higher incidence of some cancers (and lower incidence of heart disease). Yes, the first was a summary of observational studies while the second was an observational study so the same caveats apply here as I described above; they are hypothesis generating and possibly worthy of further study. However, studies such as these, which go against the media's predisposition against meat, are rarely ever reported. My recommendation is that readers don't rely on the media for their nutritional information. Go online and do research for yourself.
Millions of people worldwide, including myself, eat large amounts of meat, eggs, cheese, and nuts while limiting the amount of carbohydrates from sugar, grains and fruits because we believe this is the healthiest way to live. I, right along with Mr. Everett, worry about the health of our population, though I am worried that they will continue to follow the misinformation propagated by the media.
I don't know how much good it will do, but I feel better.
