The Meat Wars: JAMA Stirs the Pot

“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.”

Iowa Climate Science Education

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen ? 20 January 2020


Rita Rubin, Senior Writer, JAMA Medical News & Perspectives, has stirred the pot on the controversy surrounding a series of studies published last Fall in the Annals of Internal Medicine, ?one of the most widely cited and influential specialty medical journals in the world.? Her latest piece, titled ?Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists?, appeared in JAMA online on 15 January 2020. It begins with this:

?It?s almost unheard of for medical journals to get blowback for studies before the data are published. But that?s what happened to the Annals of Internal Medicine last fall as editors were about to post several studies showing that the evidence linking red meat consumption with cardiovascular disease and cancer is too weak to recommend that adults eat less of it.

Annals Editor-in-Chief…

View original post 2,325 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.