One of the authors of the new study, Linda Van Horn, is a member of the advisory panel that is currently helping the federal government update its influential Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which have long recommended that people limit their intake of red and processed meat. Dr. Van Horn is a member of two advisory panel subcommittees, including one that is drafting recommendations on dietary fats and seafood.

In an interview, Dr. Van Horn said that the new study relied on some of the highest quality data available. She said the findings reinforce recommendations that people should prioritize foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fish, nuts and seeds and limit their intake of foods such as red and processed meats, refined grains, fried foods and sugar-sweetened beverages.

“When you eat a diet that is rich in processed and refined foods, it collectively contributes to increased risk of disease and denies you the benefits of the fiber, vitamins, minerals and plant-based proteins that contribute to health,” said Dr. Van Horn, division chief of nutrition in the department of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

The conclusions of the new study contrast with those of the report last fall in Annals, which found that reductions in red and processed meat intake resulted in fewer deaths from cancer and heart disease but concluded that the evidence was weak because much of the data came from observational studies that cannot show cause and effect. The authors said that any increased risk was too minimal to warrant telling people that they should cut back on meat.

Critics complained that the research was flawed. They argued that the authors evaluated the evidence against meat using a tool that was designed for clinical drug trials, not dietary studies. The lead author of the report came under fire for failing to disclose conflicts of interest, including taking money from a food industry group to publish a similar paper in the Annals three years earlier that used the same methods to discredit widespread guidelines urging people to eat less sugar. In December, the Annals issued a correction on the meat paper acknowledging the lead author’s undisclosed conflicts.