To the Editor:

Re “Is Red Meat Bad for You? New Research Says You Can’t Prove It” (front page, Oct. 1):

Eat margarine; no, eat butter. Fats are bad; wait, actually carbs are bad and some fats are good. Eggs are bad or good depending on whether Mercury is in retrograde. Omega-3 fatty acids are good; wait, actually they probably don’t do anything. Wine and chocolate are fine as long as you limit yourself to a thimble of each a day. Steak will kill you; just kidding, steak is fine.

Anything else I missed?

Michael Graboski

Seattle

To the Editor:

The news that the pork industry, under this administration, will now regulate itself regarding health inspections was enough to finally tip me into eliminating meat from my diet. Asking the American consumer to trust the honor system with President Trump controlling the process is a bridge too far.

David Ramsey

Afton, N.Y.



To the Editor:

Predictabl y, when the weaknesses in their methods are publicized, scientists, policy writers and clinicians are in an uproar about the assessment that the data is too weak to warrant recommendations to restrict meat in the diet.

But I strongly disagree with those who argue that publishing this will “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”