I have often noted that Food Science is clearly the most unsettled science of them all.

Experts have lectured us for years about the need to reduce red and processed meat from our diets. But a new report indicates that they based their advice on bad science.

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. “The certainty of evidence for these risk reductions was low to very low,” said Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada and leader of the group publishing the new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The new analyses are among the largest such evaluations ever attempted and may influence future dietary recommendations. In many ways, they raise uncomfortable questions about dietary advice and nutritional research, and what sort of standards these studies should be held to.

The article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine by a group of 14 researchers just upended years of nutritional guidance.

Led by Dalhousie University epidemiologist Bradley Johnston, the authors, who hail from seven different countries, focused on the impact of red meat consumption on cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mortality, among other effects, as well as people’s values and preferences regarding red meat. Based on these studies, their conclusions — summarized in a new Annals clinical guideline — challenge the guidelines from just about every major national and international health group. Just four years ago, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that people should cut back on processed meats if they wanted to avoid certain types of cancer. The American Heart Association and the US government’s dietary guidelines panel have also long suggested curbing our meat consumption for better health. But the authors of the new studies argue that people can “continue their current consumption of both unprocessed red meat and processed meat,” meaning whatever amount they’re currently eating.

Meanwhile, a leading nutritionist has warned an “unintended consequence” of vegan diets is that they could make future generations less intelligent.

Writing in the journal BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health, Dr Emma Derbyshire said that while plant-based diets have many benefits, they are low in choline – a dietary nutrient that is critical to brain development. The nutrient, which can be found in meat, fish, eggs and dairy products, is particularly important for pregnant women because it contributes to the healthy growth of a baby’s brain.

Given the antics of progressives who push vegan diets, I am not surprised there is a correlation between plant-only diets and stupidity.

One of my friends recently went on a vegan diet for six months and gave it up because he was regularly getting sick. The illnesses stopped when I convinced him to go back to meat, over some juicy burgers and craft beer.

Interestingly football star Cam Newton’s recent poor performances are being tied to veganism.

In recent years, Newton was a pescatarian, that is, a person who eats mostly plant foods but includes a lot of fish and seafood to get needed protein and nutrients. Earlier this year, however, Newton went full vegan. Since then, he’s played terribly, and now he’s injured and sitting on the sidelines. Meanwhile, his backup, Kyle Allen, delivered a stellar performance last week in Newton’s absence, creating an unexpected quarterback controversy in Charlotte.

So, as of now, I am going with the version of “settled science” that confirms I can have my juicy steak.



