Meat, money, and markets: More bad news

We've known for some time that having too much red meat in our diets has negative health consequences. We also know that the meat industry goes out of the way to play down these risks as it is motivated by profits and not public health. We also know that the only really effective way to protect the public from the negative consequences is to demand that the government regulate and educate. We must work towards expanding democratic control of the economy in order to achieve these ends.

New scientific evidence released by the Harvard School of Public Health, definitely shows that eating red meat increases mortality from both cancer and cardiovascular problems.

The results of the Harvard study have been reported in ScienceDaily, but it has some good news, which is that we can all lower our risks for these health problems by replacing red meat with nuts, legumes, fish, and poultry (and of course a vegetarian diet would dramatically reduce these risks).

An Pan, the main author of the report, is quoted as saying: "Our study adds more evidence to the health risks of eating high amounts of red meat, which has been associated with type two diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, and certain cancers in other studies."

The study followed thousands of people over two decades correlating their diets with disease incidents. The researchers found that eating processed red meat daily (e.g., two strips of bacon or a hot dog) increased your risk 20 percent (a daily serving of unprocessed red meat upped you risk 13 percent.) Cured red meat was thus seven percent more deadly than uncured.

The report also found that those who replaced the red meat serving with fish, poultry, nuts, low fat dairy, or legumes had a significant reduction in their risks of death. This led Frank Hu, a nutrition specialist and co-author of the report, to say, "This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death. On the other hand, choosing more healthful sources of protein in place of red meat can confer significant health benefits by reducing chronic disease morbidity and mortality."

So red meat consumption ought to be limited in the interests of public health, and especially the health of children. Processed red meats as well as red meat in general should be regulated and reduced in school lunch programs (remember the Republicans in Congress want to classify pizza as a vegetable-- which shows the influence of the junk food industry; money always comes first) and in all other government food programs.

The new USDA "food plate" simply has "protein" as one of its recommendations but no further recommendations such as less beef and more fish or other red meat substitutes. Beef should not be given equal time with chicken! In any event progressive politics goes hand in hand with progressive health advocacy and we can hope people will heed the warnings of science.

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.


  • I have to disagree about the general term "red meat". There is a huge difference between grass fed and grain fed meat. Grass fed (natural) has less overall fat and more Omega 3's. Grain (unnatural) fed has Omega 6. " Most American diets, however, include too many omega-6 fatty acids and not enough omega-3 fatty acids. Keeping the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid between 2-to-1 and 4-to-1 helps reduce the risk of disease, the University of Michigan states. Many foods contain omega-6 fatty acids."

    Read more:

    Free range, grass fed RED MEAT, is probably the best thing for the human species. After all, we are still genetically wired as hunter-gatherers. The Agrarian revolution occurred 10,000 years ago; humans have been evolving as homnivores for millions of years while the neolithic revolution is only 10,ooo years old. There is no way we could have genetically evolved to become vegetarians in that short period of time.

    The real problem healthwise is with the Standard American Diet and its dispproportionate level of Omega 3's vs Omega 6's in our diet. Not only that, infllamation caused by grains, legumes, and addiction to sugar.

    The real problem is the cost of grass fed vs grain fed. The average household would be hard pressed to avoid buying grain fed meat in favor of grass fed. My solution to that would be to eat more fish that is rich in Omega-6 and less foods that cause inflammation.

    Posted by David B., 03/27/2012 9:34am (4 years ago)

  • A good article on "we are what we eat ". These findings
    have also been in the European press.
    Chicken is relatively cheap. A couple chicken
    thighs on a grill pan in the oven for an hour simply
    seasoned with a little herb salt then some cooked veggies on the side is a feast.
    Not mentioned in the article is rabbit. Good meat and
    easy to prepare ( seasoned with garlic ) It's a bargain. I have slaughtered chickens and turkeys but would have diffculty in slaughtering a bunny or a lamb but I suppose I would get over it.
    The raising of cattle and pork are so inefficient as far
    as resources and expense.
    A spin off would be the rabbit furs for coats and winter caps. I wish I had a rabbit fur Budjonny cap some winters.
    What about fish skin pumps for the ladies ?
    As the reader well knows public health and ecology
    are not capitalist priorities.

    Posted by Andre Brochu, 03/27/2012 5:15am (4 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments