I'd normally be able to say something about the red meat for supper... but tonight I happen to be having fish pie.

Come on Nicholas Lezard - keywords are 'too much'. Now that may seem subjective, but eating meat of any kind every night is OTT - unhealthy, bad for the planet and in these days of cruel industrial farming, not the most ethical dietary option. Red meat once a week just makes it taste better! And it should be more of a treat than a staple.

True, the figures look scary: adding a single portion of red meat to one's daily diet, they say, increases the risk of dying by 13%.

You what? I'd always supposed that the risk of dying was 100%.

It seems a bit silly to say that publicising research about the danger to health from eating too much red meat represents 'the thin end of a very nasty wedge separating us from our own system of healthcare'. Are you suggesting that research like this should not be published?
It sounds to me more like internal discomfort - you don't like the idea that your beloved red meat is that bad for you (and the figures are alarming, or would be if I ate meat), you can't find an objection to the methodology, so you express your discomfort by finding an oblique way to criticise the research that frankly doesn't really hold water.

"adding a single portion of red meat to one's daily diet, they say, increases the risk of dying by 13%."

So I guess my risk of dying is now 113%.

Great now the feds are going to outlaw eating, raising and processing red meat.
They will send in the armed troops to the cattle farms and take them all away and arrest the cattle growers. God help us all....

We are ALL going to die sometime.

In the scheme of things on this planet, you are a damned lucky person if you can choose your diet.

I'd rather live in the first world while eating a little too much red meat than the many far more miserable alternatives.

I am sure that Jay Raynor, in this very newspaper, could recommend places where I can over-indulge in red meat for only £150 a head and all within the M25.

If I am feeling a bit tight, Nigel Slater can suggest about 200 non-sexual things to do with fillet mignon.

The Guardian normally encourages food as a form of fettish.

Within the context of that long and invalid tradition this article is, frankly, confusing.

Off subject Love your amber pic.

There is nothing much new in the findings of course, there has long been strong evidence that red meat is unhealthy. A relative lack of red meat is one of the thing which links famously healthy diets like those of the central and eastern mediteranean and Japan. In fact, I recall a study which showed that the very healthy Okinawan people ended up with reduced life spans after they took up eating pork with gusto in the 1950's.

Eating red meat as a major part of human diet is unsustainable anyway - if the population of China and India took up red meat consumption at the rate of north Europeans and Americans, we'd face a catastrophic drop in world food supply as so much grain would go to feed animals. In a sensible world, we'd all agree to consume gentle animals like cows and intelligent ones like pigs at a much more modest rate.

But as usual people will get hyperdefensive about their own lifestyles, seeking to distort scientific findings to justify themselves. The study is solid science, if people want to ignore it on a personal level, thats their business. However, as a society, we should not ignore this. As a start, we could use this as a justification to tax the feeding of grain to farm animals as a wasteful, unhealthy and unsustainable activity in the same way we tax smoking and drinking. It would be one small step to a more balanced and sensible food policy.

A literary critic is, of course, the first person one would ask for an informed point of view on this topic.....

Here's a crazy idea, that might just work - try getting science journalists to write on science stories.

Most people who die of old age cost the state a fortune. I understand smokers and fat people cost NHS a lot but overall with pension, old peoples homes etc there must be savings.

When coming up with these cost stats what are they saying the healthy person is dying from and what age are they living to?

Those that claim that "red meat is unsustainable" forget that many cattle are raised on range land that is unfit for any purpose except grazing.

In my experience, reports like this lead people to say something along the lines of...

'How dare you tell me what I can and can't eat! I'll eat what I bleedin' well like, consequences be damned!' *person goes off to buy extra amounts of steak to prove point*

So I wouldn't worry too much about red meat consumption going down.

Ah, George Orwell - he lived a long and healthy life, didn't he, just brimming with joie de vivre...his oft-quoted Jeremy Clarkson-ish comment was about the wonderful Edward Carpenter who, amongst other things, popularised sandals, which he wore with socks, and lived to the ripe old age of 84, 30 of them with his male partner.

How long before the next article heralding the benefits of red meat, or black pudding?

I wonder if the portions these poor souls were devouring were American or British size, not that I'm in any way implying conclusions.

I can now see governments legislating that red meat may only be consumed outside and more than 10 meters from any doorway.

The really dispiriting thing has been the first wave of coverage of this paper all round. Almost all the articles I saw shared basically the same formulation about a portion of meat raising your chances of dying by 13/20%. Which to me says these words were probably in the original press release. Which appears to have been really badly written.

My question: Why didn't the first wave of journalists bother to add the tiny bit of original thought required to add Mr Lezard's paragraph 3? The context is everything here, and none of the original articles gave it. Why not?

Classic case of duff science reporting, and it's this that has got people's backs' up, I think - not the issue of meat consumption at all.

misterbaxter

It seems a bit silly to say that publicising research about the danger to health from eating too much red meat represents 'the thin end of a very nasty wedge separating us from our own system of healthcare'. Are you suggesting that research like this should not be published?

No, he's saying that research like this will be used by the Bansturbators who now consider themselves entitled to dictate our every move. Just as they came for the smokers and the drinkers, the meat-eaters will be next.

It sounds to me more like internal discomfort - you don't like the idea that your beloved red meat is that bad for you (and the figures are alarming, or would be if I ate meat), you can't find an objection to the methodology, so you express your discomfort by finding an oblique way to criticise the research that frankly doesn't really hold water.

The objection to the methodology lies in the implication of risk. A 20% rise sounds alarming, but 20% compared to what? What's the death rate of otherwise healthy adults in their early 50s? Who here can honestly claim they've read the research and understand it? Certainly not the usual suspects who are quick off the mark to pompously boast about their non-meat-consumption.

I don't think many cattle are raised on grass any more, especially in the states:

"The economic role of CAFOs has expanded significantly in the U.S. in the past few decades, and there is clear evidence that CAFOs have come to dominate animal production industries. The rise in large-scale animal agriculture began in the 1930s with the modern mechanization of swine slaughterhouse operations.

The growth of corporate contracting has also contributed to a transition from traditional "family farming" to large industrial factory farming. This has dramatically changed the animal agricultural sector in the United States. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, "In the 1930s, there were close to 7 million farms in the United States and as of the 2002 census, just over 2 million farms remain." From 1969 to 2002, the number of family farms dropped by 39%. The current growth of CAFOs is considered one of the most influential factors to the disappearance of family farming. Most meat and dairy products are now produced on large farms with single-species buildings or open-air pens."

Source

When you eat a steak today, you are most likely to be eating industrial meat.

I'm so glad you said that.

Also in the persuit of precision we can nail down how much a portion is.

It's another example of a kind of pervasive anxiety culture, and of course this anxiety can never be satisfied. So as smoking rates decline a new anxiety about obesity and diabetes appears; and if and when we are all converted to the delights of nuts and hand-knitted porridge it will suddenly become clear that we face a massive pandemic of dementia and obscure cancers that no one ever got before because they did not live long enough. So we can all enjoy a long, dribbling old age and what fun that will be, because longevity is an unqualified good, right?

The statistics in these studies are always a bit dodgy anyway, at least as reported in the media, so I tend to take them with a pinch of salt. That's low sodium salt, of course.

One day when the world becomes fruitarian they will look back on our diets, all the chemicals and poisons and unnatural fats and sugars in them and not forgetting the untold cruelty to animals and think what absolute barbarians we were.

You want to get max nutrients into your body with the minimum of toxins.. So your sh*t don't stink and your pi*s is clear. Only food in the world that does that is fruit and veg. You NEED nothing else. Your WANTS are engineered.

All else is an unnatural distraction for us. And will put us in the grave early.

So in theory the poor will live longer, because I for one can't afford to eat red meat every day, and as for a nice juicy steak! Fat chance.
Anyway:

It will not be long before the disapproving gaze of NHS trusts falls upon imprudent eaters of red meat.'

It won't if the Butchers Assosociation slips the minister in charge a few bob towards his election campaign.

Bluecloud:

I don't have any figures, but where I live (see moniker) I would guess most cattle are raised on range land, augmented by feed during the winter. Fattening, of course, is another matter.

And I would also guess that's true for most of western North America.

I for one am quite worried. If red meat is indeed outlawed or severely restricted what will the politicians feed to their base during primary season?!?

Why do reports like this always give me visions of nutritionists living entirely on brown rice and steamed brocolli in a desperate attempt to live to be 110?

Everything in moderation. My late husband died of Bowel Cancer before he was 40 and before we met, he ate loads of red/processed meat products. I can never be sure but I would not be supprised if that diet didn't in some way contribute towards his illness. It's a bloody awful illness to suffer from so I would urge people to just take it easy with red meat, better safe than sorry.

Funnny you should mention obesity and dementia. I've just spent two days translating a text about nursing homes. You could have added Alzheimer's to the list of age-related diseases.

It's a tough call, but I'd rather get through life without any of these problems. Still, like the doctor who smoked, we all know the risks, but choose to ignore them.

I remember the days (50's and 60's) when red meat was good for you !

We didn't have much money, but red meat was on the menu most days, plus fish and chips cooked in dripping or similar ....... and we weren't fat !
Very few people were.

Then came the Wimpy Bars. The USA took over the fast food industry, and that was it.

I respect the Harvard School of Medicine - their research is usually top class.
It's what our media does with that research - how it interprets it - that's usually the problem.
Add the fact that many 'science correspondents' get that title because they're the only person in the office with a science 'O' Level (or whatever they're called now), and we get scare stories.

A few weeks ago I saw a 'filler' news item. Some kind of world record had been broken - the record for the number of mattresses that had been 'dominoed' had been broken.
It was shocking.
Each mattress needed a human to help it fall - so they used employees at the mattress factory.
Of the 800 + people involved, less than 25% weren't obese, fat, or obviously overweight.

That was the USA, of course, but we're getting there !

No, he's saying that research like this will be used by the Bansturbators who now consider themselves entitled to dictate our every move. Just as they came for the smokers and the drinkers, the meat-eaters will be next.

Well, I quoted from what he actually did say:

The problem with all this [all this being the research in question] is that – let's give Harvard the benefit of the doubt here, and assume their conclusions are correct – while it is all about helping us make more informed choices about what we eat, it is also the thin end of a very nasty wedge separating us from our own system of healthcare

My point is that it's no good shooting the messenger - if research shows that eating red meat makes you die younger, should it be suppressed so as not to upset meat-eaters? Or should it never have been commissioned so that people can continue living with their heads in the sand?
If someone proposes a ban on red meat then fair enough - that would be utterly ridiculous. People have always eaten meat and always will, and furthermore, in our climate, if we're going to feed ourselves in a sustainable way, that will have to include some meat eating. But I repeat, it's silly to blame the research if you don't like the results, and it's silly to find a tenuous stick to beat it with if there's no real fault in the methodology.

One day when the world becomes fruitarian

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

oh wait, you're not serious are you...

Out of interest, does the study consider what the red meat was eaten with? For example, is eating bacon and egg every morning the same as eating a little bacon or ham with your salad?

i wonder if there's been a study of protein deficiency and death risk, arising from eating too little meat.

my guess is it increases the risk of death substantially more than 13%.

not to mention mad diets put out by people who know absolutely nothing about human nutrition. i think purchasing one of those books probably ups it to 20%.

We didn't have much money, but red meat was on the menu most days, plus fish and chips cooked in dripping or similar ....... and we weren't fat !
Very few people were.

Then came the Wimpy Bars. The USA took over the fast food industry, and that was it.

are you soft in the head? so the US invented fat and fast food? did they bollocks. as you say - fish and chip shops existed well before mcdonalds.

has it occured to you that those working class people didn't live a sedentary lifestyle and burned those fish and chip calories off down a coal mine, scrubbing laundry or in a mill?

True, the figures look scary: adding a single portion of red meat to one's daily diet, they say, increases the risk of dying by 13%. Make that processed red meat – bacon, say – and the figure rises to 20%.

Last I checked, we all had a 100% chance of dying. ;-)

Bring on the brisket!

I feel ten years younger since when a year ago I stopped eating evil wheat and limited my spud and rice intake.

The beef, mutton and charcuterie and fish and cheese (and large quantities of green veggies) I'm eating instead let me sleep well at night, set me up to be cheerful for the day ahead, and give me energy and control my weight.

I'll gladly trade a couple of years for such a vastly improved quality of life.

Just read about gluten intolerance - half the country has it I'll swear. And the action of pure carbs on the fat deposit hormone Insulin and the resulting Global diabetes scourge.

But hey, some farmers have more clout than others.

Give me a stern vegetarian with strong social and ethical principles against the raising and eating of livestock any day of the week, rather than this meek and wowserish approach to eating, and to life.

Alas I am spoken for Nicholas but as a fellow Derek Robinson fan I wish you luck in your quest.

I love meat but think it's daft, antiscientific and antisocial to ignore or try to rubbish research that shows that too much is unhealthy. I still enjoy it but have cut down quantities and frequency. That's only sensible.

just adding to Bluecloud's comment. If you see cattle and calves out on the range in the US it is likely to be a short essential period that the calves must have in the open, prior to their taking their place in the CAFO.
Of course there are a few people who are trying to farm in more sustainable ways, so you may see small numbers of cattle which are being reared by traditional methods.

In the UK there is a lot of pressure building to adopt intensive cattle rearing methods. However as well as providing a very poor quaiity of product, it is also not environmentally sustainable as, to all intents and purposes, intensive feeding systems are a technique for converting energy (oil) into value added material i.e. meat.

Here, you'll like this one.

We all have a 100% chance of dying!

I bet nobody else thought of saying that.

Our guts were not made to digest lots of veggie matter. We are omnivores.

As Ben Goldacre argues in his book Bad Science, and in the Guardian's columns, you should always look at the original research. There is a question of risk to everything we do, even lying in bed. (Blood clots etc.!) Whilst I'm sure eating too much red / processed meat may increase your risk of dying prematurely, there is probably a similar risk from eating too many nuts, cabbages, fish or even drinking too much water. Even breathing the air contains its own risks!

"Balanced diet" seems to be the proper advice.

We can`t afford red meat so we are unaffected, being poor has its advantages.

Taexali

One day when the world becomes fruitarian

Is this even a real word?

One day when the world becomes fruitarian

Fruit gives me wind.

Thank you!

One day when the world becomes fruitarian

Is this even a real word?

It seems in common usage on this blog! If it's not then it bloody well should be!

The study is solid science,

Epidemiology is not solid science. It is very, very susceptible to bias.

Solid science is a double blind test in controlled circumstances.

Which is unfortunately not possible in the dietary field since most people can tell the difference between a steak and a chicken breast.

What concerns me about all these studies is that the funding and those that undertake them have a particular view. And almost without fail they find what they were expecting to find.

And this story may be today's headline, but it is unlikely we will see the follow up reports from the sceptics once they get hold of the data and analyse the method.