Recent research suggests that there is no broad evidence that connects eating less red meat to improved health outcomes. Everyone from health professionals to environmentalists are losing their minds.
“[A]n international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.
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.”
You can read the New York Times piece in total for more detail, but I’ll see if I can clarify the general reaction from “less meat” stakeholders.
You are leaning back in a wooden chair (the way your parents told you not to), balanced on two legs. And you suddenly realize you are about to tip backward and you’re not sure you can’t stop it.
It’s like that.
They are stunned, outraged, exasperated, and in denial. Accusations are flying. How dare you overturn decades of settled science. My words, not theirs, but that’s the sense of it – especially among heart disease researchers. And I get that. I have coronary artery disease. Animal fats are essential, but how many and how often has been a serious concern. We need fats, but which ones and how much of that help clear arteries or clog them.
Like all things in science, and this is the beauty of real science, the truth is what it is until it isn’t. And real scientists are forever looking to prove their theories wrong.
History supports this on two critical points. First, we’ve rarely had the complete picture, and second, the less tactful way to explain this is that we are almost always not right. By which I mean on the correct path but lacking details that would lead us to a higher truth.
Climate science, which is also heavily invested in this argument over red meat, has abandoned the scientific method in search of grants provided by groups that benefit from stagnation. Governments that are happy to expand their regulatory reach (and budgets to fund it) are living in a cataclysmic circle jerk with “scientists” regurgitating “narratives” that validate robbing people of their liberty, lifestyles, and incomes to “save the planet.” (As if they could.)
The environmental movements they are in bed with are not pleased with the new findings. You might as well tell devout Muslims or Christians that casual sex is not a sin.
Not to worry. If heath science wants to have a civil war over the good or bad effects or red meat, the Enviro-Nazis will continue to preach its contribution to the end of the world. And they will. But the problem there brings us back to the cataclysmic circle jerk. Real science on CO2 and the atmosphere cannot connect mankind or its love of beef to any measurable impact on the weather or the decades of weather needed to connect it to climate.
The only thing propping that shibboleth up are stakeholders who benefit from their truth being the revered truth, which no one dares question.
But someone has on red meat, and it is pissing all the right people off, which suggest the latest news about it may be on to something.