She spends a long time attacking the research. Really her problem is with how science is reported.
It's frustrating that she takes quotes from the BBC R4 Programme 'Today' out of context. John Humphries is an idiot and has no clue about interviewing technical people. The researchers were careful not to overplay the research.
Even though this is epidemiology and not a double blind controlled study the results are pretty clear; the research was good quality.
Here's what the research said. (She quotes this.)
> “Unprocessed and processed red meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality in men and women in the age-adjusted and fully adjusted models. When treating red meat intake as a continuous variable, the elevated risk of total mortality in the pooled analysis for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 12% for total red meat, 13% for unprocessed red meat, and 20% for processed red meat.”
This is a calm, cautious, undramatic statement.
The problem is that risk is presented as a percentage, and most people have no idea what that means to their life expectancy; or how to compare that risk to other things.
Check my math, but I think the above figures mean a decrease of one year in life expectancy over 80 years. Eg: compare Bob who doesn't eat too much red meat who lives to 80 with the same Bob who does eat too much red meat who lives to 79. (But risks unpleasant medical treatment that decreases quality of life.)
There's a lot more wrong with how the data was interpreted, not to mention the hyperbolic statements made by the researchers themselves.
"The statistics are staggering," study author Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public health, told us. "The increased risk is really substantial."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-...
That statement alone is absolutely contra-calm/cautious/undramatic.
The fact that this was an observational study based on a food frequency questionnaire is dubious as well. It's well established that participants underreport foods that are perceived as being "bad" for them and overreport things that society says are "good."
"Foods underestimated by the FFQs compared with the diet records (ie, the gold standard) included processed meats, eggs, butter, high-fat dairy products, mayonnaise and creamy salad dressings, refined grains, and sweets and desserts, whereas most of the vegetable and fruit groups, nuts, high-energy and low-energy drinks, and condiments were overestimated by the FFQs."
http://www.ajcn.org/content/69/2/243.full
It's frustrating that she takes quotes from the BBC R4 Programme 'Today' out of context. John Humphries is an idiot and has no clue about interviewing technical people. The researchers were careful not to overplay the research.
Even though this is epidemiology and not a double blind controlled study the results are pretty clear; the research was good quality.
Here's what the research said. (She quotes this.)
> “Unprocessed and processed red meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality in men and women in the age-adjusted and fully adjusted models. When treating red meat intake as a continuous variable, the elevated risk of total mortality in the pooled analysis for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 12% for total red meat, 13% for unprocessed red meat, and 20% for processed red meat.”
This is a calm, cautious, undramatic statement.
The problem is that risk is presented as a percentage, and most people have no idea what that means to their life expectancy; or how to compare that risk to other things.
Check my math, but I think the above figures mean a decrease of one year in life expectancy over 80 years. Eg: compare Bob who doesn't eat too much red meat who lives to 80 with the same Bob who does eat too much red meat who lives to 79. (But risks unpleasant medical treatment that decreases quality of life.)