TY - JOUR
T1 - Red and processed meats and health risks
T2 - How strong is the evidence?
AU - Qian, Frank
AU - Riddle, Matthew C.
AU - Wylie-Rosett, Judith
AU - Hu, Frank B.
N1 - Funding Information:
J.W.-R. is supported in part by a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant for the New York Regional Center for Diabetes Translational Research (DK111022). F.B.H. is supported by National Institutes of Health grants DK112940, DK102896, and HL60712. Duality of Interest. M.C.R. reports research support through Oregon Health & Science University from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk and honoraria for consulting from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Dance, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmith-Kline, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Theracos. These dualities have been reviewed and managed by Oregon Health & Science University. F.B.H. reports receiving research support from the California Walnut Commission, honoraria for lectures from Metagenics and Standard Process, and honoraria from Diet Quality Photo Navigation, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
Funding Information:
Funding. J.W.-R. is supported in part by a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant for the New York Regional Center for Diabetes Translational Research (DK111022). F.B.H. is supported by National Institutes of Health grants DK112940, DK102896, and HL60712. Duality of Interest. M.C.R. reports research support through Oregon Health & Science University from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk and honoraria for consulting from Ado-cia, AstraZeneca, Dance, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmith-Kline, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Theracos. These dualities have been reviewed and managed by Oregon Health & Science University. F.B.H. reports receiving research support from the California Walnut Commission, honoraria for lectures from Metagenics and Standard Process, and honoraria from Diet Quality Photo Navigation, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.
PY - 2020/2/1
Y1 - 2020/2/1
N2 - Prevailing dietary guidelines have widely recommended diets relatively low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods for the prevention of chronic diseases. However, an ad hoc research group called the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) consortium recently issued "new dietary guidelines" encouraging individuals to continue their current meat consumption habits due to "low certainty" of the evidence, difficulty of altering meat eaters' habits and preferences, and the lack of need to consider environmental impacts of red meat consumption. These recommendations are not justified, in large part because of the flawed methodologies used to review and grade nutritional evidence. The evidence evaluation was largely based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, which are primarily designed to grade the strength of evidence for clinical interventions especially pharmacotherapy. However, the infeasibility for conducting large, long-term randomized clinical trials on most dietary, lifestyle, and environmental exposures makes the criteria inappropriate in these areas. A separate research group proposed a modified and validated system for rating the meta-evidence on nutritional studies (NutriGRADE) to address several limitations of the GRADE criteria. Applying NutriGRADE, the evidence on the positive association between red and processed meats and type 2 diabetes was rated to be of "high quality," while the evidence on the association between red and processed meats and mortality was rated to be of "moderate quality." Another important limitation is that inadequate attention was paid to what might be replacing red meat, be it plant-based proteins, refined carbohydrates, or other foods. In summary, the red/processed meat recommendations by NutriRECS suffer from important methodological limitations and involve misinterpretations of nutritional evidence. To improve human and planetary health, dietary guidelines should continue to emphasize dietary patterns low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes.
AB - Prevailing dietary guidelines have widely recommended diets relatively low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods for the prevention of chronic diseases. However, an ad hoc research group called the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) consortium recently issued "new dietary guidelines" encouraging individuals to continue their current meat consumption habits due to "low certainty" of the evidence, difficulty of altering meat eaters' habits and preferences, and the lack of need to consider environmental impacts of red meat consumption. These recommendations are not justified, in large part because of the flawed methodologies used to review and grade nutritional evidence. The evidence evaluation was largely based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, which are primarily designed to grade the strength of evidence for clinical interventions especially pharmacotherapy. However, the infeasibility for conducting large, long-term randomized clinical trials on most dietary, lifestyle, and environmental exposures makes the criteria inappropriate in these areas. A separate research group proposed a modified and validated system for rating the meta-evidence on nutritional studies (NutriGRADE) to address several limitations of the GRADE criteria. Applying NutriGRADE, the evidence on the positive association between red and processed meats and type 2 diabetes was rated to be of "high quality," while the evidence on the association between red and processed meats and mortality was rated to be of "moderate quality." Another important limitation is that inadequate attention was paid to what might be replacing red meat, be it plant-based proteins, refined carbohydrates, or other foods. In summary, the red/processed meat recommendations by NutriRECS suffer from important methodological limitations and involve misinterpretations of nutritional evidence. To improve human and planetary health, dietary guidelines should continue to emphasize dietary patterns low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078630575&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85078630575&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2337/dci19-0063
DO - 10.2337/dci19-0063
M3 - Article
C2 - 31959642
AN - SCOPUS:85078630575
SN - 0149-5992
VL - 43
SP - 265
EP - 271
JO - Diabetes care
JF - Diabetes care
IS - 2
ER -