The good news is that red meat is good for you and not linked to heart disease.
A report demolishes the ‘myths and misconceptions’ about the meat, saying that most people eat healthy amounts which are not linked to greater risk of disease.
Modern farming methods have cut fat levels, which can be even lower than chicken, while red meat provides high levels of vital nutrients, including iron.
A vegetarian having a Cheddar cheese salad will eat seven times more fat, pound for pound, than lean red meat contains, says a review by the British Nutrition Foundation.
But findings the World Cancer Foundation isn’t so positive and the report reinforces the message that red meat should be eaten in moderation to reduce the risk of bowel cancer:
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) . . . said, ‘Although the evidence is not conclusive, as a precaution, it may be advisable for intakes of red and processed meat not to increase above the current average (70g/day) and for high consumers of red and processed meat (100g/day or more) to reduce their intakes.’
A daily total of 70g is equivalent to about three rashers of bacon
Three rashers of bacon doesn’t sound much but most restaurant servings of meat would be far greater than that and some offer steaks of three, four or more times that weight.
I enjoy lamb, steak and venison but I’m satisfied with smaller servings and often choose fish when I’m dining out because the meat servings are far too big.
It’s what you do most of the time that matters. The odd big serving of meat won’t do any harm and would help with the intake of iron, B vitamins and other nutrients but it would be good if restaurants took note of the recommendation and gave customers the choice of smaller servings.
As a producer of lamb and beef I don’t want to reduce demand. But restaurants might sell a similar total amount by selling more smaller servings to people like me who don’t order big ones.
Ha, the Daily Mail really is the shinning example of how not to report science
* Make the lead a definitive statement with no room for doubt
* Make the conclusions appear as broad possible
* Save dissenting opinion for the last ‘graph (which about 10% of readers will make it to)
* Make sure you laugh at all those eggheads who said the opposite of what you think these results mean, even though you reported those results with the same degree of care as you did these
David – the reporters should read and learn from this: “Perhaps the biggest fault I find with the media is the tendency to cherry-pick in complex science.”
http://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2011/02/21/why-science-communication-is-vital/
Yup,
It’s one of those situations where trying to actually explain the situation even handedly is not the best way to sell papers, so much as people like me complain there is little incentive for the Daily Mails and Heralds of the world to do a better job.
What we really need to do is make sure everyone develops “scientific tool-kit” required for them to demand more of the papers.