Is red meat bad for you? It depends on who funded the study

The answer on whether red meat is good or bad for you will be warped by this one thing about who is doing the actual research.

Is eating red meat bad for your heart? According to a review, the answer you get from scientists will probably depend on who paid for their research.

The debate over red meat and cardiovascular health has rumbled on for decades.

Although the link between heart disease and sausages, bacon and other processed meat is well established, the picture for unprocessed red meat is murkier. Some studies warn of health risks, others find no significant impact; a few even hint at benefits.

Researchers have now confirmed a pattern: if a peer-reviewed study was funded by the meat industry, its findings were far more likely to allow red meat as part of a healthy diet.

The review was led by Miguel Lopez-Moreno of the Francisco de Vitoria university in Madrid. He said he was surprised by the extent of the gulf between independent studies and those sponsored by the meat lobby.

His team searched science databases and found 44 pieces of relevant research on red meat and heart health.

The answer on whether red meat is bad for you is influenced by who funded the study.

Two thirds had ties to the red meat industry. Of those industry-sponsored papers, not one suggested red meat was harmful to heart health. Instead, 79 per cent found the effects were neutral and 21 per cent said it was beneficial.

Studies without industry funding suggested the opposite: 73 per cent reported harmful cardiovascular effects linked to the consumption of red meat and none reported benefits.

In many cases the studies were not reaching contradictory conclusions; instead, they were asking different questions. In industry-funded studies, red meat was often compared against processed meat or refined carbohydrates – foods less likely to show a significant difference in heart health.

In independent studies, red meat was more likely to be compared against quality plant proteins.

Participants who ate the latter frequently showed better cardiovascular outcomes.

Only one industry-funded trial, involving 21 men, made this comparison directly.

Studies were classified as “red meat industry-related” if any of the authors “declared affiliation or financial disclosure indicating a link to the red-meat industry”.

If they did not, they were considered to be independent of the meat industry.

In the analysis by researchers, studies were still classed as independent when any funding came from state bodies or universities.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, point to a wider issue in nutrition science.

High-quality dietary research is expensive, complex and time-consuming. The food industry is one of the few players willing to invest in the field.

The report suggests consumers and policymakers might be wise to consider the source of funding before swallowing a study’s conclusions.

Research into nutrition is expensive.

Moreno, who denied any industry ties or personal conflicts of interest, said: “There is growing concern at how industry funding can shape scientific narratives.”

He added: “While industry funding isn’t inherently problematic, it requires careful interpretation.”

Tracy Parker, a senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, said dietary guidelines on red meat had remained consistent: most people would benefit from eating less.

“While red meat is a source of protein, vitamins and minerals, it is also a source of saturated fat, which is linked to increased … ‘bad’ cholesterol, a major risk factor for heart disease,” she said. “People should try to limit red and processed meat to no more than 70g a day.”

This article originally appeared on The Times.