Researchers warn policymakers against falling for anti-red meat activism

The guaranteed benefits of eating red meat outweigh the “low-certainty” evidence used to discourage its consumption, researchers say.

The guaranteed benefits of eating red meat outweigh the low certainty evidence used to discourage its consumption, researchers say. Picture: Jack Tran

Policymakers and health professionals should be wary of using weak scientific evidence proffered by anti-meat advocates when forming policy and dietary guidelines, researchers have warned.

In a report published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition, they stressed that increasing efforts to demonise consumption of red meat, often centred on concerns for the environment, animal welfare and disease, should be balanced by the nutritional and health implications of eating less meat.

Authors Melissa Kavanaugh, Diana Rodgers, Nancy Rodriguez and Frederic Leroy said the guaranteed nutritional benefits of red meat should be considered in favour of the flimsier evidence against it.

They warned governments and institutions against making dietary recommendations based on “low-certainty” evidence citing increased risk of chronic disease, particularly in reaction to advocacy from groups promoting meat-free diets or calling for increased taxes on red meat products or producers.

The latest report comes as the Australian government reviews its official dietary guidelines, which will incorporate the impact of certain foods on climate change.

“Policymakers, health professionals, and advocates must consider the quality of evidence against red meat as well as the potential unintended consequences that could result from the reduction or exclusion of red meat when developing policies and dietary recommendations,” the report said.

It advocated for the ability of red meat – including beef, veal, pork and lamb – to provide essential micronutrients that may be limited or absent in many plant foods.

It said efforts to reduce meat consumption by various institutions, including schools and hospitals, “may inadvertently lead to unintended consequences, particularly regarding essential nutrient intake for certain populations”.

In particular, it said, children, young women and the elderly were particularly vulnerable to reductions in the high-quality protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12 found in red meat.

“Notably, some advocacy groups for older adults suggest replacing meat with plant source protein options,” the report said.

“This is potentially problematic because plant-source foods cannot match the protein ­content of animal source foods, including red meat, for the same kilocalories or bioavailability of key micronutrients such as iron.”

Farmers and the red meat industry have been calling for governments and institutions to push back against calls for reduced meat consumption, which are often based on findings from epidemiological studies that lack the rigour of other scientific methods.

The Nat­ional Health and Medical Research Council is in the process of updating its official dietary guidelines, due by the end of 2026, and has said it will include the effect of food products on the environment when making recommendations.

The move has infuriated the red meat sector, which accused the NHMRC of straying beyond its remit to provide reliable information about nutrition.

The report’s authors – dietitians and researchers from the US and Belgium – declared they had received some funding from Meat and Livestock Australia to produce the report, but the marketing and research organisation had no editorial control over their article.

In an effort to push back against anti-meat rhetoric, MLA has built a network of “red meat ambassadors” to engage with everyday Australians about the industry and the health benefits of eating meat.