Talk:Meat

Merge meat industry

Meat industry is a poor article that should be merged to this article as it contains little information that isn't already found on this one. There is currently a discussion about this on the talk-page of meat industry [1]. I am suggesting that we merge that article into this one. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

On the whole I'd probably oppose this, an immediate reason being that Meat is currently nominated for GAN and is just awaiting a reviewer; the last thing I want to do in the middle of that is to carry out a merge.

Aside from that, Meat industry is certainly a notable topic in its own right: indeed, a sensitive and controversial one, with strongly held opinions on both sides. There is obviously scope for improvement in the text, but there is no shortage of sources or of significant things to say. Its 'History' chapter should describe how the industry transitioned from the village butcher to a factory-style mechanised process. Its 'Industry' chapter should describe the size of the business around the world, trade (imports and exports), and destinations (supermarkets, butchers, catering, industrial processing, petfood). Its 'Ethics' chapter should describe the arguments for (tradition, nutrition) and against (cruelty, environmental impact) its existence. These aren't necessarily the same as the arguments for meat as such; a case can be made that small-scale production, slaughter, and consumption do not have the same cruelty and environmental impacts, for example. We should be in no hurry to merge, as this is a substantial topic that editors might well enjoy writing, and indeed given the amount of attention to the whole area (cattle, meat, veganism, etc) it is somewhat surprising that it has been so neglected. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments

Not sure what this fine article is doing as a mere GAN: to my mind it has FAC written all over it. But either at GA or FA level it needs to be in a single variety of English, and at present it is a mish-mash of BrE and AmE: fibres and behaviours -v- fiber and behavior, and so on. At first glance I think AmE spelling predominates, but whether you go nap on that or on BrE (and I don't imagine anyone will quibble about WP:ENGVAR whichever you go for) you really ought to stick with one or the other. Over to you for now. I hardly think we need put the review formally on hold (unless you'd prefer it.) Must go: I feel a bacon butty coming on. Tim riley talk 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Tim! There seems to be a tradition of AmE in the article, so I've fixed a few fibres and behaviours. Odors, flavors, and colors all seem to be in order. Added an AmE tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• OK, but you might tidy up carcass-v-carcase, and maybe shove a z into "publicised". Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria In my judgment this article would be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: alt text would be good but is not compulsory

   Well illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A shoo-in for GA. On to FAC I hope. Tim riley talk 13:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Gosh. Maybe the toddler needs a helping hand with that particular step! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Round objects, dear boy! Tim riley talk 18:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove Protection for Article

This article does not need protection, as defined by the Wikipedia Semi-Protection Standards. Pierre151 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd disagree. The small amount of protection prevents continual large WP:COATRACK and POV edits and reversions on human health and animal cruelty, both topics that are extensively covered on Wikipedia already, and which are briefly and suitably mentioned here. The article consumed substantial admin effort before it was protected. It should stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Chiswick Chap. The article has been the target of people with a non-encyclopaedic agenda and needs protection. Tim riley talk 12:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Health effects

An editor has attempted to add a large body of material on the Health effects of red meat, but has already been reverted by another editor. I concur with the reversion, for the following reasons.

1) This article is about meat in general, not just about red meat, so the above is an aspect of a detail, in other words a bit of a WP:COATRACK, not suitable for this article.

2) This article already has an extensive chapter on "Health Effects", covering many aspects of the question.

3) There is much more detail at Red meat#Health effects, which article is already linked at the top of the "Health effects" chapter here.

It is therefore quite inappropriate to add a large, unbalanced amount of material to this article on such a sub-sub-topic, which is well and correctly handled elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

1) This article is highly misleading as it implies that unprocessed meat increases mortality rates and causes negative health effects. However, cohort studies that account for multiple confounding factors have proven otherwise. Therefore, it is not an example of WP:COATRACK.

2) The "Health Effects" section of this article currently cites weak, unscientific evidence and overlooks robust cohort studies that consider multiple confounding factors.

3) The existing details are inadequate, relying on studies that fall into the correlation-causation fallacy. There is a lack of rigorous, evidence-based research in the current content. Itisme3248 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is citing very weak evidence and largely ignoring cohort studies that take into account confounding factors such as smoking, BMI, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle factors. These cohort studies provide a more accurate assessment of the health risks associated with unprocessed red meat, showing no evidence of a significant increase in overall bad health effects, mortality rate etc

Very long list of potential sources and selected quotes from them.

How did this page pass the Good Article review? Many of the so-called "studies" cited here are unscientific, as they fail to account for confounding factors and rely on correlation-causation fallacies. Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522004282 Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471 Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10270853/ Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549221/ Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522004282 "Results: In the PURE study, during 9.5 y of follow-up, we recorded 7789 deaths and 6976 CVD events. Higher unprocessed red meat intake (≥250 g/wk vs. <50 g/wk) was not significantly associated with total mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.02; P-trend = 0.14) or major CVD (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.11; P-trend = 0.72). Similarly, no association was observed between poultry intake and health outcomes. Higher intake of processed meat (≥150 g/wk vs. 0 g/wk) was associated with higher risk of total mortality (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.10; P-trend = 0.009) and major CVD (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.98; P-trend = 0.004). Conclusions: In a large multinational prospective study, we did not find significant associations between unprocessed red meat and poultry intake and mortality or major CVD. Conversely, a higher intake of processed meat was associated with a higher risk of mortality and major CVD." The risk associated with different types of meat consumption in this study was as follows: Unprocessed red meat: Consuming 250 grams or more per week compared to less than 50 grams per week was not significantly associated with total mortality or major cardiovascular disease (CVD). The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 1.02), indicating a non-significant 7% reduction in risk, which statistically isn’t different from no effect. The HR for major CVD was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.11), showing virtually no association. Processed meat: Consuming 150 grams or more per week compared to none at all was associated with a significantly higher risk of both total mortality and major CVD. The HR for mortality was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.08, 2.10), suggesting a 51% increased risk of death. The HR for major CVD was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.98), indicating a 46% increased risk of major cardiovascular events. Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis Study: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471 "For total red meat consumption, the corresponding relative risk for 120 g/day (∼1.5 servings/day) versus 20 g/day (∼1.5–2 servings/week) was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.20, 1.38). Unprocessed red meat consumption (5 studies) showed a statistically nonsignificant linear association with all-cause mortality (for a 100-g/day increase in consumption, RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.997, 1.20)." Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10270853/ "Nine articles with seventeen prospective cohorts were eligible in this meta-analysis, including a total of 150 328 deaths. There was evidence of a non-linear association between processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but not for cancer mortality. For processed meat, the pooled relative risk with an increase of one serving per day was 1·15 (95 % CI 1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality (five studies; P<0·001 for linear trend), 1·15 (95 % CI 1·07, 1·24) for cardiovascular mortality (six studies; P<0·001) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·06, 1·11) for cancer mortality (five studies; P<0·001). Similar associations were found with total meat intake. The association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk was found in the US populations, but not in European or Asian populations." In the US, eating unprocessed red meat is linked to mortality risk, but this connection isn't seen in European or Asian populations. The regional differences in the association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk could be influenced by variations in meat quality. Factors such as production practices, processing standards, and environmental factors may lead to differences in the nutritional composition and safety of meat products across regions. For example, variations in the use of hormones, antibiotics, and feed additives, as well as differences in livestock-raising practices (such as grass-fed vs. grain-fed), could contribute to differing health effects of red meat consumption between populations. Additionally, it is likely that compared with European habits, red meat in the USA may be often barbecued or grilled, thus contributing to higher contents of polycyclic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines. Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549221/ According to the analysis from two large cohort studies, there is a modest increase in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk associated with the consumption of processed red meat, particularly affecting the distal colon. Processed red meat consumption was linked to a higher CRC risk with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.15 for a 1 serving/day increase, and even more so for distal colon cancer (HR = 1.36). In contrast, the consumption of unprocessed red meat did not significantly increase the overall risk of CRC and was actually inversely associated with distal colon cancer risk (HR = 0.75 for a 1 serving/day increase). These findings highlight the importance of differentiating between processed and unprocessed meats when considering dietary recommendations for CRC prevention. The studies underline the need for further investigation into how meat processing and the timing of consumption influence CRC risk across different parts of the colon and rectum. Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z Unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer "We found weak evidence of harmful associations between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer; the mean RR at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake was 1.30 (95% UI inclusive of between-study heterogeneity of 1.01–1.64), while the mean RR at 100 g d−1 was 1.37 (1.01–1.78) (Table 2 and Fig. 1), where the UIs account for between-study heterogeneity and other forms of uncertainty. We estimated the exposure-averaged burden of proof RR to be 1.06, indicating that consuming unprocessed red meat in the range of 15th to 85th percentiles of exposure (0 g d−1 to 98 g d−1) was associated with at least a 6% higher risk of colorectal cancer. This corresponds to an ROS of 0.06 and a two-star rating, consistent with weak evidence." Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of IHD. The RR was 1.09 (0.99–1.18) at 50 g d−1 and 1.12 (0.99–1.25) at 100 g d−1 (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The corresponding exposure-averaged BPRF was 1.01, which translates to a ROS of 0.01 and a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of IHD incidence and mortality)." Unprocessed red meat consumption and breast cancer "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat intake and risk of breast cancer. The BPRF value (averaged across the 15th to 85th percentiles of red meat consumption, 0–69 g d−1) was 1.03, which was substantially lower than the mean RR of 1.26 (0.98–1.56) and 1.26 (0.98–1.56) at 50 g d−1 and 100 g d−1, respectively. The corresponding ROS is 0.03 (Table 2 and Fig. 2), which translates to a two-star risk and means that unprocessed red meat intake is associated with at least a 3% higher risk of colorectal cancer. When accounting for between-study heterogeneity, the mean RR UI at different exposure levels spanned 1 (Table 2)." Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of IHD. The RR was 1.09 (0.99–1.18) at 50 g d−1 and 1.12 (0.99–1.25) at 100 g d−1 (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The corresponding exposure-averaged BPRF was 1.01, which translates to a ROS of 0.01 and a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of IHD incidence and mortality)." Unprocessed red meat consumption and type 2 diabetes "We found evidence of weak harmful effects between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes, with a mean RR of 1.14 (0.97–1.32) at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake and a mean RR of 1.23 (0.96–1.52) at 100 g d−1 relative to no intake (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 2). The BPRF value was 1.01 and the corresponding ROS was 0.01, equating to a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of type 2 diabetes)." Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic stroke "The exposure-averaged BPRF value for ischemic stroke (averaged between 15th and 85th percentiles of red meat exposure) was 0.98 (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 3), which put it opposite null from the mean RR of 1.15 (95% UI inclusive of between-study heterogeneity of 0.93–1.40) at 100 g d−1. The corresponding ROS of –0.02 resulted in a one-star rating, consistent with no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of ischemic stroke." Unprocessed red meat consumption and hemorrhagic stroke "The exposure-averaged BPRF value for hemorrhagic stroke was 1.14 (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 4), which was opposite null from the mean RR of 0.87 (0.56–1.35) at 100 g d−1. The corresponding ROS of −0.13 resulted in a one-star rating, consistent with no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke." The Importance of Accounting for Confounding Factors When assessing the link between unprocessed meat consumption and colorectal cancer, it's essential to consider how earlier studies might have arrived at different conclusions due to not fully accounting for confounding factors. Confounding factors are variables that can influence both the exposure (in this case, unprocessed meat consumption) and the outcome (colorectal cancer), potentially skewing the results if not properly adjusted for in the analysis. For instance, some studies suggesting an association between unprocessed meat and colon cancer may not have adequately adjusted for a range of lifestyle and dietary behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, overall diet quality, physical activity, and other health-related behaviors. These factors are crucial as they can independently increase the risk of cancer and are often correlated with meat consumption habits. For example, individuals who eat significant amounts of unprocessed meat might also lead a less healthy lifestyle overall or engage in other behaviors that increase cancer risk. For example in this study: "We documented 1,735 CRCs (809 proximal colon, 514 distal colon, and 373 rectal cancers) in women during 2,439,732 person-years of follow-up in the NHS and 996 CRCs (342 proximal colon, 303 distal colon, and 216 rectal cancers) in men during 1,013,022 person-years of follow-up in the HPFS. Characteristics of study participants, averaged according to proportion of person-time in each category of intake, are shown in Table 1. Men and women with higher red meat consumption tended to have a higher BMI, lower physical activity, higher intake of alcohol, and lower intakes of fish, folate, calcium, and vitamin D compared to participants with lower red meat intake."

By not controlling for these confounders, these studies could incorrectly attribute the cause of increased cancer risk to unprocessed meat alone, when it could be due to a combination of factors associated with a particular lifestyle. This is why the methodology used in more recent studies, which include adjusting for such variables to isolate the impact of unprocessed meat alone, is crucial. These adjustments help provide a clearer picture of whether unprocessed meat directly contributes to colorectal cancer risk or if the observed association is influenced by other confounding factors. This thorough approach aids in making more accurate public health recommendations based on sound scientific evidence. Itisme3248 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The above is something of a WP:TEXTWALL, with lots of unnecessary quotations. I will say this: WP:MEDRS outlines the type of sourcing we look for when discussing biomedical information, such as the health effects of a given subject. MEDRS explicitly excludes primary research - the ScienceDirect.com source listed above looks like a primary source to me (unless I'm reading it wrong?), so not worth discussing here.

The abstract of the Larsson/Orsini source, which is a meta-analysis, concludes with the sentence These results indicate that high consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, may increase all-cause mortality. For some reason, you missed this out of the quote you posted above. Regardless, there is too much here to expect anyone to read through and try to work out what it is you're getting at. I'd suggest that the above be hatted for readability's sake, and perhaps you could focus on addressing one issue/assertion and its sourcing at a time? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This wikipedia uses tons of primary sources. Therefore should they all be removed?

About the abstract of Larsson why did you completely ignore the previous part? The study clearly states that natural unprocessed meat is not associated with mortality rate.

"In a dose-response meta-analysis, consumption of processed meat and total red meat, but not unprocessed red meat, was statistically significantly positively associated with all-cause mortality in a nonlinear fashion. These results indicate that high consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, may increase all-cause mortality." Itisme3248 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I've hatted the exceedingly long comment above.

Wikipedia as designed does not use tons of primary sources - we generally try to avoid primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. I don't doubt that they exist in some badly written articles, but that is no sort of reason to start introducing them into Good Articles, and I repeat that for certain types of assertions, including assertions about biomedical information, they are not permitted at all.

I did not completely ignore the previous part - I just cut to the chase, which is the final sentence of their abstract that we have both now quoted to one another. Now, if you have some specific proposals for what we might want to do with these sources, bearing in mind Chiswick Chap's very good point about the amount of coverage we should afford this facet of the subject in this particular article, I suggest that you make a concrete proposal for a change, and quote the sources that would support it, at the bottom of this section. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 16:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the studies i sent are not primary sources, they are meta analysis of many many studies. Meta analysis are much more credible than .gov sites that are politically biased. Itisme3248 (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That's great, so set out a specific proposal for a change, and explain which sources you believe support it, at the bottom of this section, being mindful of the due weight issues that have been set out. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, i will do it when i have more free time. Itisme3248 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree that the studies used as a source should be prioritized based on the number of confounding factors they account for and the length of their follow-up period to assess risks? Itisme3248 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with that, we don't assess sources in that way as editors. The guidelines for identifying and weighing reliable sources are at WP:RS, and for this subject they are expanded upon at [[WP:MEDRS]. I don't think that the WP:OR policy quite comes into play here, since you are attempting to weigh the relevance of sources to rely upon for content rather than wanting to add any content to the article itself based on your own analysis. Nevertheless, your own analysis of which of these sources has more/fewer confounding factors is just that, your own thoughts on the matter. I doubt whether you will persuade anyone with it, and other editors will most likely ignore it - as they will with the relentless screeds of repetitive text you are filling this talk page with. You have still to make a single concrete proposal for a change (as in, 'in paragraph X, I propose changing 'blah blah blah' to 'waffle waffle waffle' based on this source'). Girth Summit _(blether) 07:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur again with Girth Summit here; in addition, the two discussion threads should not have been merged in this way, as they began separately and it is a clear breach of policy to manipulate existing discussion threads.

(edit conflict, again) I really do object most strongly to all Itisme3248's remarks here. The article's topic is "Meat", pure and simple. "Health effects" is a chapter of the article, and it has an extremely broad scope, including topics that you don't mention such as contamination. Your topic is something like The health effects of eating uncontaminated meat, which is a sub-sub-topic (at best) of this article, and it is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is not this article's job to cover every subsidiary topic of the very large subject of meat; instead, it correctly links to subtopics, and those articles do the work of explaining aspects of health, farming and much more. In a word, their contents do not belong here. All that this article should do on subtopics of health is to provide an extremely brief "summary style" paragraph with a link and a *general* citation to indicate that there is a subtopic covered elsewhere: and that it does, consistently.

You might find it helpful to consider this article as the root of a tree of topics and articles:

Meat

History of agriculture

Domestication

Intensive animal farming

...

Animal welfare

...

Meat industry

Animal slaughter

...

Meat spoilage

...

Health effects

Cancer

Heart disease

Contamination with toxins

Bacterial contamination

...

...

Sustainable consumption

Vegetarianism and religion

Psychology of eating meat

It can be seen that health effects such as heart disease are sub-sub-topics with respect to the subject of Meat. They can only be given the briefest of treatments here in this article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The health effects section completely misleads people and poses a serious health risk by implying that unprocessed meat aka normal natural meat you can buy from the butcher, will increase mortality rates.

Unprocessed meat is the most important part of the human diet. This page misleads readers into assuming that all meat is harmful and should be avoided, which is not supported by proper study findings.

High-quality cohort studies that take into account confounding factors clearly state that unprocessed red meat is not associated with increased mortality rates. However, this crucial detail is overshadowed by weaker studies that do not account for these confounding factors. Itisme3248 (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who uses scientific articles on Wikipedia pages should carefully read studies like this before proceeding. It appears that many Wikipedia editors lack understanding or concern about confounding factors.

Assessing bias: the importance of considering confounding: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503514/ Itisme3248 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Chiswick Chap and Girth Summit. WP:SS tells us that high-level overview articles like Meat should be concise and refer to subarticles for details. @Itisme3248, if you insist in contributing in a manner contrary to the practices and rules of Wikipedia, you may be blocked from doing so. Sandstein 14:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Chiswick Chap and Girth Summit as well. This is largely a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue for this article, as already pointed out in the nice hierarchy sketch, and may be appropriate elsewhere if properly sourced with literature surveys (not primary sources). It is inappropriate here except in a footnote or in the briefest of mentions here given the very broad scope of this article. Mathglot (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Itisme3248 has claimed, "This Wikipedia article is citing very weak evidence and largely ignoring cohort studies that take into account confounding factors such as smoking, BMI, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle factors". Firstly, epidemiologists are not stupid. They adjust the data for many of these confounding factors. It's odd to argue that these studies have not adjusted for some of these. The user has obviously not read the systematic reviews cited on the article because they have adjusted the data for smoking, BMI etc. Show us some cohort data on this topic that doesn't adjust for BMI? They always adjust for BMI and smoking. It's hard to take seriously what this user is claiming. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No, they do not always adjust for BMI and smoking. In fact, many studies cited by .gov sites have come to the conclusion that unprocessed meat is harmful precisely because they often rely on studies that did not account for these confounding factors. It is naive to assume that every study adjusts for BMI, smoking, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle habits. It is essential to critically evaluate the methodology of each study before accepting its conclusions. It is difficult to take the claims made by users on this page seriously without such scrutiny.

In general, Wikipedia can be problematic for this reason, mosst editors have almost no understanding of scientific research methodologies.

For example if there are 20 higher quality studies that contradict the claims cited on this page by one study, why are they being ignored? I noticed that this is a trend on wikipedia, they tend to be obsessed with what a .gov site said and the general consensus promoted by the media. Itisme3248 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is misleading in its presentation of the health effects of unprocessed meat, particularly by implying it increases mortality and other bad health effect rates.

The article fails to consider numerous cohort studies that account for confounding factors such as smoking, BMI, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle factors. These studies provide a more accurate assessment and generally do not show a significant increase in negative health effects or mortality rates from unprocessed meat. It relies on weak, unscientific evidence while ignoring robust cohort studies. This skews the article and misleads readers into believing that unprocessed meat is harmful without sufficient scientific backing.

Many studies cited here suffer from the correlation-causation fallacy. They do not adequately adjust for enough or even any confounding variables, leading to potentially incorrect conclusions. It is naive to assume that every study adjusts for all relevant factors like BMI, smoking, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle habits

High-quality cohort Meta-analysis studies that consider multiple confounding factors are being overshadowed by weaker studies. These high-quality studies usually conclude that unprocessed red meat does not increase mortality rates, which is a crucial detail that should not be ignored.

By not accurately representing the evidence, this article poses a serious health risk. It may lead readers to erroneously avoid unprocessed meat, which is an important part of a balanced diet. Itisme3248 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of cohort studies adjust for confounders like BMI and smoking, if they didn't they wouldn't be any good, adjusting for these would be crucial. As stated, epidemiologists are not stupid. When cohorts are done, baseline characteristics like BMI, smoking, physical activity, race are logged.

Unprocessed red meat has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer. High unprocessed red meat increases cancer risk, CVD and stroke risk. There is a strong consensus on this from dietetic and cancer organizations and we have 4 reviews on this on the Wikipedia article. Here is the World Health Organization "the existing evidence is clear that high consumption of red meat, and processed meat even more so, can have detrimental impacts on the health of populations and the planet" [2]. You are making bold claims here without any evidence, "most editors have almost no understanding of scientific research methodologies". You are claiming that the systematic reviews on the Wikipedia article do not take into account BMI or smoking but you have not cited these sources. If you had actually read these reviews, you would see that is not the case. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

[3], again this is bad-faith editing. There are good reviews found on the article in the health effects section [4], [5], [6]. You have not explained why these sources are not "proper sources". Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If you accuse me of bad-faith editing then i accuse you of being the one doing bad-faithing editing by cherry picking and ignoring the fact that the proper studies say that unprocessed meat is not linked with a higher mortality rate. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile the same link you cite says, stop cherry picking. There is a big difference between unprocessed meat and grilling and processed meat. It's like comparing non smokers to smokers.:

"The associations between red meat consumption and harmful outcomes are generally tempered in short-term intervention studies, especially in dietary patterns consisting of moderate intake of unprocessed red meat and comparable unprocessed plant-source food intake (73, 74). However, the short-term nature of such studies means that only biomarkers can be assessed, not long-term health outcomes like NCD incidence. Several recent analyses have challenged some of the evidence on red meat and NCD risk as weak and insufficient for conclusive recommendations (75-77). Most notably, the Global Burden of Disease Study findings that diets high in unprocessed red meat were responsible for 896 000 deaths in 2019 (78) have been contested by re-analysis of this study and other recent meta-analyses (76, 79). A final consensus is yet to be established, although authors of the Global Burden of Disease study note that the next iteration of the study is likely to have lower estimates of deaths attributable to red meat (80). Overall, evidence from LMIC demonstrating a link between red meat and chronic disease outcomes is lacking. However, one pooled analysis of studies in Asian countries – which comprises many LMIC – showed no relationship with morbidity outcomes (81). The way in which red meat – as well as other types of meat – is prepared and processed appears to be linked with disease risk. High temperature cooking – such as grilling, frying, deep frying and barbecuing – produces higher amounts of harmful compounds, such as N-nitroso compounds, polycyclic aromatic compounds and heterocyclic aromatic amines, which have been suspected of being carcinogenic (82, 83). Low temperature cooking, such as boiling and stewing, produces lower amounts of these compounds. One Danish study found that consumption of barbecued and fried red meat is most harmful, and that 298 and 156 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per 100 000 could be prevented, respectively, if replaced with roasted red meat" Itisme3248 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Moving goal posts, ignoring questions, failing to provide any evidence for your claims. You have stated many times on this talk-page the systemic reviews failed to take into account BMI and smoking. You were proven wrong on that because you know the reviews cited on this Wikipedia article took these into account so you change the subject. That is not playing fair! You also scan a WHO report for anything that supports your POV whilst ignoring same report says unprocessed red meat is "probably carcinogenic". The same report says heme iron is associated with metabolic disease.

"In 2015, IARC reviewed the evidence on red meat and cancer, and classified it as a Group 2A carcinogen, which means that it is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (11). IARC estimated that the risk increases by 17% (95% CI: 5-31) per 100 g of red meat consumed per day. Unprocessed red meat is also associated with other NCD risks, particularly when consumed in high amounts (the specific amounts vary by study) and when not part of a balanced diet alongside minimally processed plant-based foods (67, 68). The mechanisms behind this association are not fully understood, but some evidence points to high intake of heme iron (the type of iron found in animal-source foods) as associated with CVD, type 2 diabetes and metabolic disease (12, 69-71), despite some level of intake being beneficial for health as described above".

The WHO report was published in 2023. The latest Global Burden of Disease review findings for 54 countries were published in April 2024. A diet high in red meat has now been added as a risk factor to the GBD data sets. Here is the latest systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study [7]. It found that a diet high in unprocessed red meat increases cardiovascular mortality. On average it ranked third in 54 countries as a dietary risk factor.

Nobody is denying that red meat has a good nutrient profile and it can be incorporated into a healthy balanced diet. If you read all the sources, the issue is high consumption of red meat which increases cancer and CVD risk. There is strong evidence that a diet high in red meat increases noncommunicable disease risk and this is supported by all cancer and dietetic organizations around the world. Some of these are cited in the "health effects" section. If you want to promote a diet high in red meat, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. We are not going to promote fringe views about diet here, we just cite what the reliable sources say. This conversation should be closed. Non-productive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment

I reviewed the article at GAN and was satisfied with the sourcing. We seem to have a single editor pushing a personal point of view here. Despite being fairly new to Wikipedia the editor has already managed to get him/herself blocked for making personal attacks and has also had to be warned about replacing cited material with his/her WP:OR. I do not think it productive to spend time arguing with this editor. Tim riley talk 07:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Note, I have just removed a comment from Itisme3248 as they are making personal attacks here and spamming the same content from above. I have reported this user at ANI [8] Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I hold no brief for vegans (though I have to feed one every day) and I have had my differences with Psychologist Guy in the past, but I repeat that I find Itisme3248's bloated screeds a waste of everybody's time and agree that we should move on. Tim riley talk 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy has repeatedly made personal attacks against multiple people while accusing others of the same behavior. When I pointed this out in a comment, he deleted it, which is highly suspicious. It seems that he deletes my comments to hide his rule violations and then report me for rule-breaking to avoid repercussions.

This was my comment that Psychologist Guy deleted to hide his personal attacks on people he disagrees with:

Find me a study that accounts for multiple confounding factors such as BMI, smoking, age, exercise, macronutrient intake, supplement use, medical history, socioeconomic status, overall diet quality, race, and country of residence etc. and demonstrates that unprocessed meat from the butcher, cooked without grilling, increases the total mortality rate. It is easy to cherry-pick any food and claim it increases the risk of certain diseases while ignoring the overall impact on mortality rate.

I have provided meta-analyses that show the mortality rate is not increased by unprocessed meat consumption, yet editors ignore this evidence and accuse me of bias. For example, (Personal attack removed), accuse anyone providing scientific proof against weak evidence of being biased and hide behind Wikipedia rule-breaking accusations to bully new editors. By ignoring studies that demonstrate no increase in mortality rate and promoting a vegan agenda, he is inherently biased while accusing others of the same.

I did not even cherry pick the studies, i picked the ones i could find on top of google scholar.

Very long list of potential sources and selected quotes from them.

How did this page pass the Good Article review? Many of the so-called "studies" cited here are unscientific, as they fail to account for confounding factors and rely on correlation-causation fallacies. Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522004282 Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471 Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10270853/ Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549221/ Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522004282 "Results: In the PURE study, during 9.5 y of follow-up, we recorded 7789 deaths and 6976 CVD events. Higher unprocessed red meat intake (≥250 g/wk vs. <50 g/wk) was not significantly associated with total mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.02; P-trend = 0.14) or major CVD (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.11; P-trend = 0.72). Similarly, no association was observed between poultry intake and health outcomes. Higher intake of processed meat (≥150 g/wk vs. 0 g/wk) was associated with higher risk of total mortality (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.10; P-trend = 0.009) and major CVD (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.98; P-trend = 0.004). Conclusions: In a large multinational prospective study, we did not find significant associations between unprocessed red meat and poultry intake and mortality or major CVD. Conversely, a higher intake of processed meat was associated with a higher risk of mortality and major CVD." The risk associated with different types of meat consumption in this study was as follows: Unprocessed red meat: Consuming 250 grams or more per week compared to less than 50 grams per week was not significantly associated with total mortality or major cardiovascular disease (CVD). The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 1.02), indicating a non-significant 7% reduction in risk, which statistically isn’t different from no effect. The HR for major CVD was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.11), showing virtually no association. Processed meat: Consuming 150 grams or more per week compared to none at all was associated with a significantly higher risk of both total mortality and major CVD. The HR for mortality was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.08, 2.10), suggesting a 51% increased risk of death. The HR for major CVD was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.98), indicating a 46% increased risk of major cardiovascular events. Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis Study: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471 "For total red meat consumption, the corresponding relative risk for 120 g/day (∼1.5 servings/day) versus 20 g/day (∼1.5–2 servings/week) was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.20, 1.38). Unprocessed red meat consumption (5 studies) showed a statistically nonsignificant linear association with all-cause mortality (for a 100-g/day increase in consumption, RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.997, 1.20)." Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10270853/ "Nine articles with seventeen prospective cohorts were eligible in this meta-analysis, including a total of 150 328 deaths. There was evidence of a non-linear association between processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but not for cancer mortality. For processed meat, the pooled relative risk with an increase of one serving per day was 1·15 (95 % CI 1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality (five studies; P<0·001 for linear trend), 1·15 (95 % CI 1·07, 1·24) for cardiovascular mortality (six studies; P<0·001) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·06, 1·11) for cancer mortality (five studies; P<0·001). Similar associations were found with total meat intake. The association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk was found in the US populations, but not in European or Asian populations." In the US, eating unprocessed red meat is linked to mortality risk, but this connection isn't seen in European or Asian populations. The regional differences in the association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk could be influenced by variations in meat quality. Factors such as production practices, processing standards, and environmental factors may lead to differences in the nutritional composition and safety of meat products across regions. For example, variations in the use of hormones, antibiotics, and feed additives, as well as differences in livestock-raising practices (such as grass-fed vs. grain-fed), could contribute to differing health effects of red meat consumption between populations. Additionally, it is likely that compared with European habits, red meat in the USA may be often barbecued or grilled, thus contributing to higher contents of polycyclic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines. Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549221/ According to the analysis from two large cohort studies, there is a modest increase in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk associated with the consumption of processed red meat, particularly affecting the distal colon. Processed red meat consumption was linked to a higher CRC risk with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.15 for a 1 serving/day increase, and even more so for distal colon cancer (HR = 1.36). In contrast, the consumption of unprocessed red meat did not significantly increase the overall risk of CRC and was actually inversely associated with distal colon cancer risk (HR = 0.75 for a 1 serving/day increase). These findings highlight the importance of differentiating between processed and unprocessed meats when considering dietary recommendations for CRC prevention. The studies underline the need for further investigation into how meat processing and the timing of consumption influence CRC risk across different parts of the colon and rectum. Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z Unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer "We found weak evidence of harmful associations between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer; the mean RR at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake was 1.30 (95% UI inclusive of between-study heterogeneity of 1.01–1.64), while the mean RR at 100 g d−1 was 1.37 (1.01–1.78) (Table 2 and Fig. 1), where the UIs account for between-study heterogeneity and other forms of uncertainty. We estimated the exposure-averaged burden of proof RR to be 1.06, indicating that consuming unprocessed red meat in the range of 15th to 85th percentiles of exposure (0 g d−1 to 98 g d−1) was associated with at least a 6% higher risk of colorectal cancer. This corresponds to an ROS of 0.06 and a two-star rating, consistent with weak evidence." Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of IHD. The RR was 1.09 (0.99–1.18) at 50 g d−1 and 1.12 (0.99–1.25) at 100 g d−1 (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The corresponding exposure-averaged BPRF was 1.01, which translates to a ROS of 0.01 and a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of IHD incidence and mortality)." Unprocessed red meat consumption and breast cancer "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat intake and risk of breast cancer. The BPRF value (averaged across the 15th to 85th percentiles of red meat consumption, 0–69 g d−1) was 1.03, which was substantially lower than the mean RR of 1.26 (0.98–1.56) and 1.26 (0.98–1.56) at 50 g d−1 and 100 g d−1, respectively. The corresponding ROS is 0.03 (Table 2 and Fig. 2), which translates to a two-star risk and means that unprocessed red meat intake is associated with at least a 3% higher risk of colorectal cancer. When accounting for between-study heterogeneity, the mean RR UI at different exposure levels spanned 1 (Table 2)." Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of IHD. The RR was 1.09 (0.99–1.18) at 50 g d−1 and 1.12 (0.99–1.25) at 100 g d−1 (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The corresponding exposure-averaged BPRF was 1.01, which translates to a ROS of 0.01 and a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of IHD incidence and mortality)." Unprocessed red meat consumption and type 2 diabetes "We found evidence of weak harmful effects between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes, with a mean RR of 1.14 (0.97–1.32) at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake and a mean RR of 1.23 (0.96–1.52) at 100 g d−1 relative to no intake (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 2). The BPRF value was 1.01 and the corresponding ROS was 0.01, equating to a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of type 2 diabetes)." Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic stroke "The exposure-averaged BPRF value for ischemic stroke (averaged between 15th and 85th percentiles of red meat exposure) was 0.98 (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 3), which put it opposite null from the mean RR of 1.15 (95% UI inclusive of between-study heterogeneity of 0.93–1.40) at 100 g d−1. The corresponding ROS of –0.02 resulted in a one-star rating, consistent with no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of ischemic stroke." Unprocessed red meat consumption and hemorrhagic stroke "The exposure-averaged BPRF value for hemorrhagic stroke was 1.14 (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 4), which was opposite null from the mean RR of 0.87 (0.56–1.35) at 100 g d−1. The corresponding ROS of −0.13 resulted in a one-star rating, consistent with no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke." The Importance of Accounting for Confounding Factors When assessing the link between unprocessed meat consumption and colorectal cancer, it's essential to consider how earlier studies might have arrived at different conclusions due to not fully accounting for confounding factors. Confounding factors are variables that can influence both the exposure (in this case, unprocessed meat consumption) and the outcome (colorectal cancer), potentially skewing the results if not properly adjusted for in the analysis. For instance, some studies suggesting an association between unprocessed meat and colon cancer may not have adequately adjusted for a range of lifestyle and dietary behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, overall diet quality, physical activity, and other health-related behaviors. These factors are crucial as they can independently increase the risk of cancer and are often correlated with meat consumption habits. For example, individuals who eat significant amounts of unprocessed meat might also lead a less healthy lifestyle overall or engage in other behaviors that increase cancer risk. For example in this study: "We documented 1,735 CRCs (809 proximal colon, 514 distal colon, and 373 rectal cancers) in women during 2,439,732 person-years of follow-up in the NHS and 996 CRCs (342 proximal colon, 303 distal colon, and 216 rectal cancers) in men during 1,013,022 person-years of follow-up in the HPFS. Characteristics of study participants, averaged according to proportion of person-time in each category of intake, are shown in Table 1. Men and women with higher red meat consumption tended to have a higher BMI, lower physical activity, higher intake of alcohol, and lower intakes of fish, folate, calcium, and vitamin D compared to participants with lower red meat intake." By not controlling for these confounders, these studies could incorrectly attribute the cause of increased cancer risk to unprocessed meat alone, when it could be due to a combination of factors associated with a particular lifestyle. This is why the methodology used in more recent studies, which include adjusting for such variables to isolate the impact of unprocessed meat alone, is crucial. These adjustments help provide a clearer picture of whether unprocessed meat directly contributes to colorectal cancer risk or if the observed association is influenced by other confounding factors. This thorough approach aids in making more accurate public health recommendations based on sound scientific evidence.

Itisme3248 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"Psychologist Guy has repeatedly made personal attacks against multiple people while accusing others of the same behavior". This is misinformation. This is getting out of hand. I have not even typed to multiple people on this talk-page, nor made any personal attacks. I made some replies to you that contained no personal attacks. I do not appreciate these false claims. If you are going to make a claim, be honest and back it up with evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)