Talk:Red meat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Red or white?[edit]

I'ved moved the following statement here as it's not only poorly sourced but likely false:

The meat of young mammals such as veal and milk-fed lamb, and that of pork is usually considered "white"; while the meat of duck and goose is considered "red",[1] though the demarcation line has been shifting.

The demarcation line shifted long ago! --Amit 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not with traditional thinking or common knowledge! Pork, along with Chicken or Fish, has always been considered not red meat. It's part of common American and western culture and is supported in cookbooks and dictionaries.ParaGreen13 (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See discussion in Talk:White meat. It's amusing that you consider OED 2 a poor source, and seem to think that 18 years ago is a long time. Are you basing your judgement on personal experience (i.e. original research)? What about a world perspective? Have you investigated European (not to mention Asian, etc.) positions? As a compromise, I will add the word "traditionally". --Macrakis 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Emu article lists that bird as a red meat, with sources (here and here). Are there other exceptions? Does anyone know enough to describe the distinction in more detail? Blurble 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo and Bison are a red meat. Can someone add more on them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In my experience it has always been acceptable in casual usage to refer to mammal meat as "red meat." I have never heard goose referred to as red meat, nor would I (personally) ever refer to pork as white meat. I have just learned however that for meat to be certified Glatt kosher it must first be red meat, and second, it must meet specific requirements. In that discussion, I was surprised to learn that lamb is not considered red meat; I have not been able to determine why. The current article hints at an answer, when it refers to meat that is "red when raw and not white when cooked." However, an ambiguity is introduced in a later paragraph which asserts, regarding the "red" label, "nor does it refer to its coloration after it has been cooked." This is inconsistent with the opening paragraph. K9gardner (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "glatt" means that the lungs are free of adhesions, and that distinction is only useful when applied to the meat of large herd animals (e.g. beef, bison). So kosher beef might be glatt kosher or not. For other meats (e.g. lamb, chicken), meat that is not glatt is simply not kosher at all. And fish don't have lungs, so the glatt/non-glatt distinction is meaningless. --ABehrens (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This page needs to be balanced out a lot[edit]

I'm surprised the obvious bias in this page has been tolerated. One editor has even gone so far as to add an absurd section on dietary habits in relation red meat, almost as if implying that there might be some chemical in the meat which stops people from eating vegies. The section on globins paints a false picture of total scientific agreement as to the deadly and dangerous potential of red meats, especially, we are told, because of a scary sounding process that red meat triggers off in the gut. This air of scientific certainty did not seem to be present in the BBC article that the entire section seems to be based off, I can only assume that it is deliberate.

Anyhoo, I'll try cleaning it up a bit.

Also, the Health Benefits section is ridiculous. ONE line on positive benefits, along with 25+ negative ones, under headings such as 'Cancer' etc. Not impartial whatsoever. Red Meat is not poisonous to humans as this article seems to suggest...

Health Effects? This section just seems to be all about how bad red meat is, like a vegetarian wrote it, I am pretty damn sure red meat has some affects which are benificial, since when did an effect mean a bad thing? Doesn't Red meat help brain development with proteins not found anywhere else? Have you seen how sickley vegetarians look compared with people whom eat red meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no vegetarian and would have no problem personally clubbing a baby seal, but red meat is a not good for optimal health. The article is balanced. Dann3131 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out something very general, and which has nothing to do with what I personally think about red meat, but which is relevant to your complaint: for an article to be impartial, this does NOT mean that there should be as much information in favour of the subject as there is against it. It's important to include as many properly sourced and salient facts as possible, but there may just not be as many out there for the one side. As a more extreme example, consider an article about some kind of highly toxic compound which is most commonly produced as industrial waste. There could certainly be a section about the damage it could cause to the environment and/or people, but it's clear that to achieve impartiality it isn't necessary to write a section about how it benefits the environment. Attention must be paid to sourcing and to language, however.

BradHD (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is balanced as it only seems to take into account studies made in the US. There are a lot of studies made in US that seem to indicaate red meat having bad effects for human health, but then again studies made here in Finland have found nothing of the kind. It is likely that the production process is to blame. Erkki2000 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The following statement is 100% make believe, and the reference points to a site promoting quackery, so I have taken it off the page:

By the age of fifty, the average American has five pounds of undigested red meat in their bowels. [1]

Nova SS 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And if you look at the site, it doesn't even make that claim: it's only a quotation from a movie. I removed the statement again after someone re-added it. Wmahan. 17:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, a holistic quack site with a flaky quote. What a surprise. Nova SS 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up[edit]

I did a PubMed and google scholar search for "red meat", and also searched for "red meat diabetes" and "red meat cardiovascular," and added the results here. They were all either showing negative or no effects of red meat, which leads me to believe that there was no bias in this article, that is just the current state of science. In any case, I hope that adding all these citations will remove any bias that had existed, so I would like to remove the NPOV in the next few days, unless someone has specific complaints that still need to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

These were all done by me, but I forgot to log in. So the revisions from were by Xodarap00 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV Xodarap00 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


I read an article recently about a link between "red meat" and colon cancer. It's not clear to me, even after reading this article, what all constitutes "red meat" in that context. Beef? Pork? Turkey? Chicken? Lamb? Buffalo? Alligator? Frog? --TheCynic (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The term is used loosely, as the article says. It almost certainly includes beef and excludes chicken, but you'll have to read the scientific research on which that article is based to see if it includes pork, for example. I suspect that there are few good studies on lamb and game simply because not that much is consumed in the countries (North America, Western Europe, etc.) where most epidemiological studies are performed. --Macrakis (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant health effect comparison[edit]

Why are non meat-eaters being compared to people who eat red meat regularly in an article specifically about red meat?

The correlation is useless even with a comparison of vegetarians to general meat-eaters because there are so many variables likely to drastically influence the result. Comparing them to red meat eaters is even worse.

And even if it was a useful correlation, it belongs either in an article about vegetarians or about meat eating in general. Or ideally, on a pseudoscientific pro-vegetarian website outside of Wikipedia.

One study has determined that the death rate of non meat-eaters due to heart diseases is 0.72 compared to meat eaters, although the study stated that no firm conclusion as to the reason for this difference can be made based on the data.[16]

Overall, the relative risk of developing a fatal cancer in non meat-eaters is 0.61 compared to people who eat red meat regularly.[16]

-- (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the way to determine if there are health effects - both positive or negative - associated with a particular diet is to compare followers of that diet to a totally different diet. There may be statistics comparing people who eat lots of meat to those who eat little, but the variables would be even greater in that case. I think having these comparisons keeps articles balanced - otherwise each article would just be a fluff peice for its topic.Bob98133 (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about meat eaters, it's about red meat eaters. The way to determine if there are health effects associated with red meat is to isolate the variable in question: meat that comes from a mammal. Which a comparison between a vegetarian diet and a diet consisting of lots of red meat completely fails to do. You could also say that the risk of heart disease is low among red meat eaters compared to people who eat nothing but margarine, but that's not a useful comparison either. -- (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you reverted the change (Unexplained removal? Really?), I'm adding tags. -- (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Your tags are not appropriate. The cancer section clearly states that "that red meat could pose a notable increase in cancer risk." It doesn't suggest a causal relationship. It is well documented. The LCBA reference under cardiovascular diseases certianly is misleading. As I recall, the subjects in this study all had relatively high cholesterol levels which stayed the same whether they ate low fat red meat or white meat. While the beef producers would like this to mean that red meat has a place in a low fat diet, it could easily claim the same thing for low fat white meat. As well, one has to be somewhat suspect when a study performed by the LCBA shows how good red meat is for you. Please remove the tags or be specific about what your problem is with the article. Your rationale for scientifically detemrining things differs with the references.Bob98133 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been specific. I'm not debating that red meat could pose a notable risk for cancer or heart disease. I'm debating that two statistics provided are not relevant to the article because they don't properly isolate the role of specifically red meat enough. Again, you could also say that the risk of heart disease is low among red meat eaters compared to people who eat nothing but margarine (also a non meat-eating diet, by the way), but that wouldn't be a useful or relevant study either. -- (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly disagree with you - it's just that using your criteria no "scientific" evidence could be used for most topics. For example, saying that smoking cigarettes increases your risk of lung cancer. There is no way to isolate all human behaviors so that you only have people who smoke and people who don't smoke, since people do all sorts of other things that could affect getting lung cancer. However, whoever did these studies had sufficient evidence to suggest that there could be a relationship, and since these were serious studies I think that it is acceptible to include that info - as long as it says "could pose a threat" and not "poses a threat." Bob98133 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that is a problem with a lot of drug studies. (Cannabis comes to mind, where cannabis users may be likely to take other drugs as well.) But in the case of smoking studies, theres not a lot else that the average person will take into his lungs, unlike no meat versus frequent red meat where there's a lot of potential variation in diet.
In fact, the article as it is now even agrees with me on that: "the study stated that no firm conclusion as to the reason for this difference can be made based on the data."
And in smoking studies, they modify the appropriate variable: whether the person smokes tobacco. In this article though, you have non meat eaters compared to general meat eaters, which is like comparing non drug users to general drug users in a tobacco article. It would rather belong in an article about drugs, just as that tidbit belongs in an article about vegetarianism or meat. -- (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, skimming the source cited, I don't see any mention of red meat at all. It's about non-meat eaters vs meat eaters, does not mention red meat at all, and even lists all the nonrelated reasons for the results. This means that the results are inconclusive (as I've been saying) and irrelevant to this article (as I've also been saying.) -- (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Saturated fat[edit]

The source for the claim that saturated fat is associated with cardiovascular diseases have no sources for this claim besides referring loosely to 'basic research'. The study also seems to have a focus on vegetarian versus non-vegetarian diets, and does not go deeply into the issue of saturared fat. The study also admits that some of the health effects may be due to vegetarians having a lower incidence of obesity. I think a better source for this claim should be used (if this claim is at all correct, something newer research has cast doubt about) (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty clear, from the cited reference, or this page in the reference [[2]], that there is an association between saturated fat and cardiovascular diseases. However, it is leass clear if that is due to meat's high saturated fat levels or some other factor. I have changed the text slightly to try to reflect this. Please revise if it can be put more clearly. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think the new wording better reflects our current knowledge and the findings in the cited study. (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


The use of mammal "status" as a criterion for determining red/white meat status is very misleading and I would argue it should be removed. Rabbits are mammals, but the article currently makes them sound like non-mammals, especially in the Gastronomy section. Also, veal, lamb, pork, duck, and goose are all shown to be exceptions to this "rule," even though the article doesn't explicitly state this. In fact, more exceptions are listed than animals that follow the "rule." (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pros and cons[edit]

It is unfair to blame vegetarian factions for bias, to an extent. It is generally agreed that meat is a valuable source of high-class protein, and also of zinc.But in promoting their product, Meat Marketing Boards ignore these pros and concentrate on iron."Iron is essential" has become "more is better"; and "Iron is essential" tends towards "Iron is a health food".Factors militating against these slogans are: Most males over 35 have an unhealthy excess of blood iron. No reputable doctor prescribes iron without a serum test. It is,as these boards promote,true that haem iron is much more easily absorbed than plant origin non-haem iron. However, this is now considered a disadvantage, since haem iron is stored and can produce iron overload. The anaemia scare initiated by meat boards is nonsense, since anaemia means lack of blood, not iron (that is hypoferraemia, a rare condition).This has prompted many food manufacturers to 'fortify' foods with added mineral iron, a very undesirable idea. In the early 20th century, anaemia (which is often iron-loading) was treasted only with arsenic.Leaflets on iron ("The body's gold") are often composed by meat marketing boards, and supplied to doctors and hospitals; the content is usually highly questionable. ACI (acute myocardial infarct) incidence has been linked to unsaturated fats, and colorectal cancer to haemoglobin in haem flesh, but the issue is not really one of vegetarians versus carnivores so much as quantity and proportion in a well-balanced diet. Though no doubt commercial issues are at stake, they are more to do with the rivalry between producers of red and white meat. (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

True and its not like there aren't vegetarian foods that are just as dangerous. Spinach is one of the few foods where its actually possible in extreme cases to get iron poisoning. Its one the foods doctors tell parents to monitor around very young child. Each year a handful of mild cases actually get reported and severe cases every few years. Granted most people aren't likely to eat 3-5 pounds of spinach in day...but there is always someone. In comparison actual iron poisoning from common meats is nearly impossible. So as mentioned the overall point is a roughly balanced diet over the a span of several days. In excess meat has its downsides as do many vegetarian items.

And of course reflection on truly ancient diets of uncivilized man effecting DNA suggests that a diet that is balanced every day is NOT healthy. If you think about it the livers ability to store and later deliver nutrients should probably be exercised rather than set up to stagnate. That is, a diet based on primitive man should probably have periods of fast and famine with respect to many nutrients as ancients would gorge on "windfalls" of certain foods one day and circumstances and travel would make a different food or even no food available another. (talk)

Overall I suspect the political correctness campaign against meat has a US-UN government origin and is not motivated as much by improving personal health as by world overpopulation and third world foreign relation concerns which started in the early 1960s. Its quite true that eating lower on the food pyramid is more efficient use of agricultural land.

Unfortunately VEGAN does NOT solve World Hunger. Its merely a delaying tactic. which will actually will make the starvation crash worse in the end (after all when meat eaters run out of meat they can fall back to vegetable sources & still benefit from the wake up call on world population). Nor vegetarianism make timely transportation of food to overburdened areas more practical or economic -- one of the biggest factors in the inequalities of third world starvation. Lots of fossil fuels burned taking food to remote marginally inhabitable locations on the earth. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cited articles don't really say about red meat what the article alleges they say.[edit]

Of the three cited studies under the subheading, "Other Health Issues," none of them deal directly or exclusively with red meat.

The abstract of the first study stated, "'Excess'" dietary protein from either animal or plant proteins may be detrimental to bone health, Italic textbut its effect will be modified by other nutrients in the food and total diet. (emphasis mine)[25].

The second study compared the entirety of the Western lifestyle (including inactivity, high-fat foods, refined grains, french fries and other fried foods) with a 'prudent' lifestyle (with more exercise, whole grains, low-fat foods)[26].

Lastly, the third compared the lifestyle of 7th-day Adventists who abstained from meat with those who did not, but those who abstained from meat also typically abstained from alcohol, cigarettes, and other unhealthy food and practices [14]. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

All good points. I removed the first two studies. I don't have the time to tackle 7th-day studies yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs (talkcontribs) 07:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Red meat consumption is associated with cardiovascular diseases" - a recent Harvard metaanalysis did not find this association ( - can't find a link to the full study). I think the page should at least note that the conclusion is disputed. In addition, I looked at the 7th Day Adventist study, and I can't find any association between red meat and CV disease (unless the page is just referring to association between meat generally and CV disease, which I think is a bit misleading). In addition, both red meat and white meat increased the risk of colon cancer. I'm no expert, but it even looks like someone who ate little white meat but a lot of red meat had a lower risk of colon cancer than someone who ate a little red meat but a lot of white meat. Again, the page seems misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation Quality (of Nutrition section)[edit]

I have been working gradually to increase the citation quality of this and other articles. Recently, one of my revisions to increase the citation quality and provide a balanced viewpoint was reverted, so I want to talk about the citation quality we should expect in the nutrition section of an article.

First of all, the absolute worse citation is to cite a news article about a study (that contains no scientific citations). It doesn't matter if it comes from the BBC. Using these second-hand sources just leads to passing on inaccuracies created by journalists and their editors. The best sources are scientific peer-reviewed journal articles. The next best source would be a web page or something without scientific peer review but that has scientific citations. If the author(s) of that source is in the field, than that source would be even better. A bad source would be any web page without scientific citations. Gregwebs (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCES. I agree that scientific citations are ideal, however a blog by a PhD candidate is not reliable. Blogs are not peer reviewed and not verifiable nor reliable. The blog entry should be replaced with a real ref as per your comments above. Replacing a fact tag with a blog is not acceptable. Bob98133 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I do understand that a blog post is a lower quality citation do to the lack of scientific peer review. My main problem with the undo was that it was restoring newspaper article citations. Back to the blog post- here is the problem- for almost all studies, it will be impossible to find a peer-reviewed criticism of the study. That is simply not how scientific journals work. So to me the next best thing is a detailed, well-referenced crtticism by someone in the field. And that brings up the problem with applying this Wikipedia guideline to nutritional studies- it does not distinguish between zero-referenced and well-referenced sources.
With the current form of the sentence, it is a *fact* that it has been criticized by the referenced source. To remove the source, the sentence would have to be changed: "The study used inaccurate food-frequency questionarires...". However, without citing a source of criticism, I think we would be doing original research on Wikipedia. Gregwebs (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I would replace the current blog reference with "a blogger suggested that..." since that is all that ref is good for. That's where media are sometimes good sources since reporters will often seek out knowledgeable experts in a field for their points of view which can then be carefully cited and frequently are. I'm not objecting to the content and I appreciate your adding refs to the article, it's just using the blog as a ref without stating that it is a blog gives the impression that the source meets WP:SOURCES criteria which is not at all certain. There is no real reason to even believe that the blogger is who he says he is as the entire site could have been put up by a third or even fictitious party. I know it's being a little fussy, but I think there is a good reason not to cite blogs. If you're that determined to use this as a ref, I won't revert, but I still would think that there must be a better source or else the objection to the study probably shouldn't be cited at all. Bob98133 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been at least 1 published [criticism] of the study. I am now using that as the source. Unfortunately since I have only read the opening few sentences I can only point to one of the critiques and use the other citations to back it up- this could be interpreted as original research. Gregwebs (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I love this article. Reference battles between pushy vegetarians and vested cattle ranchers being touted in tandem as "facts." See, I despise Wikipedia. It's a stir-fry of propaganda that results in a mess of pop culture vomit. Get a clue: ANYONE who funds a study on whether meat, red or not, is good for you, WILL have an agenda. This subject isn't one of curiosity. So in the midst of this appeal to authority fencing, a liberal encyclopaedia would reference every anti-meat study done, while a conservative encyclopaedia would refer to every pro-meat study, and a truly objective encyclopaedia would throw out any source for which bias could be assumed. Study funded by a ranchers union? Nope. Study funded by PETA? Nope. Study performed at a university? Let's examine the exit polls of that city on average and try to suss out whether this is a bunch of hippies or teabaggers running the lab. Wikipedia entirely fails all three versions and the results do not resemble a deterministic truth in any way. I want to thank you all for this article. It gives me something to point at when I explain to people why wikipedia is full of shit. (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Can someone provide the article with some info on whether red meat makes one more aggressive or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Since red meat is a first a culinary term and secondarily a nutritional term one would expect this article to be about its culinary properties. While in fact this article seems to be taken over by the nutritional concerns. A section discussing the culinary practices specific to red meat would be useful. For example. cooking methods (i.e. roasting preferred for most red meats). Wine parings (i.e. red wine with red meat). The muscular groups that are red vs white on an animal ie dark meat vs white meat on chicken. A discussion on the culinary reasons duck is treated as red, while chicken white. ( (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

You would need to supply a reference that red meat is in fact a culinary term, since it is treated as a nutritional term. When heath studies report about the effects of red meat, they rarely describe how it was cooked, except in the case of smoking or grilling where the cooking process apparently introduces other heath factors. (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"Red meat" has been a culinary term for a long time; the article already cites the Oxford English Dictionary and Larousse Gastronomique on the topic. Yes, of course the term has also been used in nutrition for quite a while. --macrakis (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
One has to only look up the word in the dictionary "Meats such as beef that are dark red in colour when uncooked". (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, why did this culinary article turn into a biased nutritional article? (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On "convincing"[edit]

I did not realize that the word "convincing" has been edited over before my most recent edit. If you want to use the word "convincing" in relation to the evidence because the reference uses that word, then say that the ref considers it convincing. Because alone it is pretty much just PoV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On "convincing"[edit]

I did not realize that the word "convincing" has been edited over before my most recent edit. If you want to use the word "convincing" in relation to the evidence because the reference uses that word, then say that the ref considers it convincing. Because alone it is pretty much just PoV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "red meat" just...beef?[edit]

Clearly, the phrase includes beef. Beyond beef, what do we have? Is pork "red meat"? Lamb? Horse? For a term so common, it seems that people rarely have a clear idea of what it means. Hmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the first sentence of the lead. Bob98133 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"studies were disassembled"[edit]

Whatever does "However, these studies were disassembled in 2007" mean? This sentence appears at the end of the Health Risks / Cancer section. All the references to "studies were disassembled" that I can find on the Web lead back to this very article. I'm inclined to think that the sentence is a long-lived piece of vandalism. However, I would like to offer the opportunity to teach me the import and customary usage of this fascinating phrase before I go ahead and remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrykoen (talkcontribs) 04:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nutrition section and overall bias due to large health risk section[edit]

The size of the health risks section compared to the nutritional information seems quite biased to me, and implies that red meat is unhealthy to eat in any amount. (even if the actual information given doesn't) I suggest expanding the nutrition information; to make this article both more informative, and better balanced.Rody1990 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

~Health risks[edit]

This website:

reports on a recent study which highlights the health risks of a diet high in red meat - perhaps it could go in the article, as it is a recent study which mentions health risks. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Did PETA write this article?[edit]

This is one of the most un-balanced articles I have seen on wikipedia, it's almost up there with a conservapedia article about the Democrats! 5% about what red meat is, 95% about 'red meat will give you cancer'. It seems the 'author' has trawled the web for every single study that could possibly indicate a health risk regarding red meat, pulled everything out of context and listed every single one. Whoever wrote it clearly has an agenda. Considering that most of the developed world eats red meat on a regular basis, I don't see us all droping dead from cancer like this 'article' would have you beleive.

The page makes cigarettes look healthy by comparison! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely some undue weight going on here. (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at it, I've tagged the article as being unbalanced. I welcome improvement from any editors interested. (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The article has excellent sourcing. What viewpoints in particular do you view as being neglected? --hydrox (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).