Not to dispute your point, but out of curiosity,

If CR was bankrolled by big food and big pharma what interest would they have in dissuading meat consumption? Would they not say the opposite or indeed just not say it?

The same thing is on the NHS website:

So big food (ie UPF or Junk Food) is essentially owned by 9 worldwide brands. The huge profits are NOT in Real Food.. they come from the UPF. No way would Big Food want UPF to be recognised as addictive (hence there is no official classification of food addiction in DSM or ICD) or the cause of obesity, cancer and the rest of it. Here’s an article from the BMJ about COKE for example. In fact the BMJ has carried numerous articles like this.. I just picked one at random

https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k5050

So we can see where the vested interests of the food cos come from

As for Big Pharma: To put it simply, they have no interest in prevention.. they wouldn’t sell any drugs! Of course its much more complicated than that but these are simple truths

Susan Greenhalgh investigates how, faced with shrinking Western markets, the soft drink giant sought to secure sales and build its image in China

Grahamsphillips

What do you think about this meta study for example?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/

It collates together many studies and seems to show that there is a positive correlation between cr cancer risk the more red meat is eaten, not just processed meat. If so then it tends to support the blue zones diet which does include meat but in relatively small quantities.

    Ernie1 The problem is a lot of the statements comes from research (“studies”) and you have to be super careful when reading such statements. This is because such research “studies” can be based on other “studies” and often there is either a paucity of actual experimental data, funding interests on some research and of course the issues about self selected/reported data for studies. e.g.

    • cancer research, plant foods companies etc.. funds studies or research
    • processed or non processed food industry funds
    • how good is the study and the study or research it’s based on
    • do you really understand the statistics used
    • why does red and processed meat always seem to be lumped together
    • what were the questions asked of respondents, did the respondents understand the distinction between red meat and processed meat correctly. e.g. a natural burger and a heavily processed one
    • cheap and expensive meat, not all red meat is created equal
    • were lifestyle and cultural differences excluded
    • was the whole diet examined, or just meat consumption e.g. were lots of high fibre veg being consumed?

    There’s loads more issues that need to be considered.

    Contact me

        If we’re now referencing the Daily Mail I think I’ve seen all I need to see in this thread.

          Ernie1 If we’re now referencing the Daily Mail I think I’ve seen all I need to see in this thread.

          Far from referencing the Daily Fail. The point is it’s a simple to understand explanation. I’ve already posted a more complex reference from the BMJ.

            Grahamsphillips

            Arent you dismissing the weight of scientific research by a multitude of dcientists workjng independently all over the world as being impelled by a cabal of agri businesses but following instead a journalist who writes a book to promote her own diet and earns money through it? I found her absolute dismissal of the importance of the fibre in fruits and vegetables and of th ebenefits of fruits to be startling. Meat and butter cannot replace what fruits can give us and fruits come with fibre that control the intake of sugar into the bloodstream…

              DavecUK

              Those acadenic studies arent perfect but there is nothing else that is able to give a better and less subjectivr source of data on which we can make decisions…

                  chlorox Those acadenic studies arent perfect but there is nothing else that is able to give a better and less subjectivr source of data on which we can make decisions…

                  What I was taught in university was to be very careful about epidemiological studies and scientific papers. Lots of real rubbish work out there. You really have to dig into the meat of it and how the statements of fact were really arrived at.

                  Contact me

                      DavecUK

                      That is true but rhat is also why the methodology etc are all required to be set out in peer reviewed academic papers. Other sources of data have far less rigour and control and disclosure.