A recent study suggested European and North American adults need not alter their red meat consumption. Now, scrutiny of the lead researcher's history has sparked conflict of interest claims.
Since 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified red meat and processed meats as carcinogenic to humans, based on an evaluation of more than 800 studies worldwide. Yet, a review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on October 1, 2019, by about 20 researchers reached a different conclusion.
The authors advised that adults in Europe and North America should not change their current red meat intake. They deemed an average of three to four servings per week acceptable—a stance that extended to processed meats like charcuterie. The review also downplayed or refuted common health risks associated with this diet.
Health authorities and organizations quickly distanced themselves from these findings. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), for instance, affirmed it would not revise its guidelines.
On October 4, 2019, the New York Times spotlighted lead researcher Bradley Johnston from Dalhousie University's Department of Community Health and Epidemiology in Canada. Johnston had assured the journal of no involvement in studies posing conflict of interest risks over the prior three years.
Yet, in 2016, he headed a controversial study downplaying sugar overconsumption risks, funded by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)—backed by major food companies like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and PepsiCo.
Johnston countered that the ILSI funding was received in 2015—four years earlier—and thus not reportable. The Annals of Internal Medicine editor noted that researchers' declarations are accepted on trust, without independent verification.
While Johnston faces the spotlight, he worked with a full team of researchers. Notably, the New York Times highlighted ILSI's track record: the WHO has previously criticized the group for countering its recommendations to protect funder interests.
Related Articles:
