Red Meat's Trial by Media: When Theoretical Swaps Make Headlines and Common Sense Takes a Holiday

Response to a New York Times Article and Summary of A Plant Protein Study

Ah, red meat – the culinary villain that we’ve been told is lurking in every sausage, steak, and burger, ready to clog our arteries with every bite. And now, in the latest plot twist from the food drama series no one asked for, plant protein has swooped in wearing its spinach-caped superhero costume to save the day. Or at least, that's the tale spun by certain studies and the occasional overly earnest nutrition article that shall not be named (looking at you, New York Times). But hold on! The plot thickens when you realize the battle between plant protein and red meat is less real-life brawl and more hand-wavey “what if” scenario. No steaks were sacrificed in the making of this hypothetical drama; it’s all thought-experiment theater. So, grab a fork, and let’s dig into why the meat-vs-plants debate might just be a thinly sliced case of selective science served with a side of bias. What am I waffling on about? Let me begin…

The New York Times recently published an article that appears heavily biased in highlighting conflicts of interest only in studies that suggest red meat may not be as harmful as traditionally depicted. Similar conflicts of interest are prevalent in studies supporting plant-based diets, but these are not given comparable scrutiny. Below is a response to the article, a summary of the provided plant protein study, and a detailed critique focusing on misuse of relative risks, confounders, and biases.

Critical Review of the New York Times Article

Bias and Frames of Concern

1. Selective Focus on Conflicts of Interest:

   • The article emphasizes how red meat appears healthier in studies funded by the meat industry but ignores similar funding sources behind many plant-based studies. For example:

     • Studies promoting plant-based diets often receive funding from organizations with vested interests in plant-based products, including companies producing soy products, supplements, and processed vegetarian foods.

   • By implying that financial conflicts are predominantly a meat-industry issue, the article neglects the broader issue of funding biases in the scientific research ecosystem.

     

1. Weak Associations Misrepresented as Cause-Effect:

   • Statements such as, “We've long known that eating saturated fats, which are abundant in red meat, has been associated with cardiovascular disease,” conflate correlation with causation. The word “known” misleadingly implies definitive proof, while the evidence for saturated fat-causing heart disease remains contested.

   • Similarly, claims about plant protein reducing cardiovascular risk are largely based on relative risks (e.g., Hazard Ratios in studies) that are not particularly pronounced and may be influenced by confounders like lifestyle differences.

2. Flawed Logical Inconsistencies and Nuances Overlooked:

   • The article fails to note that most large-scale epidemiological studies (including some that favor plant-based diets) are observational in nature. These studies cannot effectively demonstrate causation due to confounding factors like socioeconomic status, physical activity, smoking habits, and overall diet quality.

Potential Double Standard:

If it is concerning that meat industry funding affects conclusions, why is it not equally concerning when plant-based studies receive substantial support from advocacy groups or commercial entities? For example, soy industry groups have been implicated in funding nutrition studies that highlight health benefits of soy protein while dismissing the risks of processed soy products.

Summary of the Plant Protein Study

Key Findings

The study titled “Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality in a Japanese Cohort” presents the following main conclusions:

1. Plant Protein:

   • Higher intake of plant protein was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR for the highest quintile: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78–0.96) and cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related mortality (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59–0.91).

   • Substituting 3% energy from plant protein for red meat protein reduced total mortality (HR: 0.66), cancer-related mortality (HR: 0.61), and CVD-related mortality (HR: 0.58). Put another way, and I quote from the study, “Furthermore, our study showed that substitution of 3% energy of plant protein instead of red meat protein would result in an absolute risk reduction of overall mortality at 15 years of 3.60%”

2. Animal Protein:

   • No significant association was found between animal protein intake and all-cause or cause-specific mortality. However, red and processed meat intakes were associated with higher risks when consumed instead of plant proteins.

Limitations of the Study

1. Residual Confounding:

   • The study adjusted for confounders like physical activity, smoking, and caloric intake, but confounding due to unmeasured variables such as overall diet quality could persist.

   • Plant protein consumption was associated with so-called healthier eating patterns (e.g., higher consumption of vegetables and soy foods), which may independently reduce mortality risks. There is also healthy user bias to consider.

2. Relative Risk vs. Absolute Risk:

   • Reporting hazard ratios like 0.66 can sound impactful, but these represent relative, not absolute, risk reductions. The absolute risk differences (e.g., a 3.6% reduction over 15 years) are modest.

   • For example, replacing 3% energy from red meat with plant protein would hypothetically reduce overall mortality by around 3.60% over 15 years—a small difference in practical terms. (See the end of the article for more on this)

3. Observational Design:

   • The study’s observational design inherently cannot establish causation. It relies on participants’ self-reported eating behaviors, which are subject to recall bias and inaccuracies.

   • The plant protein benefits could partially arise from behaviors associated with healthier lifestyles (e.g., less smoking and alcohol consumption in the plant-focused cohort).

4. Potential Overgeneralization:

   • Though conducted in Japan, where dietary patterns emphasize nutrient diversity (e.g., soy and fish-based proteins), the findings may not be generalized to populations with Western eating habits.

     

Point-by-Point Counterarguments Against the NYT Claims

Relative Risk and Causation Misused

• Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease:

  • Many newer meta-analyses and randomized trials (e.g., PURE study) suggest no consistent relationship between saturated fat consumption and heart disease when confounders (e.g., refined carbohydrate intake) are controlled.

  • Yet, public health messaging informed by weak epidemiological associations continues to demonize red meat largely to influence dietary norms against high-meat diets.

Conflicts of Interest in Plant-Based Research

• Example studies:

  • A 2019 systematic review on plant-based diets funded by plant protein advocacy groups (e.g., soy industry) emphasized benefits while minimizing concerns about anti-nutrients or processing.

  • Multiple epidemiological studies promoting soy products’ cardiovascular benefits received direct funding or consultancy support from soy product manufacturers.

Criticisms Highlighting Selection Bias in Narrative

1. By mentioning only meat-backed studies as distorted by funding, the article avoids a fair critique of the "halo effect" frequently attributed to plant-based diets within scientific journals and the media. It paints plant proteins as inherently virtuous, despite similar limitations in observational methodologies.

2. The portrayal of saturated fats as consistently linked to health risks disregards growing evidence challenging this narrative.

Studies With Conflicts Favoring Plant-Based Diets

Here are a few examples:

1. Soy Protein Claiming Cardiovascular Reduction:

   • The American Heart Association once endorsed soy protein benefits for heart health. However, later reviews retracted these endorsements due to support from soy-product manufacturers influencing initial data collection and framing.

2. EAT-Lancet Commission:

   • The 2019 EAT-Lancet diet promoting plant-based sustainable eating had heavy backing by sustainability-driven organizations and plant-based food industry groups. Critics point out strong biases toward plant inclusivity in dietary recommendations.

     

Hypothetical Swaps: Reality Check and Recap

Now, looking at the Japanese cohort study that suggests swapping 3% of your daily energy from red meat protein with plant protein could theoretically reduce your total mortality risk by 3.6% over 15 years, let’s keep this in perspective. First, this is entirely hypothetical. No actual participants in the study were instructed to ditch burgers for beans or trade steaks for tofu. Researchers simply ran statistical models estimating what might happen if such substitutions were made. So, before anyone panics and starts doing meal makeovers at three in the morning, rest assured: this whole idea of replacing red meat with plant protein exists solely in the realm of spreadsheets and statistical extrapolation.

Perspective: The Tiny Impact

About that 3.6% reduction in total mortality over 15 years – it sounds promising until you break it down. Let me put it this way: if a room full of 1,000 people lived their lives munching on plant protein instead of red meat for the next decade and a half, around 36 fewer people might theoretically buy their celestial ticket earlier than expected. That’s fewer than the number of people you'd typically find standing in line for brunch at a trendy vegan café on Sunday morning. Not exactly a game-changer when you consider the absolute risks involved.

Conclusion

While some studies claim plant proteins may have benefits in the context of overall dietary patterns and lifestyle, the biases present in both plant-based and meat-based research must be equally scrutinized. Observational data does not reliably establish causation, and absolute effect sizes are often overhyped in media narratives like the New York Times article. The article fails to hold plant-based studies to the same standard of critical review, creating an uneven portrayal that favors one dietary ideology over another.

So, what’s the takeaway? Well, no one in this Japanese cohort study actually swapped steak for soy or bacon for lentils. The findings were purely hypothetical, based on statistical models predicting risks – not on food diaries filled with plant-to-animal protein substitutions. It’s like running computer simulations to see how your life might improve if you spent 3% of your calorie budget on kale instead of cookies – interesting in theory, but it doesn’t mean you’ve handed over your Oreos in real life. And as for the New York Times article? Let’s just say it’s a lot of sizzling drama for what might just be vegetarian sausage dressed up as beef.

Other References:

Budhathoki S, Sawada N, Iwasaki M, Yamaji T, Goto A, Kotemori A, Ishihara J, Takachi R, Charvat H, Mizoue T, Iso H, Tsugane S; Japan Public Health Center–based Prospective Study Group. Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality in a Japanese Cohort. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Nov 1;179(11):1509-1518. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2806. Erratum in: JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1;179(10):1448. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4883. PMID: 31682257; PMCID: PMC6714005.

There's also a companion paper from the same PURE study specifically about fruit, vegetable, and legume intake:

"Fruit, vegetable, and legume intake, and cardiovascular disease and deaths in 18 countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study" by Miller V, Mente A, Dehghan M, et al.

This can be found at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32253-5/fulltext

These papers contain the actual findings of the PURE study regarding diet, cardiovascular disease, and mortality across different populations.

New York Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/well/eat/red-meat-heart-health.html