Talk:Red meat

message: The NutriRECS paper uses a different methodology which has been heavily criticized by health authorities as flawed , . 14 health organizations including all of the leading cancer organizations such as the American Institute for Cancer Research, American Society for Preventive Oncology, Bowel Cancer Australia, Bowel Cancer UK, Cancer Council Australia and International Agency for Research on Cancer disagree with their interpretation of the scientific evidence. This has been discussed already on this talk-page and others. The NutriRECS goes against scientific consensus. It is undue weight to be citing it on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as mentioned in the archives of this talk-page. Lead researcher, Bradley C. Johnston did not report his food industry ties , which included funding from the beef industry  "The nutrition research group whose recent study drew heavy attention for downplaying the risks of red meat has received funding from a university program partially backed by the beef industry" Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Thought it was weird that they didn't recommend against processed meats. I had no idea. I'll look at other secondary sources. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to create an article about NutriRECS, because new users have showed up here and on related pages citing it, claiming it has disproven any older research. NutriRECS has confused a lot of people unfamiliar with this topic and it has also played into the hands of carnivore diet advocates (such as a user on this talk-page who was previously blocked here for repeatedly edit-warring). They will cite only the NutriRECS reviews and ignore decades of research and the consensus view from all the health authorities including the IARC findings. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely notable enough for an article. Question: do you know of a meta-analysis or review of red meat RCTs? Bradley is involved in this article so I'd like to find a better one. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bradley's paper is only of interest as an example of industry funded research. It could be included in this article as flawed and biased study, to show how the meat industry tries to influence consumers. At least, that‘s how we dealt with the paper in the German language version of Wikipedia. CarlFromVienna (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: NutriRECS

message: Sbelknap who has been topic banned from editing medical articles added several review papers heavily sponsored by the beef and pork industry onto this Wikipedia article. This review for example that he added was funded by the The Pork Checkoff . The authors also received funding from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork Board, North Dakota Beef Commission and Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education. This is heavy industry funded research with an obvious bias, it has no place on Wikipedia. I have removed these sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Information here by Marion Nestle to why industry funded studies like this have no validity  Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Industry funded research removed