This story is almost too incredulous to believe. But with special interests and doctors who have staked their credibility on the vegetarian side of the fence, including the deliberate breaking of a publication embargo to mount that backlash, which is a serious ethical breach in the research community - - one would need to ask, “Can anyone spell u-n-e-t-h-i-c-a-l?”
In this month’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), “Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists,” by Rita Rubin, that’s exactly what happened last fall as editors from the Annals of Internal Medicine were about to publish several studies showing that the evidence linking red meat consumption with cardiovascular disease and cancer is too weak to recommend that adults eat less of it.
The JAMA article (in link above) documents the orchestrated backlash from a lobby group that tried to intimidate editors at Annals of Internal Medicine into not publishing a series of scientific papers that found research to date was too weak regarding red meat is a significant health risk.
From the the WSJ, January, 17, 2020:
Annals of Internal Medicine Editor-in-Chief Christine Laine, M.D. tells Ms. Rubin that an outfit [lobby group] called the True Health Initiative was particularly caustic in criticizing the idea that red meat might not be as dangerous as many Americans have been led to believe.
The True Health Initiative (THI) is a nonprofit founded and headed by David Katz, MD., Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, and Frank Hu, MD, PhD, Harvard nutrition researchers who are among the top names in their field, serve on the THI council of directors. Katz, Willett, and Hu took the rare step of contacting Laine about retracting the studies prior to their publication, she recalled in an interview with JAMA.
In particular, in the JAMA article Rubin also noted:
But what has for the most part been overlooked is that Katz and THI and many of its council members have numerous industry ties themselves. The difference is that their ties are primarily with companies and organizations that stand to profit if people eat less red meat and a more plant-based diet. Unlike the beef industry, these entities are surrounded by an aura of health and wellness, although that isn’t necessarily evidence-based.
[But in the end, Dr. Christine Laine laments to Ms. Rubin,]
The cacophony that has erupted over the meat papers is drowning out the valid points they made. The sad thing is that the important messages have been lost. Trustworthy guidelines used to depend on who were the organizations or the people they came from. Today, though, the public should know we don’t have great information on diet. We shouldn’t make people scared they’re going to have a heart attack or colon cancer if they eat red meat.