Dr. Peer Ederer, during his presentation at this year’s Henry C. Gardiner Global Food Systems Conference at Kansas State University (partially sponsored by Farm Journal), noted that when it comes to the relationship between meat and health, some scientists are “willfully manipulating the discourse.” And my previous column addressed a real-life example of the fallout when that occurs.
But in reality the tension goes much broader than just a single example. For instance, over 40% of U.S. adults are now categorized as obese – that’s up from ~15% in the mid-80s. It’s more than doubled in just the past forty years. The time frame is especially pertinent. That’s because it was during the late-70s and early-80s the push to reduce animal fat (i.e. eat less meat) began in earnest. And that all stemmed from the McGovern Council’s recommendations for a “heart healthy” diet.
In light of those recommendations, Gary Taubes describes the obesity trend this way (Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It):
As a nation, we were told to eat less fat and less saturated fat, which we did, or at least tried to do – saturated-fat consumption steadily declined over the years that followed, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics – and yet, rather than getting leaner, we got fatter…
And, of course, there’s all sorts of health and productivity ramifications associated that occurrence.
Perhaps the most alarming (and/or dangerous) health trend occurring involves the ever-rising incidence of diabetes. The World Health Organization notes that, “In the past 3 decades the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has risen dramatically in countries of all income levels.”
Many of the detractors once again point to meat as the cause; “aha, it must be we’re eating too much meat – we should reduce our consumption even further.” Meanwhile, total meat consumption in the U.S. actually bottomed in 2014 at ~200 lb per capita – and last year’s level was roughly equal to that versus 20 years ago. But somehow, someway, meat still gets blamed
Given those trends, it’s clear that solving our weight and/or diabetes issues is far more complicated than simply eliminating meat from the diet. Once again, let’s turn to Gary Taubes. He points out that meat is not the culprit (see The Case Against Sugar) – emphases mine:
The Inuit, for instance, pastoral populations like the Masai in Kenya, or South Pacific Islanders like those on the New Zealand protectorate of Tokelau, consumed less fat, (and in some cases less meat) over the course of their relevant nutrition transitions [ as they became more affluent], and yet they, too experienced more obesity, diabetes, and heart disease (and cancer as well.) These populations are the counter-examples that suggest that this dietary-fat hypothesis is wrong.
Some readers may remember NBC’s prime time hit from the early 2000s called The Biggest Loser. At the start of the 8th season (2011) I wrote a column about the show. I noted that, “one of the key components of The Biggest Loser is the show’s emphasis upon the complexity of issues surrounding weight gain and obesity. After all, if it were simple there’d be no show.”
These are complex issues. Accordingly, the zealots who simply proclaim less-meat-equals-better-health are guilty of “willfully manipulating the discourse”; the pragmatic evidence doesn’t support that claim.
Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at [email protected].
Your Next Reads: The Foundation of the Cattle Industry Is Grass
Beef It Up: Why Meat Matters