One study says all the other studies provide only weak evidence that we should cut back on the consumption of red meat. Consumers may wonder what to believe. (iStock)

Do we trust science? McGill professor weighs in

A recent study suggested there was not enough evidence to prove that people should avoid eating red meat and processed meats. This ran contrary to previous studies which have, for years, suggested that  consumption of these meats should be reduced to avoid cardiovascular disease. 

The study caused much controversy particularly when it was revealed that one of the 13 scientists involved had five years earlier conducted a study on sugar which received some funding by an industry with a vested interest. The scientist was criticized for not reporting that in the current study on meat. However the journal publishing the study only requires a scientist report any conflict of interest that occurred within the last three years.

Study not ‘really meaningful,’ says professor

“It’s irrelevant, irrelevant when it comes to this paper,” says Prof. Joe Schwarcz, director of the McGill University Office for Science and Society. “What we should be looking at is whether the advice that they (the authors of the study) are now giving, that people … do not need to cut back on their meat consumption because there is just too little evidence that they will reap any benefit… that’s what we need to look at…Unfortunately I don’t think it’s very meaningful.”

The safety of eating meat depends on many factors such as portion size, how the meat is prepared and one’s own health conditions. (iStock)

Many factors to take into account

Schwarcz says weak evidence is not the same as no evidence. This study did not look at portions, how the meat is cooked, how often it is consumed and what is being eaten with it. Nor does it take into account who is eating it and what their medical profile may be.

Schwarcz is less concerned by who may have funded a study than he is by which studies may have not been published out of concern for the effect on funders. “That’s why, these days, what I push for is some sort of agency that would require that any study that is undertaken be registered with that agency before the study is started, so that you can’t hide the data and you’d be forced to publish even if it’s contrary to what you would like it to be.”

The official Canada Food Guide consists of half fruit and vegetables, one-quarter whole grains and one-quarter various sources of protein. (Government of Canada)

Canada Food Guide based on best science, says professor

Schwarcz’s view is that the Canada Food Guide has the correct recommendations for what people should eat based on the current science. And that suggests that half a dinner plate should hold vegetables and fruit, one-quarter should hold whole grains and the last quarter should hold a protein that could be meat, fish, beans or lentils, or nuts.

He is concerned that conflicting studies may shake people’s confidence in science, as may sensational media reports about them. But he urges people to look at studies and to assess their methods and accuracy. And he adds, people can always turn to his office which is neutral and dedicated to making science accessible to the public.

Prof. Joe Schwarcz says scientific studies should be registered before they begin. (YouTube)
Categories: Health, Internet, Science and Technology
Tags: , , ,

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

@*@ Comments

Leave a Reply

Note: By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Radio Canada International has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Radio Canada International does not endorse any of the views posted. Your comments will be pre-moderated and published if they meet Netiquette guidelines.

When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don’t always think alike—and that’s precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it’s important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1.’s online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3.’s online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in five languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish or in one of the two official languages, English or French. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  10. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  11. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International  is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  12. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  13. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International  forums is prohibited.
  14. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  15. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  16. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  17. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  18. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


One comment on “Do we trust science? McGill professor weighs in
  1. Avatar Ursula Wagner says:

    As I read the first post about this subject, saying that red meat does not cause
    illnesses , is not unhealthy , I thought, for whom are these people doing this study work for or, get their money from.

    I could only shake my head.

    Since a long time I am sure, that that is wrong. It reminded me of the sugar lobby,
    who told people the same nonsense for many years.

    On top of that red meat causes a lot of climate change. I think everyone know by now why.