Environmental and Public Health Reasons to Eat Less Meat
This article shows some of the environmental and public health concerns of meat-based diets, from energy efficiency matters to the emergence of chronic and zoonotic diseases. Ultimately, it argues that -in order to achieve a healthier and more sustainable world- we will need to eat more plant-based diets.
1. Eating Plant-Based Diets: Prejudice vs Evidence
- 1.1. Do we Need Meat?
- 1.2. Individuals Should Follow the “Healthy Eating Plate” Guidelines
- 1.3. Societies Should Follow the “Planetary Health Diet” Guidelines
2. The Efficiency of Plant-based vs Animal-based Diets
3. Habitat Degradation and Destruction
4. Global Warming and Climate Change
5. Chronic and Zoonotic Diseases
- 5.1. Cancer
- 5.2. Emergent Zoonoses
6. What Can be Done?
7. Future Perspectives
1. Eating Plant-based Diets: Prejudice vs Evidence
Let me start with some staggering numbers. In terms of biomass, only 4% of all mammals on Earth are wild nowadays, with the remaining 96% being livestock and humans. Similarly, more than 70% of all birds are poultry (mainly chickens) (1). Literally, we have created a world full of livestock.
We all know a good proportion of vegans and vegetarians choose their diets based on compelling ethical issues about the welfare of those farm animals. Indeed, the actual suffering and cruelty many domesticated animals experience in factory farms is not a minor problem. In words of Yuval Noah Harari:
“domesticated animals are collectively the most successful animals in the world, and at the same time they are individually the most miserable animals that have ever existed”
Nevertheless, the consumption of animal products involves much more than that. This article touches some of those other environmental and public health concerns the general public also deserves to be aware of.
- 1.1. Do we Need Meat?
In the raging debate over meat-eating, prejudice certainly abounds and there are many misconceptions on what eating -or not eating- meat implies. The vast majority of advocates of meat-based diets tend to defend its consumption for being natural, normal, necessary and/or nice, a set of justifications that can be referred to as the 4Ns (2). Of these, the argument for the necessity of meat is usually offered as a defense by meat lovers.
Indeed, there is a widespread idea that plant-based diets do not provide all the nutrients our bodies need (2), of which proteins, iron and vitamin B12 are usually the ones that never fail to come up during any meat-eating debate. In this regard, the following represents a very brief and simple summary of some important points to take into account:
-Proteins:
With the exception of quinoa and chia seeds, proteins from individual plant-based foods (fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and seeds) usually lack one or more of the nine essential amino acids (i.e. amino acids that our bodies cannot produce from scratch), whereas proteins from animal food sources (meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy) are usually complete (i.e. proteins that contain all amino acids). However, by combining different protein-rich plant foods, people who do not eat animal-based foods can still get all the amino acids they need. In fact, according to Harvard’s School of Public Health:
“Eating legumes (beans and peas), nuts, seeds, whole grains, and other plant-based sources of protein is a win for your health and the health of the planet.”
-Iron & vitamin B12:
On a similar note, it is a fact that the iron obtained from animal sources (heme iron) is better absorbed by our bodies than the iron from plant-source products. However, in Western countries, vegans and vegetarians who eat a varied diet are not necessarily at a greater risk of iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians, since well-balanced plant-based diets provide just enough levels of this mineral (2.1).
In contrast, studies have shown that vegans and vegetarians do tend to have low vitamin B12 blood levels (2.2). Thus, the current recommendation from experts is that both of these groups should incorporate B12-fortified foods or B12 supplements in their diets. This aspect is seen by some people as unnatural and thus is commonly used to criticize those who abstain from eating animals. What a lot of people do not actually know is that ruminants are usually supplemented with cobalt in order to obtain vitamin B12.
The reason why this mineral is added in animal feed as a supplement is that vitamin B12 is synthesized through the incorporation of cobalt by bacteria that live inside ruminant’s guts; and since many soils where the cows graze have low cobalt levels (2.3), their bacteria might not be able to produce enough levels of this vitamin, meaning that ruminants can easily develop a deficiency. This is especially important for livestock fed with high-grain diets (more typical of intensive farming), as these require more cobalt than forage-based diets (more typical of extensive farming).
-So, going back to the question, do we need meat to be healthy?
There is no doubt that meat is a very rich source of energy and nutrients, such as the aforementioned protein, iron and vitamin B12; and for some people from impoverished parts of the world, such as nomadic pastoralists in desert environments or the Inuit people in the Arctic, meat can be indispensable from a nutritional point of view. In these particular cases, due to a patent lack of access to alternative resources, a reduction in meat could be detrimental and lead to a deterioration of their health and well-being (3).
However, given an adequate supply of non-animal products, well-planned plant-based diets can provide a sufficient amount of those same essential nutrients (4). In this sense, scientific evidence shows that, in rich and developed countries, meat is neither necessary for our health nor environmentally sustainable, in general terms. In fact, animal-based diets are generally associated with a higher intrinsic impact than their plant-based counterparts, both in terms of planetary harm and public health concerns (5).
According to the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics:
“appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage”
This is not to say that any plant-based food is good or that all animal-based diets are bad. Such statements are simplistic and fallacious, as food products differ greatly in their nutritional properties and environmental impacts (6). Certainly, as long as dietary patterns are well-designed, there are many different food choices that can be healthy and/or sustainable. With all, from a global perspective, an increase in the consumption of plant-sourced products would represent a win-win situation that would benefit both people and nature, all at once (5, 7, 8).
- 1.2. Individuals Should Follow the “Healthy Eating Plate” Guidelines
A great deal of confusion with regards to nutrition is due to the presence of different erratic messages, many of which have been purposely infused in our culture through the powerful influence of the food industry advertising.
In an effort to improve the nutritional guidelines and point consumers to healthier food choices, in 2011, nutrition experts at the Harvard School of Public Health launched the Healthy Eating Plate. This is an evidence-based guide, with no influence by the food or agriculture industry, offering rigorous nutritional recommendations for individuals to follow a balanced, healthy diet.
Among other aspects, this guide recommends making most of the meal out of as many veggies and fruit as possible, avoiding processed meats -such as bacon and sausages- as well as limiting dairy and red meat intake.
- 1.3. Societies Should Follow the “Planetary Health Diet” Guidelines
We now know that, if we want to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and -most of all- feed the growing human population by 2050 (8.1), people must adopt healthy and sustainable diets on a global scale.
In 2019, a group of experts published a universal reference diet that could help achieve a global healthy human population while limiting environmental degradation. This reference diet is largely based on a variety of plant-based foods (vegetables, legumes, whole grains, fruits, nuts and unsaturated oils) and low amounts of animal-based foods (low to moderate amount of seafood and poultry and no or low quantities of red and processed meats). Although the specific changes needed to achieve healthy diets are different depending on the region, a global adoption of this “Planetary Health Diet” (as it was coined) could result in a substantial reduction of mortality worldwide. More specifically, around 11 million deaths per year by 2030.
2. The Efficiency of Plant-based vs Animal-based Diets
The differences in resource efficiency between the production of plant-based versus animal-based food can be truly outstanding. As a matter of fact, currently, the meat and dairy industries use more than 3/4 of farmland but provide only 18% of the calories and 37% of the protein globally. Yet, they account for more than half of the total Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions attributed to food (9).
This is because the average feed-to-food conversion efficiency of animal products is lower than 10%, meaning that more than 90% of the original animal feed calories and proteins end up being lost rather than converted into edible animal products (10). With an efficiency of only 3%, beef is clearly the least efficient animal product, followed -in order- by pork, dairy, poultry and eggs (10). As a visual example, it has been estimated that producing 1 kg of protein from beef requires about 18 times more land, 12 times more fertilizer, 10 times more pesticides, 10 times more water and 9 times more fuel than producing the same amount of protein from kidney beans, a legume (11).
In terms of GHG emissions, animal-based foods also have a significantly higher impact than plant-based foods. Once again, this is particularly true for ruminant meats like beef, whereas pork and poultry -alongside dairy and eggs- tend to produce lower GHG emissions (5). As an example, ruminant meats have been associated with around 250 times more GHG emissions per gram of protein and around 330 times more GHG emissions per kcal than legumes (5). What is more, it has been estimated that low impact dairy beef produces up to 36 times more GHG emissions than low impact peas, a legume too (9). When the comparison of emissions is made with vegetables, rather than legumes, the differences became smaller, although ruminant meats still showed around 8 times more GHG emissions per kcal than vegetables (5).
On the basis of the above, vegetarian diets hold the potential to support more people per unit of land than non-vegetarian ones (6). Recently, scientists estimated the environmental benefits that could be reported from a global dietary change characterized by the consumption of fewer animal products. One study found that, in a hypothetical world where meat and dairy consumption were fully eliminated, the total land dedicated to agriculture could be reduced by more than 75% without compromising the potential capacity to feed the entire human population (9). Likewise, scientists also found that if all animal-based products in the US were replaced by nutritionally comparable plant-based alternatives, an extra ~350 million people could be sustained, and the benefits would be higher than eliminating all the food waste from the supply chain (12).
Of course, a scenario of cero meat consumption is unrealistic. However, scientists reported that if only the most harmful half of meat and dairy were to be replaced by plant-based foods, two-thirds of the environmental benefits of a cero consumption scenario would still be reported (9). A take-home message from this might be that, if we want to significantly reduce our individual impact on the planet, there is no obligation to adopt strict vegetarian lifestyles overnight, but a reduction in the consumption of animal-based products (beef in particular) would definitely be one of the most effective ways to diminish the environmental impact through our diets.
3. Habitat Degradation and Destruction
In many regions, pastures are unsuitable to grow crops for direct human consumption. Grazing in these areas, along with mixed crop-livestock systems, can be economically important and provide food security by serving as good sources of calories and protein (13). Nevertheless, the allocation of highly productive cropland areas to animal feed -instead of human food- represents a flagrant unsustainable practice that significantly compromises the world’s food supply capacity (8.1, 13).
According to a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the different land-use practices combined affect around 71% (69–76%) of the total ice-free surface of the planet, including the majority of the highly-productive areas. In other words, around three-quarters of the planet are being currently exploited. Grazing land alone represents around 37% (30–47%) of all used land on Earth, being the single largest land management activity, ahead of forestland (16–23%) and cropland (12–14%). With all, the total land needed to raise livestock is even larger than that, as animal feed production takes about one-fifth of all the cropland. In total, the sum of grazing land and arable land used to feed animals gives us the figure that about three-quarters of the world’s agricultural land is destined for animal raising alone (13).
On top of that, the majority of new pastures and cropland comes at the expense of clearing forests, particularly in the tropics (14). This expansion of agricultural land is by far the main driving force of deforestation (15) and one of the leading causes of wildlife extinction (16), due to habitat destruction and fragmentation (17).
The devastating fires that consumed considerable parts of the Brazilian Amazon in 2019 can serve as a good example of the problem. Indeed, scientists agree that these fires, as many others, have been human-caused and are linked with deforestation to make room for more pastures and crops.
Historically, the main driving forces of Amazon deforestation have been beef and soy production (18). To get an idea, cattle ranching alone is responsible for around 70% of deforestation rates in Brazil, on average (15, 19). The remaining percentage is mainly due to soy production (19), the majority of which is used as a protein source to feed livestock all around the world. In fact, more than 70% of the soybean produced in Brazil ends up as animal feed, something that is also applicable to the US, the two largest soybean producers of the world.
4. Global Warming and Climate Change
Unfortunately, our strict reliance on fossil fuel burning to generate power is condemning us to live in a warmer planet with more frequent and intense extreme weather events, such as heavy precipitation or droughts. This, in turn, increases the chances of devastating natural events, like the 2019–2020 Australian bushfires.
Overall, the energy sector is the main contributor to GHG emissions, with electricity and heat generation representing the primary source (around 50% of total CO2 emissions).
As a whole, the food system is estimated to be responsible for one-quarter of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (25%-30%). The share of GHG emissions specifically attributed to agriculture can be divided into direct emissions (10%-12% of total GHG) and indirect emissions (8%-10% of total GHG). On the one hand, direct emissions are those that happen within the farm gate due to intrinsic agricultural practices (e.g. the famous methane emissions from enteric fermentation). On the other hand, indirect emissions are those that happen beyond the farm gate due to land change, such as deforestation for land conversion (20).
When both of these direct and indirect emissions are taken into consideration, agriculture is estimated to contribute up to 15%-25% of total GHG emissions (20), with data showing that global GHG emissions from agriculture are now twice higher than in 1961. Certainly, farming is not the primary culprit of global warming and climate change, but it definitely plays a role, especially through industrial livestock production. As a visual comparison, agriculture is directly responsible for approximately equal GHG emissions than the transport sector (cars, trains, planes, etc).
It is important to keep in mind that there can be significant differences among nations. For example, in the USA, the total emissions attributed to agriculture remain relatively low (representing about 9% of the total emissions for that country). Also, these emissions come from direct sources only, as land change acts as a net sink of GHG in that territory. In contrast, in Latin America and South & South East Asia, the total emissions attributed to agriculture are six times higher than in the USA and about half of them come from indirect sources solely (20).
5. Chronic and Infectious Diseases
During the past few years, scientific meta-analyses have consistently shown a link between high meat intake and a higher risk of overall mortality, with the onset of certain diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer (e.g. 21). Of those, the latter (especially colon cancer) is clearly the one which has received more attention so far.*
In addition to chronic diseases, the consumption of meat can also be an indirect driver of contagious illnesses. The pathogenic agents responsible for emergent infectious diseases, mainly bacteria and viruses (22), find opportunities to invade human hosts through a myriad of factors that include: hunting (23), the consumption of wildlife products (24), industrial farming (25, 26), and the closer proximity between humans/livestock/wildlife due to a combination of habitat destruction and human expansion (23, 26).
- 5.1. Cancer
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an intergovernmental agency under the auspices of the UN World Health Organization (WHO), published an exhaustive evaluation report on the carcinogenic risks associated with the consumption of meat. The Working Group, composed of 22 experts from 10 countries, reviewed more than 800 studies tackling associations between more than a dozen cancer types and the consumption of red and processed meats all around the world. Red meat includes any fresh unprocessed mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, pork or lamb meat, whereas processed meat (typically made from pork or beef) encompasses any meat that has suffered a transformation process, such as salting, curing or smoking.
The IARC concluded that there are positive associations between red meat consumption and colon, pancreas and prostate cancer, although there is still limited evidence for a direct causal link between the two. Perhaps more importantly, the IARC did find conclusive evidence showing that the consumption of processed meat poses a direct carcinogenic risk to humans. Specifically, this carcinogenic effect refers to colorectal cancer and is due to the presence of toxic chemicals in processed meats, such as nitrates, nitrites and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Nowadays, there is no doubt that the higher the intake of processed meat in a population, the higher the cancer risk will be. More precisely, it is estimated that every daily 50-gram portion of processed meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. This is a relative population-level risk, meaning that the incidence of colorectal cancer among consumers of processed meats in a given population will be 18% higher than among non-consumers of the same population. To put it in context: if the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer among non-consumers is 7.9% (meaning that about 8 every 100 people will develop cancer), the lifetime risk among consumers will be 9.3% (meaning that about 9 every 100 people will develop cancer). That is, the absolute risk will be just 1.4% higher, which translates as one more person developing cancer every 100 people.
Individually speaking, this increase in risk might seem too tiny as to be significant. However, its global epidemiological impact on cancer incidence can represent a major public health concern in many countries. To know how true this is, one has only to multiply that low value by the millions of people who live in a country. Therefore, being a highly modifiable factor of risk as it is, this is yet another important element in support of the current recommendation to limit the global intake of meat.
- 5.2. Emergent Zoonoses
More than 60% of emergent infectious diseases are zoonoses (i.e. come from animals) (22, 27). These include well-known pathologies such as AIDs, Ebola or the illness on everyone’s lips: COVID-19.
Hunting for meat has long been recognised as an activity that increases the risk of new outbreaks (23, 25). For instance, scientists believe that ape hunting might have been responsible for the rise of HIV and Ebola viruses in Africa (22). More in particular, a likely source of infection is the direct handling of bushmeat, that is the meat from hunted wild animals such as nonhuman primates (e.g. gorillas, chimpanzees) (28). Indeed, there is evidence that humans who hunt and handle monkeys’ meat expose themselves to a range of highly divergent viruses (29).
Many poached wild animals end up in wet markets of tropical and subtropical regions of the world. These are markets that sell produce and freshly slaughtered meat from many different types of animals, including seafood, poultry, reptiles and mammals. In some of these crowded spaces, the congregation of wildlife inside many stacked cages, along with the daily introduction of new animals, provides the optimal scenario for the amplification, emergence and spread of human contagious diseases like influenza or COVID-19 (30).
Some scientists believe that more than 50% of zoonoses might be actually attributed to agricultural practices. On the one hand, through deforestation and encroachment into natural ecosystem habitats, the expansion of agriculture leads to a situation where humans and livestock get into closer proximity to wildlife, thus clearing the way for potential new pathogens to jump (26). On the other hand, in order to make meat a cheap food commodity and satisfy the high global demand for this product, intensified livestock systems tend to hold animals under high densities and tight unhygienic spaces. Like the aforementioned markets, this facilitates the spread of contagious diseases, as it has already been the case with the avian and swine influenza (26).
In this context, antibiotics are extensively used to enhance meat production. These antimicrobial chemical agents can be used prophylactically and therapeutically, and are necessary to ensure animal welfare, efficient production, safe trade and food security. Also, contrary to what many people think, there is no evidence showing any direct harmful effects on human health. However, their widespread misuse (a lot of the times by non-professionals), as well as the overuse of antibiotics in animal feed to stimulate livestock growth, is promoting a phenomenon known as antimicrobial resistance. That is, microbes evolve molecular defences that make them increasingly more difficult to control. This further facilitates the emergence of potentially dangerous and contagious food-borne bacterial pathogens.
With the growing demand for animal-sourced products and the subsequent intensification of production, it is expected that antibiotics will continue to be overused. If such a trend continues, the question is not if, but when, a superbug will emerge and wipe out thousands of human lives. Indeed, it has been estimated that antimicrobial resistance, if left unchecked, could cause 10 million human deaths in the coming decades, with a cumulative cost of $100 trillion (31).
What Can be Done?
Business as usual, the negative effects attributed to the food system are projected to increase by as much as 50–90% up until 2050, according to the expected growth in both human population and prosperity (32). Such a scenario will place the impact of the food system beyond the so-called planetary boundaries (i.e. the limits that should not be surpassed if we are to stay within a safe operating space for humanity, according to some scientists) (32, 33). There are many holistic changes we should embrace to avoid such a dystopian future, which should be gradually materialized in order to subvert the current food production model and thus achieve more sustainable practices.
If we are to feed everybody by mid-century, experts indicate we will need to produce about 50% more food. Therefore, substantial investments in resource-efficient technologies have to be made. Ideally, agronomy should go towards the so-called “sustainable intensification”, an agricultural model based on the refinement of production so as to achieve a maximization of yields by using fewer input resources. Although this idea is new and no exempt of controversies, it would arguably be a good tool to feed an ever-growing demanding human population worldwide. In addition to that, governments should subsidize other technological advances in Western countries, such as cultured meat and plant-based meat substitutes.
As we are seeing first-hand these days, it is also important to not lose sight of prospective public health concerns, so governments should seriously invest in preventive measures as well. For example, a shift from intensive to more extensive meat production methods (i.e. from packed grain-fed livestock to free-roaming livestock), though only whenever conditions are adequate (e.g. places where crops are not grown), along with better use of antibiotics, could help reduce the risk of new catastrophic outbreaks, by decreasing the contact with infectious agents and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. At the same time, the promotion of sustainable agricultural systems characterised by more extensive agricultural practices would significantly improve the lives of animals, being good for global health and animal welfare.
Some experts are calling for a tax on meat as well. This reasoning arises from the aforementioned knowledge that the overconsumption of processed meats poses several health risks and high state costs. Interestingly, a recent study has found that, in high and middle-income countries, the inclusion of the healthcare costs of red and processed meats could report great profits. Indeed, after health-motivated taxations, the consumption of processed meats could be reduced up to 25% in rich nations, which would translate not only in less environmental harm but also in better public health (approximately 220,000 annual deaths less) (34).
In addition to that, consumers have a lot to say and can make a significant difference through the daily market demands. In this sense, as a way to make better-informed decisions, consumers would greatly benefit from a framework where the ecological footprint of the production process is clearly stated as a label in the final product (9).
Last but not least, in order for the science-based recommendations to be accepted and assimilated as appropriate by the general public, it is important to convey the message that, apart from healthy and sustainable, plant-based products can also be tasty and satisfying food choices (35). Organizations can make use of campaigns, which should actively encourage consumers to eat more vegetables and moderate meat intake through positive messages (36).
Future Perspectives
Certainly, there is no single nor a one-size-fits-all approach to tackle the big environmental and public health issues of our time, including those related to the food crisis. With all, the food system is one element that must be utterly transformed.
There is now enough scientific evidence showing that meat-eating has to be globally reduced in order to live in a healthier and more sustainable world. Sooner or later, if we do not want to transgress dangerous thresholds and tipping points (32, 33), we must all do our bit and share multiple and coordinated efforts (3).
This task is not an easy one, as there are more than 500 million farms and roughly 2 billion people whose daily lives depend on the current agricultural model, meaning that governments will need to procure and provide options for alternative livelihoods. To that, we have to add the fact that food choices are strongly influenced by personal, cultural and economic interests.
In fact, as of now, although more and more people (especially young women) are adopting some kind of meat curtailment strategies to reduce their individual ecological footprints, the majority of Westerners are not yet willing to cut their meat consumption for environmental reasons (37).
Unfortunately, prejudice towards the adoption of vegetarian lifestyles is still highly ingrained in society, with some people even finding joy in mocking those who -for whatever reason- choose not to eat meat.
As Carl Sagan said:
“Prejudice means literally prejudgment, the rejection of a contention out of hand, before examining the evidence. Prejudice is the result of powerful emotions, not of sound reasoning. If we wish to find out the truth of a matter we must approach the question with as nearly open a mind as we can, and with a deep awareness of our own limitations and predispositions” (from “Broca’s Brain”)
In line with that, many people convincingly embrace comments that would fall under the umbrella of what psychologists of human behavior call denialism (i.e. the rejection of the evidence, regardless of how much scientific consensus there is about it).
With all, we now know that even the most deep-rooted societal norms can change. For instance, the once denied negative effects of tobacco on human health are now widely assumed by society as a well-established fact (38). Accordingly, during the past decades, the practice of smoking has seen a steep decline in most countries worldwide.
This is just a simple example that does not seek to make any kind of comparison between the two. Yet, the lesson of tobacco control alone, with its meaningful political and societal implications, should serve as a good precedent for optimism; a reminder that achieving a more sustainable global food system is possible.
We have the tools and knowledge to prevent the dystopian food scenarios of the future. Paraphrasing Martin Rees, whose ideas from his great book “On the Future” inspired me to write this article, we just have to start closing the embarrassing and depressing gap between what can be done and what is actually being done.
In these times of great planetary and public health concerns, the pursuit of innovative solutions for generations to come is a moral imperative for the current ones. In that quest for a better world and a better future, we have no choice but to necessarily implement critical adjustments in our current way of living and adopt more sustainable diets.
In theory, the current production of crops could be sufficient to provide food for the expected ~10 billion people in 2050, as long as significant changes in socio-economic conditions and dietary patterns are globally embraced (i.e. adopting more plant-based diets while guaranteeing broad access to food supply) (8.1).
In this sense, humanity would do well to be receptive to change and repeat, as if it were a mantra, the words that Mahatma Gandhi once said:
“There is enough on Earth for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed”
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
- To see the full list of scientific paper references used, click here.
*Recently, there have been several headlines recommending the consumption of meat, based on controversial dietary guidelines published in Annals of Internal Medicine on Oct. 1, 2019. However, this has been hardly criticised by the scientific community, arguing that the methodology used by the authors was flawed. Also, the lead author was soon found to have important conflicts of interests, as the analyses were conducted with undisclosed funding from AgriLife, an institution that supports agricultural producers and receives money from the food industry. According to some sources, AgriLife spent $4.5 million on beef research in 2019. Although a bit more anecdotical, the following speaks for itself: last year, AgriLife celebrated “national bacon day” by publishing in their social media an article about this product.
- Since the publication of this article, small edits and information updates were added, although the original message remains unaltered.
