A new study suggests that eating red meat can increase the risk of death by heart disease or cancer. But Channel 4 News asks: do these studies really change the way we eat?
The study, released on Tuesday by the Harvard School of Public Health and suggesting that red processed meat can increase the risk of death by 20 per cent, comes seven months after another study which suggested that eating lean red meat could go some way towards preventing nutrient deficiency in women.
Yet another study has suggested that contrary to some messages, some cholesterol is good for you. Meanwhile, women pregnant with their third child may have faced a rather puzzling situation in which their first midwife tells them the odd glass of wine is acceptable, their second midwife tells them to stay off nuts for fear of giving their child a nut allergy, and the third tells says stay off the wine but eat a bag of peanuts with fresh juice.
In fact, the only study which has yet to surface is one which actually picks apart the effect, if any, of the numerous studies already published.
“People pick and choose,” said Dr Amanda Williams, a reader in clinical health psychology at the University College London division of psychology and language sciences. “If they’re anti-red meat, they’ll say ‘that confirms what I knew all along’. But if they love red meat, and can’t imagine anything else, then they’re going to disregard it and say ‘Well, tomorrow I’ll read something else which says red meat is good.’ Particularly when it is easy to switch to an alternative.”
But there is another side to these studies which can have a more distressing consequence, said Dr Williams, when someone may already have become ill with a particular disease.
“If someone has been diagnosed with one of these diseases, people will feel dreadful, and think ‘I should have known that sooner’.”
The reasons for either adopting some findings with zeal and rejecting others as pseudo-science, Dr Williams suggests, is that we inherently want to feel better about ourselves, even if it sometimes requires a degree of carefully placed willful ignorance. “It reduces anxiety [to pick and choose]. If it is something which we think is going to make us ill, or bring about premature death, then we are going to dismiss it.”
The flipside of that coin is that people who are afraid of a particular illness for any reason will take particular heed of that advice.
Yet there have been some shifts in public attitudes towards health, namely for the growing mass of ex-smokers.
If someone has been diagnosed with one of these diseases, people will feel dreadful, and think ‘I should have known that sooner.’ Dr Amanda Williams
Dr Williams suggested that while the government has spent a significant amount on public health campaigns to raise awareness of smoking-related illnesses, other factors have contributed a great deal to the change.
She said: “Advertising and public health can and does make a difference. But it’s often things like putting the price up, or making it more difficult [to smoke], such as [the ban on] smoking in public places.
“Also, bringing in laws can influence behaviour. When the law on wearing seatbelts came in, the majority of people were against it, but it quickly became a habit.”
What many studies may not take account of, however, is other factors which can also affect health.
“There might be some particular relationship to be found, but without gene screening of everyone involved – which is impossible – we can’t know,” Dr Williams said.
Yet, a habit of a lifetime can be hard to break. And when it comes to certain foods, where people live also plays a part, given that some regions are better at sourcing a variety of exotic foods than others.
“It takes effort and reminders and so on,” said Dr Williams. “But seatbelts have shown that habits can be changed.”
But the factor which is rarely, if ever, mentioned in relation to the studies, is whether they are funded or backed by an industry body. Sugar and alcohol are industries which are often said to rely on vast sums of money to fund studies supporting their claims, along with drug companies, which can often be adept at ensuring they blend into the background when the research emerges. “Many of them,” says Dr Williams, “will have commercial interests.”