IF fat is a feminist issue, then meat has become a moral one.
A recent surge in veganism driven less by animal rights than climate change consciousness and perceived health benefits has helped to polarise attitudes to red and processed meats, and given licence to people who want to police what other people consume.
It is in this context then that we have to understand some of the emotionally-driven reactions to a study this week which declared that, actually, the evidence for its harm to health was "weak" and there was little point in cutting down.
The scientists, publishing their findings in the Annals of Internal Medicine, reviewed the existing data and concluded that - for most people - eating less red and processed meat was associated with only a "very small reduction" in cancer risk.
READ MORE: Trump's fast action on US vaping panic is misguided
Even then, the basis for this conclusion was of "low certainty" - in other words, it is not even clear whether there is a real causal effect at all.
It seems unlikely that the study will sway eating habits one way or the other. But the findings fired up the Twittersphere as the meat promoters claimed vindication and pro-Atkins gurus said this was yet more proof that all our problems are down to sugar and carbs anyway.
Meanwhile, plant-based advocate Walter Willett, a US professor of epidemiology and nutrition, dubbed the research an "egregious abuse of evidence", and the World Cancer Research Fund said it would not alter its recommendations to limit red meat intake.
Professor Giles Yeo, a Cambridge University geneticist and obesity researcher, noted that the risk perception changed whether you looked at the findings on an individual or population level.
For example, the study suggests that if 1,000 people cut out three portions of red or processed meat every week for their lifetime, there would be seven fewer deaths from cancer, of any type.
Most people might take their chances and consider that the likelihood of them being one of those lucky seven are pretty small.
At a population level, however, that is 7000 fewer cases of cancer for every million people. As Prof Yeo pointed out, that's not exactly trivial.
READ MORE: Public inquiries can give answers - but not always the answers people want
Furthermore, a major study in January said the only sustainable diet for the planet would be plant-based, and humanity would have to halve its red meat and sugar intake by 2050.
But does this give people a right to moralise about meat?
Maybe yes, but it the problem is it is counter-productive: brow-beating and lecturing will only entrench habits, not change them.
A more plant-based diet is almost certainly the direction of travel. But there are worse crimes against humanity than an occasional bacon roll.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel