Misplaced Pages

Talk:Red meat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:11, 5 August 2015 edit144.188.128.1 (talk) →Commentary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:33, 11 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,237,443 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Food and drink}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}. 
(294 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk page}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Food and drink |class=C |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
⚫ {{archive box|search=yes|<center>]</center>}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Food and drink |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Low}}
}}
⚫ {{archive box|search=yes|<center>], ]</center>}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 70k |maxarchivesize = 70k
|counter = 1 |counter = 2
|archive = Talk:Red meat/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Red meat/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== NPOV == ==NutriRECS==

]'s edits have altered the POV of the article towards the thesis that red meat poses few health risks. My impression is the current scientific consensus is that red meat is unhealthy, and that there is not currently enough evidence to pronounce unprocessed red meat as safe, especially since some studies suggest even unprocessed red meat is unhealthy. (As evidence for the consensus, the Mayo Clinic, Aug 19, 2014, recommends avoiding red meat: ). Are there any objections to changing the article to reflect that consensus? ] (]) 04:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
:The only POV that matters is that of high-quality (in this case ]) sources, which we must faithfully reflect. So far as I see, the Mayo clinic page mentions red meat once in relation to a 2009 study which our article already references. Are there newer/better sources for for effect of red meat consumption on mortality? Maybe PMID 24148709 ... ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 04:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
::Surely you agree that "medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" are MEDRS, even if they choose not to explicitly mention the latest research. (Otherwise they'd have to put out a new guideline every week stating that homeopathy is still nonsense, despite the latest claim of the week!) I'm welcome to other suggestions on how to resolve the issue; as usual, there are an unlimited number of studies that find evidence and an unlimited number of studies that find no evidence. Part of the disconnect may be that I'm not clear on this edit: , where one anti-unprocessed-red-meat HSPH study with a DOI link is "weakly sourced" but a pro-unprocessed-red-meat HSPH study with only a press release remains in the paragraph. ] (]) 04:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Probably because we already had good sources for cancer in place; less so for mortality. Looking again, this page is still a disaster area and we shouldn't be using press releases, primary sources, etc. ''at all''. I trimmed what I thought were the worst of these. The meta-analysis I mentioned may be a good basis for some better material here on mortality, but unfortunately I don't have access. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 05:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Given resource constraints, we can get rid of most of the health section if it's a disaster area and just state that organizations X, Y, and Z advise limiting red meat consumption, and remove the health content that doesn't have MEDRS secondary sources. IMHO meta-analyses are primary sources when they data-mine and come to novel conclusions, but I'm fine either way as long as we're consistent. Anyone have any objections to the section being drastically trimmed like that? ] (]) 04:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'd not object to removing all non-MEDRS-sourced content (but meta-analyses should stay, or at least be discussed, as they *are* MEDRS in general). I had a go at improving the referencing a while ago, so some sourcing/content is okay ... ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::PMID 24148709 is great, because it reviews other meta-analyses and meets ] solidly. I'm not sure what you mean by "don't have access" though; can't we just cite the version, which is peer-reviewed but not copyedited? ] (]) 06:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Hah! it's freely available! Silly me. (Add: but oh that's not the final version of the article; I'm a little uneasy using it in case something changed ... I don't have access to the version of reference.) ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

== Stop with the mambo jambo ==

The "gastronomical" definition of red meet keeps itself on top of all the other more accurate ones. It is ridiculous that an Encyclopedia such as wikipedia places on top of a definition the least sound one and the one based on a 1989(!!!!!!!!!!!!!) quote and the more recent, accurate ones are sent downstair day after day. The meat lobby is strong over here. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The NutriRECS paper uses a different methodology which has been heavily criticized by health authorities as flawed , . 14 health organizations including all of the leading cancer organizations such as the American Institute for Cancer Research, American Society for Preventive Oncology, Bowel Cancer Australia, Bowel Cancer UK, Cancer Council Australia and International Agency for Research on Cancer disagree with their interpretation of the scientific evidence. This has been discussed already on this talk-page and others. The NutriRECS goes against scientific consensus. It is undue weight to be citing it on the article. ] (]) 16:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:First learn how to speek english "Mumbo Jumbo" not "Mambo Jambo". Second, not with traditional thinking or common knowledge! Pork, along with Chicken or Fish, has always been considered not red meat. It's part of common American and western culture and is supported in cookbooks and dictionaries. See discussion in Talk:White meat. It's amusing that you consider OED 2 a poor source, and seem to think that 18 years ago is a long time. Are you basing your judgement on personal experience (i.e. original research)? What about a world perspective? Have you investigated European (not to mention Asian, etc.) positions? "Red meat" has been a culinary term for a long time; the article already cites the Oxford English Dictionary and Larousse Gastronomique on the topic. One has to only look up the word in the dictionary "Meats such as beef that are dark red in color when uncooked". The real question is why did this culinary article turn into a nutritional article?] (]) 14:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


:Also, as mentioned in the archives of this talk-page. Lead researcher, Bradley C. Johnston did not report his food industry ties , which included funding from the beef industry "''The nutrition research group whose recent study drew heavy attention for downplaying the risks of red meat has received funding from a university program partially backed by the beef industry''" ] (]) 17:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
== Processed meat consumption Vs Red meat consumption Vs Vegetarianism ==
:Thanks. Thought it was weird that they didn't recommend against processed meats. I had no idea. I'll look at other secondary sources. <span style="color:darkblue;"><b>]</b></span> (<span style="color:red;"><i>]</i></span>) 23:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
::I would like to create an article about NutriRECS, because new users have showed up here and on related pages citing it, claiming it has disproven any older research. NutriRECS has confused a lot of people unfamiliar with this topic and it has also played into the hands of carnivore diet advocates (such as a user on this talk-page who was previously blocked here for repeatedly edit-warring). They will cite only the NutriRECS reviews and ignore decades of research and the consensus view from all the health authorities including the IARC findings. ] (]) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Definitely notable enough for an article. Question: do you know of a meta-analysis or review of red meat RCTs? Bradley is involved in article so I'd like to find a better one. <span style="color:darkblue;"><b>]</b></span> (<span style="color:red;"><i>]</i></span>) 23:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Bradley's paper is only of interest as an example of industry funded research. It could be included in this article as flawed and biased study, to show how the meat industry tries to influence consumers. At least, that‘s how we dealt with the paper in the German language version of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


==Industry funded research removed==
This article is about Red meat, not meat in general, not processed meat. Weight gain (or other issues) due to general meat eating habits (not specifically red meat) are not relevant, and the danger of processed foods are only relevant discussing the theoretical statistical correlation of red meet consumption and processed meat consumption, and how this may impact past studies.] (]) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


Sbelknap who has been from editing medical articles added several review papers heavily sponsored by the beef and pork industry onto this Misplaced Pages article. This review for example that he added was funded by the The Pork Checkoff . The authors also received funding from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork Board, North Dakota Beef Commission and Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education. This is heavy industry funded research with an obvious bias, it has no place on Misplaced Pages. I have removed these sources. ] (]) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
== Commentary ==
:Information here by ] to why industry funded studies like this have no validity ] (]) 00:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Please stop adding commentary and unsourced material. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
:First, it was all sourced, no commentary, second, use user talk pages for rants like these in the future. I removed some commentary, and tried to clear up an issue that was confusing with sourced material from the beef article. All i wonder is who is paying you? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::My diffs clearly show your commentary and the text you added having a citation needed tag. Also, please read ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Your diffs show exactly what i described. Stop protecting a horrifyingly bad page from changes that make it more understandable, with or without citations. Citations are only required for things that people question. Place your Citation needed tag and wait for someone else to fix it. Remove it if the tag lasts for too long. THE MOST IMPORTANT POLICY IS TO IGNORE ALL POLICY'S IF THEY MAKE THINGS HARDER TO FIX.~~

Latest revision as of 07:33, 11 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red meat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFood and drink High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
1, 2

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

NutriRECS

The NutriRECS paper uses a different methodology which has been heavily criticized by health authorities as flawed , . 14 health organizations including all of the leading cancer organizations such as the American Institute for Cancer Research, American Society for Preventive Oncology, Bowel Cancer Australia, Bowel Cancer UK, Cancer Council Australia and International Agency for Research on Cancer disagree with their interpretation of the scientific evidence. This has been discussed already on this talk-page and others. The NutriRECS goes against scientific consensus. It is undue weight to be citing it on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned in the archives of this talk-page. Lead researcher, Bradley C. Johnston did not report his food industry ties , which included funding from the beef industry "The nutrition research group whose recent study drew heavy attention for downplaying the risks of red meat has received funding from a university program partially backed by the beef industry" Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Thought it was weird that they didn't recommend against processed meats. I had no idea. I'll look at other secondary sources. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I would like to create an article about NutriRECS, because new users have showed up here and on related pages citing it, claiming it has disproven any older research. NutriRECS has confused a lot of people unfamiliar with this topic and it has also played into the hands of carnivore diet advocates (such as a user on this talk-page who was previously blocked here for repeatedly edit-warring). They will cite only the NutriRECS reviews and ignore decades of research and the consensus view from all the health authorities including the IARC findings. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Definitely notable enough for an article. Question: do you know of a meta-analysis or review of red meat RCTs? Bradley is involved in this article so I'd like to find a better one. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Bradley's paper is only of interest as an example of industry funded research. It could be included in this article as flawed and biased study, to show how the meat industry tries to influence consumers. At least, that‘s how we dealt with the paper in the German language version of Misplaced Pages. CarlFromVienna (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Industry funded research removed

Sbelknap who has been topic banned from editing medical articles added several review papers heavily sponsored by the beef and pork industry onto this Misplaced Pages article. This review for example that he added was funded by the The Pork Checkoff . The authors also received funding from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Pork Board, North Dakota Beef Commission and Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education. This is heavy industry funded research with an obvious bias, it has no place on Misplaced Pages. I have removed these sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Information here by Marion Nestle to why industry funded studies like this have no validity Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories: