Red meat: The great scapegoat

If you've been following dietary discussions over the past few decades, you may have noticed that red meat has been blamed for almost everything that's wrong with the world?

Cancer? Of course it's the meat's fault. Climate crisis? Just stop eating beef and you'll be fine. Cardiovascular disease? You've eaten meat!

But what if we stopped, looked at the evidence, and actually asked the important question: Who benefits from demonizing meat? And how many variations have the powerful tried to get our most important food item out of your mouth?

The answer to everything we wonder about may surprise you. Because the truth is that red meat is not only innocent of all the accusations thrown at it – it is demonstrably one of the most nutritious and important foods that humans have ever eaten.

The myth about cancer and meat: WHO's dubious report

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) sounded the alarm. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic, and red meat got the stamp possibly carcinogenicThe headlines were frightening, and many immediately distanced themselves from anything reminiscent of a bloody steak.

We get so scared by all the headlines, that we forget that "possibly» means exactly the same as «possibly not» or what? The oldest trick in the book when you want to spread fear and have no evidence.

What was the basis?

The report was largely based on observational studies, the weakest form of research, which cannot prove a causal relationship. Such "studies" are not intended to obtain scientific results, but to form hypotheses/ideas that can later be made real studies of.

In other words: Well, it's possible that people who eat a lot of processed meat have an increased risk of cancer, but is it the meat's fault, or are there other things that you usually eat with the meat?

It is obviously impossible to distinguish the solitary and actual role of meat, unless one compares, for example, eating only meat, which almost no one does, with eating meat along with burger buns and dressings and Coca Cola and pizza and hot dogs full of flour and sunflower oil.

So meat has never been studied at all, but rather unhealthy lifestyle versus normal lifestyle, or even the unhealthy lifestyle, the SAD diet, Standard American Diet It's hardly possible to eat worse than that!

Despite this, there were also differences microscopic, which we will return to at the bottom of the article.

What about all the other factors? Smoking, alcohol consumption, inactivity – the list of things we do is long, and people who not following dietary advice are most likely the same as not caring about other dangers.

Yet the WHO, which we are supposed to trust, chose to draw sweeping conclusions. Several prominent scientists have rightly questioned the methodology behind the report, and the new advice the WHO managed to squeeze out of thin air.

The climate machinery: A new "villain"

When the health arguments began to falter, meat quickly became a target for the climate debateWe heard that cows emit methane, and that this contributes to global warming. But again, we have to stop and ask: What is the big picture?

Grass-fed ruminants are natural contributors to an ancient ecosystem, contributing to carbon sequestration and soil improvement, making them part of the solution – not the problem. Research shows that regenerative agriculture, which includes pasture-based livestock farming, builds up the Earth's ecosystems and reduces carbon in the atmosphere.

These are facts that are completely overlooked in the one-sided propaganda that meat is the worst climate polluter.

At the same time, we are seeing a huge increase in the promotion of plant-based meat substitutes. These ultra-processed products, filled with industrially produced ingredients like soy, corn, and seed oils, are marketed as “salvation” for the planet.

But what really happens to your health when you swap a juicy steak for a lab-grown soy steak? The answer isn't pretty.

So who benefits from demonizing meat?

Follow the money, the wise say. And when it comes to the demonization of meat, the money often flows towards Big Food and Big Pharma. Big food manufacturers stand to make billions on plant-based substitutes, while pharmaceutical companies can enjoy increased demand for drugs that treat diseases associated with the ultra-processed diet.

Is it a coincidence that the same forces that push for reduced meat intake are also the ones that profit the most from us eating sugar, refined grains, and seed oils? Hardly.

Red Meat: Nature's Superfood

Humans have been eating red meat for hundreds of thousands of years. It is rich in essential vitamins like B12, bioavailable iron, zinc, and omega-3 fatty acids – all essential for optimal health. No plant can match the complete nutritional profile of meat.

So the next time someone tells you that you should cut out beef, stop and ask the question: Where does this information come from? Who benefits from you not eating it? And what will happen to your health – and the planet – if you actually continue to eat what humanity has always needed to survive and thrive?

It's time to reclaim meat – not just as a food, but as a truth. A juicy, bloody, nutritious truth.

So-called risk of red meat:

Let's say it. basic absolute risk The risk of developing bowel cancer is about 5% over a lifetime for the average person (this is roughly what many sources indicate as a baseline).

En 18% relative increase means that the risk increases honey 18% of this 5% basic risk:

• 5% x 18% = 0,9% additional risk.

This means that the absolute risk of bowel cancer goes from 5% for 5,9%.

Such a small increase should actually be considered noise by the rule. The rule in science is that unless the relative increase is over 200% (yes, that's true!) then it should not be taken into account at all, because it is so small that it cannot be considered a signal. It's just noise.

Hold on to your chair now: The risk increase for myocarditis after the Covid vaccine from Moderna is 1800% among young boys! However, that is what they call low!

So, 18% is dangerously high, and 1800% is perfectly within reach and safe as can be? Are we really that gullible?

The comparison WHO incredibly made, with the risks of smoking: Lung cancer

The baseline risk of lung cancer in non-smokers is very low, estimated at around 0,5%.

For smokers, the risk of lung cancer may be 13 times higher (in women) or 23 times higher (in men).

• Red meat: 18% alleged increase in risk of bowel cancer. They say this is extreme!
• smoking: 1 200% or 2 200% increased risk of lung cancer. They say this is extreme!
• Vaccine: 1 800% increase in risk of myocarditis. They say this is… small and insignificant!?!??!

How on earth did the WHO even get away with comparing 18% to 2200%? How stupid are we really? Where are our so-called journalists?

What this means

The risks associated with smoking are dramatically higher both relatively and absolutely compared to the risks from red meat. Yet the two risks are often presented as equally dangerous in popular media, especially when referring to the WHO classification, which to this day places both in the same category.

This lack of context leads to an exaggerated fear of meat, and an underestimation of the dangers of smoking. In other words: Eating a juicy steak gives a no increase in risk of cancer.

This is a good example of how relative risk is often misused to create headlines, while absolute risk gives us the real picture.

As in this case, the WHO itself is lying to us. Again.

SOURCES

Photo: Shutterstock license

Anyone can comment by logging in with their Facebook or Google accounts.. Norwegian Carnivory is not health care. You must seek medical attention for medical problems.

Written 2025 © Norwegian Carnivory