Yes, the anti-lobby will never end. The claim that meat production is bad for the environment is also rubbish. When you uproot grasslands (that held tons of carbon both above and below the surface) to produce plant based foods, you use tons of diesel, fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides - in the process releasing the carbon that was bound up by the grass. The planet always had grazers on the grass plains - replacing then with cattle or sheep does not produce more greenhouse gasses. When will the 'scientists' stop pushing their lies about what is healthy and what not? The problem with meat production lies in the feedlots that round off the cattle. As long as we produce meat from pastures we have no problem - but we never hear that. Grass-fed meat is also much better for your health. So, start buying grass-fed meat and do something for the environment. Vote with your wallet and force meat producers to comply.

So what fraction of people in the industrialized western world currently limit red and processed meat to three or four servings a week? That's one day of bacon at breakfast, one ham sandwich (or baloney/whatever), and one or two other meals with beef in them. I wouldn't be surprised if there were millions or tens of millions who do one or two servings a day.

Excellent article about how even scientists form results based on manipulations of data.

To call research "irresponsible" because you don't like the conclusion is, itself, irresponsible. Scientific results are either right or wrong; if you don't like the result, find the illogic, point to the missing data, or do your own study! As to the misleading headline, gimme a break -- headlines have been misleading since the very first newspaper. Read the article!

Nothing is more rubbish than 'food science'. They can't even agree on what makes you fat.

Even as different drugs are more or less effective on different groups of people, and frequently related to their genetic background, so the effects of red meat consumption almost certainly vary widely with different populations and genetic groups. I really wish that there could be more specificity on who was participating in these studies and if there were any marked differentiations in outcomes on those bases. The kind of generalization represented by any study which fails to cite the backgrounds of the test subjects can be worse than useless.

More detail is needed here, not less.

Eat less animal flesh. It's better for you and everything else. One cannot compare the meat "industry" to the animals that used to roam naturally in our world, who are dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of the business of meat consumption that exists today. There are so many other plant sources for protein. Go to a supermarket and watch the people at the meat section looking at the available choices at their disposal. The older folks there truly look like they've been meat-eaters for a long time. The farts of someone who eats meat every day can be quite stinky. Eating more vegetables can only be a benefit for you and the world.

It depends on each humans biology it's no different than who will develop cancer in their lifetime.

"The farts of someone who eats meat every day can be quite stinky. " --- but nowhere near as stinky as veggies who eat a lot of beans and cabbage! You certainly wouldn't want to enter a lift with them.

There has been a documented need for "walking protein" over the past few years. People with a short alimentary canal are probably more adapted for meat than those with a long alimentary canal. Some time ago, Japanese doctors were noting a reduction in the number of good sumo wrestlers. This was attributed to the prevalence of the western diet, leading to the shortening of the torso.