M.e.a.t. guidelines
![m.e.a.t. guidelines m.e.a.t. guidelines](https://media.cheggcdn.com/study/5d6/5d62c6a8-a7d9-4963-8970-5f611803c7d0/image.png)
“Many of the people who are criticizing these articles have lots of conflicts of interest they aren’t talking about,” she said. Laine noted that people on both sides of the meat issue have conflicts of interest. It’s not worth working with industry at all.”ĭr. That was a big lesson to separate oneself. “Then I saw the reaction from the paper we did publish, which I think was a very good paper. “It wasn’t until I was on a conference call with them and people were introducing themselves where I realized this is not what I expected,” he said. He declined to say who was on the conference call. It was during a conference call on the sugar study that he realized the extent that industry figures were involved with that organization. Johnston said that when he published the sugar study in 2016, he put his connection with the food industry group “front and center.” He said in hindsight he was “naïve” when he agreed to work on the ILSI-funded study about sugar guidelines. Johnston and his colleagues first published the sugar study, they said that ILSI had no direct role in conducting the research other than providing funding, but later amended their disclosure statement in the Annals after The Associated Press obtained emails showing that ILSI had “reviewed” and “approved” the study’s protocol.ĭr. Johnston’s ties to the 2016 ILSI-funded sugar study show how ILSI has methodically cultivated allies in academia around the world, and how it recruits influential scientists to help shape global nutrition advice and counter what it perceives to be anti-food industry guidelines by health organizations. Johnston about the researchers’ personal eating habits.ĭr. “We think that’s a potential bias that is worth disclosing,” said Dr. Johnston reported no financial conflicts of interest but disclosed that he eats one to two servings of red or processed meat per week. The meat paper includes an appendix titled “Summary of Panelists’ Potential Conflicts of Interest,” that discloses whether each author eats red or processed meat and how often.
![m.e.a.t. guidelines m.e.a.t. guidelines](https://challengepost-s3-challengepost.netdna-ssl.com/photos/production/user_photos/002/056/281/datas/xlarge.png)
![m.e.a.t. guidelines m.e.a.t. guidelines](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gs2wL45rmGI/TsvZdwf9yQI/AAAAAAAABgQ/ur1yDVUfWMg/s1600/preview001.png)
Johnston and colleagues thought it was important to fully disclose their personal eating habits. Johnston and his colleagues defended the work, saying it relied on the highest standards of scientific evidence, and noted that the large team of investigators reported no conflicts of interest and conducted the review without outside funding. Several prominent nutrition scientists and health organizations criticized the study’s methods and findings. Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada, and more than a dozen researchers concluded that warnings linking meat consumption to heart disease and cancer are not backed by strong scientific evidence. The new report, published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine, stunned scientists and public health officials because it contradicted longstanding nutrition guidelines about limiting consumption of red and processed meats. But what the study didn’t say is that its lead author has past research ties to the meat and food industry. A surprising new study challenged decades of nutrition advice and gave consumers the green light to eat more red and processed meat.