Press Release - Science dictating policies on red meat issues must be incorruptible

Press Release - Science dictating policies on red meat issues must be incorruptible.

The National Beef Association has warned international, and national, government food policy specialists, they must not to be tricked into making flawed decisions on the future of the red meat industry as a result of being misled by flawed science funded by well placed, anti-meat, agitators.

It says policy makers must be aware that livestock and meat production is regularly targeted by influential, and well-funded, vegetarian groups determined to further their cause – and that the funding of unsafe scientific reports is one of their most useful weapons.

“Cash accumulated by campaigning vegetarians is regularly used to attack meat production and tactics very often concentrate on undermining consumer confidence by linking meat eating with fear of disease, like cancer, or generating misplaced concern over the role farmed livestock might play in accelerating climate change,” explained NBA director, Kim Haywood.

“In this context the Association is worried that alarmist, over-simplified hypotheses by single issue bodies may undermine the integrity of crucial decisions taken by food policy specialists acting at national, EU, and international level.”

One example is the failure of the World Cancer Research Fund to immediately acknowledge that a number of errors and omissions in its 2007 report have helped to support its case that a link exists between colorectal cancer and meat consumption – even though independent peer review has concluded there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship.
Leading cancer specialist Prof Karol Sikora has said: “Whilst vegetables and fruit contain protective factors, there is almost no evidence that red meat itself actually causes cancer.”
“The WRCF do seem to be following an anti-meat crusade writing their conclusion first and then looking for supportive evidence. This is extremely misleading for the public who are thoroughly confused by being bombarded with mixed messages. If there is no clear conclusion then definitive recommendations should be avoided.”
Another is the determination to continue to link ruminant animals with accelerating climate change, even though the counter-argument that ruminant animals eating grass, sequestered atmospheric carbon, both in themselves and enable a huge amount to be captured by the turf they graze, continues to gain increased scientific acceptance.

“The red meat industry has every reason to be alarmed about the presentation of bad science and the preaching of its flawed conclusions by anti-meat interests,” said Ms Haywood.

“It would be truly worrying if governments, and their advisors, allowed themselves to be influenced by unsound science because they were unaware of mounting evidence that vegetarian bias on red meat issues is corrupting basic scientific principles”.

“The UK government has often said that science, not argument and counter-argument by self-interested lobby groups, must guide its decision making but, if that is to be the case, it must also be sure that the science it uses, on issues like bowel cancer, or greenhouse gas emissions by grazing livestock, is incorruptible, and beyond contention”.
For more information contact:
Kim Haywood, NBA director.  Tel. 0131 336 1754/07967 698936

  Note for Editors
The WCRF states:-
""In the initial sweep, half a million studies were found, which were screened down to 22,000. Eventually, 7,000 were deemed relevant and met the rigorous quality criteria for definitive conclusions to be drawn.""   Thus, it is obvious that there are between 493,000 and 15,000 studies on cancer which were omitted.
See also http://www.meatandhealth.com/news-and-information/what-experts-say