Talk:Red meat/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Red meat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sbelknap is making mass removals on this page. Whilst some of the content this user removed was indeed primary source content much of the content was reliable. Removing the entire cancer section smacks of a serious POV, especially content from International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization. The same user is adding papers funded by low-carb organizations i.e. this paper [1] was co-written by Jeff S. Volek who works for Atkins [2] and has written many books advocating Atkins diet, likewise Ronald M. Krauss is a well known advocate of low-carb diets. This is not a reliable source. I don't see this as neutral editing, it is white-washing.

Sbelknap has been adding a meta-analysis by Bradley C. Johnston to the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia but this meta-analysis has been widely criticized and discredited because this author was funded by the meat industry [3], [4], [5]. The meta-analysis was strictly using the GRADE approach which is useful for trials but not observational studies. “You can’t do a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of red meat and other foods on heart attacks or cancer,” Dr. Hu said. “For dietary and lifestyle factors, it’s impossible to use the same standards for drug trials.” [6]

I see the same thing has happened on the meat article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User Sbelknap has also faked summaries, as in this case where he claimed that that the study showed eating eggs reduce CHD. The user has a clear POV and such a huge misinterpretation of a study must have been intentional. I would advice to watch further edits of the user here and in other articels on nutrition. CarlFromVienna (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not want to be accused of ganging up on users. Sbelknap is an experienced editor who has been on this website over a decade and made a lot of good edits but I agree that their edits on these nutritional articles are problematic. I am seeing a low-carb agenda here. The same user edited the Dietary Guidelines for Americans article adding Nina Teicholz and James DiNicolantonio as a source. If you check the Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans#Restriction_of_dietary_fat_and_cholesterol on that article I am seeing a pattern of editing here that is problematic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I created the Dietary Guidelines for Americans article. Is there something in that article that is inaccurate? If so, please make the appropriate edits. sbelknap (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You've got the facts wrong, friend. Please re-read the article by Krittanawong et al, which has this conclusion in its abstract: "Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of eggs (more than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant reduction in risk of coronary artery disease." See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002934320305490 sbelknap (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That is a review of observational studies (I have no problem with the review) but below and on this talk-page you have been arguing that epidemiology (observational studies) are weak evidence and are unreliable thus should be removed because of potential confounding bias but you are happy to cite that review because you like the results? Interesting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Krittanawong's review is weak evidence. This is the best we have. They conclude, "Our analysis suggests that higher consumption of eggs (more than 1 egg/day) was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but was associated with a significant reduction in risk of coronary artery disease." I am unaware of any higher-quality evidence. We go with the best we have. We describe the quality of the evidence and give the results. sbelknap (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed this study. The text read: "A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that the absolute effects of red and processed meat on cancer was "very small" and that the certainty of evidence was low, endorsing continued consumption of red and processed meat, contrary to prevailing dietary guidelines." I could neither verify the quote ("very small") nor the content of the summary given. The authors discuss that the GRADE approach would downrate some studies but I can't find a section where they endorse continued consumption of red and processed meat? CarlFromVienna (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes good catch, I have read the full paper [7]. The paper actually says this "While more evidence regarding the health effects of red and processed meats is needed, the body of epidemiologic data showing their associations with T2D, CVD, and cancer is large and consistent. Meanwhile, short-term randomized intervention trials have demonstrated the benefits of replacing red meat with plant protein sources in reducing LDL cholesterol and other cardiometabolic risk factors. The reference had been used wrongly, it was cited to criticize the other paper co-written by Bradley C Johnston [8] but I don't think we need to cite either of these papers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the high quality meta-analysis: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-0655

This is the conclusion in the abstract of the high-quality meta-analysis: "The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty."

On wikipedia, we often paraphrase, so as to avoid any concerns about copyright. Please propose an alternate paraphrase, if you believe I've gotten this wrong. Deleting a high-quality source because you don't like the conclusion is WP:OR, so avoid that. sbelknap (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That paper and the other co-written by Bradley C. Johnston have been discredited and mentioned before on Wikipedia talk-pages by low-carb advocates, it's tiring seeing the same stuff hashed out again and again like a religious script. They are not reliable for a multitude of reasons (did you read about the GRADE criteria?) [[9], [10] this has been discussed before and those papers have been removed from Wikipedia. The opinion of that paper argues against the scientific consensus so we don't need to give equal weight to such a view. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You rely here upon your own original research or perhaps that of other wikipedia editors. Please do not do this. The co-authors of Zeraatkar et al include Gordon Guyatt, who is one of the pioneers of evidence-based medicine and co-developed the GRADE guidelines. AFAIK, there has been no serious criticism of the major findings of this Zeraatkar meta-analysis. Specifically, the available evidence is of very poor quality, the effect of meat on mortality is very small, and may be due to confounding. sbelknap (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

By default the evidence would be very low because they are exclusively using the GRADE system - whilst the GRADE system is useful this can be a flawed approach if used exclusively because other experimental evidence must be taken into account which the authors did not cite, this is not my opinion it the opinion of experts as I cited in the previous link at sciencemediacentre and of governmental bodies and organizations. The authors of that paper including Johnston who did not disclose his ties to the meat industry do not represent any national or international organisation or government. We do not need to be giving equal weight to one paper when all the others backed by decades of research supported by international organizations and governmental bodies contradicts it. Your edit to the page was to literally remove decades of research and meta-analyses and just cite that study. That is not neutral editing. You are trying to present a minority opinion as mainstream, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. We should not cite findings from one group of researchers as the consensus view but that is what your edits have been doing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Friend, please read the version of the article that preceded my edits. Also, please read Lescinsky et al review that I just added to this article. Whatever your opinion might be, it is undeniable that there exist high-quality review(s) that contradict that previous version. We are going for balance, here. Also, when possible, we rely on high-quality secondary sources for medical articles. My goal is to present a NPOV in these articles. Is that your goal, or do you perhaps have some other agenda? The time has come for you to pause and reflect.sbelknap (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am interested in reliable sources, I am not a deletionist, if you add reliable sources then I do not remove. The Lescinsky et al review is considered a reliable source, I do not think anyone would claim otherwise but I am not convinced this was neutral editing [11] you deleted most of the article and decided to include only two meta-analyses which concluded studies are all low-quality. If there are totally unreliable references being cited then sure remove them all but a lot of that sourcing was reliable (the World Health Organization [12]).

It's hard to assume good faith when you have been adding low-carb advocates Nina Teicholz, James DiNicolantonio, Gary Taubes, Zoe Harcombe, Mark Hyman and Ronald Krauss to articles, plus Bradley C. Johnston who was funded by the meat industry to this article. I get it, we all make mistakes but you have added all those people to articles, that is not normal editing behaviour. If your goal is NPOV then why have you been adding all these unreliable sources? The consensus is clear on processed meat, it does increase the risk of heart disease and cancer and there is good evidence for that, the evidence for unprocessed is limited. The recent review paper you cited on the article by Lescinsky et al is not on processed meat, it was strictly unprocessed. The paper is using something called "burden of proof risk function (BPRF)", I have no idea what that is. It turns out it is brand new [13], [14]. There is limited evidence on unprocessed meat and that is what the source basically says. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The meta-analysis by Zeraatkar et al. was co-authored by a founder of Evidence-Based Medicine and other faculty from McMasters (an early wellspring of EBM). The methodology of Zeraatkar et al. appears sound. There are often COIs in nutrition science. This one seems to be minor, AFAICT. Where they overlap, Lescinsky had the same findings as Zeraatkar. It is absurd to exclude Zeraatkar et al. on your say so!

Perhaps we can agree that claims citing low-quality primary sources can be removed.

The claims citing secondary and tertiary sources have now been deprecated by more recent, higher-quality secondary sources.

There is no consensus (and no good evidence) that processed meat increases the risk of heart disease or cancer or mortality.

The Burden of Proof methodology is what is used in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study, among others. It is nothing more than a method for evaluating risk in a standardized way. Old wine, new bottle.

Nina Teicholz's work has undergone withering criticism and yet has stood up. Gary Taubes has made some useful contributions to nutrition science, including some results that did not confirm his priors. What more can be expected than that?

I note that you have a Veganism and Vegetarianism Barnstar. Could your plant-based POV be affecting your objectivity here? sbelknap (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nina Teicholz's work has undergone withering criticism and yet has stood up", "There is no consensus (and no good evidence) that processed meat increases the risk of heart disease or cancer or mortality", you are clearly an idiot ignoring decades of scientific research for crackpots. You shouldn't be editing these topics on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Do tell!

If you know of a quality study assessing the effect of processed meats on mortality, please cite it. I've looked and failed to find any quality study of this.

The Zeraatkar et al review also had conclusions about processed meat:

"The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty."

Ad hominem attacks often originate from folks experiencing cognitive dissonance. It can be uncomfortable to learn that cherished beliefs are based on bad information. Good luck, friend. sbelknap (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have said there is good evidence that processed meat increases risk of heart disease and cancer, there is a lot of evidence for this and that is what the scientific consensus is, we already have references on this article for this. You know very well that there is limited evidence on all-cause mortality. Very few studies have been published on that as we do not have enough data. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Zeraatkar concludes, "The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty.

It is false to say that there is good evidence that processed meat increases the risk of heart disease and cancer. You can cite no good evidence that this is true. There is only poor quality evidence available.

Evidence can be strong or weak, evidence can show benefit or harm or nil, evidence can show an effect that is large or small or nil.

Please read the literature you cite. When you do, you will discover that there is only poor quality evidence regarding processed meat and mortality or disease. Your beliefs that there exists strong evidence of harm from processed meats are false beliefs. sbelknap (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You have spammed the Zeraatkar paper quite a few times now, it exclusively uses GRADE and ignores all the experimental and mechanistic data, of course the evidence will be low-certainty as by their own criteria excluded a lot of the studies. You are not being honest. There is strong evidence that processed red meat increases risk of bowel cancer if you look at the totality of evidence. As seen on the American Institute for Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK websites, there is "strong evidence". This is not about "false beliefs". Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Zeraatkar et al is a sound analysis. You have presented no legitimate reason for your decision to remove it from this article. There is no strong evidence supporting the claim that red meat causes cardiac disease, or cancer, or other health condition. Perhaps other editors can opine as to whether we include Zeraatkar in the health section of this article. sbelknap (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Zeraatkar et al is industry-funded research and as such cannot be used in Wikipedia. CarlFromVienna (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

sbelknap is a well know carnivore diet advocate who promotes consumption of grass-fed beef, elk and other meats on social media platforms. He also claims without evidence on Twitter that red meat is beneficial for the animals and environment and that everyone should go carnivore and stop eating plants. He's been in trouble for COI in relation to other topics on Wikipedia and was close to being blocked because he was adding his own papers to articles [15].

If you search for this guys name on Twitter and other social media outlets he is a well known anti-vegan activist and advocate of the carnivore diet, it's literally the only thing he talks about on Twitter. He is also involved in selling grass-fed beef products and is on hunting websites where he shares his stories about killing animals. This user has accused me about 7 times of having a vegan bias without any evidence so I think it's only fair that sbelknap comes clean and admits he is a well known carnivore diet advocate on Twitter with 1000s of tweets daily attacking vegans. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

1. These meta-analysis are of low-quality observational studies, based on dietary surveys, which are known to be unreliable. 2. The effect size for mortality and for heart disease is negligible, and that effect is subject to confounding bias. sbelknap (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added a more recent high-quality review on the health effects of red meat. sbelknap (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Not all reviews of observational studies are low-quality. The Bradford Hill criteria has often been used. There is consistent and reliable evidence that processed red meat increases the risk of bowel cancer and heart disease, there is a broad consensus on this. The evidence is not weak. It's not worth arguing about that as it is accepted by cancer, governmental and medical organizations. When you mention "red meat", you need to be clear if you are talking about processed or unprocessed. The evidence on unprocessed red meat is limited. As above, I do not object to you citing that recent review by Haley Lescinsky et al but it should not be cited as the final word on the subject. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It is the observational studies themselves that are low-quality. Most rely on nutritional surveys that have been shown to be unreliable.

You are wrong that there is consistent and reliable evidence that processed red meat increases the risk of bowel cancer and heart disease. Whatever consensus there is on that point rests on a thin reed indeed. sbelknap (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is consistent and reliable evidence that processed meat increases risk of bowel cancer and heart disease (Have you looked into nitrates?), this evidence is accepted by all cancer organizations, medical and governmental bodies around the world. We have nearly two decades of research on this. For example, reports from the World Cancer Research Fund International [16], [17] who published the 2018 report "Meat, fish and dairy products and the risk of cancer" [18] (see pages 31-34) and the World Health Organization that looked at all the recent evidence [19] as well as the National Cancer Institute [20], [21], Cancer Research UK [22], Cancer Council Australia [23] and American Association for Cancer Research [24]. I could list 20 more, these are all top reliable sources that have looked at the latest evidence. So all the top cancer organizations are all wrong but you are right? You seem to be a conspiracy theorist promoting Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz and ignoring good science. Not good! Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Setting your vituperation aside, I read Zeraatkar et al, which concluded we have poor quality evidence regarding processed meat and health. There does not appear to be any problem with their methodology.

I'm unaware of anything that contradicts Zeraatkar. sbelknap (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a major problem with their methodology, you have already been given several links on that [25]. The Zeraatkar study co-authored by Bradley C. Johnston who was funded by the meat industry and used a flawed methodology "Critics pointed out numerous flaws with the Annals publications. Most conspicuously, the authors had used a review methodology that valorizes randomized clinical trials (RCTs). But it is famously difficult to do RCTs for nutrition, so by choosing this particular assessment tool, the investigators excluded most of the benchmark studies on red meat and health. And we soon learned that some of them had undisclosed ties to the food industry... Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition, called them “the most egregious abuse of data I've ever seen.” You are ignoring scientific consensus and citing any old study you can find that proves meat is good. It's not honest editing. Next you will head over to the saturated fat article and tell us all saturated fat is not a risk factor for heart disease. Cut it out. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"(A) methodology that valorizes randomized clinical trials"

Hmm. I recognize that. That is from the Naomi Oreskes article in Scientific American. I laughed the first time I read that phrase. It retains its humor.

When we have no certain knowledge of a subject, the best course is to acknowledge this fact. This is an encyclopedia not a work of fiction.

It seems that you and I agree with Zeraatkar et al. that we don't know if eating meat, processed or unprocessed, will kill us. Now that we have this consensus, how about we craft language that reflects this uncomfortable, but true, state of affairs? sbelknap (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Doing nutritional research is hard and there are limitations, of course we lack knowledge about all the effects of meat, we need decades more research. But there is good high-quality and consistent evidence that processed red meat increases risk of bowel cancer, the evidence is accepted as causal by health authorities who actually use the words "strong evidence" [26], [27]. There is a 2018 report reviewed in 2021 cited above from the World Cancer Research Fund International that cites all the evidence on that (I listed page numbers). The same report gives high-quality evidence that dairy consumption decreases risk of colorectal cancer. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This is false. There is no high-quality evidence that processed red mean causes bowel cancer or other health problems. The best review we have is Zeraatkar et al, which concludes, "The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty." sbelknap (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• I had a look at the current article. My initial take is to wonder why we're quoting such old reviews. Then to wonder why not mirroring up-to-date content from (say) CRUK.[28] ? Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  You are correct that the old reviews are obsolete. The health section of this Red Meat article is assessing health claims. For assessing health, the standard approach on wikipedia is to emphasize high-quality secondary scientific literature. Of course, attention to dietary guidelines and other information is OK, but the key citations in support of health claims is secondary literature, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

  I began updating health section of this article by removing almost all the text and the citations, as the existing material was wrong, the citations were obsolete or poor quality, and there was a lack of balance regarding issues where there is uncertainty or differences of opinions among scientists.

  This article is susceptible to motivated reasoning from those with religious/ideological views against eating meat, equity concerns that poor people do not have access to animal-based foods, and ecological/environmental concerns about the impact of meat. Whatever ones position on these matters, this is an encyclopedia, and the reader is best served if a section on health aspects of eating meat is driven by the science and not these other concerns. sbelknap (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ideal WP:MEDRS sources also include the positions of prestigious expert bodies, and the view of CRUK is due. This is the way to cut through any "religious/ideological views". Summarize the WP:BESTSOURCES and move on. And if they say slightly different things, that will be clear too. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree outdated content should be removed but deleting almost the entire article including the findings from the World Health Organization and several recent meta-analyses are not justified. Unfortunately Sbelknap does not accept that there are any negative health effects from processed red meat consumption, so no matter what is cited they will ignore it. The user denies evidence from all the health and medical authorities and organizations including World Health Organization, World Cancer Research Fund International, National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, American Association for Cancer Research and Cancer Research UK. According to this user all these organizations are "wrong". All these websites most of which have published reports clearly summarize the evidence as processed meat being a carcinogenic to humans with "strong evidence". I have seen a lot of users come to Wikipedia over the years and debate this topic emotionally but I have never seen a user before deny this, so this is exceptional. It's ridiculous to claim all these organizations are biased or have an agenda against meat. There is no religious or vegetarian agenda from the World Health Organization. The same user is currently on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans talk-page claiming Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz are reliable sources. The user claims to be driven by science, but this is not the case. The editing is too extreme. Psychologist Guy (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In regard to CRUK the evidence is clearly accepted as causal [29]. An outdated version of that page is being cited, so we can update that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

[30] is even more up-to-date (reviewed in June). Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The current health effects section mischaracterizes the evidence and does not represent a WP:NPOV. The higher quality (and more recent) reviews by Lescinsky et al. and by Zeraatkar et al. take precedence over the deprecated studies. The Lescinsky & Zeraatkar studies are *high quality* reviews of *low quality* evidence that found *very little* adverse effect of meat on health.

I've tagged this section accordingly. sbelknap (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to disclose to readers here that you are a known carnivore diet advocate on social media platforms (Twitter and Facebook) and that you are involved in buying and selling of grass-fed beef and elk (I have found all of your posts off-site). There is massive conflict of interest coming from your end. You are ignoring scientific consensus based on your red meat promotion and interests. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The methodology seems quite new. You can check out the tool here. If I read it correctly, the BoP approach claims that the causal relationship of smoking and lung cancer is 0.7 meaning that there is no clear relationship. If that is the case, this approach produces results that contradict the body of evidence. I suggest that someone looks into this, too, and if my interpretation is correct I would not use studies based on BoP until this approach becomes more widely accepted in the scientific community. Because otherwise we would have to edit the article on smoking claiming that it does not cause lung cancer. CarlFromVienna (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a reliable source in regard to Wikipedia guidelines, i.e. good journal but I agree there are issues with the new methodology, here is some info about it [31] Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes the source is reliable. I am only starting to understand the approach. It has been around for only a few weeks now. Here I am reading the authors see a clear relationship between LC and smoking. Hm. CarlFromVienna (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Some more tidbits explaining the methodology (from here:

“For example, a two-star risk with high prevalence of exposure could pose a greater risk at the population level than a five-star risk with low prevalence of exposure.“

Now what do we make of this? It sounds like if many people follow a low-carb carnivore diet based on red meat the risk for them may be higher to get cancer compared to a population of infrequent smokers. Even though red meat only got a two star rating while smoking got a 5 star rating.

Now:

“The BPRF is the level of elevated risk for a harmful factor (…) based on the most conservative (closest to null) interpretation compatible with the available evidence.“

If I understand this correctly what they do is to not assume a log-linear relation (dose-response relation) but calculate the shape of the risk function.

Then they calculate the „distance“ between zero risk and the lowest risk increase and this gives them the level of evidence.

Which sounds to me as if they are basically ignoring higher risks (the bend of the function) by definition to give only the most conservative estimate.

To get higher star ratings (like 5 stars for lung cancer and smoking) you would have „the burden of proof“ that even in the most conservative case (closest to zero risk) there is a considerable risk increase linked to the exposure. CarlFromVienna (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In general academic expressions of risk do not translate well into material intended for a general audience (i.e. Wikipedia). See[32]. The press often makes a mess of it and Wikipedia is little better. Not sure what to do about this though. It's something ISTR discussing with WhatamIdoing in the past (maybe about this very topic of meat and cancer?) Bon courage (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

On a more general point, if we don't understand a source, and it seems to say something extraordinary, we should probably not try to use it in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Lescinsky et al did not use some strange, unproven method to analyze their data. What they did is trivially different from what has been routine practice for statistical analysis for decades. Their method is not difficult to understand. sbelknap (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest report filed, please see [33] Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please consider taking some time away from wikipedia. You are abusing the COI reporting process. You are posting many erroneous claims about content. You are posting many erroneous claims about me. In my opinion, some of your edits to wikipedia content amount to vandalism. At best, you present a distraction, at worst, you are impeding efforts to improve wikipedia. Time to take a break. sbelknap (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There is substantial overlap of the Meat article and the Red Meat article. I propose that these articles be merged.sbelknap (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Please elaborate. sbelknap (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – The burden is on you to elaborate, as you're the one making the proposal to merge. But I'll just throw in here that Meat on its own is already at the upper limit of readable prose (50kb) for an article, before becoming a candidate for a split due to its size, so merging truly makes no sense. If anything, you'd want to lighten its load. In addition, White meat could use expansion.

As both White meat and Red meat are child articles of Meat, if any refactoring is to be done, it probably should be a redistribution of some of the non-redundant, detailed content in Meat into White meat and to Red meat, and a better organization of Meat as the parent article. This means the latter should have separate sections for #Red_meat and #White_meat (but does not, currently), written as a brief summary of the respective topics, and headed by a {{Main}} template. Mathglot (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – We have not yet formed a team of editors that would be up for the task. We are discussing things that are beyond our responsibility (e.g. if prospective cohort studies are good tools for nutritional research). As long as there is no consensus to follow the established methodologies of nutritional science we are not up for the task. That said, even if that would change, I don’t see any advantage in creating an article that gets even longer. CarlFromVienna (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose-Numerous WP:RS sources discuss red meat specifically. Also, per Mathglot, content reorganization across existing articles is a better approach and a merge would lead to an overlong article.Dialectric (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, while overlap is an issue, I do think that this article could tell a unique story. Also, if the size of meat is at 50 KB, I do not think it it would be a good idea to merge. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that the findings of Zeraatkar et al be added to the health section. This is a high-quality article with important findings. See: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M19-0655 sbelknap (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Zeraatkar et al is industry-funded research and as such cannot be used on Wikipedia. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"Zeraatkar et al is industry-funded research" ← is there a good source discussing this? Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Bon courage there have been several links cited about that study, there was a massive backlash against that paper. One of the co-authors was Bradley C. Johnston if you look at the top section on this talk-page you can find some of the links including an expert panel reception. The consensus is that processed red meat does cause bowel cancer and increase heart disease risk. The evidence for red meat is much more limited. Unfortunately the Johnston paper mixed studies on processed and unprocessed meat. This wasn't done on the burden of proof study which strictly excluded studies on processed meat. Studies on unprocessed red meat are limited and we need decades more research but we have consistent evidence that processed red meat causes bowel cancer. I do not believe we should cite one contrary review that had a dodgy methodology and potential food industry ties to challenge decades of research accepted by health authorities. It would clearly confuse readers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I have reviewed the COIs for this article, including later corrections. As an experienced editor familiar with the relevant COI issues, it is my considered opinion that inclusion of Zeraatkar's findings w/citation would improve the quality of this article. sbelknap (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It would most probably not because we would need to cite all the context, that is the backlash and industry ties, the attempt to hide the industry ties, the false methodology and so on. It would be a very lengthy discussion (we have done it on WP:DE). In my opinion the article would not improve by presenting this whole calamity. CarlFromVienna (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so in view of those documented concerns and the WP:EXCEPTIONAL natures of the claims, I think this source is best kept on hold for now. It's not as if we don't have other recent RS from unimpeachable sources (e.g. CRUK). Bon courage (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The metaresearch results of the secondary source Zeraatkar article are not exceptional. The primary source articles are given in the article itself. Each of those primary sources are available. Thus, Zeraatkar et al present an analysis of publicly-available information. The article is a high-quality second source, it uses well-established methods, it is replicable, it has not been withdrawn or deprecated, it is widely-cited, and it is considered valid. The co-authors include Gordon Guyatt, a founder of evidence-based medicine. The assertion that Zeraatkar is compromised in some way is nonsensical. The essential conclusion is that the available information is of poor quality and any negative effect of meat on health is negligible. There is no calamity, the COI issues are trivial. The fake "backlash" is due to motivated reasoning from those who do not care for these meta-research findings.sbelknap (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an established scientific consensus that processed meat causes cancer. This novel analysis seeks to overturn that. That is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Come back when and if more good sources say the same thing. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The lack of a scientific consensus on processed meat is obvious to any objective reader of the literature. There is a consensus that the available research results are of poor-quality, consisting of observational studies using unreliable metrics and with known confounding. This is true regardless of what schema one uses to assess research quality. (I prefer the Oxford Centre EBM schema. https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf)

Engaged editors would do well to heed wikipedia policy on neutral point of view:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." sbelknap (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You have your answer and the consensus here. If you want more eyes I suggest raising a query at WT:MED. I shall not respond further here. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

POV tag added. This article fails to present a NPOV because of exclusion of Lescinsky, Zeraatkar, and because of a failure to present the substantial body of research contradicting the claim that red meat consumption is unhealthy.sbelknap (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like hostage tagging, while no attempt to seek input at WT:MED, the relevant noticeboard, has been made. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The POV tag indicates that there is a disagreement. No change has been made to the content of the article. You removed the tag without resolving the issue, which is a substantive one. Why? sbelknap (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's not a substantive issue. We get WP:PROFRINGE editors wanting to put stickers on articles they don't like all the time as a sign of disapproval. If you want to overturn consensus go to the relevant noticeboard for input from experienced editors. You never know, people there might decide there is an issue here. Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

We disagree. There is nothing fringe here. Some engaged editors are removing text that is supported by peer-reviewed meta-analyses that are highly-cited in the literature. Below are the wikipedia criteria for when to remove a POV tag.

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

We're not there yet. sbelknap (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes we are; you're just refusing to accept the consensus. Are repeatedly edit-warring in these tags is getting disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring refers to changes in content. Here, you are removing an POV tag for no apparent reason. We disagree about the content, you removed text based on high-quality sources, and I have allowed your content edit to stand and also (accurately) placed a POV tag in the article in the section on health effects. YOu have not provided any reasonable explanation for why you are removing high-quality content with citations that has been placed by an experienced editor. Neither have you provided any reasonable justification for removing the POV tag. sbelknap (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

From that it seems, you're not WP:LISTENing to what others are saying. If you think there's a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE there's a usual protocol to follow. You've been pointed to a relevant WikiProject (WT:MED), where you'll find many editors familiar with handling biomedical content in an appropriate way. Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The immediate issue is a dispute about proper behavior by wikipedia editors. My understanding is that deleting a POV tag is inappropriate when there is a legitimate disagreement about content. As quoted above. sbelknap (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not legitimate. You can either edit-war over a pointless sticker, or you can actually pursue DR as per WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Bon courage (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add a WP:POV tag to the article, and to the extent I understand it, you'd need consensus for adding it, as for anything else that appears at the article. The POV tag doesn't mean that there's disagreement about content. An editor reverting (or changing) another editor's content means there's disagreement about content, and the next step in that case is not to reinsert the content but to discuss it on the Talk page, not placement of a WP:POV tag on the article. If you were correct that "The POV tag indicates that there is a disagreement", then the majority of articles at Wikipedia would have one. Please achieve consensus here for addition of the WP:POV tag, if you feel it belongs on the article page. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, wikipedia policy is not as you claim. Here is the relevant info fromWikipedia:NPOV dispute"

"A NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. An editor should not remove the tag merely because they feel the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. The tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern…" sbelknap (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

To repeat, there is no dispute. There is an editor trying to edit against the established consensus. It happens for many topics from Kennedy assassination to Bigfoot to ... meat. Just because an editor has an outlier view doesn't mean they get to plaster WP:HOSTAGE tags on articles. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a dispute. Some editors removed text supported by high-quality sources that contradicted the view presented in this article. sbelknap (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

You have a choice: either continue with the processology edit-warring (and probably get blocked), try to widen/change consensus by following WP:DR, or give up and do something useful instead. Bon courage (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The most productive approach is to discuss a disagreement here on the talk page and thereby resolve the disagreement. Instead of making threats, perhaps you might focus on the content of the article.

It is undeniable that there is a large, high-quality literature that contradicts the view presented in the health effects section for this red meat article.

What I see is a small number of engaged editors who are not following this advice from WP:NPOVHOW.

"Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." sbelknap (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, Wikipedia policy is not as you claim, and you don't get to quote an WP:ESSAY, which is neither policy, nor guideline, nor even a style manual, but merely the opinion of one or more Wikipedia editors, and then claim it is policy. Inclusion of an NPOV tag is not warranted and is merely your opinion, evidently contrary to consensus here so far, although consensus may, of course, change. Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The essay is advice. It seems to me to be sound advice. sbelknap (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I added some text with supporting citation to the health section: "An umbrella systematic review and assessment of causality using the Bradford-Hill criteria found that red meat and processed meat in the diet are probably not causally-related to cardiovascular disease."

Here is the cited source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2022.2123778

My edit was reverted by an editor who has not otherwise been engaged in making edits to the Red meat wikipedia article. By way of explanation, this editor left this curious comment, "(Novel finding with so many caveats as to be unuseful (sic) in an encyclopedia.)"

The cited source is a high-quality secondary source that presents no novel findings. Instead it is an umbrella systematic review that applied the Bradford Hill Causality Criteria to infer the potential for causal relations between intakes of red and processed meat and cardiovascular disease or type 2 diabetes mellitus. The analysis used systematic reviews and meta-analyses of both observational and experimental research, including randomized controlled feeding trials, on the topic. Thus, this umbrella review relies upon published reviews that analyzed primary scientific literature reports. The Bradford Hill Causality Criteria have been used for a half-century to assess causality.

I have reverted the drive-by edit.sbelknap (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes applying the Bradford Hill Causality Criteria to infer that something is likely is what I meant by novel. I still stand by the editorial choice that the limited findings in this review is not a necessary or desired in this article. Perhaps is this review starts getting citations we could revisit. AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Applying the Bradford Hill Causality Criteria to nutrition and health is in no way novel. This has been done for more than a half century. sbelknap (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

UNDUE as presented. May be due some mention, depending on what editors think of the ref. --Hipal (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Just the usual propaganda from food industry funded studies (beef companies in this case), not a neutral review. See at bottom for the disclosure statement "The Beef Checkoff, Pork Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, National Chicken Council, Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, and American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center." Per MEDRS we do not cite food industry funded reviews like this.

There have been other recent umbrella reviews published that were not industry funded and are more reliable, for example Zhang X, Liang S, Chen X, Yang J, Zhou Y, Du L, Li K. Red/processed meat consumption and noncancer-related outcomes in humans: Umbrella review. Br J Nutr. 2022 Dec 22:1-30. [34] "Dose‒response analysis revealed that an additional 100 g/day red meat intake was positively associated with a 17% increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), 15% increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), 14% of hypertension, and 12% of stroke. The highest dose‒response per 50 g increase in processed meat consumption at 95% confident levels were 1.37 (1.22-1.55) for T2DM, 1.27 (1.09-1.49) for CHD, 1.17 (1.02-1.34) for stroke, 1.15 (1.11-1.19) for all-cause mortality, and 1.08 (1.02-1.14) for heart failure. In addition, red/processed meat intake was associated with several other health-related outcomes." This is more reliable and could be used on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)