Industry-Backed Research More Likely To Say Meat Is Beneficial, Finds Study

A new meta-research review has found that research backed by the animal agriculture industry is more likely to say that meat is beneficial.

The review found “a significant association between industry involvement and study conclusion,” and highlighted how this trend is undermining the evidence used to inform the public and create effective food and health policy.

Researchers conducted a meta-research review of 500 relevant studies published between 2014 and 2023 using PubMed and Scopus. In particular, the review focused on studies investigating the nutritional health impacts of meat consumption.

The review found that 15.6 percent of the 500 studies reported industry involvement, and that research with industry ties was 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption than other studies.

Seventy-five percent of the industry-backed studies linked meat consumption to favorable outcomes, and just one reported negative outcomes. Just 10 percent of independently funded research said meat had a positive impact.

The authors wrote of “a significant association between industry involvement and study conclusion,” and added that “Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research.”

“These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research,” the authors concluded.

Obesity Reviews published the meta-study in May.

‘Another exercise in marketing over health and evidence’

Photo shows an assortment of whole, plant-based foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds. — Adobe Stock Myriad studies indicate the benefits of plant foods for human and planetary health

In March, a report by AHDB (the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board) claimed that dairy is beneficial for both human health and the environment, despite a significant amount of reputable evidence to the contrary.

ProVeg International, an NGO working towards food system change, described the report as “another exercise in marketing over health and evidence.”

According to a leaked document seen by investigative journalism site DeSmog, the PR firm Red Flag played a significant role in fueling the significant backlash against 2019’s EAT-Lancet Report. Red Flag reportedly acted on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), which protects the industry against “emerging threats.”

PBN runs a sponsored content model. To explore how you can get featured, please email [email protected] or visit everkinddigital.com