In 2020, the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) lancetAccording to its findings, a “substantial” increase in diet-related burden was observed, which the authors associated with red meat consumption.
A GBD 2017 analysis attributed 25,000 deaths and 1.3 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) to a diet high in red meat. Red meat consumption was the least important of the 15 dietary risk factors.
However, by GBD 2019, the estimated number of deaths attributed to unprocessed red meat consumption increased 36-fold, and the estimated DALYs attributed to unprocessed red meat consumption increased 18-fold.
Two years after the GBD 2019 was published, an international team of researchers is questioning these findings, citing “serious concerns” about the latest GBD systematic analysis of risk factors.
36-fold increase in estimated fatalitiesna
The 36-fold increase in estimated deaths and 18-fold increase in estimated DALYs attributable to consumption of unprocessed red meat was “significant,” the researchers said. lancet February this year. In fact, the creators of GBD 2019 admitted this at the time.
Three main sources of information were determined to be responsible for the substantial increase: changes in crosswalks between alternative and reference methods for estimating dietary intake, new systematic reviews and meta-regressions, and A more empirical standardized method for selecting the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) for diets. protective factor.
For red meat, all three sources influence the estimates. However, the researcher suggests that a new systematic review and meta-regression, and setting his TMREL for red meat at 0 g per day, appear to be two causes that are “especially” important. I’m here.
All previous GBD risk factor analyzes have included published, peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses (and persuasive or possibly evidence-based studies of risk-outcome pairs) to ‘construct relative risk curves’. Using data from the World Cancer Research Fund criteria), the GBD analysis was approached slightly differently to determine the TMREL for each risk factor.
GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators conducted or updated an independent systematic review of each diet’s risks and associated outcomes. Based on these reviews, as described in a February 2022 article, the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators concluded that “red meat intake is associated with ischemic heart disease, breast cancer, hemorrhagic stroke, and ischemic stroke. Sufficient evidence to support causation”.
These results add to previously identified relationships with diabetes and colon cancer.
“These findings regarding additional causality in red meat are inconsistent with other recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses.” The article’s author states:
Is Red Meat Inherently Harmful?na
According to these researchers, this means that the 2019 GBD analysis does not adhere to agreed best practices, which they consider “extremely concerning.”
Of particular concern is the potential impact from the GBD 2019 findings. Since its publication, GBD 2019 has been cited by 635 documents, including 351 scientific papers and 9 policy documents.
The researchers question whether the “whole” of the nutritional effects of red meat was considered in the study’s meta-regression. “Assuming a TMREL of zero would effectively present red meat as an inherently harmful food. they wrote “This assumption would ignore well-documented nutritional benefits in terms of supplying essential nutrients and bioactive components.”na
If public health messages inform policy based on the GBD 2019 research, this could also be a problem. For example, if governments recommend eating red meat is harmful, researchers are concerned that some children may suffer from iron deficiency anemia or sarcopenia. They stressed that it was responsible for a “significantly” greater global burden of disease than a diet high in red meat, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
GBD 2019 risk factor data have been cited “extensively” in the UK’s National Food Strategy evidence document, which researchers say is of “great concern”.
requested descriptionna
Researchers want action. “Given the significant impact of the GBD report on global nutrition policy decision-making, GBD estimates are subject to critical scrutiny and remain rigorous, transparent and evidence-based. that is very important.”na
Specifically, the authors of the article want the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators to clarify the details of the study, including justification for updating dose-response curves of the relative risk of red meat for many health risks. . They also want “empirical evidence” to change her TMREL of red meat from 22.5g to 0g per day.
“Finally, the GBD 2019 risk factor collaborators noted that iron deficiency anemia, sarcopenia, additional mortality from child and maternal malnutrition that would result from zeroing the TMREL of red meat, and DALYs for GBD 2019. It should be clarified whether it is included in the estimate.na
The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) International supports the researchers’ call for further explanation and justification for the TMREL of Zero.
“Not only does the increase in estimated burden appear implausible, but the lack of transparency of the assumptions underlying the calculation undermines the authority of the GBD estimate.”na
WCRF continues: “If the assumptions used in a study are not clearly stated and explained, the results will be questionable and difficult to reproduce.na
“Preventability estimates rely heavily on their underlying assumptions, as outlined in the discussion on population attribution methodologies.”na
Does the WCRF link red meat consumption to cancer?na
For more than 20 years, WCRF International claims to be “at the forefront” of investigating the relationship between diet, nutrition, physical activity, and cancer.
So, does red meat consumption cause cancer, according to the nonprofit? that is Factors that contribute to the development of colorectal cancer.
“Nevertheless, neither WCRF nor other international bodies recommend avoiding meat entirely. Red meat is an important source of several nutrients in many diets around the world.” Mentioned in an article published in lancet last month.
“Removing meat from such a diet is impractical and impractical, and carries risks of nutritional deficiencies that have been determined to outweigh future cancer risks.na
“The lack of a clear basis for the assumptions underlying the GBD estimate is troubling, unsupported by evidence, and unrealistic.”na
sauce:na
lancetna
“Global Burden of 87 Risk Factors in 204 Countries and Territories, 1990-2019: A Systematic Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019”
Published October 17, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2
Authors: Christopher JL Murray, Aleksandr Y Aravkin, Peng Zheng et al.
lancetna
“36-fold Estimate of Deaths Due to Red Meat Consumption in GBD 2019: Is This Reliable?
Published February 25, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00311-87
Authors: Alice V Stanton, Frédéric Leroy, Christopher Elliot, Neil Mann, Patrick Wall, Stefaan De Smet
lancetna
“Troublesome Assumptions Behind GBD 2019 on Red Meat Health Risks”
Published August 6, 2022
DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01283-1
Authors: Vanessa LZ Gordon-Dseagu, Martin J Wiseman, Kate Allen, Judy Buttriss, Christine Williams
na
.
