Is Red Meat Really Safe for Your Heart? Study Shows Industry Funding May Skew the Science
A new analysis is raising eyebrows in the world of nutrition science. According to a recent review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, studies funded by the red meat industry are significantly more likely to report positive or neutral health outcomes related to red meat consumption—compared to those backed by independent sources.
The finding adds to growing concern over how corporate influence may be distorting the way we understand food and its effects on our health.
READ ALSO: Police Blame Father in Fatal Shooting of WAEC Student in Ibadan
Industry Money, Industry-Friendly Results?
The review, led by researcher Miguel López Moreno from Spain’s Francisco de Vitoria University, examined 44 clinical trials conducted between 1980 and 2023. These trials looked into how eating unprocessed red meat—like steak and pork chops—affects heart disease risk factors such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure.
Out of the 44 studies reviewed, 29 were funded by red meat industry groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Board. The remaining 15 received funding from government agencies or nonprofit organizations with no industry ties.
The result? Industry-funded studies were nearly four times more likely to present red meat in a favorable light. In contrast, studies without financial links to the meat industry reported either neutral or worsened cardiovascular outcomes.
What This Means for Everyday People
For regular consumers trying to make healthy food choices, conflicting nutrition studies can be confusing. As Dr. Deirdre Tobias of Harvard Medical School noted, these mixed messages can seriously undermine public trust in science.
Part of the problem may lie in how the studies were designed. Industry-funded trials often compared red meat to less healthy options like refined carbs (e.g., bagels and white rice), rather than to heart-friendly foods such as legumes, nuts, tofu, or whole grains. In doing so, red meat can appear healthier simply because it’s being stacked up against poorer dietary choices.
Meanwhile, independently funded research offered broader comparisons—placing red meat alongside a variety of food types, including proven heart-healthy alternatives. This fuller picture gives a better sense of how red meat actually performs in a typical, diverse diet.
Financial Conflicts in Nutrition Research
Although no one can say with certainty that researchers intentionally designed biased studies, experts argue that the pattern is hard to ignore. Dr. Walter Willett, a prominent nutrition scientist at Harvard, called the findings “damning.”
Similar funding-related biases have shown up in other areas of food research, too. For example, industry-backed studies have previously downplayed the harms of sugar or suggested that alcohol could be part of a healthy lifestyle.
Nutrition expert Marion Nestle summed it up plainly: when food companies fund research, it’s usually to promote their products—not to advance public health.
READ ALSO: UEFA Unveils New Ballon d’Or Criteria Ahead of 2025 Ceremony
Underfunding Fuels the Problem
One of the root causes of this conflict of interest is the chronic underfunding of independent nutrition research. In 2023, less than 5% of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget was allocated to food and nutrition science. This forces many researchers to seek private funding—from the very industries they’re supposed to be evaluating.
Dr. Tobias warns that unless public funding improves, the public will be left relying on industry-funded studies that may not have their best interests at heart.
So, Should You Stop Eating Red Meat?
The takeaway isn’t necessarily to eliminate red meat altogether—but to view industry-backed “science” with healthy skepticism. Many nutrition experts still advise limiting red meat, especially varieties high in saturated fat, and incorporating more plant-based proteins into your diet.
As debates around meat-heavy diets continue—often fueled by celebrities, podcasters, and wellness influencers—this new review serves as a reminder: the source of a study matters just as much as the science behind it.