Currently browsing posts about: Beef

While we are on the topic of labels, here’s the USDA’s newest:

“Tastes like freedom?”  You have to love the Orwellian rhetoric.

“Our great patriot ranchers and producers grow, raise, and harvest the world’s safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply. American consumers want to support America by buying American and this label will strengthen our food supply chain through transparency, fairness, and trust,” said USDA Secretary Rollins. “This new standard policy ensures producers who invest in a fully American supply chain can compete fairly, and it gives consumers the confidence they deserve about the food they bring home.”

Here’s what this is about:

Under this standard, the “Product of USA” label is reserved exclusively for meat, poultry, and egg products from animals that were born, raised, harvested, and processed in the United States. The claim is voluntary, but companies using it must meet this transparent and verifiable requirement.

It is part of the USDA Plan to Fortify the American Beef Industry.  This “focuses on rebuilding domestic capacity, improving transparency across the supply chain, and ensuring U.S. ranchers can compete on a level playing field.”

And, you can “Learn more at productofusa.gov,”

Rumors are that the 2025=2030 dietary guidelines will be released this week and they will favor saturated fat and meat.  We will know whether this is true when they appear, and I will be sure to report on them when they do.

In the meantime, the meat industry is hard at work to try to convince you that meat is good for you and the more the better.  Here are two examples sent to me recently.

I.  From Serge Hercberg, developer of Nutri-Score.

• The study: Red meat intake and its influences on inflammation and immune function biomarkers in human adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2025.2584482
• Conclusion: “Limited evidence from both experimental and observational research suggests no influence of red meat intake on multiple pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory, and immune function biomarkers…These results are consistent with recommendations for people who choose to consume red meat to limit or avoid consuming processed red meat, especially among individuals with cardiometabolic diseases.”
• Disclosure statement: “During the time this research was conducted, W.W.C. received funding for research grants, travel or honoraria for scientific presentations, or consulting services from the following organizations: U.S. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Hatch Funding), Pork Checkoff, National Pork Board, Beef Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, American Egg Board, Whey Protein Research Consortium, National Dairy Council, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. J.B.R. received funding for research grants from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Whey Protein Research Consortium, and National Chicken Council. M.R.O. received funding for research grants from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association. Y.W., C.N.U., E.R.H., J.N.S., and N.L.A. declare no conflict of interest. The funders and these other organizations had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.” [my emphasis]
• Funding: “The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff.”

II.   From a reader, Cory Brooks

• Press release: “Eating meat may protect against cancer, landmark research shows:  A large study of nearly 16,000 adults found no link between eating animal protein and higher death risk. Surprisingly, higher animal protein intake was associated with lower cancer mortality, supporting its role in a balanced, health-promoting diet.”
• The study: Yanni Papanikolaou, Stuart M. Phillips, Victor L. Fulgoni. Animal and plant protein usual intakes are not adversely associated with all-cause, cardiovascular disease–, or cancer-related mortality risk: an NHANES III analysis. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2025; 50: 1 DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2023-0594
• Conclusion: “Our data do not support the thesis that source-specific protein intake is associated with greater mortality risk; however, animal protein may be mildly protective for cancer mortality. “
• Funding: From the press release: “This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. NCBA was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.”

Comment: We have here two studies funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the research and education arm of the USDA-sponsored Beef Checkoff.  Checkoff programs are designed to promote consumer demand for the sponsored food, in this case, beef.  Eating less beef has long been viewed as beneficial to human health, because of studies linking beef consumption to certain cancers.  Eating less beef is demonstrably beneficial to the environment since beef production results in so much waste pollution and greenhouse gas emission.  The NCBA would prefer that you not think about potential health risks.  Hence, this sponsored research.

As for the statements about the funder having no involvement: these are demonstrably misleading.  The NCBA does not fund research unlikely to produce results in its interests.  The influence is there from the get go.

Beef Checkoffs are USDA-sponsored programs that require producers to pay fees per cattle weight (the checkoff) into a common fund for research and promotion.  Here are three examples of the kinds of studies on beef and health that checkoff money pays for.  Note that all produce results favoring eating beef (what a coincidence).

I.  Eating beef protects against heart disease, cancer, and overall mortality

Ellen Fried sent me this headline from the New York Post: Eating meat not linked to higher risk of death — and may even protect against cancer-related mortality: study

Eating more meat could be beneficial for the body, a new study suggests [the study is here].

Recent research from Canada’s McMaster University revealed that animal-sourced foods are not linked to a higher risk of death.

The study discovered that animal proteins could also offer protective benefits against cancer-related mortality, according to a press release from the university.

If you scroll down far enough, the Post account, to its credit, ends with:

This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), although the researchers noted that NCBA was “not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.”

II.  Beef has no effect on weight gain, obesity, or related metabolic conditions.

Effect of unprocessed red meat on obesity and related factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Md Akheruzzaman, Marleigh Hefner, Daniel Baller, Shane Clark, Zahra Feizy, Diana M. Thomas, Nikhil V. Dhurandhar.  Obesity.  2025. 25 July 2025.  https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.24322

Results: We found no significant effect of URM [unprcessed red meat] for BMI, body weight, or percent body fat based on unfiltered pooled effect sizes. Filtered pooled effect size analysis showed a slight adverse effect of URM for total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Conclusions: Studies did not show an effect of URM on weight gain, obesity, or related metabolic conditions.

Funding: This study received funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Beef Checkoff.

Conflict of interest: [The lead author] received grant support from the Beef Checkoff for conducting the systematic review and meta-analysis. The sponsor did not have any role regarding the study design, data extraction, analysis, or reporting.

III.  Vitamins and race are more important for health than beef intake.

“Shaking the ladder” reveals how analytic choices can influence associations in nutrition epidemiology: beef intake and coronary heart disease as a case study  Vorland, C. J., O’Connor, L. E., Henschel, B., Huo, C., Shikany, J. M., Serrano, C. A., … Brown, A. WCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2025:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2025.2525459

We explored the impact of analytical decisions on conclusions in nutrition epidemiology using self-reported beef intake and incident coronary heart disease as a case study….The finding of few statistically significant models does not prove, but may suggest, minimal association between beef and CHD. A qualitative inspection of our figures suggested that two variables had the greatest influence on results: years of multivitamin use and race…Not adjusting for these particular covariates, which indirectly capture concepts related to health consciousness and SES, may produce more extreme results because of confounding.

Funding: Funded by the Beef Checkoff….

Disclosure statement: In the 36 months prior to the initial submission, Dr. Vorland has received honoraria from The Obesity Society and The Alliance for Potato Research and Education. In the 36 months prior to the initial submission, Dr. Allison has received personal payments or promises for same from: Amin Talati Wasserman for KSF Acquisition Corp (Glanbia); Clark Hill PLC; General Mills; Kaleido Biosciences; Law Offices of Ronald Marron; Medpace/Gelesis; Novo Nordisk Fonden; Sports Research Corp.; USDA; and Zero Longevity Science (as stock options). Donations to a foundation have been made on his behalf by the Northarvest Bean Growers Association. The institution of Dr. Vorland, Ms. Henschel, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Dickinson, and Dr. Allison, Indiana University, and the Indiana University Foundation have received funds or donations to support their research or educational activities from: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; Alliance for Potato Research and Education; American Egg Board; Arnold Ventures; Eli Lilly and Company; Mars, Inc.; National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Pfizer, Inc.; National Pork Board; USDA; Soleno Therapeutics; WW (formerly Weight Watchers); and numerous other for-profit and nonprofit organizations to support the work of the School of Public Health and the university more broadly. Dr. O’Connor’s research is funded by internal funds at the Agricultural Research Service, USDA and the National Cancer Institute, NIH as well as external funds from the National Institute of Agricultural, USDA and the Beef Checkoff. Dr. O’Connor also served unpaid on the National Pork Board – Real Pork Research Advisory 2nd Advisory Council. In the past 36 months, Dr. Brown has received travel expenses from Alliance for Potato Research and Education, International Food Information Council, and Soy Nutrition Institute Global; speaking honoraria from Alliance for Potato Research and Education, Calorie Control Council, Eastern North American Region of the International Biometric Society, International Food Information Council Foundation, Potatoes USA, Purchaser Business Group on Health, The Obesity Society, and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; consulting payments from National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and Soy Nutrition Institute Global; and grants through his institution from Alliance for Potato Research & Education, American Egg Board, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, NIH/NHLBI, NIH/NIDDK, NIH/NIGMS, and NSF/NIH. He has been involved in research for which his institution or colleagues have received grants or contracts from ACRI, Alliance for Potato Research & Education, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Hass Avocado Board, Indiana CTSI, NIH/NCATS, NIH/NCI, NIH/NIA, NIH/NIGMS, NIH/NLM, and UAMS. His wife is employed by Reckitt. Other authors report no disclosures in the last 36 months prior to the initial submission.

Thanks to my former doctoral student and now colleague, Lisa Young, for forwarding this SmartBrief mailed to members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

To its credit, the brief begins with this statement (in small print): “This is a paid advertisement for SmartBrief readers. The content does not necessarily reflect the view of SmartBrief or its Association partners.”

Also to its credit, the brief says:

Proteins can be obtained through both animal-based sources and plant-based sources. All animal-based sources, and some plant-based ones, are considered complete proteins, containing all nine essential amino acids.

It continues,

This Nutrition and Dietetics SmartBrief Special Report, brought to you by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, spotlights the importance of protein, the different types of protein, its role in combination with GLP-1 receptor agonists and expert tips from registered dietitians.

Guess what it says about the different types of protein:

Animal-sourced foods, like beef, offer a high-quality essential amino acid profile, and a unique combination of micronutrients. Read recent research on high-quality protein and its impact on growth, development, muscle health and maintenance and earn 2 CPEUs for this activity.

For reading material producted by the beef trade association, dietitians get free continuing education credits toward the total required by their association.

Does this have any influence on what dietitians say about animal vs. plant proteins?  I’m guessing the beef association hopes so.

I often get asked why I think industry funding biases research in ways that almost always ensure that results favor the sponsor’s interests.

A reader, Professor Michael Tlusty, sent me this excellent example (my emphasis in bold).

BEEF CHECKOFF 2026 HUMAN NUTRITION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOW OPEN

On behalf of The Beef Checkoff, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is conducting a request for proposals (RFP) in Human Nutrition, to further understand beef’s nutritional qualities and define beef’s role in a healthy diet to nourish and optimize health at every life stage including research topics related to growth and development, healthy aging, and reduced risk of chronic disease.As part of their long-standing commitment to further scientific discovery, beef farmers and ranchers are invested in funding high quality, rigorous research — from observational epidemiological and clinical intervention trials to modeling and substitution analyses. As nutrition science continues to evolve, broadening and deepening the beef nutrition evidence base is essential to ensure that consumers have the most up-to-date information to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

The Human Nutrition Research Program follows a two-part application process, beginning with the submission of a pre-proposal. Pre-proposals are intended to be a brief overview of the proposed project….

Comment: If you want your project funded, you need to make sure it will demonstrate beef’s role in nourishing and optimizing health.  If your project does not do this, it won’t get funded.

OK.  Here’s your chance.  Pre-proposals are due May 30 at 11:59 pm MT.  Directions: Submit a Pre-Proposal

Christopher Gardner writes me that the next time I need an example of an industry-funded study, I should take a look at this one.  Happy to.

The Study: A Mediterranean-Style Diet with Lean Beef Lowers Blood Pressure and Improves Vascular Function: Secondary Outcomes from a Randomized Crossover Trial.  Jennifer A Fleming, Kristina S Petersen, kup63@psu.edu, Penny M Kris-Etherton, David J Baer. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 9, Issue 4, 104573.

Objectives: “The aim was to evaluate the effects of a MED diet incorporating 0.5 oz./d (MED0.5), 2.5 oz./d (MED2.5) and 5.5 oz./d (MED5.5) of lean beef compared with an Average American diet (AAD) on vascular health [brachial and central blood pressure, pulse wave velocity (PWV), and augmentation index].”

Methods: “In random sequence order, participants consumed each test diet for 4 wk. Vascular outcomes were assessed at baseline and the end of each diet period.”

Results:  “PWV was lower following MED0.5…and MED2.5… compared with the AAD; PWV was nominally lower after the MED5.5 compared with the AAD…Central systolic blood pressure was lower following the MED0.5…and MED2.5…compared with the AAD…Brachial systolic and diastolic pressure were lower following all 3 MED diets compared with the AAD (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Compared with an AAD, MED diets containing 0.5 and 2.5 oz./d of lean beef improved brachial and central systolic and diastolic blood pressure and arterial stiffness. Our findings suggest that a MED diet with ≤5.5 oz./d of lean beef does not adversely affect vascular function.

Conflict of interest: JAF received travel funds from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association for giving presentations on this research. PMK-E and DJB received funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association for the research reported in this article. KSP has received grants from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to conduct other research projects. KSP has also received honoraria from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association for consulting work unrelated to the research presented in this paper.

Comment:  Professor Gardner noted that the AAD diet contained 3,500 mg sodium/day, whereas all three of the Mediterranean/beef diets had lower sodium (<2,300 mg/day).  Could reduced sodium have anything to do with the reduced blood pressure observed on the two diets containing lower amounts of beef (Med 0.5 and Med 2.5)?  The authors, alas do not discuss this point.  This makes this study appear to have been designed to demonstrate that eating beef does not adversely affect blood pressure.  Research on the effects of industry funding demonstrate that funders do not need to have a role in the design, conduct, etc of a study to exert influence.  Consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, funding recipients want to please their sponsors.  Studies of the effect of diet on blood pressure need to control for sodium intake.

Let’s start the new year off with a classic industry-funded study with predictable results.

Beef Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.  Sanders, Lisa M et al. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 12, 104500

Background: Results from observational studies suggest associations of red meat intake with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, RCTs have not clearly demonstrated a link between red meat consumption and CVD risk factors. Further, the specific effects of beef, the most consumed red meat in the United States, have not been extensively investigated.

Objectives: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data evaluating the effects of minimally or unprocessed beef intake on CVD risk factors in adults.

Methods: A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed and CENTRAL databases.

Results: Beef intake did not impact blood pressure or most lipoprotein-related variables, including total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, non–HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein A or B, and VLDL-cholesterol. Beef consumption had a small but significant effect on LDL-cholesterol (0.11; 95% CI: 0.008, 0.20; P = 0.03), corresponding to ∼2.7 mg/dL higher LDL-cholesterol in diets containing more beef than that in low-beef or -o beef comparator diets. Sensitivity analyses show this effect was lost when 1 influential study was removed.

Conclusions: In summary, the results of this analysis showed no meaningful effect of daily unprocessed beef intake, compared with diets with less or no beef, on circulating lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins, and blood pressures, except for a small effect to increase the LDL-cholesterol concentration by ∼2.7 mg/dL. Given that unprocessed beef has minimal to no impact on these CVD risk factors but is a significant source of highly bioavailable protein as well as iron, zinc, and selenium, its inclusion in the diet may help improve dietary nutrient profiles without significantly affecting lipids or blood pressures.

Funding: This study was supported by the Beef Checkoff. The funding sponsor provided comments on early aspects of the study design. A report was shared with the sponsor prior to submission. The final decision for all aspects of the study and the manuscript content were those of the authors alone.

Comment:  As I said, an instant classic of the genre.  The USDA-managed Beef Checkoff had input into the study design and got to comment on the results and conclusions before the article was submitted for publication.  The sponsor exerted influence at the two places bias is most often found: the study design and the interpretation of the results.  Hence, industry influenced and predictable.

More to come.  Happy new year!

A reader sent me this e-mailed announcement from the Kentucky Public Health Association. 

The announcement features “hot off the press” research.

• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Contribution of beef to key nutrient intakes and nutrient adequacy in pregnant and lactating women: NHANES 2011-2018 Analysis. Pregnant & lactating women who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, iron, zinc.  [Funding: This research was funded by the Beef Checkoff].
• Christifano DN, et al. The role of fresh beef intake and Mediterranean Diet adherence during pregnancy in maternal and infant health outcomes. Pregnant women who eat about 1.5 oz. of beef/day as part of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern are less likely to develop maternal anemia, compared to those who have lower intake of beef. Additionally, pregnant women who eat more beef have higher intakes of nutrients critical for maternal & child health, including protein, iron, zinc, choline, B vitamins. [Funding: This research was partly funded by Beef Checkoff]
• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Beef consumption is associated with higher intakes and adequacy of key nutrients in older adults age 60+ year: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2000-2018 Analysis. Older adults who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, vitamin B12, iron. [Funding: This work was supported by The Beef Checkoff].

More Information

For more information, visit The Kentucky Beef Council and Beef It’s What’s For Dinner.
For infographics and nutrition handouts, click here.
To join our monthly health professional newsletter, register here.

COMMENT

This advertisement from the Kentucky Beef Council was sent to members of the Kentucky Public Health Association.  It does not say who sponsored the hot new research [I had to look it up].

The partnership raises several questions:

• Is the Kentucky Beef Council a sponsor of the Association?  If so, at what level? (Its annual report does not list sponsors.  Neither does its website, although it does list sponsorship categories for its annual meetings).
• Do members of the Kentucky Public Health Association believe that their association’s apparent endorsement of beef is a good idea?
• Are Kentucky public health nutritionists talking to their clients about the role of beef in health and environmental sustainability?
• If so, what are they saying?

The benefit of this kind of sponsorship/partnership to the Kentucky Beef Council is obvious.

But it raises serious questions about the integrity of the Kentucky Public Health Association.

I hope KPHA members are discussing this issue with the Association’s leadership.