"Epistemic Certainty Surrounding Dietary Recommendations for Meat"
by Ellen M. Street
Ellen M. StreetEllen Street is a Ph.D. student in Nutrition at Oregon State University. Her graduate research is
Contents |
AbstractAs nutrition research advances, our dietary recommendations and health guidelines must evolve to reflect the discovery of new knowledge. The vast sea of current nutrition research must be carefully considered and examined. The integrity and repeatability of clinical trials remains paramount to establishing objective, evidence-based recommendations. This article examines the use of boosters and hedges to indicate levels of epistemic certainty in a variety of documents relating to recommendations regarding red and processed meat consumption. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans serve as the primary document of interest, compared with a variety of reputable public health recommendations and peer-reviewed literature from journals including The Lancet Oncology, the Archives of Internal Medicine, and the American Journal of Epidemiology. The focus of analysis includes the discussion and results sections of research articles as well as relevant meat and protein sections in the DGA, AHA/ACC and AICR/WCRF recommendations. Analysis reveals an overall lack of hedges amongst the selected literature. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans used no boosters and one hedge in the selected sections of analysis. Boosters and other markers of modality, such as indicative present and directives, were used frequently to express certainty in both public health and research publications. Hedging was used predominantly in research publications and in the DGA which reflected decreased certainty through repetitive use of a single hedge marker. Overall, the results of this analysis revealed a need for alignment of government claims with research findings including objective discussion of health risks connected to meat consumption and justification for the lean meat, full-fat, and processed meat recommendations in the DGA. Despite evidence from epidemiological studies and public health reports evaluating the physiologic effects of red and processed meat consumption, the recent 2015-2020 government health recommendations, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), do not reflect prevailing research. Cardiovascular disease (CVD), type II diabetes, and cancer continue to reign as prevalent causes of mortality in the United States. Evidence presented in current research indicates red and processed meats, sources of saturated fat, trans-saturated fat and carcinogenic compounds, such as nitrites, nitrates and heterocyclic amines, as possible culprits for the high incidences of mortality linked to CVD, type II diabetes and cancer (Pan, 2012). My intent in this analysis is to explore and identify presence of epistemic certainty markers in various government, public health, and scholarly publications. I will compare the explicit or implicit recommendations to the current scientific knowledge regarding red and processed meat consumption. The Dietary Guidelines are published every five years by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. These guidelines are used by policy makers to develop federal food and nutrition programs and policies which strongly influence the food industry. The guidelines are also heavily influenced by political agendas and shareholders, namely the North American Meat Institute (NAMI or AMI), which remains the most significant institution controlling meat processing and production in the U.S. Throughout the processes of updating the guidelines, the North American Meat Institute submitted testimony and commentary to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, begging the case for red and processed meat as part of a balanced diet, complete with a menu model analysis showing that processed meat can fit within daily nutrient and calorie requirements (Backus, 2014a). The DGA's ultimate juxtaposition of promoting healthy dietary patterns for the unique individual with an important omission of detrimental health outcomes sparked challenge among nutrition professionals and major representatives of the meat industry. [1] Currently, scientific literature and public health organization (PHO) publications strongly support the causal link between colorectal cancer and processed meats. However, this information is not communicated in the 2015-2020 DGA—there is no mention of a direct correlation between colorectal cancer and red and processed meat consumption. The Dietary Guidelines contain three chapters addressing healthy eating patterns, shifts needed to align with healthy eating patterns, and contextual factors that influence lifestyle choices. The first section of the Guidelines, "Key Elements of Healthy Eating Patterns," includes a sub-section titled "The Science Behind Healthy Eating Patterns." Under “Associations Between Eating Patterns and Health,” the first of two paragraphs reference the existence of evidence linking healthy eating patterns to disease reduction for conditions like CVD, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancers, including colorectal and breast. The second paragraph mentions evidence demonstrating the feasibility of lean meat as part of a healthy eating pattern. There are no citations or references included. Instead of discussing why full-fat and processed meats may not be included in this pattern, the sentence segues into referencing the second chapter, highlighting average intakes of meat, poultry, and eggs as above average for teen boys and adult men. ____________________________________________________________________ [1] I noticed the 2015-2020 DGA contain intentional, manipulative silence (Huckin, 2002) due to conflicts of interest from the U.S. meat industry. While this information is relevant and would make for incredibly interesting future research, it reaches beyond the scope of my paper. |