"Epistemic Certainty Surrounding Dietary Recommendations for Meat"

Ellen M. Street

Ellen Street is a Ph.D. student in Nutrition at Oregon State University. Her graduate research is
devoted to the beneficial effects of whole foods and plant-based diets with an emphasis on
empowering individuals, through community engagement approaches, to make healthy lifestyle
choices. Ellen earned her B.S. in Clinical Nutrition in 2016 and is an alumnus of the Ronald E.
McNair Scholars Program at the University of Davis where she completed this analysis under the
mentorship of Dr. Sarah Tinker Perrault.

Contents 

Abstract

Literature Review

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Appendix

Works Cited

Conclusion

My analysis revealed distinct differences in markers of certainty as well as their explicit, and implicit recommendations within the three selected genres. Overall, certainty is higher in public health recommendations and research linking red, processed meat consumption to carcinogenicity, particularly colorectal cancer. Boosters indicate certainty for colorectal cancer and its relation to red, processed meats among the AICR/WCRF report, Lancet Oncology monograph, and AIM and AJE articles. Directives are mainly used in public health recommendations and hedges appear most frequently among the DGA 2015-2020 and scientific publications. While hedging in scholarly articles indicates shirking personal commitment, the hedging used in the DGA also indicates other motives, given the commentary content submitted by the NAMI and manipulative silence employed by the DGA. These discoveries presented an interesting challenge and offered tantalizing topics for future research. An objective discussion of potential risk factors and justifications for lean meat recommendations over full-fat and processed meat recommendations should be considered for future dietary guidelines published through the Department of Health and Human Services.