On the Menu: Is It Really O.K. to Eat Meat?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/letters/meat-diet.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Is Red Meat Bad for You? New Research Says You Can’t Prove It” (front page, Oct. 1):

Eat margarine; no, eat butter. Fats are bad; wait, actually carbs are bad and some fats are good. Eggs are bad or good depending on whether Mercury is in retrograde. Omega-3 fatty acids are good; wait, actually they probably don’t do anything. Wine and chocolate are fine as long as you limit yourself to a thimble of each a day. Steak will kill you; just kidding, steak is fine.

Anything else I missed?

Michael GraboskiSeattle

To the Editor:

The news that the pork industry, under this administration, will now regulate itself regarding health inspections was enough to finally tip me into eliminating meat from my diet. Asking the American consumer to trust the honor system with President Trump controlling the process is a bridge too far.

David RamseyAfton, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Predictably, when the weaknesses in their methods are publicized, scientists, policy writers and clinicians are in an uproar about the assessment that the data is too weak to warrant recommendations to restrict meat in the diet.

But I strongly disagree with those who argue that publishing this will “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”

We scientists have done an excellent job of doing just that, by not making transparent the faults in our methods and the weaknesses in our results, and then fighting about who is right about our contrary conclusions.

Transparency is desperately needed, if only to fuel public pressure to find funding to do the studies that might help properly answer the question of what we should eat to live longer, healthier and happier lives, for which there is a voracious appetite.

David S. SeresNew YorkThe writer, a physician, is director of medical nutrition at Columbia University Medical Center.

To the Editor:

Surprise, surprise. Another nutrition study that contradicts former conclusions. But here’s what is not a surprise.

Eating meat from animals necessitates violence against animals and contributes to the desensitization of the people who slaughter the animals.

Animal agriculture is a primary cause of global depletion: rainforests that are destroyed to create grazing land for cattle; wild animals that are killed at the behest of private ranchers; an inordinate amount of resources that are used to breed, keep and kill animals.

It’s true: No single study can definitively claim that periodically eating beef — or chicken or turkey or pork — would gravely affect our health, but we don’t need more studies to tell us that eating beef — or chicken or turkey or pork — gravely affects the chickens, turkeys, pigs and cows.

Colleen Patrick-GoudreauOakland, Calif.The writer is an author whose topics include animal agriculture, animal protection and plant-based eating.

To the Editor:

The only dietary advice one needs, and one that will never be debunked, is Michael Pollan’s: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

Amanda LaoChicago