in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease, Injury and Risk Factor (GBD) Study. We also support Stanton and colleagues’ call for further clarification, justification or reconsideration of the theoretical minimum zero-risk exposure level for raw red meat of selected by GBD in their latest ratings. Not only does the estimated burden increase seem implausible, but the lack of transparency in the assumptions underlying the calculations undermines the authority of the GBD estimates.
,
Further, the insufficient clarity of such assumptions potentially reduces their use in policy development.
Removing meat from such diets is impractical and unrealistic and carries a risk of nutritional deficiency that is judged to outweigh the risk of future cancer.
,
The lack of a clear rationale for the assumptions underlying the GBD estimates is problematic, unsupported by evidence, and unrealistic.
We declare no competing interests.
References
- 1.
36-fold higher estimate of deaths attributable to red meat intake in GBD 2019: is this plausible?.
Lancet. 2022; 399: e23-e26
- 2.
What does attributed population fraction mean?.
Before Chronic Dis. 2007; 4: A14
- 3.
Estimates of population fractions attributable to cardiovascular disease at different levels of total plasma cholesterol in a large-scale cross-sectional study: a focus on prevention strategies and treatment coverage.
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2020; 19: 1453-1463
- 4.
What is the role of meat in a healthy diet?
Tilt Front. 2018; 8: 5-10
- 5.
Meat intake and cancer risk: prospective analysis in the UK Biobank.
Int J Epidemiol. 2020; 49: 1540-1552
- 6.
Diet, nutrition, physical activity and cancer: a global perspective: a summary of the third expert report.
Item information
Publication history
Published: 06 August 2022
iDENTIFICATION
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
