• image.alt
  • With Mayo Clinic nutritionists

    Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D.

    read biography

Mayo Clinic Health Manager

Get free personalized health guidance for you and your family.

Get Started

Free

E-Newsletter

Subscribe to receive the latest updates on health topics. About our newsletters

  • Housecall
  • Alzheimer's caregiving
  • Living with cancer

  • Nutrition-wise blog

  • July 18, 2009

    Blog: Can one change improve your health and the world's?

    By Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D.

9 comments posted

Eating too much red meat and saturated fat has been shown in numerous studies to be associated with adverse health effects, such as elevations in total and low-density cholesterol levels, and increased risk for heart attack and stroke. Red meat is also a source of several cancer-causing compounds, including those formed when meat is cooked at high temperatures, and saturated fat, which is associated with increased risk of breast and colorectal cancer.

A study of meat consumption among over 500,000 Americans, published in the "Archives of Internal Medicine," found that those who ate the most red meat (about 6 ounces daily) had the highest death rate from all causes, as well as a higher risk of cancer and heart disease, than those who ate the least amount (about 1 ounce daily). The researchers calculated that 11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent of deaths in women could be prevented if people decreased their red meat consumption to the level in the lowest intake group.

An accompanying editorial takes a more global view and points out that reducing meat consumption could improve "world health" — meaning, in this case, the health of the planet. And the United Nations has urged countries to find ways to reduce the livestock industry's impact on the environment:

  • Water supply. The amount of water used to raise animals for human consumption is two to five times the amount needed to cultivate basic food crops. In addition, livestock production contributes to erosion and contamination of the water supply with antibiotics, pesticides, nitrogen and phosphorus.
  • Climate. Livestock are responsible for about 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions — more than what is created by transportation. Deforestation to make room for pastures and feed crops also contributes to the greenhouse effect.
  • Biodiversity. Livestock and wildlife interact in many ways — both positive and negative. Livestock can help sustain open grassland ecosystems. However, expansion of grazing land and feed crops into forested areas has resulted in the irreversible loss of native plant and animal species.

I want to point out that there are major efforts underway on the part of those who raise livestock to minimize these impacts. I applaud these efforts. We need to do our part too. Cutting down on meat consumption can result in better personal health — and perhaps a healthier world too.

Thoughts?

9 comments posted

blog index

  • August 12, 2009 6:36 p.m.

    But a fatty piece of ribeye can taste sooooo good. I have been trying to cut back on my red meat - I was eating a pound/week, but cut it down to a pound/month. Never going to go vegetarian because I do love the taste, but now I am much pickier about when I eat red meat.

    - Jon

  • August 10, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    Could not agree more. Have been a vegetarian for all my adult life. However, are there any risks to health from not eating red meat? i.e. are there nutritional substances that are beneficial/vital to health and are only found in red meat (ot other meat)?

    - rose

  • July 29, 2009 7:15 p.m.

    Unfortunately, a belief that the "earth will abide" is magical thinking, and does not address the reality of limited natural resources. What is on the planet for humans to consume is not infinite, period. What we use, we will use up. It is hard to believe that a little more than 100 years ago the human population was sustainable. What we have consumed in the last century, coupled with the population explosion, is a mathmatical equation for disaster. We can choose to wish this fact away through our religious fantasies, our indifference, our selfishness, or we can change.

    - Shane

  • July 27, 2009 3:30 p.m.

    Thank you! The simple truth is that a meat-based diet is unhealthy for humans, and it's proving unhealthy for earth as well (with 8 billion people and growing). I realize it's threatening to challenge both meat industries and meat eaters, but it's worth it as it is the single best action we can take to improve human health and reduce our impact on the environment. If you truly care about your health and the planet, please read The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World by John Robbins and Dean Ornish. This one book will lay out the connections on every level and could change your life. As far as we know, this is the only life each of us has to live, and this is the only planet Earth in the universe. Why not make a small change in your lifestyle by reducing your meat consumption to improve your own health and help preserve and protect this wonderous planet? It's a very small, simple thing to do for so much goodness in return.

    - Stacie

  • July 27, 2009 7:23 a.m.

    I certainly agree that a reduction in red meat consumption would be a good thing. I do think we need to acknowledge the health and global benefits of eating locally and organically raised beef as opposed to that raised on factory farms and shipped thousands of miles. Unfortunately, those of us who are barely making ends meet often find it difficult to make choices based on these values when it comes to the quantity of food we need to feed our families.

    - Barbara

  • July 23, 2009 9:12 a.m.

    I couldn't agree more, both from a nutritional and compassionate viewpoint!

    - Donna

  • July 22, 2009 5:55 p.m.

    If your diagnosis is correct, how do you explain the average good health of a population such as that of Argentina, a major beef raising country in which the average citizen eats beef three to four times a week?

    - Alan

  • July 21, 2009 5:14 p.m.

    I really think that no matter how sick someone is of hearing how certian food industries effect the planet it needs to be said. Too many people just stick anything in their mouths without a second thought about where it comes from and whom it may effect. There is plenty of food out there that doesn't effect the planet as much as the beef industry. Thank you for for posting this blog and getting people aware that this is a sick planet that needs some help.

    - Molly

  • July 19, 2009 6:45 p.m.

    I am getting cik of reading or hearing about how raising this or that is not good for the environment. We have to eat SOMTHING! No matter where you get your calories from, I can assure you that it takes water and fertilizers, time and energy to produce it. I believe if you concentrate on what's good for oneself as a person, the earth will abide.

    - Becky

Post a comment

Text Size: smaller largerlarger