[ad_1]
to the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019. We also support Stanton and colleagues’ call for further clarification, justification, or reconsideration of the theoretical minimum risk exposure level of zero for unprocessed red meat selected by GBD in their latest estimates. Not only does the increase in the estimated burden appear implausible, but the lack of transparency in the assumptions underlying the calculations undermines the authority of the GBD estimates.
,
Further, insufficient clarity of such assumptions potentially reduces their use within policy development.
Removing meat from such diets is impractical and unrealistic, and carries a risk of nutritional deficiency judged to outweigh future cancer risk.
,
The absence of an explicit rationale for the assumptions underlying the GBD estimates is troublesome, unsupported by the 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 reliable?.
Lancet. 2022; 399: e23-e26
- 2.
What does the population attributable fraction mean?.
Prev Chronic Dis. 2007; 4: A14
- 3.
Population attributable fraction estimates of cardiovascular diseases in different levels of plasma total 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?.
Anim Front. 2018; 8: 5-10
- 5.
Meat intake and cancer risk: prospective analyses in 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.
Article Info
Publication History
Published: 06 August 2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirect
[ad_2]
Source link
