For decades, mainstream health narratives have pushed the idea that red meat, particularly processed meat, is a major contributor to colon cancer. This claim has been parroted in headlines, reinforced by dietary guidelines, and weaponized to push people toward plant-based alternatives. But where’s the real evidence? Why do so many studies seem to be set up to make meat look bad, no matter what the facts are? The problem isn’t just misinformation—it’s bad science. When studies are designed with built-in bias and sloppy data collection, they’re bound to produce the results researchers are looking for instead of the truth.
You're not alone if you’ve ever felt like nutrition science is a mess of conflicting information. Bad study design is rampant, and nowhere is this more evident than in the so-called “evidence” linking red meat to colon cancer. Many of these studies are observational and lack controlled, randomized settings, making it easy to manipulate results. The issue is further compounded by many of these studies relying on weak statistical associations rather than actual biological mechanisms. Let’s break down the flaws in these studies, expose their biases, and highlight why the war on red meat has more to do with ideological agendas than health concerns.
The Problem with Epidemiological Studies
The idea that red meat causes colon cancer mostly comes from epidemiological studies—large observational studies that follow people’s eating habits and health outcomes over time. On the surface, this might sound like a reliable way to gather data, but there’s a big problem: correlation doesn’t equal causation. These studies can spot patterns, but they can’t prove that one thing actually causes another, which is why their conclusions are often misleading. When a study finds that red meat consumption is associated with colon cancer, it fails to account for the vast number of other lifestyle factors that could be influencing the results.[1]
Imagine a study that finds people who eat more ice cream also experience more drownings. Should we conclude that ice cream causes drowning? No—it’s a classic confounding variable problem. The real link is that hot weather increases ice cream consumption and swimming, increasing drownings. Similarly, people who eat more processed meats often have other unhealthy habits, like smoking, drinking, not exercising, and eating fewer vegetables. Many of these studies don’t properly account for these factors, making their conclusions shaky.
This same flawed logic is at play with red meat and colon cancer.
People who eat more processed foods, lead more sedentary lifestyles, smoke, and drink alcohol may also happen to eat more red meat. But is red meat the cause of the problem? Not necessarily. Epidemiological studies can only show associations, not direct cause-and-effect relationships. The failure to control for these variables is a serious flaw in study design that makes the demonization of red meat highly questionable.[2]
Food Frequency Questionnaires: The Flimsiest “Science”
Another major problem is food frequency questionnaires (FFQs)—surveys that ask people to recall what they ate over the past week, month, or even year. Can you remember exactly how many servings of red meat you ate last July? Neither can anyone else. FFQs are notoriously unreliable, yet they form the backbone of anti-meat research.[3] Many studies rely on self-reported data, subject to significant bias and error. People tend to underreport foods they perceive as unhealthy and overreport foods they believe are healthy.
In addition, food surveys often fail to distinguish between unprocessed and processed meats, lumping them together in ways that muddy the data. There’s a huge difference between a grass-fed steak and a processed hot dog loaded with additives and preservatives, yet many studies lump them together, painting all red meat negatively. This kind of oversimplification leads to misleading conclusions that don’t reflect reality. On top of that, these studies rely on people’s memory of what they ate, which is often inaccurate, making the data unreliable at best.
Data Manipulation and Cherry-Picking
As Tucker Goodrich and other independent researchers have pointed out, many of these studies cherry-pick data to support a predetermined conclusion. One common tactic is data dredging, where researchers sift through large datasets until they find a statistically significant result—often by chance. Instead of letting the data tell the full story, many studies start with a goal in mind, picking and choosing variables to support a specific outcome. This kind of manipulation distorts the real risk and fuels alarmist headlines that mislead the public.[4]
Another trick is relative risk inflation. A study might claim that eating processed meat increases colon cancer risk by 18%.
That sounds terrifying—until you look at the absolute risk. If the baseline risk of developing colon cancer is 5%, an 18% increase means the risk rises to just 5.9%. Hardly the doomsday scenario that the headlines suggest. These tactics are used frequently in nutrition science to push dietary agendas and manipulate public perception.
The Real Evidence: Meat and Colon Health
Contrary to the anti-meat propaganda, there is no solid evidence that unprocessed red meat causes colon cancer. Red meat provides essential nutrients that support colon health. One of the most overlooked benefits of red meat is its role in producing butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that promotes colon health. When dietary fat from meat is metabolized, it supports the production of butyrate, which has anti-inflammatory and protective effects on the colon.[5]
Red meat is one of the best sources of vitamin B12 and iron, both essential for making red blood cells and keeping your body running properly. Most plant-based alternatives don’t provide these nutrients in a form your body can actually use, which can lead to deficiencies over time. Meat also supplies key amino acids that help keep the gut lining strong and reduce inflammation, making it an important part of a healthy diet.
Meanwhile, a far more concerning culprit for colon cancer is seed oils and ultra-processed foods—industrially refined oils that drive chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and metabolic dysfunction. Tucker Goodrich has extensively documented the damaging effects of linoleic acid, the primary omega-6 fat in seed oils, on overall health—including cancer risk. High intake of these oils is associated with systemic inflammation, which is a known driver of various chronic diseases, including cancer.[6]
The push against red meat isn’t just a scientific misstep—it’s a deliberate attack on ancestral, nutrient-dense foods. The same institutions that demonize beef conveniently promote soy-based fake meats, grain-heavy diets, and plant-based alternatives—foods that are far more profitable for Big Food and Big Ag. The financial incentives behind this anti-meat narrative cannot be ignored.
Questioning mainstream narratives is more important than ever for those following a carnivore diet. The idea that red meat is bad for you comes from questionable science—studies built on weak correlations and bias rather than real evidence. At the same time, plenty of people are feeling better than ever by cutting out processed junk and eating more nutrient-dense animal foods. Looking closer, it’s obvious these studies are more about pushing an agenda than giving honest health advice.
Final Thoughts
The next time someone throws the “red meat causes cancer” claim at you, ask them which study they’re referring to—and then take a hard look at its methodology. Oddly, it’s based on shaky epidemiological data, FFQs, and a hefty dose of confirmation bias. The true dangers to our health lie not in red meat, but in the industrialized processed foods and oils that have overtaken modern diets. Real health isn’t built on bad science but on nutrient-dense, evolutionarily appropriate foods. And for many of us, that means eating more meat, not less.
Citations:
-
Turner ND, Lloyd SK. Association between red meat consumption and colon cancer: A systematic review of experimental results. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2017 Apr;242(8):813-839. doi: 10.1177/1535370217693117. Epub 2017 Jan 1. PMID: 28205448; PMCID: PMC5407540.Ede,
-
Georgia. “Meat and Cancer: What the Research Really Says.” Diagnosis Diet, 2024, https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/meat-and-cancer.
-
Coulston, Ann M. Dietary Assessment Methodology. National Cancer Institute, 2024, https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/dietary-assessment/Chapter%201_Coulston.pdf.
-
Goodrich, Tucker. “Seed Oils and Disease: What the Science Really Says.” YouTube, uploaded by Tucker Goodrich, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQE7v5kuA5Q.
-
Shin Y, Han S, Kwon J, Ju S, Choi TG, Kang I, Kim SS. Roles of Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Nutrients. 2023 Oct 21;15(20):4466. doi: 10.3390/nu15204466. PMID: 37892541; PMCID: PMC10609902.
-
Soundararajan, Dhivya. Integration of Lipidomics with Targeted, Single Cell, and Spatial Transcriptomics Defines an Unresolved Pro-Inflammatory State in Colon Cancer. 2024.
Leave a comment: