Understanding Correlational and Causational Studies: How Misleading Research Impacts Public Perception of Meat

Understanding the difference between correlation and causation is key in research. Correlational studies examine whether two things are connected but don’t prove that one causes the other. For example, studies often suggest that people who eat more red meat tend to have higher rates of heart disease. But that doesn’t mean red meat is the cause. Factors like lifestyle choices, environmental influences, or what else they’re eating—like french fries loaded with seed oils—could play a big role in those outcomes.

On the other hand, causational studies aim to determine a direct cause-and-effect relationship. Controlled experiments, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), test the impact of one variable while controlling for others. For example, a study feeding one group a diet high in red meat while another group consumes a meat-free diet, with all other factors equal, could help identify whether red meat independently leads to adverse health effects. While causational studies provide stronger evidence, they are complex and resource-intensive.[1][2][3]

Misinterpreting Correlation in Dietary Studies

Mistaking correlation for causation has led to many misleading public health advice. Studies often link red meat to health problems like heart disease or diabetes, but they usually don’t prove it’s the meat itself causing the issue. Red meat consumption is often linked to chronic illnesses like heart disease, diabetes, or cancer, yet broader dietary patterns and lifestyle factors are rarely considered. However, they frequently fail to consider participants' full nutritional and lifestyle context.[4]

For instance, individuals who consume red meat may also eat more ultra-processed foods, such as refined grains, sugary beverages, or fried items cooked in inflammatory seed oils. These harmful foods are commonly paired with meat in fast-food meals but are rarely isolated as variables in correlational studies. As a result, meat often gets blamed for health problems it likely didn’t cause.[5]

Another issue is how much these studies rely on people self-reporting what they’re eating. Asking someone to remember everything they ate over months or even years is far from reliable, and the inaccuracies can significantly skew the results. Additionally, many studies fail to distinguish between unprocessed, nutrient-rich meats like grass-fed beef and processed meats containing additives and preservatives. Lumping all types of meat together hides the unique benefits of high-quality protein and makes the risks seem bigger than they really are.[6]

Meat: The Scapegoat in Flawed Guidelines

The 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) report brings this problem into focus with its recommendation to cut back on red meat and eggs to improve public health. Recommendations like this usually come from observational studies, not solid proof of cause and effect. Calling for less meat and eggs overlooks how important nutrient-rich animal proteins are for both physical and mental health.

Pasture-raised meats and eggs, for instance, contain essential nutrients like bioavailable iron, vitamin B12, choline, and omega-3 fatty acids—all critical for brain function, muscle maintenance, and overall vitality. It is important to note that while omega-3s are indeed present in some meats, they are primarily found in grass-fed, grass-finished ruminant meats. However, omega-3s in these meats are relatively small compared to what we typically need for optimal health. To meet the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of omega-3s, seafood, especially fresh, wild-caught fish, is generally the most reliable source.[7][8]

Public Health Missteps: Oversimplifying Complex Diets

Public health messages often simplify the complex connection between diet and chronic illness, which can lead to confusion and unnecessary fear. For example, the DGAC’s push to cut back on red meat overlooks the bigger picture of overall dietary patterns driving poor health. Ultra-processed foods, sugary drinks, and refined grains—known contributors to inflammation and chronic disease—often escape scrutiny, while meat becomes the scapegoat.[9]

A typical fast-food meal exemplifies this misunderstanding. Blaming the hamburger patty for health risks disregards the refined bun, sugary sauces, and fried sides that dominate such meals. Meanwhile, nutrient-dense, unprocessed meats are lumped into the same category as highly processed products like hot dogs and deli meats, skewing the data and misleading the public.[10][11]

The Case for Nutrient-Dense Animal Proteins

High-quality animal proteins, such as grass-fed and finished ruminant meat, and pasture-raised eggs, are among the most nutrient-dense foods. They provide:[12][13]

• Complete Proteins: Essential amino acids critical for muscle repair and hormone production.

• Bioavailable Heme Iron: Supports energy production and immune function.

• Vitamin B12: Essential for neurological health and red blood cell production.

• Choline: Supports brain development, memory, and liver function.

• Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Help to counteract inflammation. 

Reducing the intake of these foods, as recommended by the DGAC, may inadvertently contribute to nutrient deficiencies and poor health outcomes.

The Role of Better Research in Shaping Policy

Better public health recommendations start with researching dietary quality, lifestyle habits, and overall health patterns. Observational studies can highlight trends but shouldn’t be the backbone of nutrition advice. Controlled trials and long-term studies investigating how specific foods impact health in different contexts are key.

Moving Beyond Misleading Headlines

Talks about meat and health need a more grounded approach. Public health advice should focus on:

• Dietary Context: Paying attention to the overall quality of what people eat instead of blaming single ingredients.

• Comprehensive Research: Backing studies that dive into cause and effect while factoring in how people live and their environments.

• Educating the Public: Helping people understand how correlation and causation differ so they can make more informed choices.

Takeaway: Think Critically About Dietary Advice

Knowing the difference between correlation and causation helps people approach health recommendations with a critical eye. The 2025 DGAC recommendation to cut back on red meat and eggs overlooks the bigger picture. What we eat as a whole matters more than singling out specific foods, especially when it comes to nutrient-dense options like high-quality animal proteins. These foods are essential for supporting a strong body and mind. Instead of focusing on misleading connections, we need to prioritize balanced, thoughtful dietary strategies that truly support better health for everyone.

Citations:

1. Bhandari, Pritha. "Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples." Scribbr, 12 July 2021, revised on 22 June 2023. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlation-vs-causation/.

2. "Correlation and Causation." Understanding Health Research, https://www.understandinghealthresearch.org/useful-information/correlation-and-causation-15.

3. "Correlation vs. Causation." Association of Health Care Journalists, https://healthjournalism.org/glossary-terms/correlation-vs-causation/.

4. O'Connor, Laura E., et al. "Unprocessed Red Meat and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 112, no. 2, 2020, pp. 1-13. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/112/2/1/5886623.

5. Ioannidis, John P. A. "The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research." Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), vol. 324, no. 6, 2020, pp. 547-548. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2769131.

6. Micha, Renata, et al. "Global Burden of Diseases Attributable to Red and Processed Meat Consumption." The Lancet Planetary Health, vol. 7, no. 3, 2023, pp. e219-e227. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00341-3/fulltext.

7. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Part A Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Dec. 2024, https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Part%2520A_ExecutiveSummary_FINAL_508.pdf.

8. Srour, Bernard, et al. "Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Prospective Cohort Study (NutriNet-Santé)." The BMJ, vol. 365, 2019, pp. l1451. https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1451.

9. Monteiro, Carlos Augusto, et al. "Ultra-Processed Foods: What They Are and How to Identify Them." Advances in Nutrition, vol. 10, no. 6, 2019, pp. 1-15. https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/10/6/1/5610219.

10. Micha, Renata, et al. "Association of Processed Meat Consumption with Mortality and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 93, no. 4, 2011, pp. 762-772. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/93/4/762/4597886.

11. Yuan, Yue, et al. "Nutritional Quality and Fatty Acid Profiles of Eggs from Pasture-Raised Hens Supplemented with Grass-Fed Beef Suet and Liver." Foods, vol. 11, no. 21, 2022, pp. 3404. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/21/3404.

12. Smith, Jane M., et al. "The Nutritional Importance of Animal-Sourced Foods in a Healthy Diet: A Review." Frontiers in Nutrition, vol. 11, 2024, pp. 1424912. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1424912/full.