Controversial study urging people to eat red meat followed by correction

New questions surrounding a controversial study urging people to continue eating red and processed meat are being raised, after the scientific journal that published it issued a correction concerning funding the author received for other research.

The paper, a set of guidelines based on analyses of existing research, suggested "adults continue current unprocessed red meat … (and) processed meat consumption."

The conclusion drew an outcry from some medical and nutritional researchers who said the guidelines misrepresented studies that show a connection between eating red and processed meats and adverse health outcomes, such as heart disease, cancer or Type 2 diabetes.

Bradley Johnston, the study's lead author, and Dr. Christine Laine, the editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, which published the paper in October, defended the research as an independent and transparent look at existing data.

However, on Dec. 31, the journal published a correction that Johnston did not disclose grant funding he received from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for other research on saturated and polyunsaturated fats. 

Texas A&M AgriLife Research is an official state agency that works on agricultural research with private companies and the Texas A&M University system.

Should you keep eating red meat? Controversial study says well-known health risks are just bad science

"This funding is for work in the field of nutrition and the start of (the) funding period was within the 36-month reporting period required" in disclosure forms, the correction said.

Holly Shive, a spokesperson for Texas A&M AgriLife, said there is no connection between the study on meat and the study on fats.

"Dr. Johnston is committed to full transparency. It is incorrect to suggest he had any conflicts of interest," Shive said in an email to USA TODAY. "As documented in the revised disclosure, no industry funds were used to fund the red and processed meat studies published in the Annals."

In addition to the grant, Johnston accepted a position at Texas A&M AgriLife Research as a professor in the department of nutrition and food science before the paper was published, however he started the job after its publication, Shive said.

The funding for the fats study from AgriLife was provided "as part of Dr. Johnston's recruitment," Shive said. 

In 2019, Texas A&M AgriLife received $11.4 million for research on beef. Most of the money came from non-sponsored state and federal appropriations, but more than $4 million was noncorporate or corporate sponsored, Texas A&M AgriLife spokesperson Katie Hancock said.

Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, was critical of the connection between an organization receiving funding from beef industry groups and a researcher publishing work on red meat.

More on nutritional studies:Drinking tea regularly may help you live longer and healthier, new study finds

Barnard, who advocates for plant-based diets, said in a letter to the Annals editor those ties should have been included in the journal's correction. It mentioned Johnston's funding for the research on fats and past funding from a group affiliated with other food industry companies, including Coca-Cola, Hershey and Kraft Heinz.

"The decision to publish the articles in the first place raised major scientific concerns. But the failure to address the ethical issues in publishing regarding conflict of interest aggravates the situation," Barnard wrote.

The content of the Annals article was not changed with the Dec. 31 correction, which Barnard also criticized.

"The big theme here is science is supposed to clarify issues," he said. "More and more there are scientist being paid for hire to muddy the issues."

Laine, the Annals editor, said corrections are not uncommon in medical research and the journal became aware of the Texas A&M AgriLife funding in December. 

"The grant was from Texas A&M AgriLife institutional funds, not a sponsoring organization, industry or company," she said. "The beef industry is not listed as a source of this funding because it was not a source of this funding."

While the guidelines published in the Annals were never an official statement from a health organization and didn't change existing international recommendations on red and processed meat, others said the conflicting statements were a reminder that diet is complex and personal part of our lives.

"If you really want to look at the bottom line, nutrition is more about eating patterns and lifestyle than it is about a single, particular food," Dr. Jeffrey Mechanick, medical director of the Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health at Mount Sinai Heart said at the time.

Follow USA TODAY's Ryan Miller on Twitter @RyanW_Miller