Thanks to Dr.

Mark Cucuzzella MD FAAFP, Professor West Virginia University School of Medicine for
putting this together.

I thought you might find this helpful.

Regards,

Peter Ballerstedt
.............
Friends and Colleagues
The Eat Lancet campaign has begun. We certainly support an individualized plan on food (based on
beliefs, taste, culture) and will help people create healthy vegetarian plans. Before we as societies
globally accept Eat Lancet plan as best for health and the globe I encourage all to read the paper, the
scientific rebuttals, as well as Walter Willett’s personal beliefs and conflicts of interest. What one
“believes” cannot be construed as “science”. Science is constantly evolving.

Here is the 50 page paper

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext

A few rebuttals –

https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/eat-lancet-reports-recommendations-are-at-odds-with-
sustainable-food-production/

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://sustainabledish.com/20-ways-eat-lancets-global-diet-is-wrongfully-vilifying-meat/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-
things-you-need-know

……………………….

Nina Teicholz statement

Tonight, a report called EAT-Lancet was released--funded by vegan billionaires who’ve joined forces with
animal-rights activists and has a huge PR roll-out campaign (launches in 40 cities plus events at the
World Economic Forum, etc).

It’s key message is that we need to reduce red meat for better health and the health of the planet.

The report is expected to recommend people consume red meat no more than once a week and that
people in the United States eat 90 percent less beef and pork and half the number of eggs, while
tripling consumption of beans and quadrupling nuts and seeds. It is also expected to recommend a
meat tax

Since many of you are likely to get questions from your patients and/or audiences, we have a few
resources for you:

First, on the question of diet and health, this report does not contain a balance of scientific viewpoints.
The lead author on diet, Walter Willett, has long had potential conflicts of interest, which cast doubt on
his ability to bring an unbiased viewpoint to the question of whether a vegan/vegetarian diet is
preferable for good health. See attached, which is documentation on Willett’s potential conflicts
of interest.

https://www.scribd.com/document/397606854/Walter-Willett-Potential-Conflicts-of-Interest

Second, the basic science upon which Dr. Willett bases his beliefs is almost entirely from nutritional
epidemiology, which is a fundamentally weak kind of evidence that, when tested by rigorous clinical
trials, has been demonstrated to be wrong in 80-100% of cases. Nutritional epidemiology is a kind of
science that is used to generate hypotheses but cannot prove them. Thus, this type of evidence should
not be used as the basis for population-wide recommendations. The rigorous clinical trial evidence does
not support the hypothesis that red meat causes disease—a primer on this is attached.

https://www.scribd.com/document/397606855/Two-pager-Scientific-Evidence-on-Red-Meat-and-
Health

Third, an excellent article by Professor Frederic LeRoy about the agri-soy $ and vegan billionaire
interests behind this whole effort (blame the cows so that I can keep my private planes and SUVs?)

There are many other excellent resources on red meat and health, such as this great compendium of
research on red meat by Chris Kresser and other experts quoted below.

A resource on the environmental questions has been set up by the Animal Agriculture Alliance (Just FYI,
no relation to The Nutrition Coalition).

The reason for this outreach is that we know the EAT-Lancet report has billions behind it and will
continue to resound in the media, so we wanted to give you some resources.

All the best, Nina

Expert comments that we’ve sent to the media:

H. Russell Cross, Professor, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University

Former Department Head, Executive Vice President of Texas A&M and Administrator of FSIS, USDA
under Presidents Bush and Clinton

Email: hrcross@tamu.edu

“There is no rigorous (i.e., clinical trial) evidence showing that red meat has any ill effects on health.
Meat is a rich source of needed nutrients, including B12, iron and folate some of which are borderline
deficient in the U.S., and an extremely calorie-efficient way to obtain complete proteins. Other proteins,
such as nuts and seeds, contain more far calories per ounce of protein. Thus, to discourage consumption
of red meat is potentially harmful to health.”

Zoe Harcombe, PhD, nutritionist in Wales, UK

zoe@whydoyouovereat.com
 “As surgeon captain Thomas (Peter) Cleave (1906–1983) famously said ‘For a modern disease to be
related to an old fashioned food is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard in my life.’”

“I have been through the entire Nutrition Evidence Library, which was used by the Dietary Guidelines
Advisory Committee to set the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The relationship between
red meat and 7 conditions (Cardiovascular disease; Blood pressure; Type 2 diabetes; Weight; and 3 types
of cancer) was examined. There was not even an association, let alone causation, found between red
meat and any condition. This is not well known.” (http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2018/09/red-meat-
the-evidence/)

“The April 2018 IARC report declared that red meat is ‘probably carcinogenic …mainly for colorectal
cancer.’ 14 studies were provided as ‘evidence’ for this claim. 13/14 found no association (let alone
causation) between colorectal cancer & whatever definition of red meat was used. 1/14 was a Seventh
Day Adventist study of non-smoking/non-drinking/should be vegetarians. This claimed an association
between meat & FISH and colon cancer (not colorectal cancer). Even the IARC cautioned against the
value of this study.

Nina Teicholz, science journalist and Executive Director, The Nutrition Coalition, and an adjunct
professor at NYU’s Wagner School of Public Policy

Email: Nina@nutritioncoalition.us

“In my research on Walter Willett, I discovered that his first anti-meat leanings came about when he
was traveling in Italy and Greece in the late 1980s and developed a passion for the food there. He
interpreted the Mediterranean diet to be low in meat. However the data upon which he based his
assumptions had been gathered in the late 1950s, on a mere 33 to 34 men on the island of Crete. Willett
extrapolated from this to form the foundation of his "Mediterranean Diet" pyramid, presented in 1993,
in which he places red meat in the tip of the pyramid, above, even, sweets--meaning, that according to
Willett, it is better to eat candy than red meat.”

Bret Scher, MD, cardiologist in California

Email: scher.bret@gmail.com

“As a cardiologist, I’ve made healthy lifestyle recommendations to thousands of patients, and it is clear
that the best lifestyle is one people can actually maintain over the long term. It turns out that protein
and fat are uniquely satiating—thus keeping hunger at bay—and therefore a friend to any dieter. Red
meat is an excellent source of protein, low in calories and high in many needed nutrients. Also, in my
practice, I have seen that a vegan lifestyle fails far more than it succeeds. That said, there is no one-size-
fits-all diet, and it's lamentable that the EAT-Lancet authors should want to impose their ideas about
healthy diets on all populations worldwide.”

Georgia Ede, MD, Psychiatrist and Nutrition Consultant in Massachusetts

Email: gede@comcast.net
Home: 413-341-3336
Cell: 774-392-0055
 “There are scientifically plausible reasons to question whether removing animal foods from the diet
may pose real risks to human health. The undisputable requirement for B12 supplementation aside,
plant foods lack several key nutrients, and some of the nutrients they do contain come in forms that are
more difficult for the human body to utilize. Plants also contain anti-nutrients which interfere with our
ability to absorb essential minerals. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a human clinical
trial designed to test the health effects of simply removing animal foods from the diet, without making
any other confounding diet or lifestyle changes (such as simultaneously reducing sugar, adding
meditation, etc.). Unless and until such research is conducted that finds benefits of this strategy, the
assertion that human beings would be healthier without animal foods remains an untested hypothesis,
and therefore should not form the basis of public health recommendations.

“The vast majority of research cited in support of plant-based diets, including The China Study and
nearly all of Walter Willett’s work, is rooted in the tragically flawed methodology of epidemiology.
Nutritional epidemiologists do not conduct scientific experiments or measure food intake; they instead
rely on incomplete, memory-based food questionnaires to generate hypotheses (guesses) about
nutrition and health. When these hypotheses are later put to the test in clinical trials, more than 80% of
them fail— but not before being trumpeted to the public as implicit facts in the form of media headlines
and, worse still, explicit recommendations in the form of dietary guidelines.

“All of the human experimental research I’m aware of suggesting that plant-based diets bring health
benefits, including studies conducted by Dr. Dean Ornish and Dr. Neal Barnard, suffers from the same
tragic design flaw: researchers didn’t simply remove animal foods from the diet; they changed many
other aspects of lifestyle, as well. Examples include lowering fat to 10%, adding exercise, stopping
smoking, and, perhaps most importantly, eliminating processed foods, including refined carbohydrates
like sugar. It is therefore impossible to say whether the benefits attributed to plant-based diets have
anything to do with the absence of animal foods or not. Given everything we understand about the
dangers of sugar and processed foods, it is entirely possible that plant-based diets appeared healthier
simply because they were free of junk food.”