publication date: Oct. 11, 2019
Conversation with The Cancer Letter
Laine: Annals wouldn’t have published studies on red, processed meat “if we thought it was bad science”
 | Christine Laine Editor in chief, Annals of Internal Medicine Clinical associate professor, Division of Internal Medicine, Jefferson Medical College |
Older guidelines on red and processed meat are not very transparent about the methodology that was used to search, select, and rate the quality of the evidence, said Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
“That is why we were interested in the work that NutriRECS is doing,” Laine said. “I think you could argue about what you do when you don’t really have good evidence.”
The Annals has no plans to publish a corrigendum to clarify an appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of Bradley Johnston, the lead author of the journal’s “new guidelines” on red meat and processed meat.
“There’s a judgment call about whether he should have mentioned things that are not within the timeframe, but that’s a matter of opinion,” Laine said. “It’s not that the information that he provided was incorrect.”
Johnston, a co-founder of the guidelinemaking group NutriRECS, had previously received funding from a group of food and pharmaceutical companies to conduct a study on sugar consumption in 2016, which was also published in the Annals (The Cancer Letter, Oct. 4).
His team’s studies on red and processed meats reportedly were not … Continue reading Laine: Annals wouldn’t have published studies on red, processed meat “if we thought it was bad science”To access this members-only content, please log in.Institutional subscribers, please
log in with your IP.
If you're not a subscriber why not
join today? To gain access to the members only content
click here to subscribe.
You will be given immediate access to premium content on the site.
Click here to join.
