Latest Issue

What all the debates over the dangers of red meat are missing

This is not a clash over the science—it is a clash of paternalism about how much risk we should accept

By Michael Blastland  

What's at steak? Debates over the relative safety of meat forget that for most of us, risk is personal. Photo: Pixabay/Prospect composite

Whose risk is it anyway?

Where there’s meat, there’s blood. Even academic research into the personal health risks of eating it has become vicious. Cut down, says the old; eat what you like, says the new, only for advocates of the old to beat up the revisionists (“these authors are wrong about absolutely everything” … “the most egregious abuse of evidence I have ever seen”). Experts, eh?

Register today to continue reading

You’ve hit your limit of three articles in the last 30 days. To get seven more, simply enter your email address below.

You’ll also receive our free e-book Prospect’s Top Thinkers 2020 and our newsletter with the best new writing on politics, economics, literature and the arts.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with newsletters, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to

More From Prospect