CONCERNS have been raised about potential bias in a review of the Australian Dietary Guidelines after an expert on red meat emissions was quietly removed from a panel.
The agency responsible for the dietary guidelines, the National Health and Medical Research Council, has confirmed reports in The Australian that it requested CSIRO scientist Dr Brad Ridoutt to stand down from the Dietary Guidelines Sustainability Working Group.
Dr Brad Ridoutt
Much of Dr Ridoutt’s research in recent years has been looking into the warming impact of emissions from sheep and cattle. He has argued that recognised metrics are overstating the warming impact of methane emissions and that “climate neutrality” was a more fit-for-purpose goal than “carbon neutrality”.
The NHMRC said he was asked to depart the panel in April after the “declaration of an ongoing and relevant project involving funding from industry.”
The organisation would not say what project they had concerns about as the project “involved a third party.”
Dr Ridoutt has declared a total of $439,991 in research funding from Meat & Livestock Australia over four projects between 2020-2022. He has several other declarations on the website, with payments not highlighted.
MLA rejects the notion that industry funding compromises scientific integrity
He recently took part in a study, funded by MLA, looking into the micronutrient adequacy of different diets and their environmental impacts. Among many findings, it found that in all identified “sustainable healthy diets”, calcium, vitamins B6 and A, zinc, and magnesium were at risk of inadequate intake.
Dr Ridoutt has no ongoing projects using MLA funding.
Concerns about the process
Industry groups, such as the Red Meat Advisory Council and Cattle Australia, have long been concerned about the inclusion of environmental sustainability in the review of the dietary guidelines – which inform advice from doctors, school meals and many other programs.
CA deputy chair Adam Coffey said the exclusion of Dr Ridoutt added more question marks over the process.
CA deputy chair Adam Coffey
“When we see credible experts like Brad Ridoutt on the working group informing this process, that is a positive,” Mr Coffey said.
“The fact he is gone makes us really question the process here, particularly when we hear that it was nothing more than a perceived conflict – with no other explanation given.”
One of the highest profile attempts to intertwine environmental sustainability with diets globally has been the EAT Lancet Planetary Health Diet, which ultimately recommended people consume 14g of red meat/day.
A second version of that diet, with similar recommendations, was released earlier this month. Several organisations, including Dieticians Australia and the Australian Medical Students’ Association immediately started publicly calling for the dietary guidelines to consider EAT Lancet 2.0.
Other scientists have raised serious concerns about the nutritional adequacy of the EAT Lancet diet, which has prompted a global effort to recognise the essential role of meat and livestock.
Mr Coffey said CA was still trying to get correct quantification of the environmental impact of red meat production.
“We have huge concerns that there is bias within the Australian Dietary Guideline review process that is going to be suggesting people eat a diet that is deficient of key nutrients they require under the guise of saving the planet,” he said.
“We know that the environmental impact of red meat has been grossly overstated for quite some time. We need a clearer picture of what that is before we put these processes in place or there will be unintended consequences for people’s health.”
MLA defends scientific integrity of industry funding
The integrity of scientists has been attacked on several occasions recently for taking funding from the livestock industry.
Meat Standards Australia pioneer Rod Polkinghorne was among a group attacked by Greenpeace for his ties with MLA last year.
MLA managing director Michael Crowley
He was involved in the signing of the Dublin Declaration, a document signed by 1200 scientists which recognises the essential role of meat and livestock. That initiative has also been attacked by both activist and media organisations for its scientists taking funding from the meat industry.
MLA managing director Michael Crowley said industry funding did not undermine scientific integrity.
“MLA rejects the notion that industry funding compromises scientific integrity,” Mr Crowley said.
“MLA supports independent, evidence-based research to advance sustainability and productivity in the red meat industry.
“Collaboration between industry and researchers is essential to address complex challenges such as sustainability and climate resilience.
“All MLA-funded research is conducted under strict governance and transparency frameworks to ensure independence and credibility.
“MLA is partly funded by transaction levies paid on livestock sales by producers, which it uses to support research and development activities.
“The Australian Government also contributes a dollar for each levy dollar MLA invests in eligible research and development under a Statutory Funding Agreement.
“Research is also funded by the MLA Donor Company (MDC), which is a fully owned subsidiary of Meat & Livestock Australia Limited.
“The MDC is an investment vehicle which accelerates innovation across the value chain so the Australian red meat and livestock industry can remain competitive on the world stage. It does this by attracting commercial investment from individual enterprises and others that share a mutual interest to co-invest in innovation that will benefit the industry.”