[0xcde4c3db]

> This population-based study, using data collected by the United Nations and its agencies, tests the hypothesis that, worldwide, populations with more meat consumption have greater life expectancies.

With the caveat that I'm not familiar with the data sources and methods used in this study, it sounds to me like what it shows is not so much "eating meat is good for you" as "living in a country where people eat more meat is good for you". Which I think is a pretty significant distinction when the potential confounders include virtually everything that affects the price and availability of meat relative to vegetarian foods (infrastructure capacity and robustness to support CAFOs and regulation/monitoring of such to avoid disease/contamination, access to international markets, political stability, monetary policy, agriculture subsidies, etc.).

I'm not saying that there can't be a nutritional effect. I suppose it's entirely plausible that, as the authors suggest, some of the correlation is explained by trace mineral and B12 intake. I just don't see how this particular study does much to establish support for such an explanation.

(Disclosure: I find myself pretty biased against this study because some of the wording is burying the needle on my personal paleo-woo-bullshit meter. For instance, the authors refer to "unique nutrients from meat" in what I read as a non-hypothetical way, and I'm reasonably sure such nutrients have not been shown to actually exist unless the definition of "meat" is expanded to include dairy and egg products.)