Of Chickens and Viruses

If you live in the US, you most likely have two egg-color options at your grocery store or farmers' market: white or brown. The color of these eggs doesn't affect flavor or nutritional content of the eggs - it just depends on the breed of chicken that layed them. However, if you have a Araucana, Dongxiang, or Lushi chicken (and if you do, you probably don't live in North America) they will probably lay blue eggs. A recent study in PLoS Genetics has shown that the reason for this is a retrovirus, EAV-HP, that has affected the chicken and turned it's eggs blue. But how can a virus affect eggs color?

The answer lies in how retroviruses work. Retroviruses use RNA as their genetic material (instead of DNA like we do). However, when the virus infects a host cell, it uses an enzyme called Reverse Transcriptase to translate it's RNA genome into DNA. This DNA is then inserted into the host cells' DNA genome, essentially tricking the host cell into using the information in the new DNA to make more retroviruses. The most famous retrovirus that affects humans is probably the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, shown in the image above (green) infecting a human lymphocyte (pink). Sometimes, when a retrovirus inserts a gene into the host DNA, it can change or affect the expression of genes around the insertion point. This is what happened with the blue egg-laying chickens.

In the case of EAV-HP, the virus inserted near a gene for a membrane transporter called SLCO1B3 and turned it on in the chicken uterus. This change allows the developing eggs to take up a bile pigment called biliverden from the chicken's body, turning the egg blue. Because this gene became part of the chicken's DNA, it is able to pass on the trait to it's offspring. Due to preferential breeding of Araucana, Dongxiang, or Lushi chickens that have this trait, most chickens of these breeds now lay blue eggs. The exact DNA sequences near theSLCO1B3 genes in these breeds is different, suggesting that the retrovirus caused the DNA changes that result in blue eggs in independent events in all three breeds. Both the blue pigment and the retrovirus involved are completely harmless to humans, so if you see a blue egg, don't hesitate to fry it up and enjoy!

(via BoingBoing)
(Image: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-I), a Creative Commons 2.0-licenses image from Microbe World's photostream)

Happy lobster month!

I'm not sure how this has not come to my attention sooner, but August is Maine Lobster Month! Lobsters are, by my estimation, the tastiest arthropods. Maybe some people would disagree.

When you picture a delicious lobster, ready to eat, it's bright red in color. On the other hand, if you've ever fished one out of the ocean (or seen it done) you know that live lobsters aren't that color at all - they're generally brownish. In honor of lobster month, here is an interesting video about why lobsters turn bright red when you cook them. Enjoy!



Bonus fact: Lobsters are colorful in another way - they have blue blood (like spiders and some other crustaceans), thanks to hemocyanin, a protein that transports oxygen in their blood using copper. Our blood and the blood of many other vertebrates is red because of hemoglobin, which uses iron to transport oxygen.

(Thanks to Life Lines blog for the link!)

2013: The Year of Quinoa

Have you heard of quinoa? If you're one of the millions that shops at specialty groceries like Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, you probably have. It's an ancient grain, grown mainly in South America, which has become quite trendy in the us in recent years, and as a result has gotten more expensive. Can we expect the price to go down as the quinoa supply increases to meet rising demand? Maybe, and maybe not.

An interesting post at the Washington Post Wonkblog (with graphs!) gets into the economic reasons why quinoa farmers are not cropping up all over the world. Mostly, there is an enormous startup cost to growing a new species of plant on a large scale, or in a new environment. Producing more quinoa in the US, for example, would require both. Getting more quinoa from the farmers in Bolivia and Peru that have been growing the grain for centuries isn't such an easy proposition, either, as these traditional farmers use older techniques and equipment that are not so easily scaled up as are industrial agricultural methods. A number of solutions are being studied, including new varieties of quinoa that can grow in different climates. These topics will be discussed at an upcoming quinoa symposium.

Why are we eating so much quinoa? Well, aside from the facts that we love novelty the latest health food fad, quinoa is tasty and actually healthy. It's about 14% protein, which is a lot for something we consider a grain (although not as high as beans), and it is a vegetarian source of "complete protein," meaning that it contains all the amino acids that our body cannot synthesize on its own and needs to get from our diet. It's also high in fiber and a number of other nutrients like B vitamins and iron. So, eat your quinoa, if you can afford it, and hope that in the future, there will be enough to go around.

Also, here is a fun quinoa bonus fact from Wikipedia: While quinoa is not a true grass like the cereal crops we think of as grains (wheat, rice, etc.), it is closely related to tumbleweeds.

A tip of the hat to Ragan for the article!
(Image: Quinoa, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from Renee S. Suen's Photostream)

Science of Addiction: Junk Food Edition

Everybody knows that we shouldn't eat so much processed junk food, and everybody also knows that's it's sometimes difficult to control your intake of these foods. However, I don't think that many people have thought about what goes on in your brain when you eat many more potato chips than you had planned to eat. In the NYT this week there  is a very interesting piece addressing just these issues and the research that has contributed to our current understanding of why humans love junk food.

For the past 50 years or so, a great deal of research has gone into what it is that humans like to eat and how to market it to them, beginning with military research into which MREs soldiers prefer and continuing to the modern day with research into how many pounds per square inch of pressure it takes to break the ideal potato chip and how to successfully market baby carrots as snack food. Most of this research has been done by large processed food companies with an eye to idealizing the taste of their snack foods so that people will eat more of them. By most accounts, they have been wildly successful - so successful that in the U.S. today one in three adults is obese and the rate of type II diabetes climbs  every year.

One interesting tidbit from the article is that research shows that, although we like strong or unique tasting foods for a short time, we quickly tire of them if we eat the same one over and over again. Over the long term, we will eat more of relatively bland but tasty foods (like white bread and potato chips). This is great news for the makers of salty, fatty, but unremarkable snack foods (I'm looking at you, Cheetos!) that we know so well.

There is a growing awareness that the types of foods, especially processed foods, that people eat contributes to (or detracts from) their health as much, if not more, than the quantity of that food. As I learned from this article, even people involved with marketing processed foods to the public are acknowledging that what we eat is part of the growing health crisis in our country.

Hopefully in the future we can put all of the research behind marketing and idealizing unhealthy food to work helping people to make better choices about what they eat. The more we understand about why people like certain foods, the more we can make healthy foods that people like to eat, or at least stop making and eating addictive foods that ultimately make us sick. The solution to the problem will have to be a combination of information that consumers can use to make better food choices and more responsible food manufacturing and marketing by the handful of companies that control the majority of processed food in America. Understanding what is going wrong now is the first step in the right direction.

(Image: Junk food, grocery store, Houston, TX, USA, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from Cory Doctorow's Photostream via BoingBoing)

What is the future of agriculture?

This week I came upon two very different articles online regarding where our food comes from. They both focus on how technology has impacted the way we farm, but come to different conclusions about the benefits of current farming technology. I think they raise some interesting questions about what role technology should play in food production in the future.

The first article, on NPR.com, discusses an art project conducted by photographer David Liittschwager, wherein he photographed all the species that pass through a cubic foot of area in different locations around the world. The result is a unique way of visualizing an area's biodiversity. Locations such as a public park in South Africa and a tree in Costa Rica contained more than a hundred different species of plants, insects, and animals. He also examined a typical Iowa cornfield - part of a huge system of industrial monoculture that provides much of our country's food supply. How many species did he find there? Eight. Including the corn. Over two nights and three days of observation, he didn't even find a single bee.

This total lack of biodiversity strongly contrasts the previous state of the Iowa prairie landscape, where a century ago hundreds of species coexisted in a complex system. Liittschwager's work raises questions about the benefit of our industrial agricultural system. What are we losing when we eliminate almost all species in a natural ecosystem? To what extent does the health of the soil and the crops depend on the complex network of interrelationships that we have destroyed without fully understanding? Industrial agriculture on this scale requires energy input in the form of fertilizer produced by burning fossil fuels. How long can we sustain these practices before we run out of materials or permanently alter our atmosphere and climate?

Another perspective on technology and farming comes from wired.com, where you can find photographs by Freya Najade of another technology-dependent method of food production: self-contained robotic farms. These facilities can produce food, without soil or sunlight, separate from any natural ecosystem. They are touted as possible models for production of food on the moon or in space, and similar systems have been developed to grow food in urban spaces previously considered unusable for food production. These systems, like the industrial corn farm mentioned earlier, feature a stark lack of biodiversity, but instead of destroying an existing ecosystem to create these farms, unfarmable areas have instead been transformed into a place where food is produced. Using computer-controlled systems, food can be grown locally, closer to consumers, and with less effort by humans, increasing efficiency. However, we don't fully understand the consequences of using these systems, which exist completely outside the natural environment or season, and which require the input of energy in the form of electricity and heat to function.

So, where do we go from here? What will be the role of technology in the future of food production? We have already used technology to enormously increase the efficiency of food production, with mixed results. The US spends, per capita, the least on food and the most on health care compared to almost any other industrialized nation. Industrial agriculture is changing our climate and eliminating biodiversity in our environment. Currently, the way we produce food is efficient but destroys our health and local ecosystems. Some proponents of systems such as biodynamic agriculture say that going back to a method of farming where we avoid monoculture and grow a diversity of plants on smaller farms that also include uncultivated natural spaces is the way forward. Could we also use more advanced technology to grow food outside of natural systems, farming previously unfarmable areas with the help of computers and other advanced technology. Can technology allow us to farm more efficiently, with fewer people, and closer to the consumers of food? I suspect that both of these approaches will be tested in the no-so-distant future, as we try to address the complicated problems with our current systems of food production. It may be that the best solution is a synthesis of old wisdom about how to care for plants and the soil and new knowledge of how to manipulate energy, information, and plant biology.

(Image: hydroponic farm 035, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from missdrummajorette's photostream)

DIY Sriracha

Hello internet friends, I know it's been awhile since I have last posted. The situation is, I've relocated from NYC to SoCal, and I've been busy moving and re-acclimating. So far, sunny California has been treating me well. It's almost impossible to find a good slice of pizza but the burgers and beer are pretty amazing.

I'm going to make an effort to get back to posting on a more regular basis soon. For now, please enjoy this awesome video about making your own Sriracha from SkeeterNYC that I found on BoingBoing.

 

If you don't know what Sriracha is, please read this informative comic from The Oatmeal.

Old is gold...

I rarely talk about materials science on this blog, but today is your lucky day if you get excited about the physical properties of matter. As it turns out, all glass baking items are not created equal, because all types of glass are not created equal. A report in the Bulletin of the American Ceramic Society (also covered in this Scientific American Podcast) reports on changes in the material that Pyrex glassware is made from that affects its performance.

Prior to 1994, all Pyrex cookware was made of borosilicate glass (which is also what most laboratory glassware is made from). The advantage of this type of glass over normal glass is that it has a low coefficient of thermal expansion. This means that when the glass is heated, it expands less than normal glass. This might seem insignificant, but it can be important if the glass is going to be used in a way that results in it being rapidly headed or cooled, such as going from an oven to a refrigerator. Rapid changes in temperature can cause glass to expand unevenly, causing stress within the glass that leads to cracks or even breakage. Glass with a lower coefficient of thermal expansion is less likely to crack or shatter after exposure to rapid changes in temperature, making it ideal for kitchen (or laboratory) use.

However, since 1994, Corning has been licensing the Pyrex name to companies that produce products made of soda lime silicate glass, which is the type of glass found in most common glass items in your home. This glass is less likely to break when dropped (although this is not tested in the above bulletin), but has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is about three times that of borosilicate glass, making it more likely to shatter when exposed to thermal stress. In fact, the report says that a temperature change of 100 degrees F is enough to break the new Pyrex products, while a change of 330 degrees F was required to break the old borosilicate products. To put this in perspective, the difference between a raw, room-temperature roast and a hot oven is about 275 degrees F.

The take home message is that if you want the old, shatter-resistant formulation of Pyrex, look for older pieces (or, presumably, look for items that are labeled as being made from borosilicate glass). That casserole dish from the thrift store might be an even better deal than you previously thought. And, if you're a fan of pictures of glass shattering, definitely check out the full report from the ACS bulletin above!

(via BoingBoing)

(Image: IMG_5201, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from gruntusk's photosream)

Cilantro haters, it's not your fault.

I fully admit to really liking cilantro. It's probably one of my favorite herbs, and I know quite a few people that enjoy it. However, it's I am well aware that it's also an herb that divides people - most either really enjoy it or absolutely hate it (much like the movie Garden State). If you're a hater, know that you are not alone - even gastronom Julia Child is said to have hated cilantro. Now, thanks to science, there may be an explanation for why some people loathe cilantro with such passion.

Charles Wysocki, a neuroscientist at Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia has found evidence of the genetic basis of cilantro hate in his studies of twins. He says that 80% of identical twins share their preference for cilantro, while among fraternal twins the number is only 50%, indicating that there is some genetic basis for cilantro preference. Scientists at the University of Toronto in Canada have linked variants in genes for an olfactory receptor (those are the proteins on the surface of cells in your nose that let you detect scents) and a bitter taste receptor to cilantro preference. Additionally, researchers at the genetics company 23andMe found that dislike of cilantro was linked to a different olfactory receptor. All of these studies suggest that preference for cilantro may be genetic, and that the reason that some people dislike cilantro is because they perceive the taste of the herb differently. Still, differences in cilantro preference between even identical twins does indicate that there are some environmental factors that affect how much you enjoy the herb.

What does this mean for you? Well, it's more evidence that a person's genetic makeup affects the way that they perceive and interact with the world, including the things we eat. Right now, we have no way to affect a person's genes, so, at least for now, cilantro haters gonna hate.

(via BoingBoing)

(Image: cilantro, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from looseends' photostream)

What are the advantages of organic?

There has been a lot of kerfuffle on the internet in the past week since Stanford University scientists published a meta-analysis of many studies regarding health and organic foods. They found that there was no evidence that organic foods are "more nutritious" than conventional foods. However, they did note some differences between conventionally grown and organic foods. Organic fruits and veggies had less pesticide residue, and organic meats were less likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

At this point, many people have thrown down on either side of the organic food divide. Proponents of eating organic say that we still don't know the long-term health benefits of an organic diet, as these studies mostly looked at short term effects of an organic diet. Opponents say that organic food is a pricey fad, a method of food production that can not feed the world's large population, and offers little benefit to the consumer.

Overall, I do still think organic food offers some benefits. Organic farming reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and prevents the damage done to soil and ecosystems that are a result of industrial monoculture. As the farmer from the CSA that I belong to pointed out, most people on the planet currently do not get their food from an industrial agricultural system like one that we have in the US, suggesting that feeding the world's populations using organic methods might be feasible. Eating organic  also reduces our exposure to pesticides and antibiotic resistant bacteria, the long term effects of which I agree are not well studied. However, this study did not interrogate the long-term health effects of organic food, nor did it consider the effects of organic agriculture on anything besides consumer health, and it also grouped all organic food into one category, when there are a diversity of types of "organic" farming practices, from industrial organic to small-farm biodynamic.

Overall, this study is part of the big picture of food production in the United States. This also an excellent example of a study that can be interpreted multiple ways. We should take the conclusions of this study, that organic produce does not seem to be higher in nutrients than conventional, into consideration. We should also avoid extrapolating the data in an unfounded way to align with whatever political point we're trying to make. This study sought to help inform consumers of organic food to make better decisions about what to buy, but it did not address the larger questions of what type of food production are best for the economy, environment, or long-term sustainability of agriculture. Organic food has not been proven to be healthier, but neither has it been condemned as being completely without benefit.

(Image: The sign reads "Organic no chemicles" a Creative Commons 2.0 image from friendsoffamilyfarmers's photostream)

A New Kind of Cooking Class

I'd heard previously about the wildly successful "Kitchen Chemistry" class taught at MIT and how it combined chemistry and kitchen skills into a class about cooking that was based in science (and counted for a science credit). It turns out that this class might be part of a larger trend towards teaching the science behind what's happening in the kitchen. Classes are cropping up at other universities around the country, according to Chemical and Engineering News.

That's good news for several reasons. First, I think any topic that relates science to everyday life helps to engage students with science and results in more overall science literacy, which is important for a well-informed populace. Second, I think educating people about food and cooking helps to make them more enthusiastic and confident cooks. This in turn helps people that eat better, healthier food, increasing health and quality of life in our society. Lastly, it's great for me, since I'm pretty sure I can't think of  job I'd enjoy more than teaching such a class.

(via BoingBoing)

Antibacterials and Allergies

 Has everyone else noticed that, apparently, everyone is allergic to peanuts now? Or has some other serious allergy? One explanation is the so-called "hygiene hypothesis," which says that the reason allergies are on the rise is because our super-hygienic lifestyle has reduced our exposure to all sorts of microorganisms, both good and bad, and has prevented our immune systems from developing normally.

Now new support for this hypothesis has come in the form of a study showing that children with higher levels of antibacterial and preservative chemicals in their urine have higher incidence of food and environmental allergies. The levels of these chemicals found in the urine reflects the amount of exposure kids have to them, and come mainly from personal products including soap, mouthwash, and toothpaste. More exposure resulted in higher levels of IgE antibodies, involved in the allergy response. Children with the highest levels of exposure to Triclosan, one of the antibacterial agents studied, had twice the risk of peanut and environmental allergies as kids exposed to low levels of the chemical.

The researchers' hypothesis is not that these chemicals directly cause allergies, but that exposure to them inhibits proper development of the immune system, which leads to development of allergies later. It's a little more support for the idea that, while antibiotics and antiseptics are pretty awesome and have extended the human lifespan enormously, bathing your children in Purell and antibacterial soap every time they go outside might not be the best idea. Let them eat a little dirt next time.

(Image: Untitled, a Creative Commons 2.0 image from ms. Tea's photostream)

Strange Fruit

BBC Nature has an interesting feature on unusual and hybrid fruit varieties. It's worth a read, especially if you were wondering how to eat a durian, aka the world's smelliest fruit, or if you are curious about what fruits humans crossbred to make crazy hybrids like oranges and lemons.

(via BoingBoing)

Quick Hit: The Future of Food @ Slate

Slate has an interesting set of articles up on their Future Tense blog about technology and food production. It includes discussions of robotics in small scale agriculture, the future possibilities of genetically engineered foods, large scale agriculture in the face of climate change, and more. If you're interested in high tech food packaging, nanoparticles, genetic engineering, and laboratory-grown meat (and who isn't?!), go check it out.

The Tomato Code

What's got 31,760 genes and is red all over? Tomatoes, that's what! It's the moment we've all been waiting for folks: after nine years, a group of plant geneticists from 14 countries have finally decoded the entire tomato genome. Hopefully this will lead to tasty-yet-shelf-stable tomatoes of the FUTURE. Or, possibly, tomatoes that need less pesticide to thrive. For now, we can only hope.

For those of you who are counting, that means that tomatoes have about 7,000 more genes than humans. Although this isn't all that unusual, since many plants have extremely large genomes (wheat, for example, has a genome that is five times the size of humans'), I wouldn't turn my back on them. No one wants to be surprised by something like this.

(via the NYT)

Coffee drinking linked to reduced death risk

 So today, in health news that makes me happy (for once!), a recent study links coffee consumption with reduced death risk. The study followed 400,000 adults for 14 years and found that men and women who drink 4-5 cups of joe a day had the lowest death risk - 12% less than non-coffee drinking people. Even a daily cup of coffee reduced the risk of death compared to non-drinkers by 6%. Good news for those of us who have a rough morning without our daily dose of caffeine (although the correlation still exists for those who mostly drink decaf, suggesting that caffeine itself is not beneficial in this way).

Just a note: As usual, science reporting generally goes for the sensational above the technically correct. The statement that "Coffee may be the key to living longer" accompanying the above article is misleading because it implies that drinking coffee causes you to live longer, while the study has not proved that at all. Repeat after me, science scouts: "Correlation does not imply causation!"

(Image: Coffee in the morning, a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licensed image from chichacha's photostream)

Fractal Pancakes

I think they probably require way more talent than I possess to make, but these fractal pancakes (via BoingBoing) are super cool.

Along with the Mobius Bagel, they make a mathalicious (if carb-laden) breakfast.

Home Made Kimchi

If you could pick anyone in the world to teach you how to make your own Kimchi, you could do worse than to pick a Korean grandmother who's been making it for seven decades or so. If you're the type of person who's inclined to ferment their own cabbage and you have access to some Korean ingredients, check out the video below (via GOOD), and then go take a look at the full recipe at CoolHunting.

Kimchi (or Kim Chee) is a fermented Korean dish, usually made with cabbage and/or radishes with dried red chilis. Like many other naturally fermented foods (like yogurt, sauerkraut, and fermented pickles, etc.), it contains bacteria that may have beneficial health effects. It's also low in calories and contains lots of healthy vitamins, so eat up!

Pasta Architects

Ever wonder who is behind the silly shapes in your Kraft Maraconi and Cheese Dinner? Dan Lewis from Now I Know has the inside story. Apparently, the design of these novelty noodles involves quite a lot of design skill as well as IP patent knowledge, and it has quite a high failure rate. Who knew it was so complicated?

Sidenote: If you think this type of thing is interesting, sign up for Dan's daily email, which contains interesting tidbits about all sorts of things, or follow him on Twitter.

(Image: Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licensed image from Like_the_Grand_Canyon's photostream)

The Future of Bananas

This is what bananas looked like before humans got involved in their reproduction.

Some of you may know that 50 years ago, although people in the USA were eating bananas, they were a different kind than the ones you're familiar with. That's because at the time, the Gros Michel was the type of banana gown for eating, and almost all bananas for sale were this type, grown on clonal trees. A post over at BoingBoing explains what happened to these bananas, and what will likely happen to the bananas we're enjoying now. (This post was inspired by another at Damn Interesting, also about the sex life of bananas. Go check it out.)

Because we don't like to eat bananas with seeds, humans have selectively bread bananas without them. (The picture above is of a wild banana that has not been subjected to selective breeding by humans.) Unfortunately for the bananas, this makes it difficult to reproduce. Humans make more banana trees by growing a new tree from a cutting of an existing one. This creates a population of banana trees that are all genetically identical - the entire code of their DNA is the same. If these banana trees were human, they would all be identical twins.

In the same way that two humans may not be affected by a disease in the same way, diseases also affect banana trees differently. This variation is due to small differences between individuals. By creating a clonal population of banana trees, we have eliminated this variation. If a disease kills one of these trees, it will kill all of them. This is what happened to the Gros Michel, and it's why you can't find this type of banana anymore. It was wiped out by a fungus known as Panama Disease in the 1950's.

The banana you know today, the Cavendish banana, replaced the Gros Michael after that period. However, the Cavendish today has the same problem the Gros Michael had 50 years ago - they are all clonal plants. A disease called Black sigatoka is laying siege to the Cavendish, and it may not be long before the entire population is wiped out by this disease.

Don't worry too much about future bananas, though. There are many, many varieties of bananas grown around the world, and banana growers have already developed a banana, the Goldfinger, that is resistant to Black sigatoka. These bananas are also a clonal population, so it doesn't mean that they won't be in danger of being wiped out by another disease. The banana-disease arms race will likely continue on into the future, but until then maybe you (or your children) will come to recognize the Goldfinger as your friendly neighborhood banana.

(Image: Inside a wild-type banana, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 image by Warut Roonguthai)

Will red meat really kill you?

A recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine correlates eating any type of red meat with a higher risk of mortality. This 20-year study followed 110,000 adults and concluded that eating red meat of any kind may be risky. The lead author of the study, An Pan, said in an interview that "Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk."

Does this mean we all have to stop eating red meat at the risk of dropping dead? Probably not. The authors of the study themselves suggest modest dietary changes (eat red meat a couple times a week instead of every day) rather than red meat abstinence. Despite what may be suggested by many news organizations' headlines, this study does NOT establish a causative relationship between eating red meat and death. Instead, they have correlated these two things. Other factors may be at play.

There are other valid criticisms of the study, or at least limitations on what can be concluded given the data at hand. The authors do not differentiate between unprocessed and processed meat (things like bologna, bacon, and hot dogs) in the study. Since processed meats have already been shown to increase your risks for certain diseases, these specific types of meat may be more to blame than the unprocessed sort. Also, the study relies on self-reported data, which is not always the most accurate way to judge human behavior. Via BoingBoing, a great explanation of the study, what it has found, and what it has not found, is located here. It's recommended reading for all carnivores.

The take home message seems to be that, for now, although we're not certain that eating red meat will harm you, it seems to be correlated with an increased risk of death. We do know that consuming certain types of red meat is likely to increase your risk of certain diseases, so it's a good idea to reduce your intake to no more than a couple times a week, and to balance it out with other types of protein as well as lots of fruits and vegetables, the consumption of which seem to be correlated with good health outcomes.

Since meat is also expensive, calorie-dense, and producing it is environmentally taxing, that seems to be pretty good advice for your health, your wallet, and the environment.

(Image: Beef!, a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 image from Michael Cannon's photostream)