Given the track record of the NYT on all matters nutrition over the decades, I’m as surprised as anyone that they covered this, and not only covered it, but didn’t outright attack it.
It gets pretty clueless towards the end, but it’s surprising that it only makes a small appearance there.
Beef in particular tends to have an outsized climate footprint, partly because of all the land needed to raise cattle and grow feed, and partly because cows belch up methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Researchers have estimated that, on average, beef has about five times the climate impact of chicken or pork, per gram of protein. Plant-based foods tend to have an even smaller impact.
However, this is the best bit. Dr. Frank Hu, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said the following:
Nutrition studies, he added, should not be held to the same rigid standards as studies of experimental drugs.
Makes it VASTLY harder to make things up via epidemiological studies and present them as facts if you have to even pretend to be rigorous, ala drug trials. That, in turn, makes it even harder to push a vegan/vegetarian agenda (which Harvard has done for decades), and keep all of your corporate sponsors/funders on side.