Annals of Internal Medicine suggests that adults can continue to consume red meat

https://www.bing.com/search?q=new+red+meat+guidelines&qs=AS&pq=new+red+ meat&sk=AS1&sc=4-12&cvid=49B6CD4475764EA4A2A6C8F05D4BBBE4&FORM=QBLH &sp=2

The paper was never actually shown in the articles because they were too busy saying how wrong it is.... Quality journalism is sorely lacking these days.

The main points of the paper are that ALL previous studies of red meat consumption were/are flawed in their system and approach. The researchers clearly stated that the methodology used was severely flawed. What was wrong in all the studies?
First and foremost, they group all red meat eaters in a single category. Eat a McD Big Mac with large fries and 2 gallons of Diet Coke everyday? You are in the same category as the bodybuilder that eats 4 ounces of red meat twice a week.
Second, none of the studies differentiated the types of meat and how cooked. Like your sausages and brats burnt crispy on the grill? You go in the same group as the bodybuilders that only eat low fat steak broiled in the oven twice a week.
Seeing a pattern yet?
Third, lifestyle was never factored in the results. Let's be fair, are mountain bikers more or less healthy, as a group, compared to 300lb couch potatoes? Of course we are. But as soon as you say you eat red meat, you get thrown into the 300 lb. fat lazy couch potato group in all those previous studies.
As a general rule, the average vegetarian and vegan usually live a lifestyle that is more healthy and are more health conscious in their activities than the lifestyle and habits of the 300 lb couch potatoes.
Fourth, none of the studies separated out diabetics which are much more likely to be in the omnivore group due to all the donuts and diet sodas they drink. The researches found many other health factors that were also not considered in the final results of the studies they reviewed.
Their paper is upsetting the apple cart because they found so many flaws in the conclusions of all the studies that they reviewed. So naturally, all the so called experts who wrote or supported the findings in the previous studies are coming out in droves claiming these guys don't know anything.

From the article by NPR:

In a nutshell, the authors of the new analyses have used an alternative approach to evaluate the evidence.
Not alternative as in "new" or "not generally used", but alternative as in not used by any of the previous studies on this topic. It is the standard approach for ALL other medical studies. The previous studies on red meat consumption lacked the normal controls that are required for valid conclusions.
They've used a system known as GRADE,
which is a process to rate the quality of scientific evidence. Using this approach, a kind of study known as a randomized controlled trial ó or RCT, for short ó is considered high-quality evidence.
Nutrition scientist Frank Hu of Harvard says the problem with GRADE is that it was mainly developed for evaluating evidence from drug trials. "It's really problematic and inappropriate to use GRADE to evaluate nutrition studies," Hu says. Most of nutrition science is built on another type of study, observational studies. These are conducted by tracking the eating habits of people over many years.
But here's the rub: The GRADE system considers these observational studies to be low quality.
So the standard by which studies are to be measured says that all the previous study results are low quality due to lack of controls is to be ignored according to all the authors of the previous papers.