“What the Health” is a 2017 documentary directed by Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn that argues animal products are the primary driver of major chronic diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The film makes the case that a whole-food, plant-based (vegan) diet can prevent and even reverse these conditions, and it accuses major health organizations of hiding the truth due to financial ties with the meat and dairy industries. It’s a provocative, well-produced film that convinced many viewers to go vegan overnight, but it also drew significant criticism from nutrition scientists for oversimplifying complex diseases and overstating the research.
The Film’s Central Argument
The documentary follows Andersen as he investigates connections between diet and disease. His core thesis is straightforward: eating meat, dairy, and eggs causes the world’s leading chronic illnesses, and the organizations that should be warning the public are instead funded by the very industries profiting from these foods. He contacts groups like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Association, pressing them on why their websites feature recipes containing animal products despite research linking those foods to the diseases they claim to fight.
Throughout the film, Andersen interviews physicians and researchers who advocate for plant-based eating. These experts argue that the standard Western diet, heavy in animal protein and saturated fat, is responsible for epidemics of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. The film positions a vegan diet not just as one healthy option among many but as the only truly healthful way to eat.
Meat, Diabetes, and the Sugar Debate
One of the film’s most controversial claims is that meat and animal fat, not sugar, are the primary causes of type 2 diabetes. Andersen argues that fat accumulates inside muscle cells and interferes with insulin’s ability to move sugar out of the bloodstream. He suggests the public has been misled into blaming sugar when animal products deserve the blame.
This is where the film starts to lose credibility with most nutrition researchers. Type 2 diabetes is driven by a combination of factors: genetics, overall calorie intake, body weight, physical activity, and yes, diet composition. Blaming a single food group ignores the complexity of the disease. While some research does link high intake of red and processed meat to increased diabetes risk, that doesn’t mean sugar and refined carbohydrates are innocent bystanders. The biggest criticism of the film, as Colorado State University researchers noted, is that “a single food or food group cannot be blamed for obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases.”
Cancer and the Processed Meat Comparison
The documentary leans heavily on the World Health Organization’s 2015 classification of processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen, the same category as tobacco and asbestos. The film uses this classification to suggest that eating processed meat is essentially as dangerous as smoking cigarettes.
That framing is misleading. The Group 1 label means there is strong evidence that processed meat can cause cancer (specifically colorectal cancer), not that it causes cancer at the same rate as smoking. The actual numbers tell a very different story: eating 50 grams of processed meat daily (roughly two slices of bacon) increases colorectal cancer risk by about 18%. Smoking, by comparison, increases lung cancer risk by roughly 2,000 to 3,000%. The WHO classification system grades the strength of evidence, not the degree of danger. The film either misunderstands or deliberately blurs this distinction.
Red meat that hasn’t been processed (a plain steak, for example) sits in a lower category. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies unprocessed red meat as Group 2A, meaning it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The increased risk may relate to the iron and fat content in red meat, as well as compounds that form when meat is cooked at high temperatures.
Dairy, Eggs, and Heart Disease
The film also targets dairy and eggs. It claims dairy consumption is linked to prostate cancer and that eggs are as harmful to arteries as cigarettes. On dairy, there is some supporting evidence, though the film presents it in far more alarming terms than the data warrants. A large meta-analysis of 32 cohort studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that high intake of total dairy products was associated with a modest increase in prostate cancer risk: about 7% higher risk per 400 grams of dairy consumed daily. That’s a real but small association, and it doesn’t prove dairy causes prostate cancer.
The egg comparison to cigarettes is one of the documentary’s most memorable and most criticized moments. It references a single observational study on egg yolks and arterial plaque buildup, then frames the finding as though eating an egg is comparable to smoking a cigarette. Most nutrition researchers consider this a gross exaggeration. Observational studies can show correlations but cannot prove one thing causes another, and the broader body of research on eggs and heart disease is far more nuanced than the film suggests.
The Conspiracy Angle
A significant portion of the documentary is devoted to suggesting that major health nonprofits are complicit in hiding the dangers of animal products because they receive funding from food industry groups. Andersen calls representatives from these organizations and films their reluctance to speak on camera, framing their responses as evidence of a cover-up.
There are legitimate concerns about industry influence on nutrition policy and nonprofit funding. But the film presents these concerns as a coordinated conspiracy rather than the more mundane reality of institutional inertia and competing financial interests. Organizations may have conflicts of interest without actively suppressing lifesaving information. The documentary’s approach here is effective filmmaking but not rigorous journalism.
What the Film Gets Right
Despite its problems, the documentary isn’t entirely wrong. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has stated that “appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” Those diets are considered appropriate for all stages of life, including pregnancy, childhood, and older adulthood. Vegetarians and vegans do show reduced risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain cancers, and obesity in population studies.
The film is also correct that most people in Western countries eat more processed meat and animal products than major dietary guidelines recommend, and that shifting toward more plant foods would likely improve public health outcomes. Where it goes wrong is in treating a vegan diet as the only solution and animal products as poison, rather than acknowledging that the dose, preparation, and overall dietary pattern matter enormously.
How Reliable Is the Documentary Overall
The film relies on fear-based messaging, cherry-picked experts, and overstated research to build its case. Nutrition scientists have pointed out that it is “highly selective about the information” it presents and contracts health professionals who already support its conclusion. This fits the pattern of advocacy filmmaking rather than balanced investigation. The personal stories of people who switch to a vegan diet and feel dramatically better within days are compelling but represent anecdotal evidence, not proof of the film’s broader claims.
If you watched “What the Health” and felt alarmed, it’s worth knowing that the core message (eat more plants, eat less processed meat) is well-supported by nutrition science. The problem is everything the film stacks on top of that message: the false equivalences, the conspiracy framing, and the insistence that animal products are the sole cause of chronic disease. These are complex conditions shaped by genetics, lifestyle, environment, and diet collectively. No single food group explains them, and no single dietary change eliminates them.