Correction: Barnard, N., et al. Meat Consumption as a Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes. Nutrients 2014, 6, 897–910

We have found some inadvertent errors in our paper published in Nutrients [1]. This is a second published correction, the first correction can be found [2].

On page 900, the table heading should read “Risk for diabetes in meat-eaters, compared with non-meat-eaters” and not “Meat as a Categorical Variable”.

On page 900, the study titled “Adventist Mortality Study and Adventist Health Study-1 Tonstad et al. (2013) [11]” requires a change in the citation to “9”. The full text should read, “Adventist Mortality Study and Adventist Health Study-1 Vang et al. (2008) [9]”.

On page 900, the study titled “Adventist Health Study-2 Tonstad et al. (2009) [10]” requires a change in the Findings column. The text should read “Odds ratio and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 1.85 (1.67, 2.04)” and not “Odds ratio and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 0.54 (0.49, 0.60)”.

On page 900, the study titled “Adventist Health Study-2 Tonstad et al. (2013) [11]” requires a change in the Findings column. The text should read “Odds ratio with 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 1.62 (1.32, 1.99)” and not “Odds ratio with 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 0.618 (0.0503, 0.760)”.

On page 900, the study titled “Meta-analysis Pan et al. (2011) [12]” should read “Pan et al. (2011) [12]”. The “+ D1” in the Findings column of this study should be deleted. The text should read “Relative ratios and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis”. Additionally, we would like to insert a table heading before this study. The text should read “Meta-analysis of risk of developing diabetes related to daily meat servings”.

The fully corrected table should appear as follows:

Table 1. Published studies of the relationship between meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes.

Risk for Diabetes in Meat-Eaters, Compared with Non-Meat-Eaters
Study	Observation Period	Population	Findings	Adjustments
Adventist Mortality Study Snowdon et al. (1985) [7]	1960	24,673 white Seventh-day Adventists	Prevalence ratio and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: Men = 1.8 (1.3, 2.5); Women = 1.4 (1.2, 1.8)	Age and body weight
Adventist Mortality Study Snowdon et al. (1985) [7]	21-year follow-up	24,673 white Seventh-day Adventists	Relative risk for diabetes on death certificate: Men = 2.2 (1.5, 3.4); Women = 1.4 (1.0, 1.9)	Age
Adventist Health Study-1 Fraser (1999) [8]	1976	34,192 Seventh-day Adventists in California	Odds ratio and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: Men = 1.97 (1.56, 2.47, p = 0.0001); Women = 1.93 (1.65, 2.25, p = 0.0001)	Age
Adventist Mortality Study and Adventist Health Study-1 Vang et al. (2013) [9]	17-year follow-up	8401 Seventh-day Adventists	Odds ratio with 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 1.29 (1.08, 1.55)	Age and gender
Adventist Health Study-2 Tonstad et al. (2009) [10]	2002–2006	60,903 Seventh-day Adventists in North America	Odds ratio and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 1.85 (1.67, 2.04)	Age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, television watching, sleep habits, alcohol use, and body mass index
Adventist Health Study-2 Tonstad et al. (2013) [11]	2-year follow-up	41,387 Seventh-day Adventists	Odds ratio with 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 1.62 (1.32, 1.99)	Age, body mass index, gender, ethnicity, income, and education
Meta-Analysis of Risk of Developing Diabetes Related to Daily Meat Servings
Pan et al. (2011) [12]	4.6 to 28 years follow-up	442,101	Relative ratios and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 100 g unprocessed red meat/day = 1.19 (1.04, 1.37); 50 g processed red meat/day = 1.51 (1.25, 1.83)	Multivariate analyses adjusted for age, ethnicity, smoking, energy intake, alcohol intake, history of HTN and hypercholesterolemia, family history of diabetes, body weight, and physical activity. A diet score was created looking at trans fats, glycemic load, cereal fiber, and the ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat.

Table 1. Published studies of the relationship between meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes.

Risk for Diabetes in Meat-Eaters, Compared with Non-Meat-Eaters
Study	Observation Period	Population	Findings	Adjustments
Adventist Mortality Study Snowdon et al. (1985) [7]	1960	24,673 white Seventh-day Adventists	Prevalence ratio and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: Men = 1.8 (1.3, 2.5); Women = 1.4 (1.2, 1.8)	Age and body weight
Adventist Mortality Study Snowdon et al. (1985) [7]	21-year follow-up	24,673 white Seventh-day Adventists	Relative risk for diabetes on death certificate: Men = 2.2 (1.5, 3.4); Women = 1.4 (1.0, 1.9)	Age
Adventist Health Study-1 Fraser (1999) [8]	1976	34,192 Seventh-day Adventists in California	Odds ratio and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: Men = 1.97 (1.56, 2.47, p = 0.0001); Women = 1.93 (1.65, 2.25, p = 0.0001)	Age
Adventist Mortality Study and Adventist Health Study-1 Vang et al. (2013) [9]	17-year follow-up	8401 Seventh-day Adventists	Odds ratio with 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 1.29 (1.08, 1.55)	Age and gender
Adventist Health Study-2 Tonstad et al. (2009) [10]	2002–2006	60,903 Seventh-day Adventists in North America	Odds ratio and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 1.85 (1.67, 2.04)	Age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, television watching, sleep habits, alcohol use, and body mass index
Adventist Health Study-2 Tonstad et al. (2013) [11]	2-year follow-up	41,387 Seventh-day Adventists	Odds ratio with 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 1.62 (1.32, 1.99)	Age, body mass index, gender, ethnicity, income, and education
Meta-Analysis of Risk of Developing Diabetes Related to Daily Meat Servings
Pan et al. (2011) [12]	4.6 to 28 years follow-up	442,101	Relative ratios and 95% CI for diabetes diagnosis: 100 g unprocessed red meat/day = 1.19 (1.04, 1.37); 50 g processed red meat/day = 1.51 (1.25, 1.83)	Multivariate analyses adjusted for age, ethnicity, smoking, energy intake, alcohol intake, history of HTN and hypercholesterolemia, family history of diabetes, body weight, and physical activity. A diet score was created looking at trans fats, glycemic load, cereal fiber, and the ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat.

On page 902, the citation that reads “[1]” should read “[15]”. The full, corrected text should read “In the Nurses’ Health Study I, two major dietary patterns were identified among the 69,544 participants: a “Western” dietary pattern, defined by higher intakes of red and processed meats, sweets, and desserts, French fries, and refined grains, and a “prudent” dietary pattern, characterized by higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, legumes, fish, poultry, and whole grains [15]”.

These changes have no material impact on the conclusions of our paper. We apologize to our readers.