Dietary studies have been largely been poor since they rely on food frequency questionnaires.

The pertinent sentence from the methods section of this study is "Questionnaires have been completed biennially to update information on potential risk factors and occurrence of new diseases." Poor data in leads to poor data out.

I'm not sure I can quantify what I ate accurately in a twice yearly survey -- can you? Bias also plays a role in how these questions are answered.

The other factor is hazard ratio for red meat and CHD was 1.11. Thr hazard ratio for tabacco and lung disease which is a known association was between 14-17. The effect that they found is small in magnitude.

Epidemiology studies like these need to ranked low on the totem pole of types of evidence.