Explore the vast range of titles available.

Red meat and processed meat consumption has been hypothesized to increase risk of cancer, but the evidence is inconsistent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence of associations between consumption of red meat (unprocessed), processed meat, and total red and processed meat with the incidence of various cancer types. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through December 2020. Using a random-effect meta-analysis, we calculated the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the highest versus the lowest category of red meat, processed meat, and total red and processed meat consumption in relation to incidence of various cancers. We identified 148 published articles. Red meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of breast cancer (RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.03–1.15), endometrial cancer (RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.01-1.56), colorectal cancer (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.03–1.17), colon cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.09-1.25), rectal cancer (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46), lung cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09–1.44), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.46). Processed meat consumption was significantly associated with a 6% greater breast cancer risk, an 18% greater colorectal cancer risk, a 21% greater colon cancer risk, a 22% greater rectal cancer risk, and a 12% greater lung cancer risk. Total red and processed meat consumption was significantly associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08–1.26), colon cancer (RR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.09–1.34), rectal cancer (RR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.09–1.45), lung cancer (RR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.09-1.33), and renal cell cancer (RR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.04–1.37). This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that high red meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and high processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast, colorectal, colon, rectal, and lung cancers. Higher risk of colorectal, colon, rectal, lung, and renal cell cancers were also observed with high total red and processed meat consumption.

From health and sustainability perspectives, reduction in the consumption of animal-based foods, especially red meat, is a key strategy. The present study examined the prevalence, sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, food consumption and food choice motives of vegetarians and consumers of low and high amounts of red and processed meat (RPM) among Finnish adults. We applied the data from three national health studies: FINRISK 2007 (n 4874), FINRISK 2012 (n 4812) and FinHealth 2017 (n 4442). Participants addressed their food consumption with a FFQ and answered other questionnaires about sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, as well as food choice motives. The prevalence of vegetarianism increased from 0·7 % in 2012 to 1·8 % in 2017, and median daily RPM consumption decreased from 128 g in 2007 to 119 g in 2012 and to 96 g in 2017. Vegetarians and members of the low-RPM group were more often women, younger and more highly educated than the high-RPM group, both in 2007 and 2017. Still, the importance of sex for the probability of a vegetarian diet decreased, while its importance for high-RPM consumption increased. Vegetarians consumed more fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds than either the low- or high-RPM groups. The high-RPM group had the lowest scores in several aspects of healthy and sustainable diet, healthy food choice motives and healthy lifestyle. Vegetarians and groups differing in their RPM consumption levels might benefit from differing interventions and nutrition information taking into account their other dietary habits, food choice motives and lifestyle factors.

Background Household income (as a marker of socioeconomic position) and neighbourhood fast-food outlet exposure may be related to diet and body weight, which are key risk factors for non-communicable diseases. However, the research evidence is equivocal. Moreover, understanding the double burden of these factors is a matter of public health importance. The purpose of this study was to test associations of neighbourhood fast-food outlet exposure and household income, in relation to frequency of consumption of processed meat and multiple measures of adiposity, and to examine possible interactions. Methods We employed an observational, cross-sectional study design. In a cohort of 51,361 adults aged 38–72 years in Greater London, UK, we jointly classified participants based on household income (£/year, four groups) and GIS-derived neighbourhood fast-food outlet proportion (counts of fast-food outlets as a percentage of all food outlets, quartiles). Multivariable regression models estimated main effects and interactions (additive and multiplicative) of household income and fast-food outlet proportion on odds of self-reported frequent processed meat consumption (> 1/week), measured BMI (kg/m 2 ), body fat (%), and odds of obesity (BMI ≥ 30). Results Income and fast-food proportion were independently, systematically associated with BMI, body fat, obesity and frequent processed meat consumption. Odds of obesity were greater for lowest income participants compared to highest (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.41, 1.69) and for those most-exposed to fast-food outlets compared to least-exposed (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.40, 1.64). In jointly classified models, lowest income and highest fast-food outlet proportion in combination were associated with greater odds of obesity (OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 2.09, 2.84), with relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI = 0.03). Results were similar for frequent processed meat consumption models. There was no evidence of interaction on a multiplicative scale between fast-food outlet proportion and household income on each of BMI ( P  = 0.230), obesity ( P  = 0.054) and frequent processed meat consumption ( P  = 0.725). Conclusions Our study demonstrated independent associations of neighbourhood fast-food outlet exposure and household income, in relation to diet and multiple objective measures of adiposity, in a large sample of UK adults. Moreover, we provide evidence of the double burden of low income and an unhealthy neighbourhood food environment, furthering our understanding of how these factors contribute jointly to social inequalities in health.

The presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in processed meat and meat products is a global concern as they are known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and genotoxic to living beings. PAHs are generated in processed meat through different thermo-processing techniques, such as smoking, grilling, barbecuing, roasting, and frying, which involve abnormal high-temperature treatments and extruded fuels. These carbonaceous compounds with two or more cyclic benzene rings are highly stable and toxic, and their generation is enhanced by faulty thermal processing techniques, contaminated raw materials, and environmental pollution. Based on their degree of toxicity, Benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) is recognized as the most probable human carcinogen among different fractions of PAHs by the European Commission Regulation (EC-No.1881/2006). Furthermore, the association between dietary PAHs exposures and their role as carcinogen in human beings has been reported clinically. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on prevention and control of PAHs formation in processed meat products through various strategies to avert public health concerns and safety issues. Accordingly, several approaches have been used to reduce the risk of PAHs formation by employing safe processing systems, harmless cooking methods, marination by natural plant components, use of biological methods etc. to eliminate or reduce the harmful effects of PAHs in the food system. This review provides a comprehensive insight into the occurrence and formation of PAHs in meat and meat products and their toxicological effects on human beings. Furthermore, the different cost-effective and environment friendly methods that have been employed as “green strategies” to mitigate PAHs in meat and meat products at both household and commercial levels are discussed.

PurposeWe assessed the association of total meat, processed, and unprocessed red meat and iron intake with the risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in pregnant women.MethodsWe conducted a prospective study among 3298 disease-free Spanish women participants of the SUN cohort who reported at least one pregnancy between December 1999 and March 2012. Meat consumption and iron intake were assessed at baseline through a validated, 136-item semi-quantitative, food frequency questionnaire. We categorized total, red, and processed meat consumption and iron intake into quartiles. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders.ResultsWe identified 172 incident cases of GDM. In the fully adjusted analysis, total meat consumption was significantly associated with a higher risk of GDM [OR = 1.67 (95% CI 1.06–2.63, p-trend 0.010)] for the highest versus the lowest quartile of consumption. The observed associations were particularly strong for red meat consumption [OR = 2.37 (95% CI 1.49–3.78, p-trend < 0.001)] and processed meat consumption [OR = 2.01 (95% CI 1.26–3.21, p-trend 0.003)]. Heme iron intake was also directly associated with GDM [OR = 2.21 (95% CI 1.37–3.58, p-trend 0.003)], although the association was attenuated and lost its statistical significance when we adjusted for red meat consumption [OR = 1.57 (95% CI 0.91–2.70, p-trend 0.213)]. No association was observed for non-heme and total iron intake, including supplements.ConclusionsOur overall findings suggest that higher pre-pregnancy consumption of total meat, especially red and processed meat, and heme iron intake, are significantly associated with an increased GDM risk in a Mediterranean cohort of university graduates.

High red and processed meat intake and genetic predisposition are risk factors of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, evidence of their independent and joint associations on the risk of colorectal neoplasms is limited. We assessed these associations among 4774 men and women undergoing screening colonoscopy. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were calculated based on 140 loci related to CRC. We used multiple logistic regression models to evaluate the associations of red and processed meat intake and PRS with the risk of colorectal neoplasms. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were translated to genetic risk equivalents (GREs) to compare the strength of the associations with colorectal neoplasm risk of both factors. Compared to ≤1 time/week, processed meat intake >1 time/week was associated with a significantly increased risk of colorectal neoplasm [aOR (95% CI): 1.28 (1.12–1.46)]. This risk increase was equivalent to the risk increase associated with a 19 percentile higher PRS. The association of red meat intake with colorectal neoplasm was weaker and did not reach statistical significance. High processed meat intake and PRS contribute to colorectal neoplasm risk independently. Limiting processed meat intake may offset a substantial proportion of the genetically increased risk of colorectal neoplasms.

The relationship between different types of meat intake and the risk of type 2 diabetes remains unclear. We prospectively examined the association between total meat, total red meat, unprocessed red meat, processed meat and poultry intake and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Subjects were 27 425 men and 36 424 women aged 45–75 years who participated in the second survey of the Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study, and had no history of type 2 diabetes, cancer, stroke, IHD, chronic liver disease or kidney disease. Meat intake was estimated using a validated 147-item FFQ. OR of self-reported, physician-diagnosed type 2 diabetes over 5 years were estimated using a multiple logistic regression. A total of 1178 newly diagnosed cases of type 2 diabetes were self-reported. Intakes of total meat and total red meat were associated with the increased risk of type 2 diabetes in men but not in women. The multivariate-adjusted OR for the highest quartile compared with the lowest quartile of total meat and total red meat intake were 1·36 (95 % CI 1·07, 1·73; P for trend = 0·006) and 1·48 (95 % CI 1·15, 1·90; P for trend = 0·003) for men, respectively, and 0·82 (95 % CI 0·62, 1·09; P for trend = 0·14) and 0·77 (95 % CI 0·57, 1·02; P for trend = 0·08) for women, respectively. Intakes of processed red meat and poultry were not associated with the increased risk of diabetes in either men or women. In conclusion, elevated intake of red meat is associated with the increased risk of type 2 diabetes in Japanese men but not in women.

High red and processed meat intake (RPMI) is an established risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to assess the impact of RPMI on CRC risk according to and in comparison with genetically determined risk, which was quantified by a polygenic risk score (PRS). RPMI and potential confounders (ascertained by questionnaire) and a PRS (based on 140 CRC-related loci) were obtained from 5109 CRC cases and 4134 controls in a population-based case–control study. Associations of RPMI with CRC risk across PRS levels were assessed using logistic regression models and compared to effect estimates of PRS using “genetic risk equivalent” (GRE), a novel metric for effective risk communication. RPMI multiple times/week, 1 time/day, and >1 time/day was associated with 19% (95% CI 1% to 41%), 41% (18% to 70%), and 73% (30% to 132%) increased CRC risk, respectively, when compared to RPMI ≤ 1 time/week. Associations were independent of PRS levels (pinteraction = 0.97). The effect of RPMI > 1 time/day was equivalent to the effect of having 42 percentiles higher PRS level (GRE 42, 95% CI 20–65). RPMI increases CRC risk regardless of PRS levels. Avoiding RPMI can compensate for a substantial proportion of polygenic risk for CRC.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified the consumption of heat-processed meat as a direct human carcinogen and the consumption of red meat as a probable carcinogen. Mutagenic and carcinogenic compounds present in meat dishes include, among others, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs). These compounds can cause the development of gastrointestinal cancer. Oral cancer is one of the world’s research priorities due to the ever-increasing incidence rate. However, the effect of diet on oral cancer is still a poorly recognized issue. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the risk of oral cancer and dietary ingredients with a particular emphasis on red meat and thermally processed meat. This study was conducted among patients with oral cancer in 2022 and 2023. The shortened standardized Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) and a multivariate regression statistical analysis were used. The high consumption of red meat in general and thermally processed meat, especially smoked, fried, roasted and boiled, increases the risk of oral cavity cancer. Limiting the consumption of meat products and modifying the methods of preparing meat dishes may reduce exposure to carcinogenic compounds from the diet and thus reduce the risk of developing oral cancer.

Processed meat products are one of the most consumed pre-packaged foods in China. They are also group-1 carcinogens, whose consumption has proved to be positively associated with the risk of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the nutrient content on the food label of processed meat products based on the China Standardized Database for the Composition of Pre-packaged Food and the National Open Database of the UK and France. The Chilean front-of-pack warning label (FOPWL) and the Chinese Healthier Choice Logo were used to compare the nutrient content of processed meat products from the three countries. It was found that cured meat products have the highest median energy (483 kcal/100 g), total fat content (38.7 g/100 g), and sodium content (2076 mg/100 g) and dried meat products have the highest median protein content (30.2 g/100 g) and carbohydrate content (38.2 g/100 g). In addition, there were significant differences in energy content and contents of total fat, protein, and carbohydrate across different products of the three countries (p < 0.001). A large number of processed meat products currently collected did not meet the criteria of the Chilean FOPWL and the Chinese Healthier Choice Logo. This study provided information on the healthiness of Chinese processed meat products and provided data for improving food formulations for different categories of processed meat products.