The aim of the present study was to examine the association of red meat, white meat and processed meat consumption in Irish adults with dietary quality. A cross-sectional study of subjects, randomly selected using the electoral register, estimated habitual food intakes using a 7 d food diary in a nationally representative sample of 662 men and 717 women (not pregnant or lactating) aged 18 -64 years. Consumers were classified into thirds, based on the distribution of mean daily intakes for red meat, white meat and processed meat. The mean intakes of red meat, white meat and processed meat were 51, 33 and 26 g/d respectively, and men consumed significantly more (P,0·001) than women for all meat types. In men, red meat consumption was associated with lower (P,0·001) prevalence of inadequacy for Zn, riboflavin and vitamin C intakes. Increasing processed meat intake was associated with a lower (P,0·01) level of compliance with dietary recommendations for fat, carbohydrate and fibre in men. Increasing processed meat consumption was associated with lower (P,0·01) wholemeal bread, vegetables, fruit and fish intakes in men and women. Managerial occupations were associated with lower processed meat intakes. It is important to distinguish between meat groups, as there was a large variation between the dietary quality in consumers of red meat, white meat and processed meat. Processed meat consumption is negatively associated with dietary quality and might therefore be a dietary indicator of poor dietary quality. This has important implications in nutritional epidemiological studies and for the development of food-based dietary guidelines. Red meat: White meat: Processed meat: Dietary recommendations: Micronutrient adequacyMeat is a nutrient-dense food and meat and meat products are an important source of a wide range of nutrients. However, meat is not a homogeneous food group and the composition of meat varies widely by meat category. The fat content of red meats such as beef (3·5 -9·3 %), lamb (7·5 -13·3 %) and pork (3·7-10·1 %) is higher than that of chicken (1·1-9·7 %) and turkey (2·0 -6·6 %), with processed meat such as burgers and sausages generally having the highest fat content (up to 25 %; Chan et al. 1995Chan et al. , 1996. Usually, red meats such as beef and the dark meat of chicken and turkey are better sources of Fe than are white meats such as the light meat of poultry (Chan et al. 1995).Meat and meat constituents such as its fat profile, protein and Fe content have been identified as dietary risk factors for CHD

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the disaggregation of composite foods on intake estimates of meat and individual meat categories and on the contribution of meat to nutrient intakes in Irish adults. Design: Data were analysed from the North/South Ireland Food Consumption Survey, which used a 7-day food diary to estimate food intake. Of 742 food codes that contained meat, 320 were codes for meat consumed as an individual portion and 422 were composite foods and were disaggregated to estimate the meat content. Subjects: A nationally representative sample of 475 men and 483 women (not pregnant or lactating) from the Republic of Ireland aged 18 -64 years. Results: The mean intake of meat was 134 g day 21 in consumers (98.5%) and men (168 g day 21) consumed significantly more (P , 0.001) than women (102 g day 21). Mean intakes of meat were higher in subjects with manual skilled occupations (P , 0.01) and lower in those with third-level educational qualifications (P , 0.05). Without disaggregating meat from composite foods, meat intake was overestimated by 43% (57 g day 21 ) and varied widely by meat category. Meat disaggregated from composite foods contributed 25% of meat intake. The contribution meat made to nutrient intakes ranged from 29% for protein, vitamin B 12 , zinc and niacin to 20% for vitamin D, 16% for vitamin B 6 , 15% for thiamine and 14% for iron. Conclusions: Failure to disaggregate meat from composite foods substantially overestimates meat intake, with a large variation between meat categories. This has important implications for estimates of meat intakes in nutritional epidemiological studies and for food safety purposes.

Australians born in Italy, Greece and East and South East Asia all have substantially lower mortality levels than those born in Australia, the British Isles or Holland and Germany. Using data from the 1984 Household Expenditure Survey, the health‐related consumption expenditure of these six groups was compared (excluding expenditure on medical care). The heterogeneity of household types was largely removed by confining attention to married couple households with dependent children. The two groups with mortality levels comparable to those of the Australian‐born (British Isles and Holland/Germany) also shared a similar pattern of consumption expenditures. There was a tendency (not always fully consistent), for the low mortality groups to spend more on fruits, vegetables, cereal products and fish and substantially less on alcohol. Patterns that might be ‘unexpected’ in low mortality groups are the (presumptively) substantial expenditures on tobacco among males (especially in the Greek group) and the substantial expenditures on red meat in all three groups. Analysis of available data sets such as this can provide useful descriptions of the distribution of health‐influencing behaviour in our population.

Meat is a nutrient dense food and meat and meat products are an important source of a wide range of nutrients. The protein content of meat is of high biological value with many essential amino acids. However, meat has been criticised for its fat content and addressing concerns with fat intakes, the meat industry has reduced the fat content of meat over the last 20 years. Meat is important source of B vitamins, especially thiamin, riboflavin and vitamin B12. Furthermore, meat provides large quantities of bioavailable micronutrients particularly iron, zinc, and vitamins A and D, which may not be obtained from other dietary sources. Conversely, meat consumption has been negatively linked with an increased risk of colorectal cancers, cardiovascular disease and most recently, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Specifically with regard to cancer risk, there is no agreement as to whether it is the type of meat, its fat content and fatty acid profiles, protein or iron content, the formation of carcinogens (e.g. heterocyclic amines) during cooking the addition of nitrates during preparation that are potential risk factors. Meat is a diverse food group encompassing cuts, processed and composite foods. Consequently, not all meat types make similar contributions to the diet or health outcomes. This review examines the potential positive role of meat in the diet while considering dietary recommendations and reviews some of the current epidemiological studies in relation to meat and disease risk.