Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study

Abstract

Characterizing the potential health effects of exposure to risk factors such as red meat consumption is essential to inform health policy and practice. Previous meta-analyses evaluating the effects of red meat intake have generated mixed findings and do not formally assess evidence strength. Here, we conducted a systematic review and implemented a meta-regression—relaxing conventional log-linearity assumptions and incorporating between-study heterogeneity—to evaluate the relationships between unprocessed red meat consumption and six potential health outcomes. We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Moreover, we found no evidence of an association between unprocessed red meat and ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke. We also found that while risk for the six outcomes in our analysis combined was minimized at 0 g unprocessed red meat intake per day, the 95% uncertainty interval that incorporated between-study heterogeneity was very wide: from 0–200 g d−1. While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between consumption of unprocessed red meat and chronic disease.

The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk

“…We identified 43 observations from 11 prospective cohort studies on unprocessed red meat and ischemic heart disease (Fig. 4 ) 28 . At an exposure of 50 grams per day, the mean relative risk is 1.09 (0.99–1.18) compared to 0 grams per day, and at 100 grams per day, it is 1.12 (0.99–1.25) (Fig.…”

“…See Supplementary Tables 7 – 10 for detailed information on the included data sources for each example risk–outcome pair. For a full description of how each of the four selected risk–outcome pairs were defined and measured, how data inputs were identified and assessed for eligibility, the summary results from input studies and other information on conducting systematic reviews for each risk, see Dai et al 25 , Razo et al 26 , Stanaway et al 27 , and Lescinsky et al 28 . Detailed PRISMA checklists are also included in the supplementary information of each of these articles.…”

“…We identified 43 observations from 11 prospective cohort studies on unprocessed red meat and ischemic heart disease (Fig. 4) 28 .…”

Qualités nutritionnelle, organoleptique et disposition à payer pour les alternatives à la viande : cas des analogues végétaux, de la « viande in vitro » et des insectes

“…De nombreuses raisons en sont à l'origine, notamment les aspects sanitaires. En effet, la consommation excessive, notamment des viandes transformées (Lescinsky et al, 2022), dans les pays industrialisés est associée à une augmentation des maladies cardio-vasculaires (ex. cardiopathies ischémiques), du diabète de type II ou des cancers colorectaux au sein de la population (Lecerf, 2020).…”

Studies linking diet with health must get a whole lot better

“…Studies assessing diet and its health outcomes get notably lower star-ratings. The IHME's analysis, for example, finds only weak evidence of an association between eating unprocessed red meat and outcomes such as colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischaemic heart disease 5 . It finds no relationship in studies that explore whether eating unprocessed red meat leads to two kinds of strokes.…”