Meat Processing and Colon Carcinogenesis: Cooked, Nitrite-Treated, and Oxidized High-Heme Cured Meat Promotes Mucin-Depleted Foci in Rats

Abstract

Processed meat intake is associated with colorectal cancer risk, but no experimental study supports the epidemiologic evidence. To study the effect of meat processing on carcinogenesis promotion, we first did a 14-day study with 16 models of cured meat. Studied factors, in a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 design, were muscle color (a proxy for heme level), processing temperature, added nitrite, and packaging. Fischer 344 rats were fed these 16 diets, and we evaluated fecal and urinary fat oxidation and cytotoxicity, three biomarkers of heme-induced carcinogenesis promotion. A principal component analysis allowed for selection of four cured meats for inclusion into a promotion study. These selected diets were given for 100 days to rats pretreated with 1,2-dimethylhydrazine. Colons were scored for preneoplastic lesions: aberrant crypt foci (ACF) and mucin-depleted foci (MDF). Cured meat diets significantly increased the number of ACF/colon compared with a no-meat control diet (P = 0.002). Only the cooked nitrite-treated and oxidized highheme meat significantly increased the fecal level of apparent total N-nitroso compounds (ATNC) and the number of MDF per colon compared with the no-meat control diet (P < 0.05). This nitrite-treated and oxidized cured meat specifically increased the MDF number compared with similar nonnitrite-treated meat (P = 0.03) and with similar nonoxidized meat (P = 0.004). Thus, a model cured meat, similar to ham stored aerobically, increased the number of preneoplastic lesions, which suggests colon carcinogenesis promotion. Nitrite treatment and oxidation increased this promoting effect, which was linked with increased fecal ATNC level. This study could lead to process modifications to make nonpromoting processed meat. Cancer Prev Res; 3(7); 852-64. ©2010 AACR.

Mechanisms Linking Colorectal Cancer to the Consumption of (Processed) Red Meat: A Review

“…It should be noted that very large amounts of "freeze dried beef", chicken or "black pudding" were included into the experimental diets (600 g/kg). Later, the same research group demonstrated that also processed red meat products promote colon carcinogenesis in a rodent animal model Santarelli et al, 2010). The lack of an enterosalivary recycling of nitrate in rats has however cast doubt on the relevance of the results of nutrition and cancer studies in this animal species.…”

Effect of age on concentrations of nutrients in four muscles of the Sudanese dromedary (Camelus dromedaries) camel

“…The perception of conventional red meat is relatively negative due to its high content in fat and saturated fatty acids, cholesterol, sodium and any other substances that may be involved in most prevalent diseases like cardiovascular diseases and diabetes (Micha et al 2010) and cancer (Cross et al 2010;Santarelli et al 2010). As an alternative to red meats, camel meat is considered a good source of high-quality protein with less fat, less cholesterol and a relatively higher amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids .…”

0908 The role of red and processed meat in colorectal cancer development: A perspective

“…This path explains meat-induced promotion of tumorigenesis, via selection of the mutated precancer cells in the colon mucosa (Pierre et al, 2004). Several whole foods promote carcinogenesis in rats: hot-dog, cooked ham, blood sausage (not cured), and several workshop-cured meat products (Pierre et al, 2004;Santarelli et al, 2010Santarelli et al, , 2013. The effect of meat on suspected cancer initiators and promoters can be measured in the feces as products of nitrosation and lipoperoxidation (Pierre, Santarelli, Tache, Gueraud, & Corpet, 2008;Pierre, Tache, Petit, Van der Meer, & Corpet, 2003;Santarelli et al, 2013).…”

“…Anaerobic processing and packaging of ham are associated with reduced carcinogenesis in rats (Santarelli et al, 2010). Addition of certain phytochemicals to the meat may have both antimicrobial functions and cancer protective effects (de Oliveira et al, 2010;Shu et al, 2010).…”