Systematic review2017

Association between red meat consumption and colon cancer: A systematic review of experimental results

Turner ND, Lloyd SK

Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 77 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosedLumps processed with unprocessed meat

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Systematic review (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People, plus animal or lab work
Main outcome
Clinical events such as disease or death

Who paid for it

Funding
Funding not disclosed

Publication

Published
2017-02-16 · Exp Biol Med (Maywood) · vol. 242 · issue 8 · pp. 813–839
Publisher
SAGE Publishing
Cited
140 citations · more than 91% of similar papers · 2.8× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
85 works
Access
Open access (repository copy)
Research areas
Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Genomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Keywords
Red meat, Colorectal cancer, Cancer, Observational study, Consumption (sociology), Food science, Medicine, Biology, Environmental health, Biotechnology, Pathology, Internal medicine
MeSH
animals, humans, colonic neoplasms, iron, heme, mutagens, meat, cooking, diet, western, observational studies as topic

2 authors

From US

  • Nancy D. Turner · correspondingTexas A&M University
  • Shannon K. LloydTexas A&M University

Abstract

A role for red and processed meat in the development of colorectal cancer has been proposed based largely on evidence from observational studies in humans, especially in those populations consuming a westernized diet. Determination of causation specifically by red or processed meat is contingent upon identification of plausible mechanisms that lead to colorectal cancer. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence to determine the availability of plausible mechanistic data linking red and processed meat consumption to colorectal cancer risk. Forty studies using animal models or cell cultures met specified inclusion criteria, most of which were designed to examine the role of heme iron or heterocyclic amines in relation to colon carcinogenesis. Most studies used levels of meat or meat components well in excess of those found in human diets. Although many of the experiments used semi-purified diets designed to mimic the nutrient loads in current westernized diets, most did not include potential biologically active protective compounds present in whole foods. Because of these limitations in the existing literature, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm a mechanistic link between the intake of red meat as part of a healthy dietary pattern and colorectal cancer risk. Impact statement Current recommendations to reduce colon cancer include the reduction or elimination of red or processed meats. These recommendations are based on data from epidemiological studies conducted among cultures where meat consumption is elevated and consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are reduced. This review evaluated experimental data exploring the putative mechanisms whereby red or processed meats may contribute to colon cancer. Most studies used levels of meat or meat-derived compounds that were in excess of those in human diets, even in cultures where meat intake is elevated. Experiments where protective dietary compounds were used to mitigate the extreme levels of meat and meat-derived compounds showed protection against colon cancer, with some essentially negating the impact of meat in the diet. It is essential that better-designed studies be conducted that use relevant concentrations of meat or meat-derived compounds in complex diets representative of the foods consumed by humans.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.