Digestery
Diet and food › Red Meat, Cancer and the Heart › Studies

Opinion or narrative review

Review of US, European studies: red and processed meat linked to higher death risk

Battaglia Richi and colleagues · International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Journal international de vitaminologie et de nutrition · 2015

Original title: Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

Points to harm

More red meat, and especially processed meat, was linked to higher risk of death, heart disease, bowel cancer and type 2 diabetes. White meat showed no such link. The authors advise caution in people above about 70.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Opinion or narrative review
Who or what was studied
Men and women in large US and European long-term studies
What was tested
Long-term eating of more red meat and processed meat
Who has a stake
No disclosure in PubMed
No disclosure in PubMed.
Journal
International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Journal international de vitaminologie et de nutrition, 2015
Source
PubMed record 26780279. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • –An opinion or narrative review: no new data, and no set method for choosing which studies to discuss.
  • •The PubMed record has no conflict-of-interest statement.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

This paper is not on the ladder. It is a opinion or narrative review, and reviews and opinion pieces discuss studies that are already counted on the steps below.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: cancer and heart disease

    0

    Not done yet. This is the step that would answer the question.

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    6

    2 benefit, 4 harm

  4. Population studies

    12

    1 benefit, 2 mixed, 1 no difference, 8 harm

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does red meat raise cancer and heart disease risk?”

Linked to higher risk, especially processed meat.

Confidence: low. Based on 30 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer
  • Listed with the other papers, but not quoted in the page’s main findings.

Other opinion on this question

See all 30 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The two reads differed. The reviewer checked the abstract and kept the first read. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.