Meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes: an individual-participant federated meta-analysis of 1·97 million adults with 100 000 incident cases from 31 cohorts in 20 countries.

BACKGROUND: Meat consumption could increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, evidence is largely based on studies of European and North American populations, with heterogeneous analysis strategies and a greater focus on red meat than on poultry. We aimed to investigate the associations of unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry consumption with type 2 diabetes using data from worldwide cohorts and harmonised analytical approaches. METHODS: This individual-participant federated meta-analysis involved data from 31 cohorts participating in the InterConnect project. Cohorts were from the region of the Americas (n=12) and the Eastern Mediterranean (n=2), European (n=9), South-East Asia (n=1), and Western Pacific (n=7) regions. Access to individual-participant data was provided by each cohort; participants were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older and had available data on dietary consumption and incident type 2 diabetes and were excluded if they had a diagnosis of any type of diabetes at baseline or missing data. Cohort-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated for each meat type, adjusted for potential confounders (including BMI), and pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis, with meta-regression to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity. FINDINGS: Among 1 966 444 adults eligible for participation, 107 271 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were identified during a median follow-up of 10 (IQR 7-15) years. Median meat consumption across cohorts was 0-110 g/day for unprocessed red meat, 0-49 g/day for processed meat, and 0-72 g/day for poultry. Greater consumption of each of the three types of meat was associated with increased incidence of type 2 diabetes, with HRs of 1·10 (95% CI 1·06-1·15) per 100 g/day of unprocessed red meat (I2=61%), 1·15 (1·11-1·20) per 50 g/day of processed meat (I2=59%), and 1·08 (1·02-1·14) per 100 g/day of poultry (I2=68%). Positive associations between meat consumption and type 2 diabetes were observed in North America and in the European and Western Pacific regions; the CIs were wide in other regions. We found no evidence that the heterogeneity was explained by age, sex, or BMI. The findings for poultry consumption were weaker under alternative modelling assumptions. Replacing processed meat with unprocessed red meat or poultry was associated with a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes. INTERPRETATION: The consumption of meat, particularly processed meat and unprocessed red meat, is a risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes across populations. These findings highlight the importance of reducing meat consumption for public health and should inform dietary guidelines. FUNDING: The EU, the Medical Research Council, and the National Institute of Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

The association between major gastrointestinal cancers and red and processed meat and fish consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational studies.

BACKGROUND: The association between red meat, fish, and processed meat consumption and the risk of developing gastrointestinal (GI) cancers remains inconclusive despite several investigations. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to update the existing scientific evidence. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases until May 20, 2023. We analyzed observational studies that examined the associations between red and processed meat and fish consumption and GI cancers. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using the χ2 and τ2 tests, as well as I2 statistics. We explored the likelihood of publication bias using Begg's and Egger's tests and trim-and-fill analysis. We reported the overall effect sizes as odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of the 21,004 studies identified, 95 studies involving 5,794,219 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The consumption of high levels of red meat, as compared to low levels, was found to significantly increase the risk of developing esophageal, pancreatic, liver, colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. Similarly, the consumption of high levels of processed meat, as compared to low levels, significantly increased the risk of pancreatic, colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. In contrast, the consumption of high levels of fish, as compared to low levels, significantly reduced the risk of colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides updated evidence on the association between red meat, processed meat, and fish consumption and the risk of developing five major types of GI cancers.

Dietary factors and risk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A two sample mendelian randomization study.

Correlations between dietary factors and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) have been found in previous observational studies. However, no further studies have used Mendelian randomization to further explore the causal relationship between dietary factors and ALS. Clarifying these relationships is a crucial part of developing nutritional recommendations for ALS prevention. The exposure and outcome datasets employed in this study were extracted from the IEU Open GWAS project (https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/). The exposure datasets involved in our Mendelian analyses consisted of meat intake (processed meat intake, poultry intake, beef intake, pork intake, non-oily fish intake, and oily fish intake), staple foods intake (bread intake and cereal intake), vegetable intake (cooked vegetable intake, salad/raw vegetable intake), fruit intake (fresh fruit intake and dried fruit intake), and beverage intake (coffee intake and tea intake). The weighted median, MR-Egger, Inverse Variance Weighted, Simple mode and Weighted mode methods were all utilized. And we applied Inverse Variance Weighted method as the main judgement criterion for Mendelian randomization analysis. Heterogeneity and pleiotropy analyses were conducted to confirm the validity of the outcomes. Genetically predicted that oily fish intake (OR: 0.7648; 95% CI: 0.5905-0.9904; P = .0420), coffee intake (OR: 0.7385; 95% CI: 0.5660-0.9637; P = .0256), and fresh fruit intake (OR: 0.6165; 95% CI: 0.4007-0.9487; P = .0278) were causally associated with a decreased risk of ALS. Negative results (P > .05) were received for all other dietary factors. This study found that oily fish intake, coffee intake and fresh fruit intake reduced the risk of developing ALS. Additionally, other factors were not associated with ALS.

Consumption of red, white, and processed meat and odds of developing kidney damage and diabetic nephropathy (DN) in women: a case control study.

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is one of the most prevalent and severe complications of diabetes mellitus (DM) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We aimed to investigate the associations between red, processed, and white meat consumption and the odds of developing kidney damage and DN in women. We enrolled 105 eligible women with DN and 105 controls (30-65 years). A validated and reliable food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to evaluate the consumption of red, processed, and white meat. Biochemical variables and anthropometric measurements were assessed for all patients using pre-defined protocols. Binary logistic regression was conducted to examine possible associations. The results of the present study showed that there was a direct significant association between high consumption of red meat and processed meats and odds of microalbuminuria (red meat 2.30, 95% CI 1.25, 4.22; P-value = 0.007, processed meat: OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.18, 3.95; P-value = 0.01), severe albuminuria (red meat OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.38, 7.46; P-value = 0.007, processed meat: OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.01, 5.49; P-value = 0.04), BUN levels (red meat: OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.10, 5.93; P-value = 0.02, processed meat: OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.04, 5.62; P-value = 0.03), and DN (red meat 2.53, 95% CI 1.45, 4.42; P-value = 0.001, processed meat: OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.27, 3.85; P-value = 0.005). In summary, our study suggests that higher consumption of red and processed meat sources may be associated with microalbuminuria, severe albuminuria, higher BUN level, and higher odds of DN.

The Risk of Oral Cancer and the High Consumption of Thermally Processed Meat Containing Mutagenic and Carcinogenic Compounds.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified the consumption of heat-processed meat as a direct human carcinogen and the consumption of red meat as a probable carcinogen. Mutagenic and carcinogenic compounds present in meat dishes include, among others, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs). These compounds can cause the development of gastrointestinal cancer. Oral cancer is one of the world's research priorities due to the ever-increasing incidence rate. However, the effect of diet on oral cancer is still a poorly recognized issue. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the risk of oral cancer and dietary ingredients with a particular emphasis on red meat and thermally processed meat. This study was conducted among patients with oral cancer in 2022 and 2023. The shortened standardized Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) and a multivariate regression statistical analysis were used. The high consumption of red meat in general and thermally processed meat, especially smoked, fried, roasted and boiled, increases the risk of oral cavity cancer. Limiting the consumption of meat products and modifying the methods of preparing meat dishes may reduce exposure to carcinogenic compounds from the diet and thus reduce the risk of developing oral cancer.

Environmental co-benefits of health policies to reduce meat consumption: A narrative review.

Global meat consumption has risen steadily in recent decades, with heterogeneous growth rates across regions. While meat plays a critical role in providing essential nutrients for human health, excessive consumption of meat, particularly red and processed meat, has also been associated with a higher risk of certain chronic diseases. This has led public authorities, including the World Health Organization, to call for a reduction in meat consumption. How governments can effectively reduce the health costs of meat consumption remains a challenge as implementing effective policy instruments is complex. This paper examines health-related policy instruments and potential economic mechanisms that could reduce meat consumption. Health-related taxation could be the most effective instrument. Other policy instruments, such as informational and behavioral instruments, along with regulations, could discourage meat consumption depending on the policy design. We also provide evidence on the link between meat consumption and the environment, including climate, biodiversity, water use, and pollution. Promoting healthy behaviors by reducing meat consumption can then have environmental co-benefits and promote broader sustainable development goals. We also discuss the policy-related challenges that need to be addressed to meet environmental co-benefits.

Red and processed meat intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous observational studies have yielded inconsistent findings regarding associations between red/processed meat intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Some studies have suggested positive relationships, while others have demonstrated no significant associations. However, causal effects remain uncertain. This 2023 Mendelianrandomization (MR) study investigated the causal relationship between red and processed meat (porkmeat, mutton meat, beef meat)intake and CVD risk by analyzing summary data from the UK Biobank (exposure), CARDIoGRAMplusC4D (coronary artery disease [CAD]), MEGASTROKE (stroke), Nielsen et al. (atrial fibrillation [AF]), HERMES (heart failure [HF]), and FinnGen (cardiovascular outcomes) public databases. METHODS: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of red meat (pork, beef, and mutton) and processed meat were sourced from the United Kingdom (UK) Biobank. GWAS data on CVD for this study were obtained from the Gene and FinnGen consortia. The primary method employed for the two-sample MR analysis was inverse variance weighting (IVW). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the reliability and consistency of the results. RESULTS: Genetically predicted red and processed meat consumption did not demonstrate a causal association with any CVD outcomes when employing the IVW method. For processed meat intake, the odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence intervals CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.88 (0.56-1.39) for CAD, 0.91 (0.65-1.27) for AF, 0.84 (0.58-1.21) for HF, and 1.00 (0.75-1.05) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.15 (0.83-1.59) for CAD, 1.25 (0.75-2.07) for AF, 1.09 (0.73-1.64) for HF, and 1.27 (0.85-1.91) for stroke. For beef intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.70 (0.28-1.73) for CAD, 0.85 (0.49-1.49) for AF, 0.80 (0.35-1.83) for HF, and 1.29 (0.85-1.95) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 2.01 (0.75-5.39) for CAD, 1.83 (0.60-5.56) for AF, 0.80 (0.30-2.13) for HF, and 1.30 (0.62-2.73) for stroke. For pork intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 1.25 (0.37-4.22) for CAD, 1.26 (0.73-2.15) for AF, 1.71 (0.86-3.39) for HF, and 1.15 (0.63-2.11) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.12 (0.43-2.88) for CAD, 0.39 (0.08-1.83) for AF, 0.62 (0.20-1.88) for HF, and 0.60 (0.21-1.65) for stroke. For mutton intake, the ORs (95% CIs) in large consortia were as follows: 0.84 (0.48-1.44) for CAD, 0.84 (0.56-1.26) for AF, 1.04 (0.65-1.67) for HF, and 1.06 (0.77-1.45) for stroke. In FinnGen, the ORs were as follows: 1.20 (0.65-2.21) for CAD, 0.92 (0.44-1.92) for AF, 0.74 (0.34-1.58) for HF, and 0.75 (0.45-1.24) for stroke. The results remained robust and consistent in both the meta-analysis and supplementary MR analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This MR study demonstrated no significant causal relationships between red/processed meat intake and the risk of the four CVD outcomes examined. Further investigation is warranted to confirm these findings.

Guidelines to restrict consumption of red meat to under 350 g/wk based on colorectal cancer risk are not consistent with health evidence.

BACKGROUND: The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations of 2023 (NNR2023) incorporate sustainability, health, and nutrition in their food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs). NNR2023 recommends a consumption of ≤350 g/wk of unprocessed red meat (RM) based on association with colorectal cancer (CRC). This recommendation is lower than other FBDGs such as the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) recommendation it is based on (350-500 g/wk). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the empirical evidence and models cited by the NNR2023 to support the RM guidance. METHODS: We fitted least-assumption (LA) dose-response (DR) models to the studies included in two systematic reviews (SRs) selected by NNR2023 on the RM and CRC association. We compared them against six parametric models reported in the two SRs. We evaluated the statistical significance of modeled relative risks (RR) at different consumption levels. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (20,604,188 patient-years) were analyzed. We found no significant association (RR = 1.04, 0.99-1.09) between 350g/wk of RM and CRC using the LA models, in agreement with the least restrictive models reported by Lescinsky et al., 2022 (RR = 1.11[0.89-1.38]) and WCRF (RR= 1.01[0.96-1.07]). The association was significant at 350 g/wk only under restricting assumptions such as monotonicity RR=1.3[1.01-1.64], and linearity RR = 1.06 [1.00-1.12]. No significant empirical association is observed under 567 g/wk based on evidence used by NNR2023. CONCLUSIONS: The sources cited by NNR2023 do not support a consumption restriction of ≤350 g/wk of RM due to CRC, and other studies omitted by NNR2023 do not support association between RM and CRC. We show that model assumptions rather than empirical evidence drive this recommendation. Model uncertainty should be explicitly incorporated in FBDGs.

Red Meat Intake and the Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Prospective Cohort Study in the Million Veteran Program.

BACKGROUND: Red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in prospective cohort studies and a profile of biomarkers favoring high CVD risk in short-term controlled trials. However, several recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses concluded with no or weak evidence for limiting red meat intake. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively examine the associations between red meat intake and incident CVD in an ongoing cohort study with diverse socioeconomic and racial or ethnic backgrounds. METHODS: Our study included 148,506 participants [17,804 female (12.0%)] who were free of cancer, diabetes, and CVD at baseline from the Million Veteran Program. A food frequency questionnaire measured red meat intakes at baseline. Nonfatal myocardial infarction and acute ischemic stroke were identified through a high-throughput phenotyping algorithm, and fatal CVD events were identified by searching the National Death Index. RESULTS: Comparing the extreme categories of intake, the multivariate-adjusted relative risks of CVD was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.38; P-trend < 0.0001) for total red meat, 1.14 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.36; P-trend = 0.01) for unprocessed red meat, and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.60; P-trend = 0.003) for processed red meat. We observed a more pronounced positive association between red meat intake and CVD in African American participants than in White participants (P-interaction = 0.01). Replacing 0.5 servings/d of red meat with 0.5 servings/d of nuts, whole grains, and skimmed milk was associated with 14% (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.90), 7% (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.96), and 4% (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94, 0.99) lower risks of CVD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of CVD. Our findings support lowering red meat intake and replacing red meat with plant-based protein sources or low-fat dairy foods as a key dietary recommendation for the prevention of CVD.

Tick bites, IgE to galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose and urticarial or anaphylactic reactions to mammalian meat: The alpha-gal syndrome.

The recent recognition of a syndrome of tick-acquired mammalian meat allergy has transformed the previously held view that mammalian meat is an uncommon allergen. The syndrome, mediated by IgE antibodies against the oligosaccharide galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal), can also involve reactions to visceral organs, dairy, gelatin and other products, including medications sourced from non-primate mammals. Thus, fittingly, this allergic disorder is now called the alpha-gal syndrome (AGS). The syndrome is strikingly regional, reflecting the important role of tick bites in sensitization, and is more common in demographic groups at risk of tick exposure. Reactions in AGS are delayed, often by 2-6 h after ingestion of mammalian meat. In addition to classic allergic symptomatology such as urticaria and anaphylaxis, AGS is increasingly recognized as a cause of isolated gastrointestinal morbidity and alpha-gal sensitization has also been linked with cardiovascular disease. The unusual link with tick bites may be explained by the fact that allergic cells and mediators are mobilized to the site of tick bites and play a role in resistance against ticks and tick-borne infections. IgE directed to alpha-gal is likely an incidental consequence of what is otherwise an adaptive immune strategy for host defense against endo- and ectoparasites, including ticks.

Gastrointestinal-isolated Distress is Common in Alpha-gal Allergic Patients on Mammalian Meat Challenge.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alpha-gal allergy causes a delayed reaction to mammalian meats and has been reported worldwide. Patients with the allergy may present with isolated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, but this phenotype is poorly understood. METHODS: We pooled and analyzed symptoms and demographics of patients from two prospective cohorts of patients with a diagnosis of alpha-gal allergy who reacted after eating mammalian meat under observation. We compared the characteristics of patients who demonstrated GI-isolated symptoms on a challenge with those who exhibited symptoms outside the GI tract (skin, respiratory, and circulatory). RESULTS: Among the 91 children and adult alpha-gal allergic patients who exhibited symptoms after oral challenge with mammalian meat, 72.5% experienced GI distress with one or more GI symptoms, which was the most frequent class of symptoms, compared with skin changes in 57.1% and respiratory distress in 5.5%. The most common GI symptoms were abdominal pain (71%) and vomiting (22.0%). GI-isolated symptoms occurred in 37 patients (40.7%) who reacted, and those patients reacted more quickly than patients who exhibited systemic symptoms (median onset of symptoms in GI-isolated group 90 min vs 120 min) and were more likely to be children than adults (relative risk=1.94, 95% CI: 1.04-3.63). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated-GI distress occurred in 4 in every 10 alpha-gal allergic individuals who developed symptoms on oral food challenge with mammalian meat. Alpha-gal allergic patients, particularly children, may exhibit GI distress alone, and adult and pediatric gastroenterologists should be aware of the diagnosis and management of the allergy.

Global burden of diabetes mellitus from 1990 to 2019 attributable to dietary factors: An analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

AIMS: To analyse spatial and temporal changes in the global burden of diabetes mellitus (DM) attributable to dietary factors from 1990 to 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The burden of DM was analysed in terms of age-standardized disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) rates and age-standardized death rates (ASDRs), which were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, and their corresponding estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs). RESULTS: The ASDR exhibited a decreasing trend (EAPC = -0.02), while the age-standardized DALY rate exhibited an increasing trend (EAPC = 0.65). Forty-four percent of the burden of DM was attributable to dietary factors, with the three largest contributors being high intake of red meat, high intake of processed meat, and low intake of fruit. Residence in a region with a high sociodemographic index (SDI) was associated with a diet low in whole grains and high in red meat and processed meat, while residence in a low-SDI region was associated with a diet low in whole grains and fruits, and high in red meat. CONCLUSIONS: The age-standardized DALYs of DM attributable to dietary factors increased between 1990 and 2019 but differed among areas. The three largest dietary contributors to the burden of DM were high intake of red meat, high intake of processed meat, and low intake of fruit.

Genome-Wide Gene-Environment Interaction Analyses to Understand the Relationship between Red Meat and Processed Meat Intake and Colorectal Cancer Risk.

BACKGROUND: High red meat and/or processed meat consumption are established colorectal cancer risk factors. We conducted a genome-wide gene-environment (GxE) interaction analysis to identify genetic variants that may modify these associations. METHODS: A pooled sample of 29,842 colorectal cancer cases and 39,635 controls of European ancestry from 27 studies were included. Quantiles for red meat and processed meat intake were constructed from harmonized questionnaire data. Genotyping arrays were imputed to the Haplotype Reference Consortium. Two-step EDGE and joint tests of GxE interaction were utilized in our genome-wide scan. RESULTS: Meta-analyses confirmed positive associations between increased consumption of red meat and processed meat with colorectal cancer risk [per quartile red meat OR = 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.21-1.41; processed meat OR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.20-1.63]. Two significant genome-wide GxE interactions for red meat consumption were found. Joint GxE tests revealed the rs4871179 SNP in chromosome 8 (downstream of HAS2); greater than median of consumption ORs = 1.38 (95% CI = 1.29-1.46), 1.20 (95% CI = 1.12-1.27), and 1.07 (95% CI = 0.95-1.19) for CC, CG, and GG, respectively. The two-step EDGE method identified the rs35352860 SNP in chromosome 18 (SMAD7 intron); greater than median of consumption ORs = 1.18 (95% CI = 1.11-1.24), 1.35 (95% CI = 1.26-1.44), and 1.46 (95% CI = 1.26-1.69) for CC, CT, and TT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We propose two novel biomarkers that support the role of meat consumption with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. IMPACT: The reported GxE interactions may explain the increased risk of colorectal cancer in certain population subgroups.

Global burden of ischemic heart disease associated with high red and processed meat consumption: an analysis of 204 countries and territories between 1990 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have indicated an association between red and processed meat consumption and the incidence of ischemic heart disease (IHD). In this study, we aimed to assess the burden of IHD caused by a diet high in red and processed meat in 204 countries and territories between 1990 and 2019, using data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019. METHODS: We extracted data from the GBD 2019, which included the number of deaths, age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and age-standardized DALYs rates (ASDR) attributed to IHD caused by a diet high in red and processed meat. We then calculated the burden of IHD attributable to a high intake of red and processed meat in each country and territory, stratified by age, sex, and socio-demographic index (SDI). RESULTS: Globally, a high intake of red meat was responsible for 351,200 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 559,000-642,700) deaths from IHD in 2019, while a high intake of processed meat was associated with 171,700 (95% UI: 30,100-320,000) deaths from IHD. Between 1990 and 2019, while the corresponding age-standardized rates declined, the numbers of deaths and DALYs increased. China had the highest number of deaths [98,386.9 (95% UI: 14,999.3-189,812.7)] caused by a high intake of red meat, while United States of America [33,129.6 (95% UI: 7,150-59,593.8)] was associated with the highest number of deaths caused by high intake of processed meat for IHD in 2019. Males experienced a greater burden of IHD caused by a high intake of red and processed meat than females. The ASMR and ASDR of IHD attributed to a high intake of red meat decreased in countries with high SDI, high-middle SDI and low SDI, while the ASMR and ASDR of IHD attributed to a high intake of processed meat decreased only in countries with high SDI and high-middle SDI. CONCLUSION: Although there is a decline in the ASMR and ASDR of IHD caused by a high intake of red and processed meat, there is also an increase in deaths and DALYs number globally. Additionally, there is a heterogeneous burden of IHD related to a high intake of red and processed meat across regions and countries, with males experiencing a greater burden than females. Implementing targeted policies and interventions is required to reduce the burden of IHD caused by a high intake of red and processed meat.

The current and future costs of colorectal cancer attributable to red and processed meat consumption in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Compelling evidence supports the association between red and processed meat consumption and increased risk of colorectal cancer. Herein, we estimated the current (2018) and future (2030) federal direct healthcare costs of colorectal cancer in the Brazilian Unified Health System attributable to red and processed meat consumption. Considering reduced red and processed meat consumption, we also projected attributable costs of colorectal cancer in 2040. METHODS: We retrieved information on red and processed meat consumption from two nationally representative dietary surveys, the Household Budget Survey 2008-2009 and 2017-2018; relative risks for colorectal cancer from a meta-analysis; direct healthcare costs of inpatient and outpatient procedures in adults ≥ 30 years with colorectal cancer (C18-C20) from 2008-2019 by sex. RESULTS: Attributable costs of colorectal cancer were calculated via comparative risk assessment, assuming a 10-year lag. In 2018, US$ 20.6 million (8.4%) of direct healthcare costs of colorectal cancer were attributable to red and processed meat consumption. In 2030, attributable costs will increase to US$ 86.6 million (19.3%). Counterfactual scenarios of reducing red and processed meat consumption in 2030 suggested that US$ 2.2 to 11.9 million and US$ 13 to 74 million could be saved in 2040, respectively. CONCLUSION: Red and processed meat consumption has an escalating economic impact on the Brazilian Unified Health System. Our findings support interventions and policies focused on primary prevention and cancer.

Associations of meat, fish and seafood consumption with kidney function in middle-aged to older Chinese: a cross-sectional study based on the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of red meat, poultry, fish and seafood and processed meat consumption with kidney function in middle-aged to older Chinese. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study based on the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study. SETTING: Community-based sample. PARTICIPANTS: 9768 participants (2743 men and 7025 women) aged 50+ years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) derived from the Chinese-specific equation based on the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation (c-aGFR). eGFR derived from the original isotope-dilution mass spectrometry-traceable MDRD study equation, and prevalent chronic kidney disease (CKD) defined as c-aGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 were considered the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: After adjusting for sex, age, body mass index, education, occupation, family income, smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity, daily energy intake, self-rated health and chronic disease history (diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia), compared with processed meat consumption of 0-1 portion/week, those who consumed ≥3 portions/week had lower c-aGFR (ß=-2.74 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI=-4.28 to -1.20) and higher risk of prevalent CKD (OR=1.40, 95% CI=1.09 to 1.80, p<0.0125). Regarding fish and seafood consumption, the associations varied by diabetes (p for interaction=0.02). Fish and seafood consumption of ≥11 portions/week, versus 0-3 portions/week, was non-significantly associated with higher c-aGFR (ß=3.62 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI=-0.06 to 7.30) in participants with diabetes, but was associated with lower c-aGFR in normoglycaemic participants (ß=-1.51 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI=-2.81 to -0.20). No significant associations of red meat or poultry consumption with c-aGFR nor prevalent CKD were found. Similar results were found for meat, fish and seafood consumption with eGFR. CONCLUSIONS: Higher processed meat, fish and seafood consumption was associated with lower kidney function in normoglycaemic participants. However, the associations in participants with diabetes warrant further investigation.

Association of meat consumption with the risk of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between gastrointestinal cancer and types of meat consumption, including red meat, processed meat, or a combination of both, remains disputable. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to estimate the association between meat consumption and gastrointestinal cancer risk. METHODS: PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library databases were searched systematically for eligible studies that investigated the relation between meat consumption and the risk of developing gastrointestinal cancers, including esophageal cancer (EC), gastric cancer (GC), colorectal cancer (CRC), colon cancer (CC), rectal cancer (RC), pancreatic cancer (PC), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) throughout February, 2023. The pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was assigned as an effect estimate and calculated using a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting. RESULTS: Forty cohorts comprising 3,780,590 individuals were selected for the final quantitative analysis. The summary results indicated that a higher red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of CRC (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02-1.16; P = 0.007) and CC (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03-1.25; P = 0.011). Moreover, a higher processed meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of CRC (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.13-1.26; P < 0.001), CC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.13-1.26; P < 0.001), and RC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.08-1.42; P = 0.002). Furthermore, a higher total consumption of red and processed meat was associated with an increased risk of CRC (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06-1.20; P < 0.001), CC (RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.04-1.33; P = 0.012), and RC (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.04-1.39; P = 0.016). Finally, the strength of higher consumption of total red and processed meat with the risk of GC, and higher consumption of red meat with the risk of RC in subgroup of high adjusted level was lower than subgroup of moderate adjusted level, while the strength of higher consumption of processed meat with the risk of RC and HCC in subgroup of follow-up ≥ 10.0 years was higher than subgroup of follow-up < 10.0 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of CRC, CC, and RC, and dietary intervention could be considered an effective strategy in preventing CRC.