ArticlePDF Available

Consumption of Red and Processed Meat and Elevated Risk of Cancer to Humans. Formation of Carcinogenic Substances, Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis and Risk Assessment for Colorectal and Other Types of Cancer

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Consumption of Red and Processed Meat and Elevated Risk of Cancer to Humans Formation of carcinogenic substances, mechanisms of carcinogenesis and risk assessment for colorectal and other types of cancer Athanasios Valavanidis Dpt of Chemistry, University of Athens, University Campus, 15784 Athens, Greece Abstract Epidemiological studies established that diet and obesity are responsible for a considerable proportion of human cancers. Studies in the last decade provided an overwhelming support that high consumption of fresh red meat and processed meat are associated with an elevated risk of developing bowel cancer, especially colorectal carcinoma, as well as stomach, pancreas and prostate cancers. Red meat is very important for human diet, because of high biological value proteins, animal fat and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), selenium and zinc. In October, 2015, a Working Group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon (France) evaluated the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red and processed meat. Red meat includes all fresh, minced and frozen beef, veal, pork and lamb. Processed red meat is any type that is preserved by smoking, curing, salting, air-drying, heating, etc, and includes ham, bacon, sausages, tinned meat, etc. The Working Group assessed more than 800 epidemiological (mostly prospective cohort studies) and other studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red or processed meat in many countries, from several continents, with diverse ethnicities and diets. Epidemiological data from 14 cohort studies found positive associations for colorectal cancer. Findings were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies, including a cohort from ten European countries spanning a wide range of meat consumption, Sweden and Australia. Also, positive associations of colorectal cancer with consumption of processed meat were reported in 12 of the 18 cohort studies, including studies in Europe, Japan, and the USA. The working group used also other studies. A metaanalysis of colorectal cancer in 10 cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose–response relationship, with a 17% increased risk per 100 g per day (consumption) of red meat and an 18% increase per 50 g per day of processed meat. Also, there were positive associations between consumption of red meat and cancers of the pancreas and the prostate (mainly advanced prostate cancer), and between consumption of processed meat and cancer of the stomach. The mechanistic evidence for carcinogenicity of red and processed meat was assessed. Formation of carcinogenic substances (including cooking at high temperature), genotoxicity, oxidative stress, lipid peroxidation products and increases the bacterial mutagenicity of human urine after consumption of red meat was established. Overall, the working group classified (according to standards of IARC Monographs) the consumption of processed meat as ―carcinogenic to humans‖ (Group 1) on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer. Additionally, a positive association with the consumption of processed meat was found for stomach cancer. The Working Group classified consumption of red meat as ―probably carcinogenic to humans‖ (Group 2A). These results were widely published all over the world, appeared in the international news, newspapers, television and radio. This review examines the most important findings of epidemiological studies, and explains why carcinogenic substances are formed in red meet during the phase of processing, cooking and preservation. Finally, this review presents the recommendations of scientists for the prevention of colorectal cancer by decreasing the amounts of weekly consumption of red and processed meat.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Consumption of Red and Processed Meat and Elevated Risk
of Cancer to Humans
Formation of carcinogenic substances, mechanisms of carcinogenesis and
risk assessment for colorectal and other types of cancer
Athanasios Valavanidis
Dpt of Chemistry, University of Athens, University Campus, 15784 Athens, Greece
Abstract
Epidemiological studies established that diet and obesity are responsible for a considerable proportion
of human cancers. Studies in the last decade provided an overwhelming support that high consumption
of fresh red meat and processed meat are associated with an elevated risk of developing bowel cancer,
especially colorectal carcinoma, as well as stomach, pancreas and prostate cancers. Red meat is very
important for human diet, because of high biological value proteins, animal fat and important
micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), selenium and zinc. In October,
2015, a Working Group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon (France)
evaluated the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red and processed meat. Red meat includes all
fresh, minced and frozen beef, veal, pork and lamb. Processed red meat is any type that is preserved by
smoking, curing, salting, air-drying, heating, etc, and includes ham, bacon, sausages, tinned meat, etc.
The Working Group assessed more than 800 epidemiological (mostly prospective cohort studies) and
other studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red or processed meat in
many countries, from several continents, with diverse ethnicities and diets. Epidemiological data from 14
cohort studies found positive associations for colorectal cancer. Findings were seen with high versus
low consumption of red meat in half of those studies, including a cohort from ten European countries
spanning a wide range of meat consumption, Sweden and Australia. Also, positive associations of
colorectal cancer with consumption of processed meat were reported in 12 of the 18 cohort studies,
including studies in Europe, Japan, and the USA. The working group used also other studies. A meta-
analysis of colorectal cancer in 10 cohort studies reported a statistically significant doseresponse
relationship, with a 17% increased risk per 100 g per day (consumption) of red meat and an 18%
increase per 50 g per day of processed meat. Also, there were positive associations between
consumption of red meat and cancers of the pancreas and the prostate (mainly advanced prostate
cancer), and between consumption of processed meat and cancer of the stomach. The mechanistic
evidence for carcinogenicity of red and processed meat was assessed. Formation of carcinogenic
substances (including cooking at high temperature), genotoxicity, oxidative stress, lipid peroxidation
products and increases the bacterial mutagenicity of human urine after consumption of red meat was
established. Overall, the working group classified (according to standards of IARC Monographs) the
consumption of processed meat as ―carcinogenic to humans‖ (Group 1) on the basis of sufficient
evidence for colorectal cancer. Additionally, a positive association with the consumption of processed
meat was found for stomach cancer. The Working Group classified consumption of red meat as
―probably carcinogenic to humans‖ (Group 2A). These results were widely published all over the world,
appeared in the international news, newspapers, television and radio. This review examines the most
important findings of epidemiological studies, and explains why carcinogenic substances are formed in
red meet during the phase of processing, cooking and preservation. Finally, this review presents the
recommendations of scientists for the prevention of colorectal cancer by decreasing the amounts of
weekly consumption of red and processed meat.
……………………………………
Corresponding author. Prof. A. Valavanidis, valavanidis@chem.uoa.gr
2
Introduction: Diet , Nutrition, Obesity and Cancer
The relationship between diet, nutrition, obesity and cancer has advanced in the last
decades. Diet and dietary components play an important role on the development of cancer,
especially the cancers of the digestive tract, breast, prostate etc. Evidence from clinical trial
outcomes, epidemiological observations, preclinical models and cell culture systems have all
provided positive results for a positive association of diet and cancer.1-3
Cancer is the second most important factor of morbidity and mortality in developing
countries. Cancer varies worldwide and tends to change with migration and changes in
dietary and lifestyle factors. From 1980s, the Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer of the
National Research Council (USA) conducted a comprehensive evaluation for high fat diet
associated with increased susceptibility to cancer of different sites (particularly, breast, colon
and prostate). Epidemiological observations have led to the concept that environmental or
extrinsic factors (diet, smoking, sunlight, occupational exposure, alcohol, lifestyle factors, etc)
are the most important in carcinogenesis compared to genetic factors. Diet, nutrition and
obesity were found to play a major role in carcinogenesis. Diet and nutrition are viewed more
appropriately as modifiers, rather than initiators, of tumourigenesis. Caloric intake, type and
amount of fat (animal or vegetable), protein, red or processed meat, vitamins, minerals, fiber,
and other dietary constituents have been studied in regard to their influence on the
development of neoplasms. Epidemiological studies found that frequent consumption of
certain fruits and vegetables, especially citrus fruits and carotene-rich and cruciferous
vegetables, was associated with a lower incidence of cancers at various sites.4 Reports from
the IARC and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) have shown an association of
obesity with many types of cancer (endometrial, esophageal adenocarcinoma, colorectal,
breast, prostate and renal).5,6 Updated studies of meta-analyses confirm a prominent and
consistent inverse association provided by adherence to an Mediterranean Diet in relation to
cancer mortality and risk of several cancer types.7
Figure 1. The Mediterranean diet is considered appropriate for disease prevention and
healthy life until old age. Fruits and vegetables, olive oil, whole grains, beans, and low
consumption of red meat are considered very beneficial to human health.
3
Increased Red Meat Consumption in Human Diet and Health
From the 1990s researchers investigating the association of high intake of red and
processed meat and risk of gastrointestinal system, especially colorectal cancer, by
prospective epidemiological studies.8-10 Although red and processed meat intake in relation to
cancer risk has received considerable attention in recent years, intake of ―white meat‖ (poultry
and fish) has not been as extensively investigated in epidemiologic studies. The 2007 report
from the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research
concluded that the evidence for poultry intake and cancer risk was ―too limited in amount,
consistency, and quality to draw any conclusions,‖ whereas the evidence for fish intake was
―limited to suggestive‖ of lower cancer risk and based primarily on studies of colorectal
cancer. More studies in recent years considered that poultry can be generally considered a
nutritious lean meat alternative to red meat. Also, the consumption of fish has potential
benefits to human health and is linked with anti-inflammatory and anticarcinogenic effects of
its long-chain n-3 fatty acids content.11-14 But in the last decade many more prospective
studies have reported an inverse association (decrease risk) between colon cancer risk and
prolonged consumption of poultry and fish. 15-17
Increased fresh red meat and processed meat consumption in developed and
developing countries has become an environmental and health issue in recent years. The
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) published a report (―Livestock's Long Shadow ―) on
the environmental impact of livestock as a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the
planet as a whole. Globally livestock production is one of the largest sources of environmental
pollution, soil desertification, emissions of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal
factors in the loss of biodiversity and leading source of water pollution because of animal
waste.18
The scientific literature contains scientific evidence that links excess meat
consumption, particularly of red and processed meat, with heart disease, stroke, type 2
diabetes, obesity and certain cancers.19-22 The opposite is true for diets high in vegetables,
fruits, whole grains and beans that help prevent these diseases and promote health in a
variety of ways.23
Global Consumption of Fresh Red and Processed Meat
Meat production and consumption on a global scale have increased rapidly in recent
decades in developed and developing countries. Worldwide meat production has tripled over
the last four decades and increased 20% percent in just the last 10 years. Global annual meat
production is predicted to rise from a level of 218 million tones (1999) to 376 million tones by
2030. Worldwide, per capita/year meat consumption increased to 42 kg in 2010. People in the
advanced industrial countries consume on average 80 kg/year/person, more than double
compared to people in developing countries (32 Kg/year/person). Consumption is also
4
different in various countries (in 2002): USA (125 kg/person/year), Denmark 145 (the highest
in the world), France 100, Spain 120, Brazil 82, China 50, Germany 82, Greece 79
(Kg/person/year).24 The consumption of meat in Greece according to international food
statistics (ICAP Group) in 2010 was 905 million tones. The Greek production was 503 million
tones and imports 432 million tones. In Greece (from international statistics, 2002-2005) the
mean daily intake/person for total meat was 79 (men), 47(women), of which 55 g (m) and 31 g
(w) of red and processed meat. For comparison, Spain : total meat 170 g (m) and 99 g (w) of
which 126g (m) and 67g(w) red and processed, United Kingdom: total 108 g(m), 72 g(w) of
which 78 g(m), 46 g(w) red and processed meat.25
The USA is a typical developing country where meat consumption is very high. More
than half of the meat products Americans consume are red meat, and nearly 1/4 are
processed meats. In 2007 US people consumed daily ~240 g/capita/day total meat, of which
125 was red and processed meat, 85 poultry and 30 fish.26
Figure 2. Fresh read meat is considered a very important for human diet because it contains
high biological value proteins, micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and
haem iron) selenium and zinc. Processed meat is a broad category of meat products after
processing (sausages, salami, bacon, ham, hot dogs, corned beef, etc).
Fresh red meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, or goat meat
including minced or frozen meat; it is usually consumed cooked. Processed meat refers to
meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other
processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or
beef, but might also contain other red meats, poultry, or meat byproducts such as blood.
Processed meat and poultry products are a very broad category of many different types of
products all defined by having undergone at least one further processing or preparation step
such as grinding, adding an ingredient or cooking, which changes the appearance, texture or
taste. The ready-to-cook category also includes uncooked smoked sausages that are mildly
cured through the addition of sodium nitrite, an ingredient that imparts a characteristic pink
colour and distinct taste. Processed meat like fresh is rich in protein and absorbable essential
vitamins and minerals including iron, zinc, and vitamin B6, B12, selenium, choline, thiamine,
niacin, and riboflavin.27
5
Epidemiological studies and meta-analysis of results showed that daily consumption
of high quantities of red and processed meat is associated with increasing risk of obesity.
Obesity has been established many years ago as a contributing factor for various cancers. A
systematic recent review (2014) and a meta-analysis were conducted with 21 and 18 studies,
respectively. Meta-analysis showed that consumption of higher quantities of red and
processed meats was a risk factor for obesity (Odds ratios, OR: 1.37, 95% Cl, Confidence
Iimits: 1.14-1.64). The analysis of the data revealed that red and processed meat intake is
directly associated with risk of obesity.28
The Report of IARC: Evaluation of Carcinogenicity of Red and
Processed Meat
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, Lyon, France, established
in 1965) is the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO). The
objective of IARC is to promote international collaboration in cancer research and to bring
together skills in epidemiology, laboratory sciences and biostatistics to identify the causes of
cancer. IARC has the expertise in coordinating research on cancer across countries and
organizations on a global scale and has published more than 110 Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. These monographs identify environmental
factors that can increase the risk of human cancer. Interdisciplinary working groups of expert
scientists review the published studies and evaluate the weight of the evidence. Since 1971,
more than 900 agents have been evaluated. The Monographs of Working Groups include
epidemiological evidence, animal bioassays, and mechanistic and other relevant data to
reach conclusions as to the carcinogenic hazard to humans from exposure to chemical
substances, physical and biological agents, environmental factors and occupations.
Evaluation of carcinogenic factors leads to
Classification in four groups (1, 2A, and 2B, 3, 4)
Group 1 Sufficient evidence in humans or sufficient
evidence in animals and strong mechanistic data in
humans
Group 2A Limited evidence in humans and
sufficient evidence in animals
Group 2B Limited evidence in humans and less
than sufficient evidence in animals
Group 3 Inadequate in humans and inadequate or
limited in animals
Group 4 Lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in
animals (in vivo)
Figure 3. International Agency for Research on Cancer (Lyon, France), operates under the
auspices of the WHO. IARC convenes groups of expert scientists from around the globe to
evaluate the weight of the evidence that an agent, chemical compound, complex mixtures
(including individual foods), occupational exposures, physical and biological agents and
lifestyle factors, can influence the risk of cancer in humans.
6
In October 2015, 22 scientists from ten countries met at IARC (Lyon, France) to
evaluate the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. These
assessments in extensive details will be published in volume 114 of the IARC Monographs
(2015). Scientists from the experts group Véronique Bouvard, Dana Loomis, Kathryn Z
Guyton, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Heidi
Mattock, and Kurt Straif published a short paper-review: Carcinogenicity of consumption of
red and processed meatin the journal Lancet Oncology (October 2015). The highlights of the
report are presented below and included references to scientific studies.
―......Red meat refers to unprocessed mammalian muscle meatfor example, beef,
veal, pork, lambincluding minced or frozen meat; it is usually consumed cooked. Processed
meat refers to meat (beef, pork, poultry, etc) that has been transformed through salting,
curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation.
Processing of meat, such as curing and smoking, can result in formation of carcinogenic
chemicals, including N-nitroso-compounds (NOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs. Cooking can also produce known or suspected carcinogens, including heterocyclic
aromatic amines (HAA) and PAHs High-temperature cooking by panfrying, grilling, or
barbecuing generally produces the highest amounts of these chemicals.29,30
The report included some statistics on the consumption of red and processed meat.
―...Depending on the country (high income developed mostly) red meat consumption varies
worldwide. A high proportion of people consumes meat every day. The mean intake of red
meat by those who consume it is about 50100 g per person per day, with high consumption
equalling more than 200 g per person per day‖.31
―.....The Working Group assessed more than 800 epidemiological studies that
investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red meat or processed meat in
many countries, from several continents, with diverse ethnicities and diets. For the evaluation,
the greatest weight was given to prospective cohort studies done in the general population.
High quality population-based case-control studies provided additional evidence. The largest
body of epidemiological data concerned colorectal cancer. Data on the association of red
meat consumption with colorectal cancer were available from 14 cohort studies. Positive
associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies,
including a cohort from ten European countries spanning a wide range of meat consumption
and other large cohorts in Sweden and Australia.3234 Of the 15 informative case-control
studies considered, 7 reported positive associations of colorectal cancer with high versus low
consumption of red meat. Positive associations of colorectal cancer with consumption of
processed meat were reported in 12 of the 18 cohort studies that provided relevant data,
including studies in Europe, Japan, and the USA‖.33, 35, 36,37,38
―....Supporting evidence came from 6 of 9 informative case-control studies. A meta-
analysis of colorectal cancer in 10 cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose
response relationship, with a 17% increased risk (95% CI 1·05–1·31) per 100 g per day of
red meat and an 18% increase (95% CI 1·10–1·28) per 50 g per day of processed meat‖.39
7
―.....Data were also available for more than 15 other types of cancer. Positive
associations were seen in cohort studies and population-based case control studies between
consumption of red meat and cancers of the pancreas and the prostate (mainly advanced
prostate cancer), and between consumption of processed meat and cancer of the stomach.
On the basis of the large amount of data and the consistent associations of colorectal cancer
with consumption of processed meat across studies in different populations, which make
chance, bias, and confounding unlikely as explanations, a majority of the Working Group
concluded that there is sufficient evidence in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the
consumption of processed meat. The Working Group concluded that there is limited evidence
in human beings for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat...
―......There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of
consumption of red meat and of processed meat. In rats treated with colon cancer initiators
and promoted with low calcium diets containing either red meat or processed meat, an
increase in the occurrence of colonic preneoplastic lesions was reported in three and four
studies, respectively‖.40,41,42
―....The mechanistic evidence for carcinogenicity was assessed as strong for red
meat and moderate for processed meat. Mechanistic evidence is mainly available for the
digestive tract. A meta-analysis (2013) reported a modest but statistically significant
association between consumption of red or processed meat and adenomas (preneoplastic
lesions) of the colorectum that was consistent across studies‖.43 ―....For genotoxicity and
oxidative stress, evidence was moderate for the consumption of red or processed meat‖.44
Consuming well done cooked red meat increases the bacterial mutagenicity of human urine.
In three intervention studies in human beings, changes in oxidative stress markers (either in
urine, faeces, or blood) were associated with consumption of red meat or processed meat.45
Red and processed meat intake increased lipid oxidation products in rodent faeces.40
Substantial supporting mechanistic evidence was available for multiple meat components [N-
nitroso compounds (NOC), haem iron, and Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines (HAA)].
Consumption of red meat and processed meat by man induces NOC formation in the colon.
High red meat consumption (300 or 420 g/day) increased levels of DNA adducts putatively
derived from NOC in exfoliated colonocytes or rectal biopsies in two intervention studies.46,47
―.....Meat heated at a high temperature contains HAA (highly genotoxic), and the
extent of conversion of HAA to genotoxic metabolites is greater in man than in rodents. Meat
smoked or cooked over a heated surface or open flame contains PAHs. These chemicals
cause DNA damage, but little direct evidence exists that this occurs following meat
consumption.
―....Overall, the Working Group classified consumption of processed meat as
―carcinogenic to humans‖ (Group 1) on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer.
Additionally, a positive association with the consumption of processed meat was found for
stomach cancer. The W orking Group classified consumption of red meat as ―probably
carcinogenic to humans‖ (Group 2A). In making this evaluation, the Working Group took into
8
consideration all the relevant data, including the substantial epidemiological data showing a
positive association between consumption of red meat and colorectal cancer and the strong
mechanistic evidence. Consumption of red meat was also positively associated with
pancreatic and with prostate cancer.
Figure 4. The IARC carcinogenic classification into groups 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 is a standard
procedure depending on the evidence of scientific studies. Working groups of IARC include
cancer and toxicology experts decide on the associations of scientific data with cancer risk.
Why Does Meat Consumption Increases the Risk for Cancer of Digestive
Tract?
After the IARC announcement, it was obvious that people will be questioning the
carcinogenic potential of fresh red meat as a natural product. Studies give several reasons:
Red and processed meat are high in saturated fat and cholesterol content (which increase
risk for cardiovascular diseases but also promote lipid peroxidation and inflammation, both
promoters of genotoxicity mechanisms), red meat has high energy density, and contains high
amounts of iron and haem-iron that can act in initiation reactions of carcinogenesis. Also,
high-temperature cooking (panfrying, barbequed, etc) can form carcinogenic compounds,
such as heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Curing substances in processed meat, such as sodium nitrite, potentially can form N-nitroso
compounds which under certain digestive conditions can be carcinogenic.
Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines (HAAs or HCAs) and Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs), N-nitroso compounds (NOC) are chemicals formed when muscle
meat, including beef, pork, fish, or poultry, is cooked using high-temperature methods. Curing
and smoking meat for processed meat products increases the concentration of PAHs.
9
Figure 5. The National Cancer Institute (USA) advise people to be aware of red meat and
cooking at high temperatures. Some carcinogens and mutagen are formed during cooking
[http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet].
Studies showed that panfrying at high temperatures, deep-frying, charcoal grilling,
and roasting, produces conformational changes in protein structure and HAAs, which are
potent mutagens and carcinogens. Metabolic behaviour of HAAs is very unique, they interfere
in the activity of many enzymes, modify the metabolic pathways, and lead to the mutagenic
adduct formation of DNA.48
These chemicals (HAAs, PAHs, N-nitroso compounds, NOC) contribute to
carcinogenic effects because they are involved in mechanisms of inflammation and oxidative
stress.49 In laboratory experiments HAAs are formed when amino acids (the building blocks
of proteins), sugars, and creatine (a substance found in muscle) react at high temperatures.
The organic chemical constituents of meat burn or their chemical molecules breaks down at
high temperatures. Under high temperatures complex series of chemical reactions called
Maillard reactions take place in meat. The Maillard reactions take place between amino acids
and reducing sugars that gives browned food its desirable flavor. Meat steaks, pan-fried
dumplings, cookies, breads, and many other foods undergo this reaction. Amino acids of
meat react with reducing sugars (glucose, fructose, and lactose) in the presence of heat in
excess of 155 °C (310 °F) to produce a range of poorly characterized molecules responsible
for those flavours we love to chase. Prolonged heat or temperatures too high will quite
suddenly change those precious golden browns to tarry black, burnt food (acrid smelling
smoke). Tar is well known that contains a high amount of carcinogens and stable free radicals
embedded in the porous carbonaceous material (very similar to the tar of cigarette smoke).
The browning reactions that occur when meat is roasted or seared are complicated and are
followed by a variety of other chemical reactions, including the breakdown of the tetrapyrrole
rings of the muscle protein myoglobin.50,51
PAHs are formed when fat and juices from meat grilled directly over an open fire drip
onto the fire, causing flames. These flames contain PAHs that then adhere to the surface of
the meat. PAHs can also be formed during other food preparation processes, such as
smoking of meats.52,53 PAHs and HAA become capable of damaging DNA only after they are
metabolized by specific enzymes in the body, a process called ―bioactivation.‖ Studies have
found that the activity of these enzymes, which can differ among people, may be relevant to
cancer risks associated with exposure to these compounds.54,55
10
Examples of HAAs. IQ: 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-
f]quinoline; MeIQ: 2-amino-3,4-dimethylomidazo[4,5-
f]quinoline; etc.
Figure 6. Examples of chemical structures of heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs or HCAs)
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are formed during cooking. These
compounds have the potential for mutagenic/carcinogenic activity.
Sodium nitrite (NaNO2) is a compound that is used to ―cure‖ meats. Cured meats
have a characteristic colour, unique taste and a longer shelf life. Centuries ago, nitrate was
used to cure meats (before refrigeration) for preventing the growth of the bacteria Clostridium
botulinum, which causes the very deadly disease botulism. In the 20th century, meat
processors used sodium nitrite because it was more reliable in its effects. No cases of
botulism have been linked to these products in the U.S. Cured meats contribute very little
nitrite to the total diet less than 5%. The major source of human nitrite exposure is
vegetables, especially root vegetables like beets and leafy greens. These foods contain
nitrate and when nitrate reacts with your saliva in the mouth, it becomes nitrite. In the 1970s,
a single study that was later discounted cast a dark cloud over nitrite, alleging that its use in
cured meats could cause cancer. In response, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP)
began a multi-year rat and mouse feeding study to determine if nitrite posed a health risk. In
May 2000, a panel of experts reviewed NTP’s findings and concluded that nitrite was safe at
the levels used and did not belong on the national list of carcinogens.56
The Underlying Mechanisms for Red Meat Carcinogenesis
Scientists studying mechanisms of carcinogenesis have investigated several
hypotheses that have been proposed for the association of red and processed meat
consumption with cancers of the digestive tract, especially colorectal cancer. Tests have
observed that there is higher intestinal mutagenic load among people who consume high
amounts of red and processed meat The suggested candidate mechanisms of induced
colorectal carcinogenesis are mainly three: i) increased N-nitrosation and oxidative load
leading to DNA adducts and lipid peroxidation in the intestinal epithelium, ii) proliferative
stimulation of the epithelium through haem (or heme) or food-derived metabolites that either
11
act directly or subsequent to conversion and iii) higher inflammatory response, which may
trigger a wide cascade of pro-malignant processes.57
Formation of Nitrosyl haem in the Digestive Tract
In foodstuffs and in the gastro-intestinal tract, nitrosation and nitrosylation do not have
the same consequences on consumer health. Nitrosylation is adding a nitrosyl ion NO to a
metal or a thiol. For example with iron (Fe) leads to nitrosyl iron Fe-NO (e.g., in nitrosylated
haem). Nitroso- compounds (NOC) where a N=O group is attached to an organic moiety.
Such as nitrosoalkanes (R-N=O), nitrosamines [R1N(-R2)-N=O], and alkyl nitrites (RO-N=O).
Nitrosation is adding a nitrosonium ion NO+ to an amine (R-NH2) leading to a nitrosamine.
These reactions occur at acidic pH, particularly in the stomach.
NO2 + H+ HO-N=O (nitrous acid)
HONO + H+ H2O + NO+ (nitrosonium ion)
C6H5NH2 + NO+ → C6H5N(H)N=O + H+ (N-phenylnitrosamine)
Meat processed by curing contains nitrite and has a pH of around 5, where almost all
nitrite is present as NO2. Sodium ascorbate is also added to cured meat (Vitamin C) which
inhibits nitrosation of amines to nitrosamine, because ascorbate reacts with NO2 to form NO.
Ascorbate and pH 5 thus favour nitrosylation of haem iron, forming nitrosyl-haeme, a red
pigment when included inside myoglobin, and a pink pigment when it has been released by
cooking. It participates to the "bacon flavour" of cured meat: nitrosyl-haem.58-60
Nitrosylated-haem (or heme)
Reactions of NO, Hb =haemoglobin
Figure 7. Nitrosylation. Haem-iron reactions in the haemoglobin are considered to initiate
carcinogenesis through lipid peroxidation, which is a typical process of inflammation and
initiation of DNA damages.
Haem iron, heterocyclic amines, and endogenous N-nitroso compounds are proposed
to explain the carcinogenic potential of red and processed meat, but their relative contribution
is unknown. A study with rats and mice aimed at determining (at nutritional doses) which is
the main factor involved in the mechanism of cancer promotion by red meat. The molecular
mechanisms (genotoxicity, cytotoxicity) were analyzed in vitro in normal and Apc-deficient cell
12
lines and confirmed on colon mucosa. Haem-iron increased the number of preneoplastic
lesions, but dietary HAAs and NOC had no effect on carcinogenesis in rats. Dietary
haemoglobin increased tumour load in Min mice. Genotoxicity was also observed in colon
mucosa of mice given haemoglobin. These results highlighted the role of heme-iron in the
promotion of colon cancer by red meat. The initiation of carcinogenesis from haem-iron could
is suggested to occur through lipid peroxidation.61 Another study with 21 healthy male
volunteers investigated levels of NOC with high red meat diet, vegetable protein, ferrous iron
and haem iron. The results showed that endogenous N-nitrosation occurred from digestion of
haem and red meat but not inorganic iron or protein.62
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies (566,607 individuals, 4,734 cases of
colon cancer) explored the role of haeme iron of red meat in the promotion of colon cancer.
The relative risk was 18% for subjects in the highest category of haem iron (from fresh and
processed meat) intake compared with those in the lowest category. Analysis of experimental
studies in rats with chemically-induced colon cancer showed that dietary haemoglobin and
red meat consistently promote aberrant crypt foci, a putative pre-cancer lesion. Although the
mechanisms are not known, scientists propose a catalytic effect on the formation of N-nitroso
compounds and cytotoxic/genotoxic aldehydes through lipoperoxidation.63
Figure 8. Red and processed meat is considered as one of the dietary factors for increasing
risk of colorectal cancer of the digestive tract. The compounds formed during cooking and
curing are able to be metabolised into cancer causing substances in the colon and rectum.
Epidemiological Evidence of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and
Cancer Risk
A large epidemiological study (it was included in the IARC report, reference No. 20)
evaluated the role of diet, but especially red meat consumption, for the most important causes
of mortality, namely cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Scientists observed prospectively
and for 23 years, 37,698 men (from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, USA, 1986-
2008) and for 28 years 83,644 women (Nurses' Health Study, USA, 1980-2008).The number
of people was 2.96 million person-years of follow-up. Researchers validated food frequency
questionnaires (every 4 years) about fresh red and processed meat consumption. The study
documented 23,926 deaths (including 5,910 CVD and 9,464 cancer deaths) during 2.96
13
million person-years of follow-up. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) of total mortality for a 1-
serving-per-day increase was 13% for fresh red meat and 20% for processed red meat. The
corresponding HRs were 18% and 21% for CVD mortality and 10% and 16% for cancer
mortality. Scientists estimated that substitutions of red meat with fish, poultry, nuts, legumes,
low-fat dairy, and whole grains were associated with a 7% to 19% lower mortality risk. In
conclusion, the researchers found that greater consumption of unprocessed (fresh) and
processed red meats is associated with higher mortality risk. Compared with red meat, other
dietary components, such as fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, and whole
grains, were associated with lower risk. These results indicate that replacement of red meat
with alternative healthy dietary components may lower the mortality risk.21
The number of studies on red and processed meat and risk of cancer increased
substantially in the last years and some aspects of pathogenesis has been explored. A recent
study used data from two large cohorts in the USA (Nurses’ Health Study with number of
women participating 87,108, 1980-2010, and Health Professionals follow-up Study, 47,389
men, 1986-2010) to establish subtypes of colon and rectum cancers (CRC). The results
showed that processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of CRC, particularly
distal cancer.64
A recent study investigated the association of red and processed meat, seafood and
poultry and risk to prostate cancer. Associations were examined in a consortium of 15 cohort
studies (follow-up, 52,683 incident prostate cancer cases, including 4,924 advanced cases,
were identified among 842,149 men). Results do not support a substantial effect of total red,
unprocessed red and processed meat for all prostate cancer outcomes. For seafood, no
substantial effect was observed for prostate cancer regardless of stage or grade. Poultry
intake was inversely associated with risk of advanced and fatal cancers.65
Prostate cancer risk and red meat was investigated in another recent study. A
comprehensive literature search was performed and 26 publications from 19 different cohort
studies were included. Random effects models were used to calculate summary relative risk
estimates (SRREs) and additionally, meta-regression analyses and stratified intake analyses
were conducted to evaluate dose-response relationships. No significant relative risks were
observed for any of the meat cooking methods, HAA, or heme iron analyses. Dose-response
analyses did not reveal significant patterns of associations between red or processed meat
and prostate cancer. In conclusion, the results do not support an association between red
meat or processed consumption and prostate cancer.66
Other epidemiological studies for the association between red and processed meat
intake and the risk of breast cancer have yielded inconsistent results. A recent review was
conducted for a comprehensive meta-analysis (14 prospective studies) to evaluate the
association of red and processed meat intake with breast cancer risk. The results indicated
that increased intake of red and processed meat is associated with an increased risk of breast
cancer.67
14
Can we Reduce Risk of Cancer with Changes in Our Diet?
From epidemiological and other studies has been found that diet and nutrition can
explain as much as 30%50% of the worldwide incidence of colorectal cancer. Research
evidence focus on dietary animal fat, fresh red and processed meat, dairy, as well effects of
nutrients such as calcium, folate, and vitamin D. The most important factors in reducing risk
for cancer is to change dietary habits and especially reducing down daily consumption of red
and processed meat, reduce daily consumption of animal fat, increase fruit, vegetables and
fiber intake, reduce obesity.68,69
The EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) study (an
ongoing multicentre prospective cohort study designed to investigate the associations
between diet, lifestyle, genetic and environmental factors and various types of cancer)
showed that dietary fibre intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk, but
results from some large cohort studies do not support this finding. Scientists in a recent study
explored whether the association remained after longer follow-up with a near threefold
increase in colorectal cancer cases, and if the association varied by gender and tumour
location. Their results showed that the association between total dietary fibre and risk of
colorectal cancer risk did not differ by age, sex, or anthropometric, lifestyle, and dietary
variables. Fibre from cereals and from fruit and vegetables were similarly associated with
colon cancer; but for rectal cancer, the inverse association was only evident for fibre from
cereals.70,71,72,73 A number of epidemiological studies in the last decade have reported
inconsistent associations between cruciferous vegetable (cauliflower, cabbage, garden cress,
broccoli, brussels sprouts) intake and colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis in 2013 provided
evidence that high intake of CV was inversely associated with the risk of CRC and colon
cancer in humans.74 Greek scientists investigated the association of adherence to
Mediterranean diet with colorectal cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into
Cancer and nutrition study. The results of the study showed that reduced risk and
Mediterranean diet are more evident among women, mainly for colon cancer risk. These
findings suggested that following a Mediterranean diet may have a modest beneficial effect on
colon cancer risk.75
Most health authorities in developed countries advise people who eat more than 90 g
(cooked weight) of red and processed meat a day to cut down to 70 g or lower and to replace
red meat with white meat (poultry and fish). Some studies showed that increased daily white
meat (poultry, fish) intake and an equal decrease in red meat was associated with a
statistically significant reduced (3%-20%) risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon,
rectum, anus, lung, and pleura. As the dietary recommendations intend, the inverse
association observed between white meat intake and cancer risk may be largely due to the
substitution of red meat. Scientists suggested that simply increasing fish or poultry intake,
without reducing red meat intake, may be less beneficial for cancer prevention.17, 76,77,78
15
Conclusions
High daily intake of fresh red meat (beef, lamb and pork) and processed meat
(sausages, ham, bacon, etc) has been increased globally in the last decades. In the same
period scientists were alarmed to discover an increase of gastrointestinal cancers, especially
colorectal cancer. Large prospective epidemiological studies in the last decade investigated in
a systematic way the association of high daily red meat consumption and colorectal cancer.
The majority of scientific results were positive and can be explained by a number of factors,
such as carcinogenic substances, mechanisms of inflammation in the colon, oxidative stress
and lipid peroxidation. A higher risk has been recorded by epidemiological studies for eating a
lot of red processed meat that increased risk of bowel (colorectal) cancer.
Most health authorities in developed countries advise people who eat more than 90 g
(cooked weight) of red and processed meat a day to cut down to 70 g or lower. Although red
meat is a good source of protein, fat and provides vitamins and minerals, higher consumption
on a daily basis increase the risk for gastrointestinal cancer at old age in humans. The IARC
monograph (25.10. 2015) highlighted the risk of colorectal cancer and the scientific
epidemiological and other studies behind these findings.
In the last decade a variety of studies showed that diets rich in high-fiber plant foods
such as whole grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits offer a measure of protection. Fiber
greatly speeds the passage of food through the colon, effectively removing carcinogens, and
fiber actually changes the type of bacteria that is present in the intestine, so there is reduced
production of carcinogenic secondary bile acids. Plant foods are also naturally low in fat and
rich in antioxidants and other anti-cancer compounds. Also, poultry and fish (white meat)
consumption has been proved to reduce risk for bowel cancer in the long term. People who
ate an 80g portion of fish a day reduced their bowel cancer risk by a third compared to people
who ate less than that in a week. Fish oils are especially rich in polyunsaturated omega-3
fatty acids, but there is no strong evidence that these can reduce the risk of cancer. Poultry
consumption has been steadily increasing in developed countries and the replacement of red
meat has been proved beneficial in reducing risk to gastrointestinal cancers.
References
1. Palmer S. Diet, nutrition, and cancer. Progr Food Nutr Sci 9(3-4):283-341, 1985.
2. McCullough ML, Giovannucci EL. Diet and cancer prevention. Review. Oncogene.
23(38):6349-6364, 2004.
3. Ross SA. Evidence for the relationship between diet and cancer. Review. Exp Oncol.
32(3):137-142, 2010.
4. Turati F, Rossi M, Pelucchi C, Levi F, La Vecchia C. Fruit and vegetables and cancer
risk: a review of southern European studies. Br J Nutr 113(Suppl 2):S102-S110, 2013.
5. Basen-Engquist K, Chang M. Obesity and cancer risk: recent review and evidence.
Curr Oncol Reps 13(1):71-76, 2011.
6. Vucenik I, Stains JP. Obesity, and Cancer. Obesity and cancer risk: evidence,
mechanisms, and recommendations. Annls NY Acad Sci 1271:37-43, 2012.
16
7. Schwingshackl L, Hoffmann G. Adherence to Mediterranean diet and risk of cancer: an
updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Cancer
135:1884-1897, 2014.
8. Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Rosnet BA, Speizer FE. Relation of fat, meat, and
fiber intake to the risk of colon cancer in a prospective study among women. N Engl J
Med 323:1664-1672, 1990.
9. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Ascherio A, Willett WC. Intake of
fat, meat, and fiber in relation to risk of colon cancer in men. Cancer Res 54:2390-2397,
1994.
10. Kim E, Coelho D, Blachier F. Review of the association between meat consumption and
risk of colorectal cancer. Nutr Res. 33(12):983-994, 2013.
11. World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and American Institute for Cancer Research
(AICR). Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global
perspective. Washington, DC: AICR; 2007.
12. Larsson SC, Kumlin M, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Wolk A. Dietary long-chain n-3 fatty
acids for the prevention of cancer: a review of potential mechanisms. Am J Clin Nutr
79:935945, 2004.
13. Groth E III. Ranking the contributions of commercial fish and shellfish varieties to
mercury exposure in the United States: Implications for risk communication. Environ
Res 110:226236, 2010.
14. Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health: evaluating the
risks and the benefits. JAMA 296:18851899, 2006.
15. Norat T, Bingham S, Ferrari P, Slimani N, Jenab M, et al. Meat, fish, and colorectal
cancer risk: The European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. J Natl
Cancer Inst 97(12):906-916, 2005.
16. Nimptsch K, Bernstein AM, Giovannucci E, Fuchs CS, Willett WC, Wu K. Dietary
intakes of red meat, poultry, and fish during high school and risk of colorectal
adenomas in women. Am J Epidemiol 178(2):172-183, 2013.
17. Daniel CR, Cross AJ, Graubard BI, Hollenbeck AR, Park Y, Sinha R. Prospective
investigation of poultry and fish intake in relation to cancer risk Cancer Prev Res
4(1):1903-1911, 2011.
18. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, et al. ―Livestock's Long Shadow:
Environmental Issues and Options‖, FAO publications: Rome, 2006,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO ].
19. Sinha R, Cross AJ, Graubard BI, Leitzmann MF, Schatzkin A. Meat intake and
mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people. Arch Intern Med 169(6):562-
571, 2009.
20. Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, Schulze MB, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Red meat
consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-
analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 94(4):1088-1096, 2011.
21. Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, Schulze MB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hu
FB. Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2 prospective cohort studies.
Arch Intern Med 172(7):555-563, 2012.
22. Cross AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Sinha R. A
prospective study of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer risk. PLoS
Med 4(12):e325, 2007.
23. Crowe FL, Appleby PN, Travis RC, Key TJ. Risk of hospitalization or death from
ischemic heart disease among British vegetarians and nonvegetarians: results from the
EPIC-Oxford cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr 97(3):597-603, 2013.
24. WorldWatch Institute. Global Meat Production and Consumption Continue to Rise. Vital
Signs on Line [http://www.worldwatch.org/global-meat-production-and-consumption-
continue-rise ] (accessed December 2015).
25. Wyness L, Weichselbaum E, O'Connor A, Williams EB, et al. Red meat in the diet: An
update. Brit Nutr Found Nutr Bull, 36: 3477, 2011.
26. Daniel CR, Cross AJ, Koebnick C, Sinha R. Trends in meat products consumption in
the USA. Public Health Nutr. 14: 575-583, 2011.
17
27. de Castro Cardoso Pereira MP, dos Reis Baltazar Vicente AF. Meat nutritional
composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Review. Meat Sci 93(3):586-592,
2013.
28. Rouhani MH, Salehi-Abargouei A, Surkan PJ, Azadbakht L. Is there a relationship
between red or processed meat intake and obesity? A systematic review and meta-
analysis of observational studies. Obes Rev 15(9):740-748, 2014.
29. Alaejos MS, Afonso AM. Factors that affect the content of heterocyclic aromatic amines
in foods. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe 10: 52108, 2011.
30. Alomirah H, Al-Zenki S, Al-Hooti S, et al. Concentrations and dietary exposure to
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from grilled and smoked foods. Food Control
22: 20282035, 2011.
31. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division. Food
balance. 2015. http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/ FB/*/E (accessed July 9, 2015).
32. Norat T, Bingham S, Ferrari P, et al. Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the European
Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 906916,
2005.
33. Larsson SC, Rafter J, Holmberg L, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Red meat consumption and risk
of cancers of the proximal colon, distal colon and rectum: the Swedish Mammography
Cohort. Int J Cancer 113: 829834, 2005.
34. English DR, MacInnis RJ, Hodge AM, Hopper JL, Haydon AM, Giles GG. Red meat,
chicken, and fish consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev 13: 15091514, 2004.
35. Oba S, Shimizu N, Nagata C, et al. The relationship between the consumption of meat,
fat, and coffee and the risk of colon cancer: a prospective study in Japan. Cancer Lett
244: 260267, 2006.
36. Bernstein AM, Song M, Zhang X, et al. Processed and unprocessed red meat and risk
of colorectal cancer: analysis by tumor location and modification by time. PLoS One 10:
e0135959, 2015.
37. Cross AJ, Ferrucci LM, Risch A, et al. A large prospective study of meat consumption
and colorectal cancer risk: an investigation of potential mechanisms underlying this
association. Cancer Res 70: 24062414, 2010.
38. Chao A, Thun MJ, Connell CJ, et al. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer.
JAMA 293: 172182, 2005.
39. Chan DS, Lau R, Aune D, et al. Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer
incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLoS One 6: e20456, 2011.
40. Pierre F, Freeman A, Tache S, van der Meer R, Corpet DE. Beef meat and blood
sausage promote the formation of azoxymethane induced mucin-depleted foci and
aberrant crypt foci in rat colons. J Nutr 134: 27112716, 2004.
41. Pierre F, Santarelli R, Tache S, Gueraud F, Corpet DE. Beef meat promotion of
dimethylhydrazine-induced colorectal carcinogenesis biomarkers is suppressed by
dietary calcium. Br J Nutr 99: 10001006, 2008.
42. Santarelli RL, Vendeuvre JL, Naud N, et al. Meat processing and colon carcinogenesis:
cooked, nitrite-treated, and oxidized high-heme cured meat promotes mucin-depleted
foci in rats. Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 3: 852864, 2010.
43. Aune D, Chan DS, Vieira AR, et al. Red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal
adenomas: a systematic review and meta analysis of epidemiological studies. Cancer
Causes Control 24: 611627, 2013.
44. Gay LJ, Mitrou PN, Keen J, et al. Dietary, lifestyle and clinico-pathological factors
associated with APC mutations and promoter methylation in colorectal cancers from the
EPIC-Norfolk study. J Pathol 228: 405415, 2012.
45. Pierre FH, Martin OC, Santarelli RL, et al. Calcium and alpha-tocopherol suppress
cured-meat promotion of chemically induced colon carcinogenesis in rats and reduce
associated biomarkers in human volunteers. Am J Clin Nutr 98: 12551262, 2013.
46. Le Leu RK, Winter JM, Christophersen CT, et al. Butyrylated starch intake can prevent
red meat-induced O6-methyl-2-deoxyguanosine adducts in human rectal tissue: a
randomised clinical trial. Br J Nutr 114: 220230, 2015.
47. Lewin MH, Bailey N, Bandaletova T, et al. Red meat enhances the colonic formation of
the DNA adduct O6-carboxymethyl guanine: implications for colorectal cancer risk.
Cancer Res 66: 18591865, 2005.
18
48. Shabbir MA, Raza A, Anjum FM, Khan MR, Suleria HA. Effect of thermal treatment on
meat proteins with special reference to heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs). Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr 55(1):82-93, 2015.
49. Chiang VS, Quek SY. The relationship of red meat with cancer: Effects of thermal
processing and related physiological mechanisms. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr June 15,
2015 (Epub ahead of print)
50. Sugimura T. Overview of carcinogenic heterocyclic amines. Mutat Res. 376:211219,
1997.
51. Sugimura T, Wakabayashi K, Nakagama H, Nagao M. Heterocyclic amines:
Mutagens/carcinogens produced during cooking of meat and fish. Cancer Sci. 95:290
299, 2004.
52. Aaslyng MD, Duedahl-Olesen L, Jensen K, Meinert L. Content of heterocyclic amines
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in pork, beef and chicken barbecued at home by
Danish consumers. Meat Sci. 93(1):85-91, 2013.
53. Kumosani TA, Moselhy SS, Asseri AM, Asseri AH. Detection of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in different types of processed foods. Toxicol Ind Health. 29(3):300-304,
2013.
54. Butler LM, Duguay Y, Millikan RC, et al. Joint effects between UDP-
glucuronosyltransferase 1A7 genotype and dietary carcinogen exposure on risk of
colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prevent 14(7):16261632, 2005.
55. National Cancer Institute (USA). Chemicals in meat cooked at high temperatures and
cancer risk. [http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-
meats-fact-sheet ] (Accessed 11.01.2016)
56. National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium nitrite
(CAS NO. 7632-00-0) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (drinking water studies).
National Toxicology Program Technical Report Series 495:7-273, May 2001.
57. Demeyer D, Mertens B, De Smet S, Ulens M. Mechanisms linking colorectal Cancer to
the consumption of (processed) red meat: A Review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 15/May
2015 [Epub ahead of print]
58. Mirvish SS, Wallcave L, Eagen M, Shubik P. Ascorbate-nitrite reaction: possible means
of blocking the formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds. Science 177 (4043):
6568, 1972.
59. Mirvish SS. Effects of vitamins C and E on N-nitroso compound formation,
carcinogenesis, and cancer. Cancer 58 (Suppl S8):1842-1850, 1986.
60. Honikel, KO. The use and control of nitrate and nitrite for the processing of meat
products. Meat Sci 78: 6876, 2008.
61. Bastide NM, Chenni F, Audebert M, Santarelli RL, Taché S, et al. A central role for
haeme iron in colon carcinogenesis associated with red meat intake. Cancer Res
75(5):870-879, 2015.
62. Cross AJ, Pollock JR, Bingham SA. Haem, not protein or inorganic iron, is responsible
for endogenous intestinal N-nitrosation arising from red meat. Cancer Res 63(10) 2358-
2360, 2003.
63. Bastide NM, Pierre FHF, Corpet DE. Heme Iron from meat and risk of colorectal cancer:
A meta-analysis and a review of the mechanisms involved. Cancer Prev Res 492:177-
184, 2011.
64. Bernstein AM, Song M, Zhang X, Pan A, Wang M, Fuchs CS, et al. Processed and
unprocessed red meat and risk of colorectal cancer: Analysis by tumor location and
modification by time. PLoS ONE 2015, 10(8): e0135959. doi:10.1371.
65. Wu K, Spiegelman D, Hou T, Albanes D, et al. Associations between unprocessed red
and processed meat, poultry, seafood and egg intake and the risk of prostate cancer: A
pooled analysis of 15 prospective cohort studies. Int J Cancer 2015, DOI
10:10.1002/ijc.299973 (accepted, on line)
66. Bylsma LC, Alexander DD. A review and meta-analysis of prospective studies
of red and processed meat, meat cooking methods, heme iron, heterocyclic
amines and prostate cancer. Review. Nutrition J 514:125, 2015, DOI
:10.1186/s12937-015-0111-3.
67. Guo J, Wei W, Zhan L. Red and processed meat intake and risk of breast cancer: a
meta-analysis of prospective studies. Epidemiol Breast Cancer Res Treat 151(1):191-
198, 2015.
19
68. Vargas AJ, Thompson PA. Diet and nutrient factors in colorectal cancer risk. Nutr Clin
Pract 27(5):613-623, 2012.
69. Willett W. Nutritional Epidemiology, 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, New York,
2013.
70. Dagfinn A, Doris SMC, Rosa L, Rui V, Darren CG, et al. Dietary fibre, whole grains, and
risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of
prospective studies. Brit Med J 343, 2011.
71. Riboli E, Kaaks R. The EPIC Project: rationale and study design. European Prospective
Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Epidemiol 26: (Suppl. 6), S6-S14, 1997. .
72. Riboli E, Hunt KJ, Slimani N, Ferrari P, Norat T, et al. European Prospective
Investigation into Cancer and nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection.
Public Health Nutrit 5: 11131124, 2002.
73. Murphy N, Norat T, Ferrari P, Jenab M, et al. Dietary fiber intake and risk of cancer of
the colon and rectum in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and
Nutrition (EPIC). PLOs One, 22 June , 2012, DOI:10.1371/journal pone 0039361.
74. Wu QJ, Yang Y, Vogtmann E, Wang J, et al. Cruciferous vegetables intake and the risk
of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Annals Oncol
24(4):1079-1087, 2013.
75. Bamia C, Lagiou P, Buckland G, Grioni S, et al. Mediterranean diet and colorectal
cancer risk: results from a European cohort. Europ J Epidemiol 28(4):317-328,
2013.
76. Larsson SC, Kumlin M, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Wolk A. Dietary long-chain n-3 fatty
acids for the prevention of cancer: a review of potential mechanisms. Am J Clin Nutr
79(6):935945, 2004.
77. Joosen AMCP, Lecommandeur E, Kuhnle GGC, Aspinall SM, Kap L, Rodwell SA. Effect
of dietary meat and fish on endogenous nitrosation, inflammation and genotoxicity of
faecal water. Mutagenesis 25(3):243247, 2010.
78. Spencer EA, Key TJ, Appleby PN, Dahm CC, Keogh RH, Fentiman IS, et al. Meat,
poultry and fish and risk of colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of data from the UK
dietary cohort consortium. Cancer Causes Control 21(9): 1417-1425, 2010.
... These classifications do not indicate the risk of getting cancer, rather how certain we are that these things are likely to cause cancer. Eating poultry (white meat) and fish may help to reduce the risk of bowel, breast and prostate cancer.52,53 ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract Most cancer risk factors were identified in the past decades by specialized epidemiological studies. From global and national statistical evidence the major risk factors of cancer to humans are: Ageing; Tobacco use (active and passive smoking ); Unhealthy Dietary factors; Physical inactivity; Overweight and obesity; Hormones, sexual behaviour; Radiation and sunlight exposure; Alcohol consumption; Chronic inflammation; Occupational carcinogens; Genetic factors. Cancer is the result of accumulation of DNA damage through incomplete repair because of ageing and may lead to mutagenesis and initiation of carcinogenic mechanisms. A paper by Tomasetti and Vogelstein (Science 347:78-81, 2015, from Johns Hopkins University, USA) projected with data the argument that differences in inherent cellular processes (normal stem-cell division in healthy tissue) are the chief reason that some tissues become cancerous more frequently than others. This paper led to assertions that certain forms of cancer are mainly the result of “bad luck”, and suggested that these types would be relatively resistant to prevention efforts. The question of random mutations and “bad luck” on cancer brought the question of prominence of environmental (extrinsic) versus inherited (intrinsic) causes of cancer. Scientists supported until now that environmental factors and lifestyle causes were supposed to be responsible most types of cancer and were preventable through healthier diet style, cessation of smoking and better diagnosis and . The new hypothesis caused many comments and rebuttals by other experts of cancer. Data presented (Wu et al., 2016) argued that the models that were used suggested that mutations during cell division rarely build up to the point of producing cancer, even in tissues with relatively high rates of cell division. In almost all cases, the team found that some exposure to carcinogens or other environmental factors would be needed to trigger disease. This review presents the main arguments supporting “bad luck” and the counter arguments for extrinsic or environmental causes of cancer and comments from well known scientists. Also, the most important causes of cancer, such as diet, tobacco use, obesity, lack of physical activity, alcohol consumption, exposure to sunlight, infectious agents are described with recent literature studies and epidemiological evidence. Additionally, scientific evidence on the campaign “war on cancer” in the developed countries, to diagnose, treat and cure cancer is making steady progress in the last decades.
Article
Full-text available
Prostate cancer remains a significant public health concern among men in the U.S. and worldwide. Epidemiologic studies have generally produced inconclusive results for dietary risk factors for prostate cancer, including consumption of red and processed meats. We aimed to update a previous meta-analysis of prospective cohorts of red and processed meats and prostate cancer with the inclusion of new and updated cohort studies, as well as evaluate meat cooking methods, heme iron, and heterocyclic amine (HCA) intake exposure data. A comprehensive literature search was performed and 26 publications from 19 different cohort studies were included. Random effects models were used to calculate summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high vs. low exposure categories. Additionally, meta-regression analyses and stratified intake analyses were conducted to evaluate dose-response relationships. The SRREs for total prostate cancer and total red meat consumption, fresh red meat consumption, and processed meat consumption were 1.02 (95 % CI: 0.92-1.12), 1.06 (95 % CI: 0.97-1.16), and 1.05 (95 % CI: 1.01-1.10), respectively. Analyses were also conducted for the outcomes of non-advanced, advanced, and fatal prostate cancer when sufficient data were available, but these analyses did not produce significant results. No significant SRREs were observed for any of the meat cooking methods, HCA, or heme iron analyses. Dose-response analyses did not reveal significant patterns of associations between red or processed meat and prostate cancer. In conclusion, the results from our analyses do not support an association between red meat or processed consumption and prostate cancer, although we observed a weak positive summary estimate for processed meats.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to gain further insight into the effects of adherence to Mediterranean Diet (MD) on overall cancer mortality, incidence of different types of cancer, and cancer mortality risk in cancer survivors. Literature search was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, and EMBASE until 2 July 2015. We included either cohort (for specific tumors only incidence cases were used) or case–control studies. Study specific risk ratios, hazard ratios, and odds ratios (RR/HR/OR) were pooled using a random effect model. The updated review process showed 23 observational studies that were not included in the previous meta-analysis (total number of studies evaluated: 56 observational studies). An overall population of 1,784,404 subjects was included in the present update. The highest adherence score to an MD was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause cancer mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.81–0.93, I2 = 84%), colorectal cancer (RR: 0.83, 95% CI 0.76–0.89, I2 = 56%), breast cancer (RR: 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–0.99, I2=15%), gastric cancer (RR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.97, I2 = 66%), prostate cancer (RR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.92–1.00, I2 = 0%), liver cancer (RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.46–0.73, I2 = 0%), head and neck cancer (RR: 0.40, 95% CI 0.24–0.66, I2 = 90%), pancreatic cancer (RR: 0.48, 95% CI 0.35–0.66), and respiratory cancer (RR: 0.10, 95% CI 0.01–0.70). No significant association could be observed for esophageal/ovarian/endometrial/and bladder cancer, respectively. Among cancer survivors, the association between the adherence to the highest MD category and risk of cancer mortality, and cancer recurrence was not statistically significant. The updated meta-analyses confirm a prominent and consistent inverse association provided by adherence to an MD in relation to cancer mortality and risk of several cancer types.
Article
Full-text available
Although the association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) is well established, the association across subsites of the colon and rectum remains uncertain, as does time of consumption in relation to cancer development. As these relationships are key for understanding the pathogenesis of CRC, they were examined in two large cohorts with repeated dietary measures over time, the Nurses' Health Study (n = 87,108 women, 1980-2010) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (n = 47,389 men, 1986-2010). Cox proportional hazards regression models generated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. In combined cohorts, there were 2,731 CRC cases (1,151 proximal colon, 816 distal colon, and 589 rectum). In pooled analyses, processed red meat was positively associated with CRC risk (per 1 serving/day increase: HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.32; P for trend 0.03) and particularly with distal colon cancer (per 1 serving/day increase; HR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.09-1.69; P for trend 0.006). Recent consumption of processed meat (within the past 4 years) was not associated with distal cancer. Unprocessed red meat was inversely associated with risk of distal colon cancer and a weak non-significant positive association between unprocessed red meat and proximal cancer was observed (per 1 serving/day increase: distal HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.68-0.82; P for trend
Article
Full-text available
Epidemiological studies have identified increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk with high red meat (HRM) intakes, whereas dietary fibre intake appears to be protective. In the present study, we examined whether a HRM diet increased rectal O6-methyl-2-deoxyguanosine (O6MeG) adduct levels in healthy human subjects, and whether butyrylated high-amylose maize starch (HAMSB) was protective. A group of twenty-three individuals consumed 300 g/d of cooked red meat without (HRM diet) or with 40 g/d of HAMSB (HRM+HAMSB diet) over 4-week periods separated by a 4-week washout in a randomised cross-over design. Stool and rectal biopsy samples were collected for biochemical, microbial and immunohistochemical analyses at baseline and at the end of each 4-week intervention period. The HRM diet increased rectal O6MeG adducts relative to its baseline by 21 % (P< 0·01), whereas the addition of HAMSB to the HRM diet prevented this increase. Epithelial proliferation increased with both the HRM (P< 0·001) and HRM+HAMSB (P< 0·05) diets when compared with their respective baseline levels, but was lower following the HRM+HAMSB diet compared with the HRM diet (P< 0·05). Relative to its baseline, the HRM+HAMSB diet increased the excretion of SCFA by over 20 % (P< 0·05) and increased the absolute abundances of the Clostridium coccoides group (P< 0·05), the Clostridium leptum group (P< 0·05), Lactobacillus spp. (P< 0·01), Parabacteroides distasonis (P< 0·001) and Ruminococcus bromii (P< 0·05), but lowered Ruminococcus torques (P< 0·05) and the proportions of Ruminococcus gnavus, Ruminococcus torques and Escherichia coli (P< 0·01). HRM consumption could increase the risk of CRC through increased formation of colorectal epithelial O6MeG adducts. HAMSB consumption prevented red meat-induced adduct formation, which may be associated with increased stool SCFA levels and/or changes in the microbiota composition.
Article
Full-text available
Red meat is consumed globally and plays an important role in the Western diet. Its consumption is however linked with various types of diseases. This review focuses on the relationship of red meat with cancer, its dependency on the thermal processing methodology and the subsequent physiological effects. The epidemiological evidence is discussed, followed by introduction of the species that were hypothesized to contribute to these carcinogenic effects including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs), N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heme iron and macromolecular oxidation products. Their carcinogenic mechanisms were then addressed with further emphasis on the involvement of inflammation and oxidative stress. The thermal processing dependency of the carcinogen generation and the partially elucidated carcinogenic mechanism both represent doorways of opportunities available for the scientific manipulation of their impact after human consumption, to minimize the cancer risks associated with red meat.
Article
Full-text available
Epidemiological studies regarding the association between red and processed meat intake and the risk of breast cancer have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we conducted an updated and comprehensive meta-analysis which included 14 prospective studies to evaluate the association of red and processed meat intake with breast cancer risk. Relevant prospective cohort studies were identified by searching PubMed through October 31, 2014, and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles. Study-specific relative risk (RR) estimates were pooled using a random-effects model. Fourteen prospective studies on red meat (involving 31,552 cases) and 12 prospective studies on processed meat were included in the meta-analysis. The summary RRs (95 % CI) of breast cancer for the highest versus the lowest categories were 1.10 (1.02, 1.19) for red meat, and 1.08 (1.01, 1.15) for processed meat. The estimated summary RRs (95 % CI) were 1.11 (1.05, 1.16) for an increase of 120 g/day of red meat, and 1.09 (1.03, 1.16) for an increase of 50 g/day of processed meat. Our findings indicate that increased intake of red and processed meat is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Further research with well-designed cohort or interventional studies is needed to confirm the association.
Article
BACKGROUND: Sodium chlorate occurs when drinking water is disinfected by chlorine dioxide. We studied the effects of sodium chlorate in rats and mice to identify potential toxic or carcinogenic hazards to humans.
Article
Reports relating meat intake to prostate cancer risk are inconsistent. Associations between these dietary factors and prostate cancer were examined in a consortium of 15 cohort studies. During follow-up, 52,683 incident prostate cancer cases, including 4,924 advanced cases, were identified among 842, 149 men. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate study-specific relative risks (RR) and then pooled using random effects models. Results do not support a substantial effect of total red, unprocessed red and processed meat for all prostate cancer outcomes, except for a modest positive association for tumors identified as advanced stage at diagnosis (advanced(r)). For seafood, no substantial effect was observed for prostate cancer regardless of stage or grade. Poultry intake was inversely associated with risk of advanced and fatal cancers (pooled multivariable RR [MVRR], 95% confidence interval, comparing ≥45 vs. <5 g/d: advanced 0.83, 0.70-0.99; trend test p-value 0.29), fatal, 0.69, 0.59-0.82, trend test p-value 0.16). Participants who ate ≥25 vs <5 g/d of eggs (1 egg ∼ 50 g) had a significant 14% increased risk of advanced and fatal cancers (MVRR: advanced 1.14, 1.01-1.28, trend test p-value 0.01; fatal 1.14, 1.00-1.30, trend test p-value 0.01). When associations were analyzed separately by geographical region (North America vs. other continents), positive associations between unprocessed red meat and egg intake, and inverse associations between poultry intake and advanced, advanced(r) and fatal cancers were limited to North American studies. However, differences were only statistically significant for eggs. Observed differences in associations by geographical region warrant further investigation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Article
High intakes of fruit and vegetables may reduce the risk of cancer at several sites. Evidence has been derived mainly from case-control studies. We reviewed the relationship between consumption of vegetables and fruit and the risk of several common cancers in a network of Italian and Swiss case-control studies including over 10 000 cases of fourteen different cancers and about 17 000 controls. Data were suggestive of a protective role of vegetable intake on the risk of several common epithelial cancers. OR for the highest compared with the lowest levels of consumption ranged from 0·2 (larynx, oral cavity and pharynx) to 0·9 (prostate). Inverse associations were found for both raw and cooked vegetables, although for upper digestive tract cancers the former were somewhat stronger. Similar inverse associations were found for cruciferous vegetables. Frequent consumption of allium vegetables was also associated with reduced risk of several cancers. Fruit was a favourable correlate of the risk of several cancers, particularly of the upper digestive tract, with associations generally weaker than those reported for vegetables. A reduced risk of cancers of the digestive tract and larynx was found for high consumption of citrus fruit. Suggestive protections against several forms of cancer, mainly digestive tract cancers, were found for high consumption of apples and tomatoes. High intakes of fibres, flavonoids and proanthocyanidins were inversely related to various forms of cancer. In conclusion, data from our series of case-control studies suggested a favourable role of high intakes of fruit and vegetables in the risk of many common cancers, particularly of the digestive tract. This adds evidence to the indication that aspects of the Mediterranean diet may have a favourable impact not only on CVD, but also on several common (epithelial) cancers, particularly of the digestive tract.
Article
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world. The vast majority of CRC cases have been linked to environmental causes rather than to heritable genetic changes. Over the last decades, epidemiological evidence linking the consumption of red and, more convincingly, of processed red meat to CRC has accumulated. In parallel, hypotheses on carcinogenic mechanisms underlying an association between CRC and the intake of red and processed red meat have been proposed and investigated in biological studies. The hypotheses that have received most attention until now include (1) the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic aromatic amines, two groups of compounds recognized as carcinogenic, (2) the enhancing effect of (nitrosyl)heme on the formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds and lipid peroxidation. However, none of these hypotheses completely explains the link between red and processed red meat intake and the CRC risk. Consequently, scientists have proposed additional mechanisms or refined their hypotheses. This review first briefly summarizes the development of CRC followed by an in-depth overview and critical discussion of the different potential carcinogenic mechanisms underlying the increased CRC risk associated with the consumption of red and processed red meat.