ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Processed Meat and Colorectal Cancer: A Review of Epidemiologic and Experimental Evidence

Authors:

Abstract

Processed meat intake may be involved in the etiology of colorectal cancer, a major cause of death in affluent countries. The epidemiologic studies published to date conclude that the excess risk in the highest category of processed meat-eaters is comprised between 20% and 50% compared with non-eaters. In addition, the excess risk per gram of intake is clearly higher than that of fresh red meat. Several hypotheses, which are mainly based on studies carried out on red meat, may explain why processed meat intake is linked to cancer risk. Those that have been tested experimentally are (i) that high-fat diets could promote carcinogenesis via insulin resistance or fecal bile acids; (ii) that cooking meat at a high temperature forms carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; (iii) that carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds are formed in meat and endogenously; (iv) that heme iron in red meat can promote carcinogenesis because it increases cell proliferation in the mucosa, through lipoperoxidation and/or cytotoxicity of fecal water. Nitrosation might increase the toxicity of heme in cured products. Solving this puzzle is a challenge that would permit to reduce cancer load by changing the processes rather than by banning processed meat.
Processed meat and colorectal cancer: a review of epidemiologic and
experimental evidence
Santarelli Rapha lle L.ë
*
, Pierre Fabrice , Corpet Denis E.
X nobiotiques é INRA : UR1089, Ecole Nationale V t rinaire de Toulouseé é , FR
* Correspondence should be adressed to: Rapha lle L. Santarelli ë <raphaelle.santarelli@hotmail.fr>
Abstract
Processed meat intake may be involved in the etiology of colorectal cancer, a major cause of death in affluent countries. The epidemiologic
studies published to date conclude that the excess risk in the highest category of processed meat-eaters is comprised between 20 and 50%
compared with non-eaters. In addition, the excess risk per gram of intake is clearly higher than that of fresh red meat. Several hypotheses,
which are mainly based on studies carried out on red meat, may explain why processed meat intake is linked to cancer risk. Those that
have been tested experimentally are (i) that high-fat diets could promote carcinogenesis via insulin resistance or fecal bile acids; (ii) that
cooking meat at a high temperature forms carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; (iii) that carcinogenic
N-nitroso compounds are formed in meat and endogenously; (iv) that heme iron in red meat can promote carcinogenesis because it
increases cell proliferation in the mucosa, through lipoperoxidation and/or cytotoxicity of fecal water. Nitrosation might increase the
toxicity of heme in cured products. Solving this puzzle is a challenge that would permit to reduce cancer load by changing the processes
rather than by banning processed meat.
MESH Keywords Amines ; administration & dosage ; adverse effects ; Animals ; Carcinogens ; administration & dosage ; Colorectal Neoplasms ; epidemiology ; etiology ;
Dietary Fats ; administration & dosage ; adverse effects ; Dietary Proteins ; administration & dosage ; adverse effects ; Epidemiologic Studies ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Food
Habits ; Humans ; Meat Products ; adverse effects ; Nitroso Compounds ; administration & dosage ; adverse effects ; Risk Factors
Author Keywords revue ; charcuteries ; cancer colorectal ; pid miologieé é ; produits base de viandeà ; review ; processed meat ; cured meat ; nitrite ; haem ; heme ; salt ;
cancer prevention
Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer death in affluent countries, notably the United States and Western Europe. Diet would
strongly influence CRC risk, and changes in foods habits might reduce up to 70 of this cancer burden ( ). Epidemiologic studies suggest% 13
that meat intake is associated with CRC risk, although the association is not significant in most studies. Published in 1997, the World Cancer
Research Fund authoritative expert report states: evidence shows that red meat probably increases risk and processed meat possibly increases
risk of CRC ( ). Since 2000, three meta-analyses showed that total meat intake is not related to risk, but that red meat intake is a significant 2
risk factor. In addition, as reported below, the association of CRC risk with processed red meat may be stronger than that with fresh red meat (4
). Several hypotheses could explain how processed meat could increase CRC risk, and experimental studies have been carried out6
accordingly. The major hypotheses that have been tested experimentally are (i) that high-fat or high-protein diets could promote
carcinogenesis; (ii) that cooking meat at high temperature forms mutagenic and carcinogenic heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); (iii) that potentially carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds (NOCs) are formed in food and/or endogenously by
nitrosation of amines and amides; (iv) that heme iron in red meat can promote carcinogenesis because it increases cell proliferation in the
colonic mucosa, through lipoperoxidation and/or cytotoxicity of fecal water. Few experiments have been directly carried out on processed
meats but the studies undertaken on red meats make it possible to propose the hypotheses cited above. There are no clearly demonstrated
biologic mechanisms that could explain the risk difference between processed and unprocessed meat.
The aims of the present paper are (i) to describe briefly the processed meat products (ii) to review the epidemiologic evidence that
processed meat increases CRC risk, (iii) to review the experimental studies on the mechanisms explaining the effect of processed meat on
colorectal carcinogenesis.
Processed Meat
Processed meat is made mostly from pork or beef meat that are preserved by methods other than freezing, and that undergo a treatment to
improve the quality of cuts of carcasses, to increase preservation, and to change flavor. There is a huge variety of processed meat products and
it is not easy to sort them by categories, but parameters involved in the making of these foods are curing (adding salt and other additives),
drying, smoking, cooking and packaging. Processed meat includes bacon, ham (raw, smoked or cooked), heated sausages like hot-dogs
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
Author manuscript, published in "Nutrition and Cancer 60, 2 (2008) 131-44"
DOI : 10.1080/01635580701684872
(frankfurters), raw sausages (like salami), bologna, blood sausage (UK: black pudding), liver p t (or liverwurst) and other p t s and spreadâ é â é
meat, luncheon meat and other cold cuts, canned meat, and corned beef ( , ). This list is not comprehensive, and many other specific products7 8
are made all over the world, using traditional recipes. Curing and smoking, two specific processes for meat, are described below as they might
generate potential hazards.
is the addition of a combination of salt, sugar and either nitrate or nitrite: salt improves the taste of meat and preserves it byCuring
stopping bacterial growth, because it diffuses inside the muscle and reduces the water activity. Nitrite inhibits the germination of Clostridium
spores, and gives the meat the desirable cured color by combining with heme iron. Nitrosylmyoglobin is responsible for the redbotulinum
color of raw cured meat. Cooking denatures globin which detaches from the heme, yielding a pink mononitrosylheme complex, the color of
cooked cured meat ( , ). When saltpeter/nitrate is used, a previous step is needed so that bacteria reduce nitrate to nitrite. In many countries,9 10
the maximum permitted concentration of nitrite in processed meat is 200 ppm, and it is 150 ppm in the European Union. Curing can be done
with dry salt, in a brine tank, or by injection:
Dry salting is the old way of meat curing. Cuts of meat are placed on heaps of salt and rubbed with salt or with a mix of salt, sugar and
saltpeter ( ). This treatment is simple, but long, and its efficacy depends on the diffusion of salt into the meat. This treatment is simple, but11
long, and its efficacy depends on the diffusion of salt into the meat. A low temperature must be maintained until the center of the meat piece is
salted enough to prevent internal spoilage.
Tank curing is faster than dry salting: meat pieces are placed in brine, water saturated with salt that may also contain sugar and nitrite.
Methods have been developed to accelerate the rate of diffusion of curing agents into meat either by the use of the arterial system by needle
injections, or with multi-needle system. Moreover, new additives have been used in brine to improve the color formation and stability with
reducing agents like sodium ascorbate or erythorbate.
is the process of exposing meat to the smoke from incomplete wood pyrolysis. This gives meat a brown color, changes its flavorSmoking
and helps its preservation because smoke contains phenols, aldehydes, acetic acid and other carboxylic acids. Wood pyrolysis may generate
carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), and the process is hard to control. A more controlled process is obtained by immersing
meat pieces into a smoke solution , which gives smoke flavor without PAH contamination, and improves meat preservation because it contains
acetic acid.
Among the many existing processed meat products, we chose to describe ham and sausages that contribute most to the overall processed
meat intake ( ). Ham is obtained by curing the upper quarter (thigh and sirloin) of a pig, and may be boiled (Jambon de Paris), dried (country12
ham), and/or smoked. Sausages are prepared with chopped meat (pork usually, or a mix of pork and beef), lard, salt, and other additives (e.g.,
wine, saltpeter, garlic, herbs, spices). This preparation is usually packed in a casing (historically the intestines of the animal, though now often
collagenic, cellulosic or polymeric). Sausages may be dried (salami-type), cooked (hot-dog type), and/or smoked. Blood sausage (UK black
pudding) is prepared with blood (usually from pork), lard or suet, and a plant-based filling (bread, barley, onions), in three equal parts, with salt
and spice. This preparation is packed in a pork bowel, and cooked until it becomes thick.
Processed meat intake makes one half to one fifth of total red meat intake. For instance, in 1999 French adults ate 38 and 63 g/d processed
and fresh red meat, respectively ( ). In Europe, the intake of processed meat was 27 g/d 11 48 in women (median and range of 23 EPIC13 [ ]
centers from ten European countries), and 48 g/d 19 88 in men ( ). Fresh red meat intake was 36 g 25 52 in women, and 60 g/d 40 120 in[ ] 12 [ ] [ ]
European men ( ). In the American CPSII Nutrition Cohort (median age 63 years) the median intake of processed and fresh red meat was7
estimated as 10 and 40 g/d, respectively ( ). In a Bethesda case-control study (median age 58 years) the mean intake of processed and red14
meat was 12 and 36 g/d ( , ). These values may be underestimated, since they are based on food-frequency questionnaire data, and because15 16
subjects were older than the general population. Indeed, Norat et al. estimated that red meat intake in North America is 72 g/d per caput ( ).5
Epidemiologic Studies
International ecological studies show that countries where people eat more red meat are also countries where the risk of CRC is high ( ).17
Analytical studies suggest that this association is also seen at the individual level, but the link is significant in only one study out of three ( ).18
Three meta-analyses have been published since 2000, and their quantitative risk estimate for fresh red meat and processed meat intake are
summarized below and in .Table 1
made a meta-analysis gathering 13 cohort studies, selected from 17 studies, according to pre-established qualitySandhu et al. (2001)
criteria ( ). All cohorts studies with relative risks between meat/processed meat intake and colon/colorectal cancer incidence or mortality were4
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
included up to 1999. Prospective studies that did not report the level of exposure (red meat/processed meat consumption) were excluded. Norat
study derives 18 case-control and 6 cohort studies, selected from 48 ( ). All studies published up to 1999, and providinget al. (2002) 5
association between total meat, red meat or processed meat intake and colon, rectal and colorectal incidence or mortality, were included.
Sandhu s and Norat s meta-analyses were not independent, since eleven studies were common to both articles. Last, Larsson et al. published in
2006 a meta-analysis of 18 prospective studies, selected from 23, gathering a total of more than one million subjects. Norat s and Larsson s
studies were quite independent, since only 15 of Norat s subjects were counted again in Larsson s study ( ).% 6
These three meta-analyses take all previous studies into account, and bring global and consistent conclusions on the effect of different types
of meat: total meat, red meat, processed meat. Briefly:
Total intake of meat (including white and red meat from all sources) is not associated with CRC risk in Norat s and in Larsson s analyses.
Sandhu s study shows a significant moderate risk associated with total meat intake, but the authors did not include white meat (poultry) in total
meat.
A high intake of red meat (usually including beef, veal, lamb, mutton, pork, and offal) is associated with a moderate and significant
increased risk of CRC in the three studies:
In Sandhu s study ( ), the average relative risk (RR) of CRC for a 100 g portion of red meat is 1.17. The 95 confidence interval (CI) is 4 %
1.05 1.31. Processed meat was not included in red meat, we think, in this study ( ). 4
In Norat s study ( ), CRC RR 1.35 (CI: 1.21 1.51) for the highest quartile of consumption of red meat (including processed meat). A 5 =
minor difference is observed between results from case-control and cohort studies (RR 1.36 and 1.27 respectively). The intake of 120 g/d of=
fresh (unprocessed) red meat is associated with a significant risk, but of lower magnitude than when processed meat is included ( 19+ %
compared with 35 ) ( ).+ % 5
In Larsson s study ( ), CRC RR 1.28 (CI: 1.15 1.42) for the highest category of consumption of red meat (including processed meat). 6 =
Fresh red meat intake (unprocessed meat) was reported in nine studies out of fifteen, and the associated RR was 1.22, a significant value. The
risk excess associated with intake of 120 g/d of red meat was 28 . Larsson s article does not report the quantitative effect of fresh red meat,+ %
and no precision is given on the categories ( ).6
Processed meat intake (usually including sausages, meats burgers, ham, bacon, salami, nitrite-treated meat and meat products) is associated
with CRC risk in all reports: Global RR are 1.49 (CI: 1.22 1.81), 1.31 (CI: 1.13 1.51) and 1.20 (CI: 1.11 1.31) in the three meta-analyses ( 46
). In Norat s analysis, a minor difference is observed between results from case-control and cohort studies (RR 1.29 and 1.39 respectively). =
Thus the estimated excess risk associated with fresh red meat intake was 17 , 19 and 22 , and the risk associated with processed meat% % %
was 49 , 31 and 20 , in the three reviews, respectively. The estimates of risk for fresh red meat are within a narrow range, but estimates of% % %
risk for processed meat are more dispersed. However, all RRs are significant, and none is larger than 1.5, which shows the consistency of the
meta-analyses. As shown in , doses-response meta-analyses suggest that one gram of processed meat is eleven-times, six-times or twiceTable 1
more promoting than one gram of fresh red meat in the three meta-analyses, respectively ( ). It is not easy to explain why the 46
processed/fresh meat ratio is higher in Sandhu s study than in Larsson s study. However, the three studies indicate that processed meat intake is
associated with a higher CRC risk than the intake of other types of meat.
Four cohort study articles dealing with processed meat intake and CRC have been published after Larsson s 2006 review (one new cohort,
and three re-analyses, ), and seven case-control studies shown in were published after review. Let us examineTable 2 Table 3 Norat s 2002
below if they strengthen or weaken the above-reported meta-analyses results.
A cohort of 30,000 men and women in Japan was studied by , with 231 CRC cases. Processed meats were ham, sausage,Oba et al. (2006)
bacon, and yakibuta (Chinese roasted pork). In men, there was a positive association between CRC and the highest tertile of processed meat
consumption (RR 1.98, CI: 1.24 3.16). No association was seen in women (RR 0.85, CI: 0.5 1.43) ( ). Three other articles made use of= = 19
already published cohort studies, but they analyzed prospective data by dietary patterns, instead of type of foods. used dataFung et al. (2003)
from the Nurses Health Study ( ). The highest quintile of women eating a western pattern , defined by a high intake of red and processed 20
meats, sweets and desserts, French fries, and refined grains, had a marginally significant increase in colon cancer risk, consistent with
meta-analyses result (RR 1.46, CI: 0.97 2.19). No association was found with rectal cancer ( ). analyzed three= 20 Dixon et al. (2004)
prospective studies: the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Study (ATBC), the Netherlands Cohort (NLC), and the Swedish Mammography
Cohort (SMC) ( ). Exploratory factor analysis identified a dietary pattern that includes processed meat in the three cohorts: the Processed21
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
meat, Pork, and Potatoes pattern. This pattern was associated with an increased risk of colon cancer in the SMC women (RR 1.62, CI: 1.12=
2.34), and of rectal cancer in the ATBC men (RR 2.21, CI: 1.07 4.57), but not in the NLC study (RRs 0.9) ( ). studied= = 21 Kesse et al. (2006)
food patterns in a French cohort of women, already reported in the EPIC study. The Western diet pattern included: processed meat, potatoes,
pizzas and pies, sandwiches, sweets, cakes, cheese, cereal products, eggs, and butter. The three other diets were: Healthy diet (vegetables,
fruit, yogurt, sea products, and olive oil, Drinker diet (sandwiches, snacks, processed meat, and alcoholic beverages) and Meat eaters diet
(meat, poultry, and margarine). The Western pattern increased adenoma risk, but not CRC risk (RR 1.39, CI: 1.00 1.94 and RR 1.09, CI: = =
0.60 2.00 respectively). The Drinker and the Meat eaters diets increased the adenoma risk and the CRC risk (see RRs on ) ( ). To Table 3 22
sum up these recent prospective studies, they bring some support to the conclusions of Larsson s metaanalysis that processed meat intake is
associated with increased risk, and the RR is in the range 1.5 2. However, the link was not found in all sub-groups (male/female,
colon/rectum), and the risk associated with dietary patterns cannot be attributed to processed meat alone.
Seven case-control studies dealing with processed meat have been published after Norat s meta-analysis. All studies report OR above 1.15,
but only three studies out of six found a significant association between processed meat intake and CRC risk. In Shangai, China, Chiu et al.
found that a high intake of preserved foods (whether animal or plant source) was associated with an increased risk of colon cancer (OR(2003) =
2.0, CI: 1.5 2.9 in men, and OR 2.7, CI: 1.9 3.8 in women). Preserved vegetables was more strongly associated with cancer risk than =
preserved animal foods ( ). In the U.S.A., investigated the effect of dietary changes during adult life. They showed23 Chiu and Gapstur (2004)
that risk was higher for people who did not reduce their consumption of red meat and processed meat after the age of 30 years, and risk was
particularly high for pork chops/ham steaks eaters (OR 3.7, CI: 1.6 8.7) ( ). In Canada, established dietary patterns, as= 24 Nkondjock et al.
reported above for cohorts. The pork and processed meat pattern, characterized by a high consumption of processed meat, pork, and white
bread, increased colon cancer risk nearly significantly (RR 1.6, CI: 0.9 2.8) ( ). In Utah and Northern California, = 25 Murtaugh et al. (2004)
found no association between processed meat intake and the risk of rectal cancer (RR 1.2, CI: 0.85 1.7) ( ). In Japan, Kimura et al. found= 26
that processed meat intake (and red meat intake) was not related to CRC risk (OR 1.15, CI: 0.83 1.60) ( ). A Maryland case-control study of= 27
colorectal adenoma found a two-fold increased risk in the highest, compared to the lowest, quartile of processed meat intake (95 CI 1.0% =
4.0). This OR was mostly explained by nitrate/nitrite intake, and marginally attenuated by MeIQx intake (a heterocyclic amine formed by
cooking). In addition, ham steak/pork chops, hot dogs/other sausages, and liverwurst intake each were associated with a two-fold risk of
adenoma, while bacon, breakfast sausages, ham, bologna, salami, and other luncheon meats intake were not associated with the risk ( ).16
Lastly, In Canada, Hu et al. ( ) found that consumption of processed meat increase risk of both proximal and distal colon cancer in men and28
women (all four OR were between 1.4 and 1.6, all CI:1.0 2.0, 2.2 or 2.4). Bacon intake was particularly associated with risk of colon cancer
(proximal and distal) in women.
The estimation of cancer risk associated with meat may be influenced by other dietary factors, as shown clearly in the dietary pattern
studies cited above ( ). In those studies, the intake of processed meat was associated with intake of French fries (or potatoes), sweets,2022
cakes, desserts, snacks and alcoholic beverages: These high glycemic index diets, and alcohol intake, may be risk factors for colorectal cancer.
In addition, high-meat diets have been negatively associated with food groups rich in antioxidants and fiber, components which have been
associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer ( ). Thus, the effect of processed meat consumption on the risk of colorectal cancer may be4
confounded by other foods, as discussed further in the Indirect mechanisms section below. However, red meat intake is more consistently
associated with risk than any other dietary factor, except the total energy intake ( , ).3 29
In summary, the results of these meta-analyses support the hypothesis that high consumption of red and processed meat may increase the
risk of CRC. The few studies published after the metaanalyses also support the evidence, although individual studies are seldom significant. In
addition, the risk associated with consumption of one gram of processed meat was two to ten times higher than the risk associated with one
gram of fresh red meat. It is thus likely that processed meat contains some components that are more potent than fresh red meat components.
Mechanisms of Processed Meat Promotion: Experimental Data in Rodents and Volunteers
Several hypotheses may explain why processed meat intake is linked to CRC risk. Processed meats often differ from red meat by three
major points: (i) they often contain more fat than red meat; (ii) they contain specific additives, notably salt and sodium nitrite; (iii) their
long-time storage yields cholesterol oxidation products. Like red meat, processed meat is rich in fat, protein and heme iron, which can promote
carcinogenesis, or yield promoters in vivo. Processing and cooking can generate heterocyclic amines (HCAs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAHs), and N-nitroso compounds (NOCs). Specific HCAs, PAHs and NOCs are mutagens and animal carcinogens. In addition, people eating
a large amount of processed meat may lack protective phytochemicals and/or be at increased risk due to sedentary life-style, obesity and/or
insulin resistance. These hypotheses are considered sequentially below.
Fat
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
Epidemiologic studies and laboratory animal models suggest that a high intake of dietary fat promotes CRC. High fat intake favors the
secretion of bile acids (BA) into the duodenum, and activates bacterial 7-alpha-dehydroxylase that makes secondary BA. These BA,
deoxycholic and lithocholic acids, promote colon carcinogenesis in several animal models, and are elevated in stools from populations at risk
for cancer ( ). A high fat diet also leads to free fatty acids in the colonic lumen. They may damage the colonic epithelium and increase30
proliferation, an effect blocked by dietary calcium ( ). The hypothesis that fat or BA promotes colorectal carcinogenesis have been tested in31
several studies briefly reported below.
Four studies gave direct evidence that a high-fat diet can increase carcinogen-induced tumor in the colon of rats. Reddy et al. (1976)
showed that protein and fat from meat increase the incidence of colon tumors in 1,2-dimethylhydrazine (DMH) injected F344 rats ( ). A 3032 %
beef tallow diet given after carcinogen injections increased the tumor yield, compared with the 5 fat diet fed controls. In contrast, the high fat%
diet had no effect when given simultaneously with the carcinogen ( ). Last, showed that a 20 fat diet significantly33 Pence et al. (1995) %
increases the number of adenoma in the colon of DMH-initiated rats, whatever the protein and the fat sources (meat, casein, corn oil or beef
tallow) ( ).34
In contrast, several studies showed no effect of saturated fat on colorectal carcinogenesis. found that a 24 beef tallowNauss et al. (1983) %
diet did not enhance CRC in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats (compared with 5 fat diet controls) ( ). failed to show a% 35 Nutter et al. (1983)
promoting effect by beef tallow in BALB/c mice, though corn oil was promoting ( ). did not find any promoting effect of36 Clinton et al. (1992)
diets with 24 or 48 calories from corn oil (compared to 12 ) in SD rats ( ). No difference in epithelial cell proliferation rate was observed% % % 37
in rats fed diet with 10 , 25 or 40 of the energy derived from fat ( ). Beef tallow diet (14 ) reduces the number of aberrant crypt foci and% % % 38 %
increases apoptosis in the colon of DMH-initiated rats, compared with soybean oil diet controls ( ). A meta-analysis of rat studies can explain39
these puzzling discrepancies: saturated and n-6 polyunsaturated fats are promoters in F344 rats, but SD rats resist to high-fat diet promotion (40
).
Bile acids have been known to be tumor promoters for many years, and the addition of cholic acid to rodents diet enhances colonic
epithelial cell proliferation, and increases the number of tumors in animals exposed to carcinogens (reviewed in ( )). Blood BA also correlates30
with tumor incidence in F344 rats ( ). However, the hypothesis that saturated fat intake enhances fecal BA excretion was not supported by41
several studies in rats and in volunteers. Compared with soybean oil diet, beef tallow reduces fecal BA in DMH-induced rats ( ). Another39
Gallaher s study shows that low-fiber diets rich in beef tallow (20 ) decreases BA concentration in the colon and do not increase colon %
carcinogenesis in rats ( ). In human volunteers too, a high-fat diet (53 compared with 14 energy) does not change BA concentration in42 % %
stools, although it increases colonic nuclear aberration ( ). Thus, although populations consuming higher amounts of fat have higher levels of43
BA, the difference do not show up clearly in case-control studies and in experimental interventions ( ).30
Fat intake has been suggested in the past as a major factor that could explain the link between CRC and meat intake. However,
experimental studies reported above are not consistent, and recent epidemiologic studies failed to confirm previous reports: Red and processed
meat intake, but not fat intake, remains a major risk factor for CRC ( , ). High-fat diets are high-calorie diets, and the balance between3 29
energy intake and physical activity is still considered a major risk factor.
Kumar et al. attempted to disentangle the effect of fat and calories, with a pair-feeding design ( ). Each rat was given each day a weighed44
meal, lighter than the ad libitum intake, so that control and treated rats got the same amount of calories. In rats fed ad libitum, a high fat diet
promotes colon tumor compared to a low fat diet (85 vs. 56 incidence, p<0.05). In 20 calorie-restricted pair-fed rats, the high fat diet also% %
increased tumor yield compared with low fat diet, but the effect was no longer significant (56 vs. 41 incidence). This study suggests that both%
fat and calories are promoting factors ( ). It is thus possible that fatty processed meat increases CRC risk because it brings too much energy to44
the customer as reported in the last section 6-iv.
Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
HCAs and PAHs are formed during the cooking of meat. HCAs are formed by pyrolysis of creati(ni)ne with specific amino-acids. Since a
high temperature is needed, only fried, broiled, or barbecued meat contains significant amounts of HCAs ( ). Various HCAs are formed45
according to the type of meat, the heating temperature, and the chemical environment (e.g., water, oil, onion). Processed meat from pork does
not contain a particularly large amount of HCAs compared with pan-fried beef and chicken ( ). Most abundant HCAs in meat are46
2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo 4,5-f quinoxaline (MeIQx), 2-amino-3,4,9-trimethylimidazo 4,5-f quinoxaline (DiMeIQx), and[ ] [ ]
2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo 4,5-b pyridine (PhIP) ( ).[ ] 45
In contrast with HCAs, PAHs are produced from the incomplete combustion of organic compounds. Many tested PAHs, like benzo a[ ]
pyrene (BaP), are mutagens and animal carcinogens. The main sources of PAHs for humans are cooked and smoked meat and fish, notably
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
barbecued meat, and tobacco smoke ( ). Furthermore, nitrosation of HCAs such as MeIQx or IQ has been proposed as a mechanism by which47
well-done red meat consumption and inflammation can initiate colon cancer under inflammatory conditions, such as colitis. This mechanism is
potentiated by heme ( ).48
Epidemiology suggests that cooking methods and doneness of meat are related to CRC risk, higher temperature leading to higher risk. A
1991 Swedish case-control study showed that frequent consumption of fried meat with a heavily browned surface led to 3-fold increase in CRC
risk ( ). Since 1991, some twenty similar analytical studies have been published. Briefly, most studies, but not all, confirm the Swedish49
findings: the intake of grilled, fried, barbecued and/or well-done red meat is more related to CRC risk than the intake of total red meat (OR
comprised between 1.3 and 4). Some studies specifically addressed the effect of metabolic phenotype on the response to well-done meat intake
( ). The association of PAH intake and adenoma risk was recently studied in two case-control studies by the same team. Barbecued meat and50
PAH intake, but not broiled meat or HCA intake, was strongly related to the risk of bearing an adenoma ( , ).51 52
Experimental studies of HCAs started with Sugimura s discovery that cooked fish extract contains potent mutagens. HCAs were shown
later to be complete carcinogens, and to induce colon, mammary and prostate tumors in rodents and in monkeys ( ). However, carcinogenic53
doses in rodents are 1000 100,000 times higher than those that are found in cooked meat ( , ). Only one publication reports the effect of 54 55
well cooked beef diet, with a high HCA content (measured by HPLC). This cooked meat promotes CRC in DMH-initiated rats in a low-fat diet
context, but surprisingly not in high-fat diet context ( ). Based on ancient carcinogenicity studies, PAHs and BaP were supposed not to induce56
CRC in animals, but showed that BaP can induce ACF in the colon of mice (not of rats) ( ). reportedTudek et al (1989) 57 O Neill et al. (1991)
that BaP gavages induce colonic nuclear aberrations in mice fed a human diet ( ). In humans, BaP forms DNA adducts, evidenced by HPLC58
with fluorescence detection, in colonic mucosa of humans ( ).59
To sum up, traces of HCAs and PAHs are present the daily diet of meat-eaters, but not specifically in processed meat. They are proven
carcinogens, and may lead to colonic tumors. We however believe that HACs are not major determinant of CRC in humans, based on the
following facts:
Chicken meat is a major contributor of HCA intake, but its consumption is not associated with CRC risk in epidemiologic studies ( , , )5 6 8
The dose of HCAs that leads to CRC in rodents and in monkeys is 1000 to 100,000 times higher than human exposure through cooked
meat ( , ).54 55
Colon cancer risk in humans is more related with cooking methods than with HCA intake ( , ).60 61
However, HCA metabolism is different in rats and in humans, and specific human genotypes (e.g., rapid NAT2 and CYP1A2) are at a high
risk for CRC. Recent case-control studies suggest that PAHs may be better candidates than HCAs, to explain that overcooked meat is a CRC
risk factor, but data on PAHs are insufficient to conclude.
Nitrite and N-Nitroso Compounds (NOCs)
NOCs, which are alkylating agents that can react with DNA, are produced by the reaction of nitrite and nitrogen oxides with secondary
amines and N-alkylamides. Many NOCs, including nitrosamines and nitrosamides, are carcinogenic in laboratory animals. Humans can be
exposed to NOCs by exogenous routes from certain processed meats (e;g., grilled bacon), smoked fish, cheeses or beers ( ). In acidic62
conditions such as those found in processing procedures of meat, dinitrogen-, tri-, and tetraoxides can form and these are nitrosating agents. In
a large-scale Finland cohort, N-nitrosodimethylamine intake from smoked and salted fish, and cured meat, was associated with CRC risk (RR=
2.12, CI:1.04 4.33), but nitrite intake was not related to risk ( ). Humans can also be exposed to NOCs by endogenous routes, and a high-red 63
meat diet leads to the endogenous synthesis of NOCs in volunteers ( ). Decarboxylation of amino acids by gut bacteria yields amines and64
amides that can be N-nitrosated in the large bowel ( ). Heme from meat strikingly increases NOC formation ( ), even in the absence of65 66
colonic flora in the upper gastrointestinal tract ( ). Ascorbic acid is often added to processed meat, as an antioxidant additive. Since it67
prevents nitrosation, it may reduce the formation of NOCs in foods and in the digestive tract ( ).68
Animal studies showed that processed meat intake leads to fecal excretion of NOCs, but without any evidence of initiation or promotion of
ACF. Parnaud et al. showed in three independent studies that grilled bacon-fed rats excrete 10 to 20 times more NOCs in feces than do controls
(9 22 vs 0.5 1.4 nmol NOC/g feces), a difference mostly due to NOC intake. In contrast with human studies, rats fed a diet based on pork or
beef meat had less fecal NOCs than controls. However, in bacon-fed rats, these NOCs did not initiate ACF at 45 days, nor did they promote
ACF at 100 days after an AOMinjection ( ). Mirvish et al. showed that hot dogs contain 10 times more NOCs than fresh red meat. Both meats69
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
also contained one thousand times more NOC precursors than NOCs ( ). Mice given a hot-dog diet (18 ) had 4 5 times, and beef-meat fed70 %
mice 2 3 times, more NOCs in feces than no-meat fed controls ( ). Mirvish and coll. are still working to find the precise nature of NOC 71
precursors in hot dogs, a major one being 1-deoxy-N-1-glucosyl glycine, and if these NOCs are mutagenic on bacteria ( ).72
Human studies showed that dietary beef meat, but not poultry, strikingly increases NOC excretion in feces. Bingham et al. evidenced a
three-fold increase in fecal NOCs in volunteers who consumed diets high fresh red meat diet (600 g/day, compared with 60 g/d in controls) (64
). They also showed the formation of DNA adduct O6-carboxymethyl guanine in colonic exfoliated cells or meat-fed volunteers ( ). This73
NOC-specific alkylating DNA adducts suggest that increased endogenous production of NOCs may be relevant to the etiology of CRC. The
same team showed that NOC production depends on the quantity of dietary red meat, and that the amount of NOCs increases 30-times during
the transit between mouth and feces ( ). White meat intake does not yield NOCs, and fibers or vegetables intake does not counteract red meat74
production of NOCs in volunteers ( ). Cross et al. showed that dietary heme, not protein or inorganic iron, is responsible for endogenous75
intestinal N-nitrosation arising from red meat ( ). Heme from fresh red meat or from processed meat (240 g/d each) given to ileostomists led66
to a 4-fold or 6.5-fold increase in the amount of endogenous NOCs excreted in the ileostomy output, respectively. Heme thus facilitates the
formation of NOCs in the absence of colonic flora in the upper gastrointestinal tract. From in vitro evidence, authors suggest that
nitrosyl-hemoglobin is the major nitrosating agent in the digestive tract ( ).67
In conclusion, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, ingested nitrite under conditions that result in endogenous
nitrosation is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A (IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2007, 94: in the press). NOCs are present
in some processed meat, and are formed endogenously after red and processed meat consumption. Heme is a major determinant of NOC
formation, and nitrite also contributes to NOC yield. Although many tested NOCs induce cancer in rodents, and NOC-adducts are found on
volunteers colonic DNA, it is not yet clear whether red and processed meat-induced NOCs are colon carcinogens.
Heme
Heme (UK, haem) consists of an iron atom contained in the center of a large heterocyclic organic ring called a porphyrin. Heme is included
in muscles myoglobin, in red blood cells hemoglobin, and in cytochromes. Blood sausage and liver pat are particularly rich in heme, followedé
by dark red meat products, but chicken meat contains little heme. Two prospective cohort studies recently found that a high intake of heme iron
was associated with a higher risk of CRC. The relative risk was 2.18 (CI: 1.24 3.86) in the Iowa Women s Heath Study cohort ( ), and 1.31 76
(CI: 0.98 1.75) in the Swedish Mammography Cohort ( ). In this cohort, a significant RR of 1.26 (CI: 1.02 1.55) was associated with the 77
consumption of two servings of blood sausage per month ( ). Three mechanisms may explain heme promotion of carcinogenesis: (i) heme is77
metabolized in the gut into a cytotoxic and promoting factor ( ); (ii) heme induces peroxydation of fat in foods and in the gut, and the78
lipoperoxides would promote CRC ( ); (iii) heme catalyzes the endogenous N-nitrosation, which increases the formation of NOCs, as79
reported above ( ), and the activation of HCAs ( ).66 48
In rats fed a low-calcium diet, Sesink ( ) showed that dietary hemin increases epithelial proliferation in the colonic mucosa, andet al. 78
induces cytotoxicity of fecal water. Hemin, a free heme ring stabilized by a chlorine atom, was fed to the rats for 14 days. Hyperproliferation
may be considered as a compensation for the cytotoxicity ( ). This effect was shown repeatedly and dietary calcium and chlorophyll could78
block the hemin effect. Hemin-fed rats excrete much less host DNA in feces than controls, which suggests that hemin decreased cell
differentiation and exfoliation of colonocytes in the gut lumen ( ). However, the above cited studies have all been conducted with hemin, not80
with food heme, and the speculated heme-based cytotoxic factor has not yet been identified.
In azoxymethane (AOM)-initiated rats given a low-calcium diet, dietary hemin and hemoglobin promote dose-dependently the growth of
colon AFC ( ). Meat-based diets also promote ACF and mucin depleted foci (MDF) in rats: MDF promotion by the high-heme blood sausage81
diet was greater than that by the medium-heme beef diet, but low-heme chicken diet did not promote MDF ( ). The high-heme meat diets also82
increases the formation of lipoperoxides as malondialdehyde in the gut lumen ( ), and the excretion of a lipoperoxydation biomarker,82
1,4-dihydroxynonane mercapturic acid, in the urine of rats. The same marker is found in the urine of blood sausage-fed volunteers ( ). Also, a83
DNA adduct derived from lipid peroxidation, malondialdehyde-deoxyguanosine, is found in higher levels in the cells shedded in fecal stream
from adenoma patients than from controls ( ). In vitro, hemin and hemoglobin are toxic and genotoxic in colonic cell line HT29 and in84
primary culture of human colonocytes. Mechanisms would imply the uptake of iron by cells, followed by free radicals oxidative stress ( ).85
The hypothesis that heme explains the link between meat intake and CRC risk is consistent with epidemiologic studies: red meat, not white
meat, intake is related to the risk. However, most processed meat products are of porcine origin and contain less heme iron than beef meat.
What would explain that processed meat is associated with higher risk than fresh meat? We suggest that heme form in food makes a difference.
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
As reported above, in raw cured meat the myoglobin heme is nitrosylated. Further cooking releases nitrosylheme from myoglobin ( , ). We9 10
speculate that, like hemin, free nitrosylheme could be more toxic than fresh meat myoglobin. Indeed, it shows weak mutagenic activity in the
Ames test ( ), but its promoting effect remains to be tested in vivo.86
Unlikely Hypotheses: Protein, Salt, Cholesterol
Proteins
The evidence of CRC promotion is much weaker for high-protein diets than for high-fat diets ( ), and epidemiology studies do not87
suggest that protein intake is a risk factor. However several mechanisms might explain CRC promotion by high protein diets. A high protein
diet, or digestion-resistant proteins, leads to more protein entering the colon and being fermented by the gut microflora ( ). Protein65
fermentation products, like ammonia, phenols and p-cresol, show some promoting properties, possibly because of their toxicity to the mucosa.
They disturb cellular metabolism and DNA synthesis, reduce cell life span and enhance cell turn-over ( ). One study indeed highlights the88
promoter effect of ammonia in rodents but it is difficult to conclude definitively in humans due to difficulties in exposure assessment ( ). In89
addition methionine, an amino-acid abundant in meat products, and polyamines, deriving from amino-acids, can directly promote experimental
carcinogenesis ( ). Few studies addressed the effect of the level of dietary proteins on colon carcinogenesis. High-beef protein and high90
soybean protein diets significantly increase the incidence of DMH-induced tumors in F344 rats compared with medium-protein control diets (
). In contrast, no difference in aberrant crypt foci (ACF, preneoplastic lesions) yield was seen between rats fed diets containing 8, 16 or 3232 %
barbecued kangaroo meat after azoxymethane injections ( ). Eleven studies have tested the hypothesis that meat proteins can promote91
carcinogenesis in rodents, compared with milk or soybean proteins. Results from these studies do not show a specific tumor promotion by
meat. In contrast, as reviewed in two previous articles, the incidence of tumors was lower in meat fed rodents than in casein or soybean fed
controls ( , ).82 92
The level and the nature of dietary proteins do not seem to be major determinants of carcinogenesis, and proteins from meat do not promote
experimental carcinogenesis. In contrast, proteins that are slowly or not digested can promote carcinogenesis, as shown with overcooked casein
and with potato proteins ( , ). We have no evidence that processed meat products contain such resistant proteins, but this could be studied88 93
in the future.
Cholesterol Oxidation Products
Long-time storage, fermentation, and/or frying of fatty meat products in the presence of oxygen yield cholesterol oxidation products, a
phenomenon inhibited by nitrite addition ( ). Dietary cholesterol is not related to CRC risk, and high blood cholesterol is associated with94
decreased CRC risk. Also, a cholesterol enriched diet decreases the formation of ACF in AOM-initiated mice ( ). In contrast, the inclusion of95
oxidized cholesterol in diet increases the formation of AOM-induced ACF in mice ( ). However, although plasma 7b-hydroxycholesterol has96
been associated with lung cancer risk in a case control study cited by ( ), few studies were done on the hypothesis that oxysterols might 12
induce or promote CRC, and the evidence is weak. Since most processed meats contain nitrite that inhibits cholesterol oxidation, it is unlikely
that oxysterols are the cause of processed meat effect on CRC.
Salt
Processed meat contains much more salt than red meat, with NaCl concentrations ranging from 1 to 10 . Salty diets and salted foods have%
consistently been related to stomach cancers, particularly in Japan ( ), but no link has been published between salt intake and CRC. In97
contrast, in rats, a NaCl enriched-diet reduces the number of ACF in AOM-initiated rats ( , ), likely because water intake is more than98 99
doubled in salty diet-fed rats.
6- Indirect Mechanisms: Less Vegetables, More Calories
Individuals who eat more processed meat than average often tend (i) to eat less fruits and vegetables, (ii) to drink more alcoholic beverages,
(iii) to smoke more tobacco and (iv) to eat more calories, more fat and be more obese and less active, than those who do not eat processed meat
( , ).2022 25
There is limited evidence for a CRC-preventive effect of the consumption of fruits and vegetables ( , ), although large-scale2 100
intervention studies did not point to a protective effect ( , , ).3 101 102
Alcohol intake is associated with a small increase in risk of colorectal cancer ( ).2
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
Cigarette smoking is a putative environmental risk factor for colon cancer. In Giovannucci s review ( ), the average relative risk of 101
colorectal adenoma is three-fold higher for people who smoked for more than 30 years and with high intensity (20 40 cigarettes/day). PAHs
and HCAs are formed when tobacco is burning, and swallowed by the smoker.
High-fat diets are high-calorie diets, and excess caloric intake is consistently reported as a major CRC risk factor ( , ). In the13 29
large-scale EPIC cohort, abdominal obesity (waist-to-hip ratio) is a risk factor ( ), but physical activity reduces the risk ( ). In rodents,103 104
caloric reduction consistently reduces cancer yield ( ). The mechanistic link could be that excess calories induces insulin resistance and high105
blood glucose, free fatty acids, insulin, and IGF1 which promote tumor growth as speculated first in 1994 ( ). The high levels of circulating106
nutrients and growth factors result in increased proliferation, less apoptosis, activated PPARs, more oxidative stress and chronic inflammation (
, ). It is thus possible that fatty processed meat increases CRC risk because it provides too much energy to the sedentary customer.107 108
General Conclusion
The fact that processed meat intake increases colorectal cancer risk seems established from the published meta-analyses of epidemiologic
studies. The evidence is weak, however, since the RRs were all less than 2, and observational studies never fully avoid biases and confounders.
The excess risk in the highest category of processed meat-eaters is comprised between 20 and 50 compared with non-eaters, which is modest%
compared with established risk factors like cigarette smoking for lung cancer (RR 20). However, the excess risk per gram of intake is clearly=
higher than that of fresh red meat.
Several hypotheses may explain the association of processed meat intake with CRC risk. From data reviewed above, the authors propose
that the most likely explanations for the excess risk in processed meat eaters are (i) heme-induced promoters and (ii) carcinogenic
N-nitroso-compounds. These toxic compounds are not specific to processed meat, but it is likely that nitrite curing enhances the toxicity: (i)
nitrite binds to the heme iron, and the nitrosylheme could yield more toxic lipoperoxides and/or cytotoxic agents than native myoglobin-bound
heme; (ii) nitrite curing leads to increased levels of N-nitrosated compounds in food and in the gut: Processed meat eaters are thus exposed to
larger NOC levels than fresh meat eaters.
Colorectal cancer is the first cause of cancer death among non-smokers in affluent countries, and the five-year survival (approx. 60 )%
improves too slowly with the advances in the treatment of the disease. CRC prevention is thus a major goal for public health. Today, prevention
is mostly based on dietary recommendations, notably the advice to reduce or to avoid processed meat consumption ( ). We think that the2
prevention strategy might be improved if the mechanisms of cancer promotion were better understood. We guess that non-toxic processed meat
could be produced, either by removing the potential toxic agent (e.g., removing nitrite to reduce NOC formation), or by adding a specific
inhibitor, e.g., calcium to block heme in the digestive tract (Pierre et al, 2007, Brit. J. Nutr., accepted manuscript). This would permit the
reduction of CRC load, without putting an end to the production and consumption of traditional, nutritional and enjoyable foods.
Ackowledgements:
The authors thank the help of Sidney Mirvish and of Jean-Luc Vandeuvre who carefully read the manuscript and proposed many changes to
improve the text.
References:
1. Cummings JH , Bingham SA Fortnightly review - diet and the prevention of cancer. British Medical Journal. 317: 1636- 1640 1998;
2.. WCRF WCRF Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. WCRF and American Institute for Cancer Research; Washington DC 1- 670 1997;
3. Willett WC Diet and cancer: an evolving picture. Jama. 293: 233- 4 2005;
4. Sandhu MS , White IR , Mcpherson K Systematic review of the prospective cohort studies on meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analytical approach. Cancer
Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 10: 439- 446 2001;
5. Norat T , Lukanova A , Ferrari P , Riboli E Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. International Journal of Cancer.
98: 241- 256 2002;
6. Larsson SC , Wolk A Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 119: 2657- 64 2006;
7. Linseisen J , Kesse E , Slimani N , Bueno-De-Mesquita HB , Ocke MC Meat consumption in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohorts:
results from 24-hour dietary recalls. Public Health Nutr. 5: 1243- 58 2002;
8. Sinha R , Cross A , Curtin J , Zimmerman T , McNutt S Development of a food frequency questionnaire module and databases for compounds in cooked and processed meats.
Mol Nutr Food Res. 49: 648- 55 2005;
9.. Pegg RB , Shahidi F Nitrite curing of meat: the N-nitrosamine problem and nitrite alternatives. The color of meat. Food & Nutrition PressInc, Trumbull, Connecticus 06611 USA
. 23- 66 2000;
10. Shahidi F , Pegg RB Novel synthesis of cooked cured-meat pigment. J Food Science. 5: 1205- 1208 1991;
11.. Jean-Blain M Les aliments d origine animale destin s l homme é à ’ . Vigot Fr res Editeurs, Parisè . 1- 573 1948;
12. Linseisen J , Rohrmann S , Norat T , Gonzalez CA , Dorronsoro Iraeta M Dietary intake of different types and characteristics of processed meat which might be associated with
cancer risk--results from the 24-hour diet recalls in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Public Health Nutr. 9: 449- 64 2006;
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
13. Volatier JL , Dufour A La place de la viande et des produits base de viande comme aliments-vecteurs dans les apports nutritionnels de la population fran aiseà ç . JSMTV, Journé
es Sciences du Muscle et Technologies des Viandes, 4 5 octobre 2006, Clermont-Ferrand . 11: 55- 60 2006;
14. Chao A , Thun MJ , Connell CJ , McCullough ML , Jacobs EJ Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. Jama. 293: 172- 82 2005;
15. Sinha R , Chow WH , Kulldorff M , Denobile J , Butler J Well-done, grilled red meat increases the risk of colorectal adenomas. Cancer Research. 59: 4320- 4324 1999;
16.. Ward MH , Cross AJ , Divan H , Kulldorff M , Nowell-Kadlubar S Processed meat intake, CYP2A6 activity, and risk of colorectal adenoma. Carcinogenesis. 2007;
17. Bingham S , Riboli E Diet and cancer - The European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Nature Reviews Cancer. 4: 206- 215 2004;
18. Norat T , Riboli E Meat consumption and colorectal cancer: a review of epidemiologic evidence. Nutrition Reviews. 59: 37- 47 2001;
19. Oba S , Shimizu N , Nagata C , Shimizu H , Kametani M The relationship between the consumption of meat, fat, and coffee and the risk of colon cancer: a prospective study in
Japan. Cancer Lett. 244: 260- 7 2006;
20. Fung T , Hu FB , Fuchs C , Giovannucci E , Hunter DJ Major dietary patterns and the risk of colorectal cancer in women. Archives of Internal Medicine. 163: 309- 314 2003;
21. Dixon LB , Balder HF , Virtanen MJ , Rashidkhani B , Mannisto S Dietary patterns associated with colon and rectal cancer: results from the Dietary Patterns and Cancer
(DIETSCAN) Project. Am J Clin Nutr. 80: 1003- 11 2004;
22. Kesse E , Clavel-Chapelon F , Boutron-Ruault MC Dietary patterns and risk of colorectal tumors: a cohort of French women of the National Education System (E3N). Am J
Epidemiol. 164: 1085- 93 2006;
23. Chiu BCH , Ji BT , Dai Q , Gridley G , Mclaughlin JK Dietary factors and risk of colon cancer in shanghai, china. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 12: 201-
208 2003;
24. Chiu BC , Gapstur SM Changes in diet during adult life and risk of colorectal adenomas. Nutr Cancer. 49: 49- 58 2004;
25. Nkondjock A , Ghadirian P Associated nutritional risk of breast and colon cancers: a population-based case-control study in Montreal, Canada. Cancer Lett. 223: 85- 91 2005;
26. Murtaugh MA , Ma KN , Sweeney C , Caan BJ , Slattery ML Meat consumption patterns and preparation, genetic variants of metabolic enzymes, and their association with
rectal cancer in men and women. Journal of Nutrition. 134: 776- 784 2004;
27. Kimura Y , Kono S , Toyomura K , Nagano J , Mizoue T Meat, fish and fat intake in relation to subsite-specific risk of colorectal cancer: The Fukuoka Colorectal Cancer Study.
Cancer Sci. 98: 590- 7 2007;
28. Hu J , Morrison H , Mery L , DesMeules M , Macleod M Diet and vitamin or mineral supplementation and risk of colon cancer by subsite in Canada. Eur J Cancer Prev. 16: 275
- 91 2007;
29. Willett WC Diet and cancer: one view at the start of the millenium. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 10: 3- 8 2001;
30. Bruce WR Recent hypotheses for the origin of colon cancer. Cancer Res. 47: 4237- 4242 1987;
31. Lapre JA , Devries HT , Koeman JH , Vandermeer R The antiproliferative effect of dietary calcium on colonic epithelium is mediated by luminal surfactants and dependent on
the type of dietary fat. Cancer Research. 53: 784- 789 1993;
32. Reddy BS , Narisawa T , Weisburger JH Effect of a diet with high levels of protein and fat on colon carcinogenesis in F344 rats treated with 1,2-dimethylhydrazine. J Natl
Cancer Int. 57: 567- 569 1976;
33. Bull AW , Soulier BK , Wilson PS , Hayden MT , Nigro ND Promotion of azoxymethane-induced intestinal cancer by high-fat diet in rats. Cancer research. 39: 4956- 4959
1979;
34. Pence BC , Butler MJ , Dunn DM , Miller MF , Zhao C Non-promoting effects of lean beef in the rat colon carcinogenesis model. Carcinogenesis. 16: 1157- 1160 1995;
35. Nauss KM , Locniskar M , Newberne PM Effect of alteration in the quality and quantity of dietary fat on DMH-induced colon tumorigenesis in rats. Cancer Research. 43: 4083-
4090 1983;
36. Nutter RL , Gridley DS , Kettering JD , Goude AG , Slater JM BALB/c mice fed milk or beef protein: differences in response to 1,2-dimethylhydrazine carcinogenesis. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 71: 867- 874 1983;
37. Clinton SK , Imrey PB , Mangian HJ , Nandkumar S , Visek WJ The Combined Effects of Dietary Fat, Protein, and Energy Intake on Azoxymethane-Induced Intestinal and
Renal Carcinogenesis. Cancer Research. 52: 857- 865 1992;
38. Sesink ALA , Termont DSML , Kleibeuker JH , Vandermeer R Red meat and colon cancer: dietary haem, but not fat, has cytotoxic and hyperproliferative effects on rat colonic
epithelium. Carcinogenesis. 21: 1909- 1915 2000;
39. Khil J , Gallaher DD Beef tallow increases apoptosis and decreases aberrant crypt foci formation relative to soybean oil in rat colon. Nutrition and Cancer-an International
Journal. 50: 55- 62 2004;
40. Zhao LP , Kushi LH , Klein RD , Prentice RL Quantitative Review of Studies of Dietary Fat and Rat Colon Carcinoma. Nutrition and Cancer-an International Journal. 15: 169-
177 1991;
41. Azuma N , Suda H , Iwasaki H , Yamagata N , Saeki T Antitumorigenic effects of several food proteins in a rat model with colon cancer and their reverse correlation with
plasma bile acid concentration. Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology. 46: 91- 96 2000;
42. Gallaher DD , Chen CL Beef tallow, but not corn bran or soybean polysaccharide, reduces large intestinal and fecal bile acid concentrations in rats. Nutrition and Cancer - an
International Journal. 23: 63- 75 1995;
43. Suzuki K , Suzuki K , Mitsuoka T Effect of Low-Fat, High-Fat, and Fiber-Supplemented High-Fat Diets on Colon Cancer Risk Factors in Feces of Healthy Subjects. Nutrition
and Cancer - an International Journal. 18: 63- 71 1992;
44. Kumar SP , Roy SJ , Tokumo K , Reddy BS Effect of different levels of caloric restriction on azoxymethane induced colon carcinogenesis in male F344 rats. Cancer Research.
50: 5761- 5766 1990;
45. Sinha R , Rothman N , Salmon CP , Knize MG , Brown ED Heterocyclic amine content in beef cooked by different methods to varying degrees of doneness and gravy made
from meat drippings. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 36: 279- 287 1998;
46. Sinha R , Knize MG , Salmon CP , Brown ED , Rhodes D Heterocyclic amine content of pork products cooked by different methods and to varying degrees of doneness. Food
Chem Toxicol. 36: 289- 97 1998;
47. Phillips DH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the diet. Mutat Res. 443: 139- 47 1999;
48. Lakshmi VM , Clapper ML , Chang WC , Zenser TV Hemin Potentiates Nitric Oxide-Mediated Nitrosation of 2-Amino-3-methylimidazo 4,5-f quinoline (IQ) to[ ]
2-Nitrosoamino-3-methylimidazo 4,5-f quinoline[ ] . Chem Res Toxicol. 18: 528- 535 2005;
49. Gerhardsson-DeVerdier MG , Hagman U , Peters RK , Steineck G , Overvik E Meat, cooking methods and colorectal cancer - A case-referent study in Stockholm. International
Journal of Cancer. 49: 520- 525 1991;
50. LeMarchand L , Hankin JH , Wilkens LR , Pierce LM , Franke A Combined effects of well-done red meat, smoking, and rapid N-acetyltransferase 2 and CYP1a2 phenotypes in
increasing colorectal cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 10: 1259- 1266 2001;
51. Sinha R , Kulldorff M , Gunter MJ , Strickland P , Rothman N Dietary benzo a pyrene intake and risk of colorectal adenoma[ ] . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 14: 2030- 4
2005;
52. Gunter MJ , Probst-Hensch NM , Cortessis VK , Kulldorff M , Haile RW Meat intake, cooking-related mutagens and risk of colorectal adenoma in a sigmoidoscopy-based
case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 26: 637- 42 2005;
53. Sugimura T , Wakabayashi K , Nakagama H , Nagao M Heterocyclic amines: Mutagens/carcinogens produced during cooking of meat and fish. Cancer Sci. 95: 290- 9 2004;
54. Schwabn CE , Huber WW , Parzefall W , Hietsch G , Kassie F Search for compoiunds that inhibit the genotoxic anc carcinogenic effects of heterocyclic aromatic amines. Crit
Rev Toxicol. 30: 1- 69 2000;
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
55. Stavric B Biological significance of trace levels of mutagenic heterocyclic aromatic amines in human diet: a critical review. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 32: 977- 994 1994;
56. Pence BC , Landers M , Dunn DM , Shen CL , Miller MF Feeding of a well-cooked beef diet containing a high heterocyclic amine content enhances colon and stomach
carcinogenesis in 1,2-dimethylhydrazine-treated rats. Nutrition and Cancer. 30: 220- 226 1998;
57. Tudek B , Bird RP , Bruce WR Foci of aberrant crypts in the colons of mice and rats exposed to carcinogens associated with foods. Cancer Research. 49: 1236- 1240 1989;
58. Oneill IK , Goldberg MT , Elghissassi F , Rojasmoreno M Dietary Fibre, Fat and Beef Modulation of Colonic Nuclear Aberrations and Microcapsule-Trapped Gastrointestinal
Metabolites of Benzo<a>pyrene-Treated C57/B6 Mice Consuming Human Diets. Carcinogenesis. 12: 175- 180 1991;
59. Alexandrov K , Rojas M , Kadlubar FF , Lang NP , Bartsch H Evidence of anti-benzo a pyrene diolepoxide-DNA adduct formation in human colon mucosa[ ] . Carcinogenesis. 17:
2081- 3 1996;
60.. Nowell S , Coles B Analysis of total meat intake and exposure to individual heterocyclic amines in a case-control study of colorectal cancer: contribution of metabolic variation
to risk. Mutation Research. 506 507 : 205- 214 2002;
61.. Sinha R An epidemiologic appreach to studying heterocyclic amines. Mutation Research. 506 507 : 197- 204 2002;
62. Lijinsky W N-nitroso compounds in the diet. Mutation Research. 443: 129- 138 1999;
63. Knekt P , Jarvinen R , Dich J , Hakulinen T Risk of colorectal and other gastro-intestinal cancers after exposure to nitrate, nitrite and n-nitroso compounds: a follow-up study.
International Journal of Cancer. 80: 852- 856 1999;
64. Bingham SA , Pignatelli B , Pollock JRA , Ellul A , Malaveille C Does increased endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds in the human colon explain the association
between red meat and colon cancer?. Carcinogenesis. 17: 515- 523 1996;
65.. Macfarlane GT , Cummings JH The Colonic Flora, Fermentation, and Large Bowel Digestive Function. Large Intestine: Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Disease. 51- 92 1991
;
66. Cross AJ , Pollock JRA , Bingham SA Haem, not protein or inorganic iron, is responsible for endogenous intestinal n-nitrosation arising from red meat. Cancer Research. 63:
2358- 2360 2003;
67.. Lunn JC , Kuhnle G , Mai V , Frankenfeld C , Shuker DE The effect of haem in red and processed meat on the endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds in the upper
gastrointestinal tract. Carcinogenesis. 2006;
68. Cross AJ , Sinha R Meat-related mutagens/carcinogens in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 44: 44- 55 2004;
69. Parnaud G , Pignatelli B , Peiffer G , Tache S , Corpet DE Endogenous N-nitroso compounds, and their precursors, present in bacon, do not initiate or promote aberrant crypt
foci in the colon of rats. Nutrition and Cancer. 38: 74- 80 2000;
70. Haorah J , Zhou L , Wang XJ , Xu GP , Mirvish SS Determination of total N-nitroso compounds and their precursors in frankfurters, fresh meat, dried salted fish, sauces,
tobacco, and tobacco smoke particulates. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 49: 6068- 6078 2001;
71. Mirvish SS , Haorah J , Zhou L , Hartman M , Morris CR N-nitroso compounds in the gastrointestinal tract of rats and in the feces of mice with induced colitis or fed hot dogs
or beef. Carcinogenesis. 24: 595- 603 2003;
72. Zhou L , Haorah J , Perini F , Carmella SG , Shibamoto T Partial purification from hot dogs of N-nitroso compound precursors and their mutagenicity after nitrosation. J Agric
Food Chem. 54: 5679- 87 2006;
73. Lewin MH , Bailey N , Bandaletova T , Bowman R , Cross AJ Red meat enhances the colonic formation of the DNA adduct O6-carboxymethyl guanine: implications for
colorectal cancer risk. Cancer Res. 66: 1859- 65 2006;
74. Hughes R , Cross AJ , Pollock JRA , Bingham S Dose-dependent effect of dietary meat on endogenous colonic n-nitrosation. Carcinogenesis. 22: 199- 202 2001;
75. Bingham SA , Hughes R , Cross AJ Effect of white versus red meat on endogenous N-nitrosation in the human colon and further evidence of a dose response. J Nutr. 132:
3522S- 3525S 2002;
76. Lee DH , Anderson KE , Harnack LJ , Folsom AR , Jacobs DR Jr Heme iron, zinc, alcohol consumption, and colon cancer: Iowa Women s Health Study . J Natl Cancer Inst. 96:
403- 7 2004;
77. 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: 829- 34 2005;
78. Sesink ALA , Termont DSML , Kleibeuker JH , Vandermeer R Red meat and colon cancer: the cytotoxic and hyperproliferative effects of dietary heme. Cancer Research. 59:
5704- 5709 1999;
79. Sawa T , Akaike T , Kida K , Fukushima Y , Takagi K Lipid peroxyl radicals from oxidized oils and heme-iron: implication of a high-fat diet in colon carcinogenesis. Cancer
Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 7: 1007- 1012 1998;
80. Van Lieshout EMM , Van Doesburg W , Van der Meer R Real-time PCR of host DNA in feces to study differential exfoliation of colonocytes between rats and humans.
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. 39: 852- 857 2004;
81. Pierre F , Tache S , Petit CR , Van der Meer R , Corpet DE Meat and cancer: haemoglobin and haemin in a low-calcium diet promote colorectal carcinogenesis at the aberrant
crypt stage in rats. Carcinogenesis. 24: 1683- 90 2003;
82. 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. Journal of Nutrition. 134: 2711- 2716 2004;
83. Pierre F , Peiro G , Tache S , Cross AJ , Bingham SA New marker of colon cancer risk associated with heme intake: 1,4-dihydroxynonane mercapturic Acid. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev. 15: 2274- 9 2006;
84. Leuratti C , Watson MA , Deag EJ , Welch A , Singh R Detection of malondialdehyde DNA adducts in human colorectal mucosa: relationship with diet and the presence of
adenomas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 11: 267- 73 2002;
85. Glei M , Klenow S , Sauer J , Wegewitz U , Richter K Hemoglobin and hemin induce DNA damage in human colon tumor cells HT29 clone 19A and in primary human
colonocytes. Mutat Res. 594: 162- 71 2006;
86. Stevanovic M , Cadez P , Zlender B , Filipic M Genotoxicity testing of cooked cured meat pigment (CCMP) and meat emulsion coagulates prepared with CCMP. J Food Prot.
63: 945- 52 2000;
87. Visek WJ , Clinton SK Dietary Protein and Cancer. Cancer and Nutrition. 7: 103- 124 1991;
88. Corpet DE , Yin Y , Zhang XM , Remesy C , Stamp D Colonic protein fermentation and promotion of colon carcinogenesis by thermolyzed casein. Nutrition and Cancer - an
International Journal. 23: 271- 281 1995;
89. Clinton SK , Bostwick DG , Olson LM , Mangian HJ , Visek WJ Effect of ammonium acetate and sodium cholate on n-methyl-n -nitro-n-nitrosoguanidine induced colon
carcinogenesis of rats. Cancer research. 48: 3035- 3039 1988;
90. Duranton B , Freund JN , Galluser M , Schleiffer R , Gosse F Promotion of intestinal carcinogenesis by dietary methionine. Carcinogenesis. 20: 493- 497 1999;
91. Belobrajdic DP , Mcintosh GH , Owens JA Whey proteins protect more than red meat against azoxymethane induced ACF in wistar rats. Cancer Letters. 198: 43- 51 2003;
92. Parnaud G , Corpet DE Colorectal cancer: controversial role of meat consumption. Bulletin du Cancer. 84: 899- 911 1997;
93. Le Leu RK , Brown IL , Hu Y , Morita T , Esterman A Effect of dietary resistant starch and protein on colonic fermentation and intestinal tumourigenesis in rats. Carcinogenesis
. 28: 240- 5 2007;
94. Osada K , Hoshina S , Nakamura S , Sugano M Cholesterol oxidation in meat products and its regulation by supplementation of sodium nitrite and apple polyphenol before
processing. J Agric Food Chem. 48: 3823- 9 2000;
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
95. ElSohemy A , Kendall CWC , Rao AV , Archer MC , Bruce WR Dietary cholesterol inhibits the development of aberrant crypt foci in the colon. Nutrition and Cancer. 25: 111-
117 1996;
96. Kendall CW , Koo M , Sokoloff E , Rao AV Effect of dietary oxidized cholesterol on azoxymethane-induced colonic preneoplasia in mice. Cancer Letters. 66: 241- 248 1992;
97. Tsugane S Salt, salted food intake, and risk of gastric cancer: epidemiologic evidence. Cancer Sci. 96: 1- 6 2005;
98. Parnaud G , Peiffer G , Tache S , Corpet DE Effect of meat (beef, chicken, and bacon) on rat colon carcinogenesis. Nutrition and Cancer. 32: 165- 173 1998;
99. Masaoka Y , Watanabe H , Katoh O , Ito A , Dohi K Effects of miso and NaCl on the development of colonic aberrant crypt foci induced by azoxymethane in F344 rats.
Nutrition and Cancer. 32: 25- 28 1998;
100. Vainio H , Weiderpass E Fruit and vegetables in cancer prevention. Nutr Cancer. 54: 111- 42 2006;
101. Beresford SA , Johnson KC , Ritenbaugh C , Lasser NL , Snetselaar LG Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of colorectal cancer: the Women s Health Initiative Randomized
Controlled Dietary Modification Trial. Jama. 295: 643- 54 2006;
102. Schatzkin A , Lanza E , Corle D , Lance P , Iber F Lack of effect of a low-fat, high-fiber diet on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. New England Journal of Medicine. 342
: 1149- 1155 2000;
103. Pischon T , Lahmann PH , Boeing H , Friedenreich C , Norat T Body size and risk of colon and rectal cancer in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and
Nutrition (EPIC). J Natl Cancer Inst. 98: 920- 31 2006;
104. Friedenreich C , Norat T , Steindorf K , Boutron-Ruault MC , Pischon T Physical activity and risk of colon and rectal cancers: the European prospective investigation into
cancer and nutrition. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 15: 2398- 407 2006;
105. Lutz WK Carcinogens in the diet vs. overnutrition - individual dietary habits, malnutrition, and genetic susceptibility modify carcinogenic potency and cancer risk. Mutation
Research. 443: 251- 258 1999;
106. McKeown-Eyssen G Epidemiology of colorectal cancer revisited: are serum triglycerides and/or plasma glucose associated with risk?. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers &
Prevention. 3: 687- 695 1994;
107. Bruce WR , Giacca A , Medline A Possible mechanisms relating diet and risk of colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 9: 1271- 1279 2000;
108. Gunter MJ , Leitzmann MF Obesity and colorectal cancer: epidemiology, mechanisms and candidate genes. J Nutr Biochem. 17: 145- 56 2006;
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
Table 1
Excess risk of CRC associated with the intake of fresh red meat and of processed meat in three dose-response meta-analyses of analytical studies
First Author, Year, Ref. of
Meta-Analysis
Number & Type of
Studies
Publication Year of
Studies
Fresh red Meat
RR
Processed Meat
RR
Meat portion
(g/d)
Excess Risk per
100 g
Ratio of RR/g Processed/Fresh Red
meat
Larsson 2006 (6) 18 cohorts
1966 2006
1.22 1.09 120
30
+0.18
0.30+
1.64
Norat 2002 (5)
18 case-contr. 6+
cohorts
1973 1999
1.24 1.36 120
30
+0.20
1.20+
6.00
Sandhu 2001 (4) 13 cohorts
1980 1999
1.17 1.49 100
25
+0.17
1.96+
11.53
Table 2
Prospective studies published between 2003 and 2006, on the association between processed meat intake and colorectal cancer risk.
Author Publication
Year Localisation Number of participants
Study
Years Type of meat
Adjusted Relative
Risk
95 confidence%
interval End-point
Oba et al., 2006 Japan 13,894 men
1992
2000
Processed meat: ham, sausage, bacon, yakibuta 1.98
1.24 3.16
Colon cancer
16,327 women 0.85
0.5 1.43
Dixon et al., 2004 Europe Re-analysis (ATBC, NLC and
SMC)
1985
1992
Pork, Processed meat AND Potatoes 1.62
1.12 2.34
Colon cancer
Fung et al., 2003 USA
76,402 women (Nurses
Health Study)
Several
years
Western pattern (red/processed meat, sweets, desserts, French fries,
refined grains)
1.46
0.97 2.19
Colorectal
cancers
Kisser et al., 2006 France
67,312 women (Epic s French
cohort)
1993
2000
Western pattern (processed meat, potatoes, pizzas, pies, sweets, cakes,
cheese, eggs, butter)
1.39
1.0 1.94
Colorectal
cancer
Drinker Pattern (sandwiches, snacks, processed meat, alcoholic
beverages)
1.42
1.1 1.83
Table 3
Case-control studies published between 2003 and 2007, on the relationship between processed meat intake and colorectal cancer risk.
Name Localisation Number Case/Control Date Type of meat Odd Ratio
95 confidence interval%
End point
Chiu et al., 03 China 931/1552
1990 1993
Preserved foods 2.0b
2.7a
1.5 2.9
1.9 3.8
Colon cancer
Chiu et al., 2004 USA 146/226
1994 1996
Processed meat 1.4 age 30
1.6 recent
0.7 2.5
0.9 3.1
Colorectal cancer
Nkondjock et al., 2004 Canada 202/429
1989 1993 Pork processed meat pattern (processed meat, pork and white bran)
1.6
0.9 2.85
Colon cancer
Murtaugh et al., 2004 US 952/1205
1997 2002
Processed meat 1.23b
1.18a
0.85 1.7
0.87 1.61
Rectal cancer
Kimura et al., 2007 Japan 782/793
2000 2003
Processed meat 1.15
0.83 1.6
Colorectal adenocarcinom a
Hu et al., 2007 Canada 1695/3097
1994 1997
Processed meat 1.6b
1.5a
1.4b
1.5a
1.0 2.4
1.0 2.3
1.0 2.0
1.0 2.2
Proximal colon cancer
Distal colon cancer
a RR in men,
b RR in women
hal-00334544, version 1 - 27 Oct 2008
... Acetic acid and its related salts are widely used as acidulants and antimicrobials [8]. Several epidemiologic studies have indicated associations between consumption of raw red and processed meats and increased risk of colorectal, Stomach and Pancreatic cancers [9][10][11], cardiovascular diseases and other causes of death [12]. The association was stronger for high consumption of processed than red meat in these studies. ...
... Consumption of red meat and processed meat has been associated with increased risk of stomach cancer [10], Pancreatic cancer [11] and colorectal cancer [9] besides an increase risk cardiovascular disease and other causes of death [12]. The latter authors have estimated that consumption of more than 20g of processed meat per day increases the mortality rate. ...
Article
Full-text available
Strict application of the international standards requirements for food processing plants is deemed essential for public health and food trade. This is a cross-sectional analytic study that investigates the presence of pathogenies in raw beef (RB) from local slaughterhouses and in beef products (BP) from local meat processing plants (MPPs) in Khartoum state and their conformity to both requirements of national and international standards to ensure their safety. Additionally, determination of nitrite residual levels and nitrosamines content in processed meat products. A total of 140 raw and processed beef samples were examined from four MPPs. The BP samples are; beef burger, hotdog, mortadella, frankfurter, pasterma, sausage, and salami. The results showed frequencies bacterial isolates in RB were belonged to twenty-three genera as follows: Staphylococcus aureus (65%), Aerococcus spp (62.5%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (42.5%), Pasteurella multocida (42.5%), Micrococcus spp (40%), Salmonella spp (40%), E. coli (35%), Proteus vulgaris (32.5%), Acinetobacter spp (30%), Bordetella parapertucis (27.5%), Kurthia spp (22.5%), Streptococcus spp (22.5%), Corynebacterium ovis (17.5%), Listeria monocytogenes (17.5%.), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (15%), Bacillus cereus (12.5%), Sterptobacillus spp (12.5%), Haemophilus spp (7.5%), Rothia spp (7.5%), Nocardia asteroids (7.5%), Aeromonas spp (2.5%) Alcaligenes faecalis (2.5%), and Hafnia.alvei (2.5%). While, the BP samples revealed presence of S. aureus (82.5%), P. vulgaris (45%), E. coli (32.5%), B. cereus (32.5%), L. monocytogenes (7.5%), and P. aeruginosa (2.5%). The levels of residual nitrite ranged (0.00 – 0.99), (1.00 – 1.99), (2.00 – 2.99), (3.00 – 3.99), (4.00– 4.99), (5.00 – 5.99), (6.00 – 6.99), and (7.00->) mg/kg. in 49, 25, 13, 6, 2, 3, 1, and 1% of BP, respectively. Moreover, the detection of nine volatile N-nitrosamine compounds which are classified by IARC as probably carcinogenic to humans in PB samples exhibited concentration levels of N-nitrosodin-butylamine (0.41-91µgkg), N-nitrosodi-ethylamine(9-182µg/kg), N-nitrosodi-methylamine, (1.4-250µg/kg), N-nitrosodi-phenylam-ine (0.7-109µg/kg), N-nitrosodin-propylamine (5-250µg/kg), N-nitroso-methylethylamine (33-191µg/kg), N-nitroso-morpholine (2.4-305µg/kg), N-nitroso-piperidine (25.4-432µg/kg), N-nitroso-pyrrolidine (29-1033µg/kg). The findings revealed that RB has high pathogens load, a situation which necessitates improvement of hygiene in the slaughterhouses as well as, the nitrosamines contents in the BP were in compliance with the regulations of the European Union and FAO/WHO.
... Red meat presents a bowel cancer risk due to the presence of haem iron and the formation of additional compounds during cooking. Whilst exceptions do exist, processed red meat presents an increased risk due to the presence of additional carcinogenic compounds, the high fat content and often high cooking temperatures compared to non-processed products [13]. A comprehensive meta-analysis by the World Cancer Research Forum (WCRF) concluded that "consumption of processed red meat is a convincing cause of colorectal cancer" and "consumption of red meat is probably a cause of colorectal cance". ...
... To best follow this definition, and in accordance with other studies (e.g. [13,36],), we classify sausages and burgers as processed meat products. Unprocessed red meat refers to all types of meat from mammals, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse and goat. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background There are a range of policies and guidelines focused on meat consumption which aim to tackle health and environmental issues. Policies are often siloed in nature and propose universal limits on consumption. Despite this, there will be a number of conflicts and trade-offs between interest groups. This study explores secondary impacts associated with guidelines issued by the World Cancer Research Fund and assesses the utility of a targeted policy intervention strategy for reducing red meat consumption. Methods We used highly detailed consumption data of over 5,000 individuals from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey. We firstly compared individual consumption against the policy guidelines to identify demographic groups most likely to consume above recommended levels. We then synthetically modified the food diary data to investigate the secondary impacts of adherence to the recommendations by all individuals. We assessed changes in overall consumption, nutrient intake (iron, zinc, vitamin B12, vitamin B3, fat and saturated fat) and global warming potential. We also projected future impacts under various population projections. Results We found that certain demographic groups are much more likely to exceed the recommendations and would therefore benefit from a targeted intervention approach. Our results provide a baseline for which the impacts of any meat substitute diets can be assessed against. Whilst secondary health benefits may be realised by reducing intake of certain nutrients (e.g. fats), negative impacts may occur due to the reduced intake of other nutrients (e.g. iron, zinc). Reduced overall consumption is likely to have implications for the wider meat industry whilst complementary impacts would occur in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts will be counteracted or maybe even reversed by any substitute products, highlighting the need to carefully consider the suitability and impacts of meat-replacements. Conclusion The future structure of the meat industry will depend on how conflicts and trade-offs are addressed and how more holistic policy ideas are implemented. This research provides a framework for using demographic and consumption data to reduce negative trade-offs and improve policy effectiveness.
... Impacts of red meat (beef, lamb and etc.) and processed meat (Jambon, sausage and etc.) have been studied in many epidemiologic studies and link the acceleration in colorectal cancer or adenoma with higher intake of red meat and processed meat. [23,24] Moreover, reviewal papers and meta-analyses indicate that consuming calcium, vitamin D, and B6 can have a protective effect on colorectal adenoma generation and lowers the CRC risk. Daily physical activity not only maintains healthy body weight but also increases bowel movements, and to some extent related to the reduction in belly fat and significantly reduces colorectal cancer. ...
Article
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer among adults in Iran. The aim of colorectal cancer screening is to reduce the cancer burden in the population by diagnosing the disease in its early stages. Methods: We adapted this guideline for the moderate CRC risk population for Isfahan to determine how to screen them and when to start and end the CRC screening. This guideline was developed by clinical appraisal and review of the evidence, available clinical guidelines, and in consultation with members of the Isfahan Chamber of Iranian association of gastroenterology and hepatology. Results: In screening people with average risk for CRC who use personal resources and personally pay all the costs, colonoscopy is recommended as the first choice to be done every 10 years. In case of negative colonoscopy, we recommend FIT test to prevention of interval cancer every 5 years. In screening of people with average risk of CRC, FIT is suggested to be done every 2 years as a first-choice method test for those who use public resources and do not pay for this service personally. In screening individuals with average risk for CRC, g-FOBT is not recommended as the first method of choice. Repeating positive guaiac test is not recommended and if positive, colonoscopy is suggested.
... In 2006, a working group of IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) stated that "ingested nitrite under certain conditions resulting in endogenous nitrosation is presumably carcinogenic to human body" [93,94]. An epidemiological study conducted in 2008 showed that there is an increased risk of colorectal cancer related to high processed meat intake [95]. Excessive nitrite intake can also result in tissue poisoning, respiratory center paralysis, and other hypoxia-related symptoms. ...
Article
Full-text available
Nitrite is one of the most widely used curing ingredients in meat industries. Nitrites have numerous useful applications in cured meats and a vital component in giving cured meats their unique characteristics, such as their pink color and savory flavor. Nitrites are used to suppress the oxidation of lipid and protein in meat products and to limit the growth of pathogenic microorganisms such as Clostridium botulinum. Synthetic nitrite is frequently utilized for curing due to its low expenses and easier applications to meat. However, it is linked to the production of nitrosamines, which has raised several health concerns among consumers regarding its usage in meat products. Consumer desire for healthier meat products prepared with natural nitrite sources has increased due to a rising awareness regarding the application of synthetic nitrites. However, it is important to understand the various activities of nitrite in meat curing for developing novel substitutes of nitrites. This review emphasizes on the effects of nitrite usage in meat and highlights the role of nitrite in the production of carcinogenic nitrosamines as well as possible nitrite substitutes from natural resources explored also.
... Nowadays the prevalence rate of colorectal cancer is increasing vigorously. 12 This might be because of various factors like consumption of processed food, 13 which contains low fiber diet and also contains preservatives which is also known to be a cause of colon cancer, 14 and sedentary lifestyle. 15 Oxidative stress is another factor known to produce colon cancer. ...
... In addition, red meat products are rich in heme iron, which is associated with the generation of free radicals that attack DNA and damage tissues [42,43]. Furthermore, processing or cooking meat at high temperatures can generate carcinogenic substances such as N-Nitroso and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [43,44]. On the other hand, fruits, vegetables, and legumes present in the Mediterranean pattern are rich in antioxidants that may reduce cancer risk by quenching free radicals and reducing oxidative damage to DNA [45]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to explore the association between three previously identified dietary patterns (Western, Prudent, and Mediterranean) and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk by sex and cancer subtype. The Spanish cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study provided dietary and epidemiological information from 15,629 men and 25,808 women recruited between 1992 and 1996. Among them, 568 CRC cases and 3289 deaths were identified during a median follow-up of 16.98 years. The associations between adherence to the three dietary patterns and CRC risk (overall, by sex, and by tumour location: proximal and distal colon and rectum) were investigated by fitting multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models stratified by study centre and age. Possible heterogeneity of the effects by sex and follow-up time (1–10 vs. ≥10 years) was also explored. While no clear effect of the Prudent dietary pattern on CRC risk was found, a suggestive detrimental effect of the Western dietary pattern was observed, especially during the first 10 years of follow-up (HR1SD-increase (95% CI): 1.17 (0.99–1.37)), among females (HR1SD-increase (95% CI): 1.31 (1.06–1.61)), and for rectal cancer (HR1SD-increase (95% CI): 1.38 (1.03–1.84)). In addition, high adherence to the Mediterranean pattern seemed to protect against CRC, especially when restricting the analyses to the first 10 years of follow-up (HR1SD-increase (95% CI): 0.84 (0.73–0.98)), among males (HR1SD-increase (95% CI): 0.80 (0.65–0.98)), and specifically against distal colon cancer (HR1SD-increase (95% CI) :0.81 (0.63–1.03)). In conclusion, low adherence to the Western diet and high adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern could prevent CRC, especially distal colon and rectal cancer.
... Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine e causes of colorectal cancer are generally considered to be the following: (1) the development of colorectal cancer is closely related to dietary factors, such as low-fibre diet, highfat and high-protein diet, and lack of micronutrients and vitamins are all risk factors for colorectal cancer [37]; (2) genetic factors play an important role in the development of colorectal cancer. In addition, the risk of colorectal cancer is four times higher in people with a family history of colorectal cancer [38,39]; and (3) nitrosamines and their compounds are the most important chemical carcinogens causing colorectal cancer, and methyl aromatic amines in fried and baked foods are also closely related to the development of colorectal cancer [40]. ere are also parasites and lifestyle factors [41]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Drug repositioning and drug reuse are the heated topics in the field of oncology in recent years. These two concepts refer to seeking effective drugs for cancer that are not originally intended to treat cancer. The survival benefits are then analyzed by combining the re-positioned drugs with conventional cancer treatment methods. Simvastatin is a clinically commonly used hyperlipidemia drug and exerts the effect of preventing cardiovascular diseases. Recent studies have found that simvastatin has great potential in the treatment of colorectal cancer, and a large number of clinical studies have used simvastatin as an adjuvant drug to help treat metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article
Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed malignant tumor. The problem of mCRC is urgent due to both an increase in the number of metastatic tumors and the implementation of high-tech treatment methods that have significantly improved the results of a 5-year survival. Methods The research used the method of experiment and observation. Current study included data of 332 patients with CRC who received comprehensive treatment from 2014 to 2018 in oncology centers of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The patients were treated according to the clinical protocols for the treatment of oncological diseases approved in the Republic of Kazakhstan, including surgical treatment, as well as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, depending on the stage and localization of the process. A comprehensive treatment also included surgical treatment, chemotherapy, targeted chemotherapy and, in some cases, radiation therapy for rectal cancer. The diagnosis was confirmed morphologically in all patients; process dissemination was recorded using standard examination methods. Among the patients, women prevailed – 182 (54.8%) women and 150 men (45.2%) were included; the Caucasian race prevailed – 170 (51.2%) patients and 162 (48.8%) patients were of the Asian race. The mean age of the patients at the time of treatment was 56.4 ± 0.6 years (from 25 to 79 years). Histologically, adenocarcinoma prevailed represented by glandular – in 95.6%, mucous – in 2.9% and trabecular – in 1.5% of cases. A comprehensive treatment was used in 209 (63.0%) patients and other types of treatment were used in 123 (37.0%) patients (PCT, stoma + PCT). Radiation therapy was administered to 13 (3.9%) patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. Results A comparative analysis of the results of pharmacotherapy in the patients with mCRC showed that of 332 patients, 263 (79.2%) received targeted chemotherapy and 69 (20.8%) received standard polychemotherapy. At the time of the study, 85 (32.3%) patients in the targeted chemotherapy group were still alive, with a median survival of 42.0 ± 1.7 months, 95% CI (38.6–45.4). In the polychemotherapy group, 7 (10.1%) patients were alive, while the median survival rate was 20.0 ± 1.7 months, 95% CI (16.6–23.4). Conclusion Based on the results, it was concluded that targeted chemotherapy schemes increased progression-free survival, compared to standard polychemotherapy schemes.
Article
Cancer is the leading cause of human death worldwide. In spite of medical advancements, cancer cases are rising globally where Colorectal Cancer (CRC) frequency is third in position in males and second in females. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a disease where abnormal growth of cells occurs in the colon and rectal area of the alimentary canal. Factors like food habits, smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, gut dysbiosis, etc. increase CRC risk. The CRC patients suffer not only from painful surgical treatments but also bear the side effects of palliative radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and therapeutic drugs used for the same. Dietary probiotics have great potential in the prevention and management of CRC due to their anticancer properties. The present review discusses the various risk factors of colorectal cancer and important role of probiotic supplements to prevent it. It highlights some of the proposed mechanisms of probiotics for their protective role against CRC. The prevention through modifiable risk factors and probiotic dietary supplements can save the patients from the trauma of the disease. Probiotics regulate gut dysbiosis and prevent CRC through different mechanisms, so more research work and clinical trials in humans with respect to it are expected in the future.
Article
Full-text available
We tested the hypothesis that dietary intervention can inhibit the development of recurrent colorectal adenomas, which are precursors of most large-bowel cancers. We randomly assigned 2079 men and women who were 35 years of age or older and who had had one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas removed within six months before randomization to one of two groups: an intervention group given intensive counseling and assigned to follow a diet that was low in fat (20 percent of total calories) and high in fiber (18 g of dietary fiber per 1000 kcal) and fruits and vegetables (3.5 servings per 1000 kcal), and a control group given a standard brochure on healthy eating and assigned to follow their usual diet. Subjects entered the study after undergoing complete colonoscopy and removal of adenomatous polyps; they remained in the study for approximately four years, undergoing colonoscopy one and four years after randomization. A total of 1905 of the randomized subjects (91.6 percent) completed the study. Of the 958 subjects in the intervention group and the 947 in the control group who completed the study, 39.7 percent and 39.5 percent, respectively, had at least one recurrent adenoma; the unadjusted risk ratio was 1.00 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.12). Among subjects with recurrent adenomas, the mean (+/-SE) number of such lesions was 1.85+/-0.08 in the intervention group and 1.84+/-0.07 in the control group. The rate of recurrence of large adenomas (with a maximal diameter of at least 1 cm) and advanced adenomas (defined as lesions that had a maximal diameter of at least 1 cm or at least 25 percent villous elements or evidence of high-grade dysplasia, including carcinoma) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Adopting a diet that is low in fat and high in fiber, fruits, and vegetables does not influence the risk of recurrence of colorectal adenomas.
Article
A case-control study of colorectal cancer, consisting of 157 cases and 380 controls matched by sex, ethnicity, decade of age and county of residence was performed to explore the associations between environmental exposure, metabolic polymorphisms and cancer risk. Participants were required to provide a blood sample, undergo caffeine phenotyping and complete an in-person interview that evaluated meat consumption, cooking methods and degree of doneness. A color atlas of foods cooked to different degrees of doneness was used to estimate food preparation techniques and food models were used to estimate serving portion sizes. Data was analyzed using a reference database of heterocyclic amine (HCA) exposure based on the food preferences chosen from the atlas. Data regarding individual food items cooked to different levels of doneness, as well as summary variables of foods and of food groups cooked to different degrees of doneness were also evaluated in a univariate analysis for association with colorectal cancer case status. Three measures of metabolic variation, hGSTA1 genotype, SULT1A1 genotype and the phenotype for CYP2A6 were also evaluated for possible association with colon cancer. While higher exposure to HCAs was strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk, increased consumption of five red meats cooked well done or very well done produced comparable odds ratios (OR) for colorectal cancer risk (OR=4.36, 95% CI 2.08-9.60) for the highest quartile of exposure. Similarly, individuals in the most rapid CYP2A6 phenotype quartile showed an odds ratio (OR = 4.18, 95% CI 2.03-8.90). The ORs for the low activity hGSTA1 and low activity SULT1A1 alleles were 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-3.7 and 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.1, respectively. Individual measures of specific HCAs provided little improvement in risk assessment over the measure of meat consumption, suggesting that exposure to other environmental or dietary carcinogens such as nitrosamines or undefined HCAs may contribute to colorectal cancer risk.
Conference Paper
N-Nitroso compounds are found in the colon and are formed endogenously because amines and amides are produced by bacterial decarboxylation of amino acids in the large gut. They can be N-nitrosated in the presence of a nitrosating agent. To test the hypothesis that increased nitrogenous residues from red meat would increase endogenous N-nitrosation, thus accounting for the epidemiologic association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, we fed increased levels of red meat and measured apparent total N-nitroso compounds (ATNCs) in fecal samples in a series of studies of volunteers maintained under controlled conditions. A result of these studies is that we have shown a consistent dose response to red meat consumption. Fiber, in the form of vegetables, bran or resistant starch, does not reduce the level of ATNCs formed, although transit time is reduced and fecal weight are increased. Here we show that the equivalent amount (420-600 g) of meat as white meat has no effect on fecal ATNCs in 12 volunteers (P = 0.338). At dosages of 0, 60, 120, 240 and 420 g of red meat/d, mean levels of ATNC output are highly correlated with dose of meat: for concentration ATNC versus dose of meat in g/d, r = 0.972, beta = 0.252 ng/g (SE 0.035); for total ATNC output versus dose of meat in g/d, r = 0.963, beta = 2.605 mug/d (SE 0.419). The effects of nonmeat protein and of heme on increased N-nitrosation and the genotoxic effects of the ATNCs produced are presently being investigated.
Chapter
Cured Meat Products and Residual NitriteCured Meats and N-nitrosaminesBenefits and Drawbacks of Nitrite: New Trends and ProspectsReferences
Article
Human male volunteers were studied in a metabolic facility whilst they were fed randomized controlled diets. In eight volunteers there was a significant increase in faecal apparent total N-nitroso compounds (ATNC) and nitrite excretion (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.046, respectively) when randomized doses of meat were increased from 0 to 60, 240 and 420 g/day over 10 day periods. Mean (± SE) faecal ATNC levels were 54 ± 7 μg/day when the diets contained no meat, 52 ± 11 μg/day when the diets contained 60 g meat/ day, 159 ± 33 μg/day with 240 g meat and 199 ± 36 μg/ day with 420 g meat. Higher concentrations of NOC were associated with longer times of transit in the gut (r = 0.55, P = 0.001) and low faecal weight (r = -0.51, P = 0.004). There was no significant decline in levels in individuals fed 420 g meat for 40 days. The exposures found on the higher meat diets were comparable with other sources of N-nitroso compounds (NOC), such as tobacco smoke. Many NOC are known large bowel initiators and promotors in colon cancer, inducing G→A transitions in codons 12 and 13 of K-ras. Endogenous NOC formation, combined with prolonged transit times in the gut, may explain the epidemiological associations between high meat/low fibre diets and colorectal cancer risk.
Article
Chemical carcinogens in the diet cannot explain the cancer incidence attributed by epidemiologists to dietary factors when the calculation is based on average exposure levels and conservative estimates of carcinogenic potencies. In a previous review, the discrepancy was explained primarily by overnutrition to which a carcinogenic potency was assigned from dietary restriction experiments and the associated reduction in spontaneous tumor incidence (W.K. Lutz and J. Schlatter, Chemical carcinogens and overnutrition in diet-related cancer, Carcinogenesis 13 [1992] 2211–2216). Here, additional aspects are introduced. They focus on using individual rather than averaged data, both for exposure and susceptibility. First, under conditions of a sublinear (convex) dose–response, the cancer incidence obtained by using an average exposure level is lower than if individual exposure levels associated with particular dietary habits are taken into account. Second, carcinogenic factors, including those unrelated to the diet (e.g., smoking), can act synergistically. Third, the potency of dietary carcinogens is increased under conditions of malnutrition in the sense of a deficiency of protective factors, such as those available with fruits, vegetables, and fibers. Quantitatively, this aspect may be particularly important because it simultaneously increases the efficacy of a multitude of carcinogens. It is concluded that chemical carcinogens could be as important as overnutrition for diet-related cancer.
Article
Red meat or meat-cooking methods such as frying and doneness level have been associated with an increased risk of colorectal and other cancers. It is unclear whether it is red meat intake or the way it is cooked that is involved in the etiology of colorectal cancer. To address this issue, we developed an extensive food frequency questionnaire module that collects information on meat-cooking techniques as well as the level of doneness for individual meat items and used it in a study of colorectal adenomas, known precursors of colorectal cancer. A case-control study of colorectal adenomas was conducted at the National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda, MD) between April 1994 and September 1996. All cases (n 5 146) were diagnosed with colorectal adenomas at sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy and histologically confirmed. Controls (n 5 228) were screened with sigmoidoscopy and found not to have colorectal adenomas. The subjects completed a food frequency questionnaire and answered detailed questions on meat-cooking practices. We used frequency and portion size to estimate grams of meat consumed per day for total meat as well as for meat subgroups defined by cooking methods and doneness levels. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calcu- lated using logistic regression, adjusted for age, gender, total caloric intake, reason for screening (routine or other), and several established risk factors for colorectal adenomas or cancer, including the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, physical activity, and pack-years of cigarette smoking. There was an increased risk of 11% per 10 g/day (or 2.5 oz/week) of reported red meat consumption (OR, 1.11; CI, 1.03-1.19). The increased risk was mainly associated with well-done/very well-done red meat, with an excess risk of 29% per 10 g/day (OR, 1.29; CI, 1.08 -1.54) versus an excess of 10% per 10 g/day (OR, 1.10; CI, 0.96 -1.26) for consumption of rare/medium red meat. High-temperature cooking methods were also associated with increased risk; 26% per 10 g/day (OR, 1.26; CI, 1.06 -1.50) of grilled red meat and 15% per 10 g/day (OR, 1.15; CI, 0.97-1.36) of pan-fried red meat consumption. There was an increased risk of colorectal adenomas associated with higher intake of red meat, most of which was due to the subgroup of red meat that was cooked until well done/very well done and/or by high-temperature cooking techniques, such as grilling. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that carcinogenic compounds formed by high-temperature cooking techniques, such as heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, may contribute to the risk of developing colorectal tumors.