Red meat and processed meat
Processed meat is classed as causing colorectal cancer, and cohorts link it to more type 2 diabetes, heart disease and death. Unprocessed red meat shows smaller or uncertain links, and a 2019 review rated all of these links low certainty and very small. One large trial of eating less red meat found little or no difference.
Add to Bio HackChecked 2026-11-13
- Status
- A food, not a regulated health product. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) and red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) [1]. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030 list red meat among the animal protein foods to eat as part of a variety, and say to eat meat with no or limited added sugars, refined carbohydrates or starches, or chemical additives [2].
- Also called
- red meat, beef, steak, pork, lamb, veal, goat, burgers, unprocessed red meat, processed meat, bacon, ham, sausages, hot dogs, deli meat, salami, cured meat, corned beef, jerky
- Studied for
- protein, muscle, strength, iron, satiety, nutrition
Strong several reviews agree · Moderate one review or consistent trials · Limited one or a few small studies · Untested no study in people, listed with what it rests on
Shown to help0
No benefit shown in research yet.
Reported risks8
- StrongLinked to 15% to 19% more type 2 diabetes per daily 50 g of processed meat, in two pooled analyses of cohorts.How often is not known
- StrongLinked to 23% higher death at the highest processed meat intake than the lowest, in pooled cohorts. A later review rated the link very small and low certainty.How often is not known
- ModerateIARC classifies processed meat as causing colorectal cancer, with risk up 18% per daily 50 g portion. A 2019 review rated the link very small and low certainty.How often is not known
- ModerateLinked to 10% more type 2 diabetes per daily 100 g in a 31-cohort analysis. An earlier, smaller pooling found a similar estimate that was not significant.How often is not known
- ModerateLinked to 42% more coronary heart disease per daily 50 g of processed meat in one pooled analysis. A later review rated such links very small and low certainty.How often is not known
- ModerateMixed results: one pooled analysis found no link with coronary heart disease, while a later one linked eating less to very small drops in heart attack and stroke.How often is not known
- LimitedIARC classifies red meat as probably causing cancer, on limited evidence in people, mainly for colorectal cancer, with links also to pancreatic and prostate cancer.How often is not known
- LimitedLimited evidence: one Italian case-control study linked the most beef and red meat to 70% higher odds of fibroids, while a Korean study found no overall link.How often is not known
What it was studied for, and what was found
Mixed results2
Cholesterol and blood pressure in trials
Not shown to change cholesterol or blood pressure against all comparison diets combined. Against plant proteins, LDL fell less on red meat. Against fish, it fell more.
Compared with diets replacing red meat with legumes, soy or nuts, fish, poultry, mixed animal protein, refined carbohydrates or the usual diet [4]
The numbers and sources
- Effect
- Against all comparison diets combined, red meat made no significant difference to total, LDL or HDL cholesterol, apolipoproteins A1 and B, or blood pressure, and gave a smaller fall in triglycerides (0.065 mmol/L). Against high-quality plant proteins, total cholesterol fell 0.264 mmol/L less and LDL 0.198 mmol/L less. Against fish, LDL fell 0.173 mmol/L more and HDL 0.065 mmol/L more. Against refined carbohydrates, triglycerides fell 0.181 mmol/L more [4].
- Population
- 1,803 participants in 36 randomized trials [4].
- Sources
- [4]
- Caveats
- The result depends on what replaced the red meat. Trials measured blood markers, not heart events.
Muscle and strength with resistance training in older adults
Mixed results: one trial in older women found more lean mass and strength with lean red meat during training, while a larger trial found no added gain.
Compared with a daily serving of pasta or rice [5]; rice, pasta or potato on training days [6]
The numbers and sources
- Effect
- In women aged 60 to 90 doing resistance training twice a week, about 160 g of cooked lean red meat 6 days a week gave greater gains in total lean mass (0.45 kg, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.84), leg lean mass and strength (18%), and a 10% greater rise in IGF-1, over 4 months [5]. In adults 65 or older training 3 days a week, lean red meat on training days did not add to gains in lean mass, thigh muscle, strength or executive function over 24 weeks. Arm lean mass, gait speed and muscle density improved slightly more [6].
- Population
- 100 women in 15 retirement villages, cluster randomized [5]. 154 community-dwelling adults aged 65 or older [6].
- Sources
- [5], [6]
- Caveats
- Two trials from the same research group with different results. Both combined meat with exercise, so neither tests meat alone.
Not shown to help1
Heart disease, cancer and death on diets lower in red meat
One trial in 48,835 women found a diet lower in red meat made little or no difference to death, heart disease or cancer, at low certainty.
Compared with diets higher in red meat [3]
The numbers and sources
- Effect
- The trial found little or no effect of lower red meat intake on all-cause death (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03), cardiovascular death (HR 0.98), cardiovascular disease (HR 0.99), cancer death (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01), colorectal cancer (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20) or breast cancer (HR 0.97). The review found 12 eligible trials, most measuring only blood markers [3].
- Population
- 48,835 women in one randomized trial, within a review of 12 trials lasting at least 6 months [3].
- Sources
- [3]
- Caveats
- The difference in red meat between the groups was small. The reviewers rated certainty low to very low [3].
- Why limited
- This rests on one trial, of 48,835 people. Strength counts independent studies that agree, so one trial is limited at any size.
Amounts studied
Across 31 cohorts, median intakes ranged from 0 to 110 g a day of unprocessed red meat and 0 to 49 g a day of processed meat [7]. Reviews modeled risk per 100 g a day of unprocessed red meat and per 50 g a day of processed meat [8][7], or per 3 servings a week less [9]. IARC's estimate is per 50 g portion of processed meat a day [1]. Muscle trials used about 160 g of cooked lean red meat 6 days a week [5], or two 80 g servings on 3 training days a week [6].
Risks
Reported risks6
Colorectal cancer from processed meat
IARC classifies processed meat as causing colorectal cancer, with risk up 18% per daily 50 g portion. A 2019 review rated the link very small and low certainty.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- IARC's working group, reviewing more than 800 studies, found sufficient evidence in humans that processed meat causes colorectal cancer, and estimated an 18% rise in risk for each 50 g eaten daily [1]. Across 56 cohorts, each 3 fewer servings of processed meat a week was linked to very small decreases in overall cancer death, prostate cancer death, and esophageal, colorectal and breast cancer, at low to very low certainty [10].
- Population
- More than 800 studies, mainly large prospective cohorts [1]. More than 6 million participants in 56 cohorts [10].
- Sources
- [1], [10]
- Caveats
- IARC states that the risk for an individual remains small and rises with the amount eaten [1]. The 2019 review cites residual confounding and recall bias [10].
Cancer from unprocessed red meat
IARC classifies red meat as probably causing cancer, on limited evidence in people, mainly for colorectal cancer, with links also to pancreatic and prostate cancer.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- IARC classified red meat as Group 2A on limited evidence in humans and strong mechanistic evidence. The link was seen mainly for colorectal cancer, with associations also for pancreatic and prostate cancer [1]. Each 3 fewer servings a week of unprocessed red meat was linked to a very small reduction in lifetime cancer death, at low certainty [10].
- Population
- More than 800 studies [1]. 56 cohorts [10].
- Sources
- [1], [10]
- Caveats
- IARC describes the human evidence as limited [1].
Type 2 diabetes from processed meat
Linked to 15% to 19% more type 2 diabetes per daily 50 g of processed meat, in two pooled analyses of cohorts.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- Each 50 g a day of processed meat was linked to higher type 2 diabetes risk (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.27) [8] and (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.20) in a harmonized analysis of 31 cohorts in 20 countries [7]. Each 3 fewer servings a week was linked to a very small decrease in type 2 diabetes, at low certainty [9].
- Population
- 7 studies [8]. 1,966,444 adults and 107,271 cases followed a median 10 years [7]. 55 cohorts with more than 4 million participants [9].
- Sources
- [8], [7], [9]
- Caveats
- Observational. The 2019 review rated the evidence low certainty, citing inadequate adjustment for confounders and recall bias [9].
Type 2 diabetes from unprocessed red meat
Linked to 10% more type 2 diabetes per daily 100 g in a 31-cohort analysis. An earlier, smaller pooling found a similar estimate that was not significant.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- Each 100 g a day of unprocessed red meat was linked to higher risk (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.15), and replacing processed meat with unprocessed red meat or poultry was linked to lower risk [7]. An earlier review found a relative risk of 1.16 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.46) per 100 g a day [8]. In US cohorts, replacing a daily serving of red meat with poultry, fish, dairy, eggs, legumes or nuts was linked to 10% to 18% lower risk [11].
- Population
- 1,966,444 adults in 31 cohorts [7]. 5 studies [8]. 148,853 US men and women [11].
- Sources
- [7], [8], [11]
- Caveats
- Observational. Heterogeneity was moderate (I² 61%) [7].
Coronary heart disease from processed meat
Linked to 42% more coronary heart disease per daily 50 g of processed meat in one pooled analysis. A later review rated such links very small and low certainty.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- Each 50 g a day of processed meat was linked to higher coronary heart disease risk (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.89), and neither processed nor unprocessed red meat to stroke, in only 3 studies [8]. Each 3 fewer servings a week was linked to very small decreases in cardiovascular death, stroke and heart attack [9].
- Population
- 5 studies for coronary heart disease [8]. 55 cohorts [9].
- Sources
- [8], [9]
- Caveats
- Observational, with few studies in the 2010 pooling [8].
Death from any cause, processed meat
Linked to 23% higher death at the highest processed meat intake than the lowest, in pooled cohorts. A later review rated the link very small and low certainty.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- Against the lowest intake, the highest was linked to higher death from any cause for processed meat (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.28) and total red meat (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.35) [12]. Each 3 fewer servings of processed meat a week was linked to a very small decrease in death from any cause [9].
- Population
- 9 prospective studies [12]. 55 cohorts [9].
- Sources
- [12], [9]
- Caveats
- Observational. The 2019 review cites inadequate adjustment for known confounders and recall bias in diet reports [9].
Mixed results2
Coronary heart disease from unprocessed red meat
Mixed results: one pooled analysis found no link with coronary heart disease, while a later one linked eating less to very small drops in heart attack and stroke.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- Unprocessed red meat was not linked to coronary heart disease (RR 1.00 per 100 g a day, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23) [8]. Each 3 fewer servings a week was linked to very small decreases in cardiovascular death, stroke and heart attack, at low certainty [9].
- Population
- 4 studies [8]. 55 cohorts [9].
- Sources
- [8], [9]
- Caveats
- Observational. The 2010 analysis had only 4 studies [8].
Fibroids with higher red meat intake
Limited evidence: one Italian case-control study linked the most beef and red meat to 70% higher odds of fibroids, while a Korean study found no overall link.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- Against the lowest third of intake, the highest third of beef and other red meat was linked to higher odds of fibroids (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.2), and ham to OR 1.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.6). Women with fibroids also reported eating fewer green vegetables, fruit and fish [13]. In 672 Korean women examined by ultrasound, red meat intake was not linked to fibroids overall, and premenopausal women in the second quarter of intake had lower odds than the lowest quarter (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91). In postmenopausal women, higher processed meat intake was linked to higher odds (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.49) [14].
- Population
- 843 women with fibroids and 1,557 hospital controls in Italy, 1986 to 1997 [13]; 672 Korean women aged 23 to 73, 220 of them with fibroids [14].
- Sources
- [13], [14]
- Caveats
- Observational. The Italian study asked women with a recent diagnosis about their diet, so recall can differ between cases and controls, and diet tracks other habits, so confounding is possible [13]. The Korean study was cross-sectional and its meat intakes were low [14]. No prospective cohort of red meat and fibroids was located.
Checked, no increase found1
Death from any cause, unprocessed red meat
Not linked to death from any cause at the highest unprocessed red meat intake against the lowest, in pooled cohorts.
The numbers and sources
- How common
- How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
- Effect
- The highest against the lowest intake of unprocessed red meat gave a relative risk of 1.10 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), and dose-response analysis found no significant link [12].
- Population
- 6 prospective studies [12].
- Sources
- [12]
- Caveats
- Observational, with few studies.
Claims tested and not found
- That eating less red meat prevents heart disease, cancer or early death. In the one large trial, a diet lower in red meat made little or no difference to these outcomes, at low certainty [3].
- That red meat raises LDL cholesterol in trials. Against all comparison diets combined, red meat did not change LDL, total or HDL cholesterol [4].
- That unprocessed red meat raises coronary heart disease risk. One pooled analysis found no link (RR 1.00 per 100 g a day) [8].
Related
Sources
- International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. IARC Press Release No. 240. 2015. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf
- US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030. realfood.gov. 2026. https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf
- Zeraatkar D, Johnston BC, Bartoszko J, et al. Effect of Lower Versus Higher Red Meat Intake on Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2019. https://doi.org/10.7326/m19-0622
- Guasch-Ferré M, Satija A, Blondin SA, et al. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Red Meat Consumption in Comparison With Various Comparison Diets on Cardiovascular Risk Factors. Circulation. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.118.035225
- Daly RM, O'Connell SL, Mundell NL, et al. Protein-enriched diet, with the use of lean red meat, combined with progressive resistance training enhances lean tissue mass and muscle strength and reduces circulating IL-6 concentrations in elderly women: a cluster randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.064154
- Formica MB, Gianoudis J, Nowson CA, et al. Effect of lean red meat combined with a multicomponent exercise program on muscle and cognitive function in older adults: a 6-month randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa104
- Li C, Bishop TRP, Imamura F, et al. Meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes: an individual-participant federated meta-analysis of 1.97 million adults with 100 000 incident cases from 31 cohorts in 20 countries. The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587(24)00179-7
- Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.924977
- Zeraatkar D, Han MA, Guyatt GH, et al. Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for All-Cause Mortality and Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2019. https://doi.org/10.7326/m19-0655
- Han MA, Zeraatkar D, Guyatt GH, et al. Reduction of Red and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Mortality and Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2019. https://doi.org/10.7326/m19-0699
- Würtz AML, Jakobsen MU, Bertoia ML, et al. Replacing the consumption of red meat with other major dietary protein sources and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa284
- Larsson SC, Orsini N. Red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt261
- Chiaffarino F, Parazzini F, La Vecchia C, et al. Diet and uterine myomas. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00305-1
- Kim MJ, Kim S, Kim JJ, et al. Dietary intake is associated with the prevalence of uterine leiomyoma in Korean women: A retrospective cohort study. PLOS ONE. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291157