Cutting through the confusion about meat consumption and health risks
Imagine opening your news feed one day to see "New Study Says Red Meat is Perfectly Safe," only to find a different outlet proclaiming "Processed Meat Confirmed to Cause Cancer" the next. This isn't a hypothetical scenario—in recent years, competing headlines about meat consumption have created genuine confusion about what constitutes a healthy diet.
The conversation around red and processed meat represents one of the most contentious topics in nutritional science, with seemingly reputable studies reaching different conclusions.
This article cuts through the confusion by examining the latest scientific evidence on how red and processed meat consumption affects our health.
Before diving into the evidence, let's clarify what scientists mean when they refer to different types of meat. Understanding these categories is essential because they carry different health implications.
Includes all mammalian muscle meat—beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat. The common denominator is the presence of myoglobin, a protein that gives these meats their characteristic red color.
From a nutritional standpoint, red meat provides complete protein, essential amino acids, important minerals like iron and zinc, and B vitamins.
Refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.
This category includes hot dogs, ham, sausages, corned beef, beef jerky, canned meat, and meat-based preparations and sauces 4 .
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies processed meat as Group 1 ("carcinogenic to humans") and red meat as Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic to humans") 4 . These classifications describe the strength of the evidence, not the level of risk.
In 2019, a series of papers published in the Annals of Internal Medicine created shockwaves through the nutrition world. The NutriRECS international consortium conducted five systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the relationship between meat consumption and health outcomes. Their conclusion? The evidence didn't support strongly recommending that people reduce their red or processed meat consumption 1 6 .
| Health Outcome | Risk Reduction | Certainty of Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Cardiovascular mortality | Very small reduction | Low |
| Stroke | Very small reduction | Low |
| Myocardial infarction | Very small reduction | Low |
| Type 2 diabetes | Very small reduction | Low |
-12 cases per 1,000 people
Very small reduction
Very small reduction
While the NutriRECS debate centered on the strength of epidemiological evidence, other research has focused on understanding the biological pathways through which meat consumption might influence health.
Certain processing and cooking methods can generate compounds with known carcinogenic properties including N-nitroso compounds, heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 4 .
Heme iron, the form of iron found in red meat, may promote the formation of carcinogenic compounds and contribute to oxidative damage 2 .
Understanding the health impact of red and processed meat requires looking beyond the meat itself to consider what it replaces in our diets and how it fits into overall eating patterns.
Research consistently shows that what we eat instead of meat significantly influences health outcomes. A 2025 Bayesian network meta-analysis found that replacing red meat with plant protein sources led to significant reductions in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol 3 .
Similarly, a large cohort study found that replacing 50g/1000 kcal of white meat with red meat was associated with a 21% higher colorectal cancer incidence 9 .
The impact of meat consumption appears to be modified by overall dietary context. Protective dietary patterns like the Mediterranean diet—characterized by high intake of plant-based foods, fish, and unsaturated fats alongside lower red and processed meats—are strongly associated with reduced health risks 2 .
Physical activity may also mitigate some mortality risks associated with meat intake, highlighting how lifestyle factors interact with dietary choices 2 .
So what does all this evidence mean for your plate? The consensus across most health organizations—despite the NutriRECS controversy—is that moderating red and processed meat consumption remains a prudent approach for long-term health.
The evidence against regular processed meat consumption is stronger and more consistent. Most health authorities recommend limiting processed meats or avoiding them altogether.
The American Institute for Cancer Research suggests avoiding processed meats, while dietary guidelines in many countries recommend keeping consumption to minimal amounts.
For unprocessed red meat, the picture is more complex. While excessive consumption appears to increase risks for certain conditions, moderate intake can fit into a healthy diet, particularly when:
The science of red and processed meat consumption, like much of nutrition, reveals a landscape of probabilities rather than certainties. The evidence suggests that regularly consuming large amounts of processed meat meaningfully increases health risks, while unprocessed red meat in moderation presents smaller and less certain risks.
Rather than getting caught in absolutist debates about whether meat is "good" or "bad," we might instead ask: How does this food fit into my overall pattern of eating? What am I eating instead? And how can I optimize my dietary pattern to support both health and pleasure? The answers will likely differ among individuals, but the evidence provides clear guidance that shifting toward more plants and less processed food—including processed meat—represents a scientifically-supported direction for building a healthy diet.