Research Radartracking 255 published studies · 65 human · 19 clinical trials · 41 cancer pages · updated Jun 2026Open the Research Map →
Risk factor

Processed meat

Processed and red meat intake studied as a cancer risk factor.

Educational only. This page reports what published guidelines and studies describe. It is not medical advice and is not a claim that processed meat treats, prevents, or cures cancer. Decisions are yours and your care team's.

What the studies report: a cited, human-reviewed summary, kept current as the evidence changes and retracted findings are removed.

Reviewed Jun 2026 · OncoForge editorial · How we review →

Evidence at a glanceNo graded study evidence yet
116 human clinical studies in the Processed meat corpus318 source documents in the Processed meat corpus

last checked June 19, 2026

Ask about Processed meat

Answers come only from the cited sources on this page — with the supporting evidence shown. If the sources here don't cover your question, it will say so. Educational information, not medical advice.

Key points

  • Overview: Processed meat refers to meat that has been cured, dried, fermented, smoked, salted, cultured, or otherwise treated, with common examples including bacon, ham, sausages, salami, hot dogs, and deli/luncheon meats. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), principally based on evidence for colorectal cancer; the human evidence base is composed mainly of observational epidemiologic studies that have been summarized in many systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

6 sections — tap any heading to expand its cited detail. Key points are above.

OverviewProcessed meat refers to meat that has been cured, dried, fermented, smoked, salted, cultured, or otherwise treated, with common examples including bacon, ham, sausages, salami, hot dogs, and deli/luncheon meats. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), principally based on evidence for colorectal cancer; the human evidence base is composed mainly of observational epidemiologic studies that have been summarized in many systematic reviews and meta-analyses.9 points
  • Processed meat refers to meat that has been cured, dried, fermented, smoked, salted, cultured, or otherwise treated to preserve or flavor it; examples commonly listed in epidemiologic studies include bacon, ham, sausages, salami, hot dogs, deli/luncheon meats and other cured or preserved meats. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]14 sources
  • The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) and classified red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A); the processed-meat classification was based principally on evidence for colorectal cancer, and epidemiological and experimental literature indicate evidence linking processed meat to cancer is strongest for colorectal cancer and more limited for many other cancer sites. [1][15][16][17][3][6][18][19][20]9 sources
  • Processed meat consumption is included among behavioral factors discussed in cancer prevention recommendations and reviews of diet and cancer; population-level dietary guidance cited in reviews includes WCRF/AICR recommendations to limit red meat intake to less than three portions per week. [21][22][3]3 sources
  • Proposed biological mechanisms described in epidemiologic reviews include preservatives (for example sodium nitrite) and compounds formed during processing and high‑temperature cooking such as heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and N‑nitroso compounds that may contribute to DNA damage and inflammation in the colorectal mucosa. [15]
  • Systematic reviews of experimental (animal and cell) studies have concluded that mechanistic evidence linking red or processed meat to colorectal cancer is currently insufficient because many experiments used doses or conditions not representative of typical human diets. [23]
  • Definitions and descriptions of what counts as processed meat vary substantially across studies and do not always match regulatory definitions. [12]
  • The evidence base about processed meat and cancer in humans is composed primarily of observational epidemiologic studies (prospective cohort and case–control studies) that have been summarized in multiple systematic reviews, umbrella reviews, and meta-analyses. [14][13][24][8][9][25][26][27][10][28][29][30][31][32][33][16][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][5][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][11][50][51][52][53][54]39 sources
  • Multiple systematic and umbrella reviews report associations between processed-meat intake and several cancer outcomes, with colorectal cancer most extensively studied. The 2007 WCRF/AICR report judged evidence on red and processed meat and colorectal carcinogenesis as convincing, while more recent umbrella/meta-analytic summaries often grade observational evidence for specific cancer sites as suggestive or weak and note heterogeneity across studies and sites. [18][55][39][40][56][16][57][58][59]9 sources
  • Several large meta-analyses and pooled analyses of observational studies have reported quantitative associations between processed meat intake and cancer risk, including a commonly cited estimate that consuming 50 g per day of processed meat is associated with about an 18% higher risk of colorectal cancer, summary relative risks approximately in the range 1.20–1.36 for highest-versus-lowest intake or per 30 g/day increments for colorectal outcomes, and dose–response estimates for stomach cancer of about 1.15 per 30 g/day in cohort studies and 1.38 per 30 g/day in case–control studies (with a highest-versus-lowest bacon RR of about 1.37) in one pooled analysis. [17][60][61][62]4 sources
How people are exposedPeople are exposed to processed meat mainly through dietary consumption of preserved or cured meat products (for example bacon, ham, sausages, hot dogs), and epidemiologic studies measure this exposure using dietary assessment tools and report it as grams per day, servings, frequencies, or categories. Consumption levels vary by region and have increased in many places, and processed‑meat products commonly contain additives and can produce compounds discussed as possible biological mechanisms in cancer research.12 points

Key figures

Prognostic factors
FactorEffectHR (95% CI)p
RR per 100 g/day of red and processed meat for colon cancer▲ worse1.19 (1.1–1.3)—
Source quotes
  • “Risk for daily consumed red and processed meat per 100 g was increased as 19% (1.19 [1.10–1.30]) for colon”
  • People are exposed primarily through dietary consumption of processed meat, and epidemiologic studies assess this exposure as a component of habitual diets using dietary questionnaires and dietary-pattern analyses. [1][63][29][16][33][21][64][34][37][36][65][12][5][4][66][2][67]17 sources
  • Epidemiologic studies measure processed‑meat exposure using food‑frequency questionnaires, 24‑hour dietary recalls and diet‑history questionnaires (large cohorts such as EPIC used FFQ and calibrated 24‑hour recalls), and they report exposure as grams per day, servings, frequencies or categories (for example tertiles or highest versus lowest consumption) and in dose–response analyses. [55][39][65][12][2][3][13][14][24]9 sources
  • Processed meat is defined as meat preserved by smoking, curing, salting or with added chemical preservatives and examples include bacon, ham, salami, sausages, hot dogs, chorizo, corned beef, pastrami, luncheon/cold meats and processed poultry. [18][57][68][37][69][17][8][7][9]9 sources
  • Sources describe processed meat as a characteristic component of Western dietary patterns, and many analyses involve cohorts from the United States and Europe. [17][70][2][67][59][71][54]7 sources
  • Epidemiologic dose–response meta-analyses commonly quantify meat intake in grams per day and report effect estimates; for example, a 12% higher colorectal cancer risk per 100 g/day increase in combined red and processed meat. [55][45][46]3 sources
  • Processed‑meat intake is used in comparative risk and dietary analyses and as a characteristic exposure in burden‑of‑disease studies. [21][64][69]3 sources
  • Processed meats often contain salt and nitrite/nitrate additives and may contain or lead to formation of N‑nitroso compounds; high‑temperature cooking can produce heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and advanced glycation end products, and heme in meat can influence endogenous formation of N‑nitroso compounds. [10][19]
  • N‑nitroso compounds are discussed as a possible biological mechanism linking processed meat to cancer in multiple reviews, and cigarette smoking is identified as another common source of human exposure to N‑nitroso compounds and a potential co‑exposure to consider. [50][11]
  • Global average processed‑meat intake increased to about 17 g/day from 1990 to 2018, with some countries and regions reporting much higher average consumption (for example Germany, Russia, the Philippines and Brazil) and 32 countries having average intake at or above one 50‑g serving per day; example population consumption figures include average US processed‑meat intake around 182 g/week (1990–2000) and similar levels in more recent US surveys. [1]
  • Population-level consumption of all meats was reported as 122 g/day in 2010, with higher per-capita consumption in high-income and Latin American countries including Brazil. [18]
  • Some studies report portion sizes around 50 g for processed meat in case‑control analyses, and cohort studies report cohort‑specific cutoffs (e.g., about 46 g/day in men and 29 g/day in women in a French cohort), while UK Biobank defined the highest tertile as >9 g/day. [72][73][19][74][20][75]6 sources
  • Epidemiologic evidence about processed meat and cancer comes mostly from observational cohort and case–control studies conducted in adults across geographic regions including Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America, and Oceania. [4][66]
Evidence of cancer riskMultiple meta-analyses and umbrella reviews of observational studies most consistently link higher processed‑meat consumption with increased colorectal cancer incidence; associations with other cancer sites have been reported but vary in magnitude, consistency, and evidence quality.36 points

Key figures

Survival & outcomes
OutcomeValue95% CI
percent_increase_all_cause_at_60_80_g_per_day26%—
percent_increase_cancer_mortality_at_60_80_g_per_day11%—
population_attributable_fraction_percent5.9%4.2–7.9
Prognostic factors
FactorEffectHR (95% CI)p
RR per 50 g processed meat (esophageal cancer)▲ worse1.81 (1.32–2.48)—
RR per 50 g processed meat (stomach cancer)▲ worse1.71 (1.34–2.19)—
RR for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (high processed-meat intake)▲ worse1.65 (1.35–2.02)—
stomach (gastric) cancer (higher vs lower processed meat)▲ worse1.57—
colorectal cancer per 100 g/day red + processed meat▲ worse1.55 (1.19–2.02)—
RR (processed meat → metabolic syndrome, highest vs lowest)▲ worse1.35 (1.18–1.54)—
RR for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (low processed-meat intake)▲ worse1.33 (1.09–1.62)—
RR highest vs lowest vs highest vs lowest intake▲ worse1.33 (1.04–1.69)—
Colorectal adenoma, per 50 g/day processed meat▲ worse1.28 (1.03–1.6)—
SRR per 50 g/day▲ worse1.28 (1.08–1.53)—
RR per 50 g processed meat (colon cancer)▲ worse1.24 (1.13–1.35)—
rectal cancer (high vs low processed meat)▲ worse1.21 (0.98–1.49)—
RR per 50 g/day processed meat (gastric cancer, cohort dose-response)▲ worse1.21 (1.04–1.41)—
RR for hepatocellular carcinoma (high processed-meat intake)▲ worse1.2 (1.02–1.41)—
OR highest vs lowest (RCC) vs highest vs lowest consumption▼ better0.8 (0.66–0.96)—
colon cancer (high vs low processed meat)▲ worse1.19 (1.09–1.31)—
breast cancer per 50 g/day processed meat▲ worse1.18 (1.04–1.33)—
Colorectal adenoma, highest vs lowest processed meat intake vs highest vs lowest intake▲ worse1.17 (1.08–1.26)—
SRR highest vs lowest vs highest vs lowest intake▲ worse1.17 (1.07–1.29)—
processed_meat_bladder▲ worse1.16 (1.08–1.25)—
high vs low processed meat intake and colorectal cancer (SRRE) vs low intake▲ worse1.16 (1.1–1.23)—
all-cause mortality per 1 serving/day processed meat▲ worse1.15 (1.11–1.19)<0.001 for linear trend (meta-analysis)
colorectal cancer (high vs low processed meat) vs low processed meat▲ worse1.13 (1.01–1.26)—
processed meat per 30 g increment and colorectal cancer (SRRE)▲ worse1.1 (1.05–1.15)—
RR per 50 g/day (processed meat)▲ worse1.09 (1.02–1.17)—
breast cancer per 50 g/day processed meat▲ worse1.09 (1.03–1.16)—
breast cancer, highest vs lowest processed meat intake vs highest vs lowest▲ worse1.08 (1.01–1.15)—
RR highest vs lowest (processed meat) vs highest versus lowest intake▲ worse1.07 (1.01–1.14)—
Lung cancer, highest vs lowest processed meat intake▲ worse1.06 (0.9–1.25)—
processed_meat_highest_vs_lowest_pancreatic_cancer—1.04 (0.81–1.33)—
Pooled estimate for red meat and total prostate cancer (fixed-effects) vs highest vs lowest red meat intake—1.04 (1–1.09)—
Source quotes
  • “the risk of all-cause mortality increased by 26% at 60–80 g/day”
  • “the risk of cancer mortality increased by 11% at 60–80 g/day”
  • “Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 4.2%-7.9%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018”
  • “per 50 g increases in processed meat intake at 95% confident levels were 1.81 (1.32, 2.48) for esophageal cancer”
  • “per 50 g increases in processed meat intake ... 1.71 (1.34, 2.19) for stomach cancer”
  • “For processed meat, low intake was 1.33 (1.09-1.62) and high intake was 1.65 (1.35-2.02).”
  • “the subjects with a higher consumption of processed meat had a 57% higher stomach cancer risk (RR, 1.57;”
  • “increase of red and processed meat consumption associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer: HR 1.55 (1.19–2.02) per 100-g increase”
  • “multivariable-adjusted pooled RR was 1.35 (95% CI: 1.18, 1.54)”
  • “summary RRs for esophageal cancer for processed meat 1.33 (95% CI 1.04–1.69) highest versus lowest”
  • “SRR was 1.28 (95% CI = 1.03-1.60) for per 50 g/day increase in processed meat intake”
  • “dose–response SRR of NHL was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.08–1.53) per 50 g/day of processed meat”
  • “per 50 g increases in processed meat intake ... 1.24 (1.13, 1.35) for colon cancer”
  • “rectal cancer ... 1.21 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.49)”
  • “pooled RR was 1.21 (1.04-1.41) for 50 g/day increase”
  • “A higher dietary intake of processed meat (RR = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.02-1.41) may increase the risk of HCC.”
  • “The OR for the highest vs. the lowest consumption was 0.80 (95% CI 0.66-0.96) for RCC”
  • “colon ... 1.19 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.31)”
  • “Positive association for processed meat (RR per 50 g/d, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33)”
  • “SRR 1.17 (95% CI = 1.08-1.26) for the highest versus the lowest level of processed meat intake”
  • “SRR of NHL for highest vs lowest processed meat intake was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07–1.29)”
  • “processed meat (RR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.08-1.25)”
  • “SRRE for high (vs low) processed meat intake and CRC was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.10-1.23).”
  • “For processed meat, the pooled relative risk with an increase of one serving per day was 1.15 (95 % CI 1.11, 1.19) for all-cause mortality”
  • “summary relative risks for high versus low processed meat consumption and risk of CRC ... 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.26)”
  • “SRRE for each 30-gram increment of processed meat and CRC was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05-1.15).”
  • “The summary RR per 50 g/day was 1.09 (95% CI 1.02–1.17)”
  • “and 1.09 (1.03, 1.16) for an increase of 50 g/day of processed meat.”
  • “The summary RRs (95 % CI) of breast cancer for the highest versus the lowest categories were ... 1.08 (1.01, 1.15) for processed meat.”
  • “The summary RR for highest versus lowest was 1.07 (95% CI 1.01–1.14)”
  • “the summary relative risks (RRs) of lung cancer ... 1.06 (95% CI 0.90-1.25) for processed meat”
  • “the summary RR for processed meat was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.81–1.33)”
  • “The summary risk estimate for total prostate cancer comparing highest vs lowest red meat intake was 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.09), which became non-significant using a random-effects model (1.05; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.12).”
  • Higher processed‑meat consumption has been associated with higher breast cancer incidence in multiple pooled analyses and cohorts; reported estimates include highest‑versus‑lowest relative risks roughly in the range 1.06–1.21 across different analyses and cohorts, and dose–response estimates per 50 g/day of processed meat reported around 1.09–1.18 in meta‑analyses. [44][76][6][75][46][24]6 sources
  • Meta‑analytic and umbrella‑review evidence has reported associations between higher processed‑meat consumption and increased bladder cancer incidence, with some pooled summaries reporting pooled relative risks around RR ≈ 1.16 and dose–response analyses indicating increased risk with an extra 50 g/day in some summaries. [1][77][78][79]4 sources
  • Major expert reports and systematic dietary reviews, including IARC and WCRF/AICR‑related assessments, have concluded that processed meat is classified as carcinogenic to humans with the strongest evidence for colorectal cancer and that red meat is a probable carcinogen; WCRF/AICR dose‑response meta‑analyses have been used in national modelling and recommendations and report increased colorectal cancer risk expressed per 50 g/day increment. [3][18][29]3 sources
  • Umbrella reviews and meta-analyses report that higher processed‑meat consumption is associated with increased gastric cancer risk, with one umbrella review rating the evidence as moderate quality. [30][35]
  • Meta-analyses reported weak or inconsistent associations and concluded red and processed meat intake does not appear to be independently associated with breast cancer; in NutriNet‑Santé, processed meat intake was not associated with breast cancer. [52][20]
  • A dose‑response meta‑analysis reported processed meat intake was associated with higher nasopharyngeal carcinoma risk with summary RRs of 1.33 (95% CI 1.09–1.62) for low intake and 1.65 (95% CI 1.35–2.02) for high intake. [34]
  • Evidence for an association between processed meat intake and prostate cancer incidence is inconsistent across studies, with some individual studies reporting positive associations while pooled analyses yield weak or non‑significant results. [37]
  • An analysis estimated that in 2018 excessive processed‑meat consumption accounted for 5.9% (95% uncertainty interval 4.2%–7.9%) of incident gastrointestinal cancer cases globally. [64]
  • An updated umbrella review rated the evidence linking processed meat with esophageal adenocarcinoma as 'suggestive'. [22]
  • An umbrella review of lifestyle and dietary meta‑analyses reported processed meat as positively correlated with oral cancer risk. [80]
  • A dose–response meta‑analysis and systematic reviews summarized that higher intakes of red and processed meat were associated with increased breast cancer risk in pooled analyses. [81]
  • A 2023 systematic review and meta‑analysis of dietary patterns reported that Western dietary patterns—characterized in part by higher intakes of red and processed meat—were associated with higher lung cancer risk (pooled RR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.08–1.60). [82]
  • A broad meta‑analysis described that red meat, especially processed meat, has been investigated as associated with increased risk of digestive system cancers. [36]
  • A quantitative assessment of red or processed meat and kidney cancer reported mostly weak and non-statistically significant summary results and concluded the findings do not support an independent relation between red or processed meat intake and kidney cancer overall. [53]
  • In rodent models, a red/processed meat–based diet increased markers of colon tumorigenesis, and fecal microbiota transplants from these diets increased preneoplastic lesions, implicating gut microbiota in the mechanism. [83]
  • Randomized dietary intervention and biomarker trials in humans examine mechanistic biomarkers such as fecal‑water genotoxicity, lipid peroxidation markers, short‑chain fatty acids, bile acids, and inflammatory or iron‑metabolism indices rather than cancer incidence endpoints. [19]
  • IARC classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans, with conclusions mainly based on studies concerning colorectal cancer; evidence for other cancer sites was more limited. [20]
  • Processed‑meat intake has been associated with higher colorectal cancer incidence in multiple meta‑analyses and cohort studies; reported estimates include a summary relative risk high versus low of 1.13 (summary RR) and an approximately 18% greater risk in another pooled analysis, dose–response estimates of about 1.17 per 50 g/day and up to ≈1.24 per 50 g/day in some pooled analyses, an EPIC cohort hazard ratio 1.55 per 100 g/day increase for red and processed meat combined, and a WCRF Continuous Update Project estimate of RR 1.12 per 100 g/day increase of combined red and processed meat (authors also note risk of bias and urge cautious interpretation). [66][44][84][85][65][45][86]7 sources
  • Reviews and systematic summaries emphasize that most data are observational, mechanistic evidence is insufficient to establish causality, and many analyses have low certainty; WCRF/AICR recommendations include a red/processed meat component within dietary guidance for cancer prevention. [59][23][66][5][42][87][71]7 sources
  • Multiple prospective cohorts and meta-analyses report a modest positive association between processed meat intake and colorectal cancer: pooled high‑versus‑low summary estimates have been reported about 1.16–1.20, dose‑response estimates reported approximately 1.10 (95% CI 1.05–1.15) per 30 g increment and around 1.18 (95% CI 1.10–1.28) per 50 g/day in other analyses, and a pooled US cohort analysis reported a multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.15 (95% CI 1.01–1.32) per 1‑serving‑per‑day increase in processed red meat intake (cumulative average model). [51][60][61][11][8][13][20]7 sources
  • Different meta‑analyses and umbrella reviews vary in certainty assessments and methods; many umbrella reviews rate overall evidence for specific cancer endpoints as low or very low because of heterogeneity, study‑design differences, and potential bias, and methodological critiques note that observational dose‑response meta‑analysis methods can bias risk estimates at low consumption levels. [1][88][30][29][16][70]6 sources
  • Some meta‑analyses and pooled reviews report positive associations between processed‑meat intake and esophageal cancer (including both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma), but pooled analyses of cohort studies have not consistently supported the association and an umbrella review graded the evidence as weak. [40][43][89][90][85]5 sources
  • For gastric (stomach) cancer the literature is heterogeneous: some pooled and case–control analyses reported positive associations (including a report of about a 57% higher stomach cancer risk for higher versus lower processed‑meat consumption and pooled dose–response estimates up to RR ≈ 1.71 per 50 g increments), whereas cohort‑only pooled analyses often gave weaker or null highest‑versus‑lowest comparisons and sensitivity analyses produced variable estimates. [4][58][85][43]4 sources
  • Multiple umbrella reviews and overviews of systematic reviews report that processed‑meat consumption has been associated with higher incidence for a range of cancer sites and with higher overall cancer mortality in pooled observational analyses, while also concluding that review and primary‑study quality is variable and that evidence certainty is often limited. [43][5][42][87]4 sources
  • Umbrella reviews and pooled meta-analyses of observational studies report small positive associations between processed‑meat intake and all‑cause and cause‑specific mortality; one umbrella review reported all‑cause mortality RR 1.15 (95% CI 1.11–1.19) per 50 g/day of processed meat, and a 2023 meta‑analysis found positive associations between processed meat and mortality. [1][67][91]3 sources
  • Processed‑meat consumption has been associated with a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in pooled observational analyses (pooled RR about 1.35), and some reviews frame metabolic syndrome and NAFLD as possible pathways linking meat intake to risks for certain cancers including hepatocellular carcinoma (though evidence is observational). [68][41]
  • A meta-analysis of dietary patterns found a 'western' pattern characterized by high red and processed meat intake was associated with higher colon cancer risk (combined RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13–1.48) but not significantly with rectal cancer, and reviews of epidemiological studies of dietary patterns report that dietary patterns high in red and processed meat are associated with higher risk of colorectal adenoma and colorectal cancer. [92][93]
  • The population‑level evidence base comprises observational studies (prospective cohort and case–control designs) synthesized in dose‑response meta‑analyses and umbrella reviews that have been used to evaluate processed‑meat–cancer associations. [18][56]
  • Umbrella reviews of observational studies classify the association between processed meat and colorectal (colon) cancer among findings considered to have the strongest (convincing) evidence, while evidence for other specific cancer sites varies in strength and consistency. [56][94]
  • Meta-analyses and reviews find weak or inconsistent evidence for an association between processed meat and prostate cancer; one review noted a previously observed weakly elevated summary association but described the overall evidence as limited and inconclusive, while at least one large prospective cohort (NutriNet‑Santé) reported no association between processed meat intake and prostate cancer. [7][20]
  • A pooled meta-analysis of observational studies reported that the summary relative risk for highest versus lowest processed meat intake and non‑Hodgkin lymphoma was 1.17 (95% CI 1.07–1.29) and a dose–response SRR of 1.28 (95% CI 1.08–1.53) per 50 g/day of processed meat. [9]
  • Processed meat intake was associated with colorectal adenoma in meta-analysis: summary relative risk of 1.28 (95% CI 1.03–1.60) per 50 g/day and 1.17 (95% CI 1.08–1.26) for highest versus lowest intake. [95]
  • A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis reported an association between processed meat and esophageal cancer with a summary relative risk of 1.33 (95% CI 1.04–1.69) for highest versus lowest consumption. [26]
  • A systematic review and meta-analysis found no statistically significant association between processed meat intake and lung cancer, reporting a summary RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.90–1.25) for highest versus lowest intake. [96]
  • Cohort and pooled studies that substituted animal foods including processed meat with plant foods reported reduced cancer risk for some outcomes (including colorectal and breast cancer) in several studies, although findings were heterogeneous across studies and outcomes. [97]
  • A meta-analysis reported that high processed meat consumers had about a 10% higher risk of bladder cancer when comparing highest versus lowest intake categories. [28]
Who is most at riskEpidemiologic evidence—mainly from adult prospective cohort and case–control studies in high‑resource countries—links processed‑meat consumption most consistently with colorectal cancer, and population‑level attributable burdens vary by country and over time. Reported associations vary by study design, geographic region, sex, family history and other subgroups, and estimated population attributable fractions are generally larger in men than in women in some analyses.13 points

Key figures

Prognostic factors
FactorEffectHR (95% CI)p
red meat and pancreatic cancer in men▲ worse1.29 (1.08–1.53)—
processed meat and colorectal cancer by sex (SRRE)▲ worse1.23 (1.07–1.42)—
RR processed meat, postmenopausal breast cancer▲ worse1.1 (1.03–1.17)—
Source quotes
  • “Red meat consumption was positively associated with pancreatic cancer in men (RR=1.29; 95% CI=1.08–1.53).”
  • “SRRE for men was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07–1.42) and for women 1.05 (95% CI: 0.94–1.16).”
  • “processed meat was associated with post-menopausal (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.17), but not pre-menopausal (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.10)”
  • Sources describe that regions with higher processed‑meat intake have higher diet‑attributable gastrointestinal cancer burdens (for example, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia), and that processed‑meat intake is most consistently associated with colorectal cancer risk in humans. [1][17][70][18][59][71][64][2][67][65][20][93]12 sources
  • Some pooled subgroup analyses report sex‑specific associations: for example, one meta‑analysis found associations for pancreatic cancer in men but not in women; a quantitative review of colorectal cancer reported a processed‑meat SRRE of 1.23 in men versus 1.05 in women; and pooled analyses have reported associations with breast cancer in postmenopausal but not premenopausal women. [1][48][51][6][75][50][85][84][72]9 sources
  • Epidemiologic studies assess intake of preserved/processed meats such as bacon, ham, and sausages. [4][66]
  • In pooled systematic‑review data, estimated percentages of incident cancer cases attributable to processed meat were larger in men (0.7%) than in women (0.4%) in the cited summary of behavioural risk factors. [21]
  • Population‑attributable‑fraction analyses using national dietary data have estimated that a measurable fraction of colorectal cancer is attributable to red and processed meat; for example, in Korea PAFs for colon cancer were about 10% in men and 9% in women, with higher overall attributable fractions in men than women. [55]
  • Authors of a pancreatic‑cancer review noted that smoking, a major source of N‑nitroso compounds, could modify associations between processed‑meat consumption and pancreatic cancer, but available data were limited to assess effect modification by smoking. [50]
  • Some subgroup analyses reported larger increases in colorectal cancer risk with higher processed‑meat consumption among people with a family history of colorectal cancer. [86]
  • Some individual analyses reported associations present only in specific subgroups; for example, one study found an association between processed meat and prostate cancer only among African American men. [37]
  • Processed meat was considered as a candidate contributor to early‑onset colorectal cancer risk in a pooled risk‑modeling study despite not reaching statistical significance in that meta‑analysis, reflecting uncertainty about age‑specific associations. [98]
  • For colorectal adenoma, a meta‑analysis reported that increased risk with red (and processed) meat intake appeared across geographic regions, study designs and after adjustment for common confounders. [95]
  • Analyses of population burden in China show that colorectal cancer burden attributable to high processed meat intake rose from 1990 to 2021, indicating a shifting population‑level impact over time. [69]
  • Sources indicate that most population‑level evidence comes from observational studies of adults (prospective cohorts and case–control), including large cohorts such as UK Biobank and EPIC, and from studies of maternal/child diet for childhood leukemia; many of these studies are conducted in the United States and Europe. [29][33][31][99][65][60][61][62][13][100][14][7][8][9]14 sources
  • Meta‑analyses report heterogeneity by study design and region: statistically significant positive associations are observed more often in case‑control than in cohort studies, some Asian analyses report different or weaker associations than European/American studies, and for gastric cancer, case‑control studies reported higher pooled risks (for example, RR ≈1.63) while cohort findings were closer to null. [101][100][9][8][7][68][16][29][10]9 sources
Reducing exposureMany national and international cancer-prevention and dietary guidance documents recommend limiting red meat intake and avoiding or minimizing processed meat. Observational studies and meta-analyses report associations between lower red/processed meat intake (or substituting plant-based foods) and lower risk of colorectal and some other cancers, but the evidence is predominantly observational and judged low to very low certainty.9 points
  • Observational cohort studies, pooled analyses, umbrella reviews and meta-analyses report that dietary patterns lower in red and processed meat or substituting animal foods (including processed meat) with plant foods are associated with lower colorectal cancer incidence and lower risks for some other cancers (for example oral, esophageal, hepatocellular carcinoma) in population studies; these sources note limitations of the evidence and that findings are mainly from observational research rather than randomized trials. [97][102][99][40][39][103][41][80][59][87][42][44][65][43][8][54][93]17 sources
  • Sources state that authorities recommend limiting red and processed meat; for example, prospective evidence supports limiting these foods, and IARC/WCRF note that no level of processed‑meat intake can be confidently considered safe for preventing chronic diseases such as colorectal cancer. [1][21][3][18][71][11]6 sources
  • After a cancer diagnosis, people report a small or modest decrease in consumption of red and processed meat, but evidence on post-diagnosis dietary factors (including red and processed meat) and colorectal cancer prognosis is limited; behavioral interventions among survivors have been feasible for increasing fruit and vegetable intake, while evidence on effects for reducing processed meat consumption is very limited and at least one included study reported a non-significant effect on processed meat intake. [104][105][106]3 sources
  • Dose-based syntheses across large cohorts estimated that reducing processed meat by three servings per week was associated with very small decreases in overall cancer mortality and with very small decreases in incidence of some cancer types, but the evidence was judged low to very low certainty and the absolute changes were small. [87][42]
  • Randomized and behavioral dietary interventions have been used to reduce processed meat consumption and to shift diets away from Western patterns toward Mediterranean or pesco-vegetarian patterns; in a randomized lifestyle trial among overweight or obese breast cancer survivors, participation in dietary interventions was associated with reductions in overall food consumption and decreases in components of a Western pattern such as red and processed meat. [19][73]
  • Large burden-of-disease analyses and reviews describe primary prevention that addresses modifiable exposures such as diet as an approach for reducing population colorectal cancer burden, and reviews of modifiable risk factors emphasize primary prevention because many risk factors are modifiable. [69][49]
  • Meat manufacturers commonly add nitrite to processed meats to extend shelf life and preserve color; a short-term human feeding trial that reduced nitrite and added phytochemical extracts reported significantly lower fecal apparent total N‑nitroso compound (ATNC) excretion for the phytochemical-enriched products versus standard processed red meat. [17]
  • Sources describe substantial variability in how processed meat (and other muscle foods) are categorized and described across studies, which does not match regulatory definitions and hampers consistent interpretation. [12]
  • A systematic review addressing familial colorectal cancer recommended informing patients and health professionals that addressing high consumption of red or processed meat could offer additional perspectives for prevention in people with a family history of colorectal cancer. [86]
What we don't know yetMost evidence linking processed meat to cancer comes from observational studies and reviewers note methodological limitations, measurement error, residual confounding, and substantial between‑study heterogeneity that limit causal inference. Evidence is described as convincing for colorectal cancer but is limited or inconsistent for many other cancer sites; authors call for better‑designed prospective cohort studies, and where appropriate, interventional research to clarify dose–response relationships, mechanisms, and subgroup differences.13 points
  • Most published evidence is observational; reviewers frequently note methodological heterogeneity, variable study quality (including many case–control studies), potential residual confounding, measurement error, imprecision for some endpoints, and some indications of publication bias, all of which limit causal inference and have led authors to call for more well‑designed prospective cohort studies and, where possible, randomized or interventional research with improved control for confounders and better exposure assessment. [1][88][15][16][29][30][56][91][35][39][40][41][76][12][43][44][66][5][87][6][75][84][58][23][34][38][105][70][107][24][101][108][10][28][50][11][51][8][13][100][95][52][53][9][7][25][109][60][61][62]50 sources
  • Important unresolved methodological issues include uncertainty in dose–response relationships, heterogeneous exposure definitions and dietary assessment, the influence of different processed‑meat subtypes and preparation methods, measurement error and modeling choices, and residual confounding — all of which can affect pooled risk estimates and may overestimate risks at low consumption levels. [1][15][88][70][30][29][12][43][6]9 sources
  • The strength and consistency of evidence varies by cancer site: evidence is described as convincing for colorectal cancer but is limited, suggestive, or inconsistent for other sites, and the IARC classification of processed meat as carcinogenic is based principally on colorectal cancer evidence rather than equivalent evidence across all cancer types. [18][94][56][3][2][20][110]7 sources
  • Sources describe proposed mechanisms centered on heme iron and heterocyclic amines, with short‑term human and animal data showing increased genotoxicity and lipid peroxidation and emerging roles for the gut microbiota; however, causal pathways are not confirmed, evidence is limited, and many experimental exposures exceed typical human diets. [6][23][7][9][10][83][19]7 sources
  • Meta-analyses often report weak or modest associations, and authors note that isolating independent effects is difficult given the likely influence of confounding by other dietary and lifestyle factors. [51][11][50][52][53]5 sources
  • Meta‑analyses and pooled reviews of pancreatic cancer reach different conclusions — some report no significant association in highest‑versus‑lowest comparisons while others report positive dose–response associations, and findings have been inconsistent by study design and by sex. [2][111][48]3 sources
  • Inter‑individual genetic variability may modify genotoxic, transcriptomic, and biomarker responses to processed‑meat consumption and could contribute to large between‑person differences seen in experimental studies. [17]
  • In Brazil, attributable and projected colorectal cancer costs from red and processed meat were estimated using comparative risk assessment that assumed a 10‑year exposure‑to‑outcome lag. [18]
  • Authors of a stomach‑cancer meta‑analysis cautioned that the observed association between processed meat and stomach cancer could be affected by confounding or effect modification and that residual confounding cannot be ruled out. [62]
  • There is substantial heterogeneity across studies — by study design (cohort versus case–control), geography, length of follow‑up, adjustment for confounders, and exposure definitions — and many meta‑analyses report large between‑study variability that limits certainty in pooled estimates (for example, I2 = 70% reported for red and processed meat and colorectal cancer). [2][3][34][35][38][58][68][45][89][6][75][84][13][101][100][10][28][95][51][11][50][52][53][8][9][7][25][109][60][61][62]31 sources
  • Sources describe uncertainties in subgroup results: some analyses report associations in men but not women, and cohort-based subtype analyses (e.g., esophageal adenocarcinoma vs squamous cell carcinoma) are non‑significant; authors often deem the overall evidence inconclusive and call for further large prospective studies. [98][39][40][48][89]5 sources
  • Different sources disagree about the presence or strength of associations: at least one large prospective cohort reported no association for several cancer sites while other reviews, mechanistic animal studies, and population‑burden analyses report associations with colorectal cancer. [20][93][83][69]4 sources
  • Mechanistic pathways linking processed meat to colorectal carcinogenesis are not fully established, and human dietary intervention studies that probe mechanistic biomarkers in vivo are relatively scarce. [19][83]

Common questions

What does the research say about overview for Processed meat?

Processed meat refers to meat that has been cured, dried, fermented, smoked, salted, cultured, or otherwise treated, with common examples including bacon, ham, sausages, salami, hot dogs, and deli/luncheon meats. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), principally based on evidence for colorectal cancer; the human evidence base is composed mainly of observational epidemiologic studies that have been summarized in many systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

What does the research say about how people are exposed for Processed meat?

People are exposed to processed meat mainly through dietary consumption of preserved or cured meat products (for example bacon, ham, sausages, hot dogs), and epidemiologic studies measure this exposure using dietary assessment tools and report it as grams per day, servings, frequencies, or categories. Consumption levels vary by region and have increased in many places, and processed‑meat products commonly contain additives and can produce compounds discussed as possible biological mechanisms in cancer research.

What does the research say about evidence of cancer risk for Processed meat?

Multiple meta-analyses and umbrella reviews of observational studies most consistently link higher processed‑meat consumption with increased colorectal cancer incidence; associations with other cancer sites have been reported but vary in magnitude, consistency, and evidence quality.

What does the research say about who is most at risk for Processed meat?

Epidemiologic evidence—mainly from adult prospective cohort and case–control studies in high‑resource countries—links processed‑meat consumption most consistently with colorectal cancer, and population‑level attributable burdens vary by country and over time. Reported associations vary by study design, geographic region, sex, family history and other subgroups, and estimated population attributable fractions are generally larger in men than in women in some analyses.

What does the research say about reducing exposure for Processed meat?

Many national and international cancer-prevention and dietary guidance documents recommend limiting red meat intake and avoiding or minimizing processed meat. Observational studies and meta-analyses report associations between lower red/processed meat intake (or substituting plant-based foods) and lower risk of colorectal and some other cancers, but the evidence is predominantly observational and judged low to very low certainty.

What does the research say about what we don't know yet for Processed meat?

Most evidence linking processed meat to cancer comes from observational studies and reviewers note methodological limitations, measurement error, residual confounding, and substantial between‑study heterogeneity that limit causal inference. Evidence is described as convincing for colorectal cancer but is limited or inconsistent for many other cancer sites; authors call for better‑designed prospective cohort studies, and where appropriate, interventional research to clarify dose–response relationships, mechanisms, and subgroup differences.

Sources

Every statement above is drawn from these reviewed sources. This page reports what they describe. Sources last checked June 19, 2026.

  1. Systematic reviewA comprehensive evaluation of epidemiological evidence on processed meat intake in relation to cancer, cardiovascular, metabolic diseases and all-cause mortality: an umbrella review · 2026
  2. Systematic reviewRed and processed meat and pancreatic cancer risk: a meta-analysis · 2023
  3. Meta-analysisAssociation of meat consumption with the risk of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis · 2023
  4. Meta-analysisEffect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose⁻Response Meta-Analysis · 2019
  5. Meta-analysisProcessed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses · 2019
  6. Meta-analysisConsumption of red and processed meat and breast cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies · 2018
  7. Meta-analysisA review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of red and processed meat, meat cooking methods, heme iron, heterocyclic amines and prostate cancer · 2015
  8. Meta-analysisProcessed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time · 2015
  9. Meta-analysisRed and Processed Meat Consumption Increases Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A PRISMA-Compliant Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies · 2015
  10. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat intake is associated with higher gastric cancer risk: a meta-analysis of epidemiological observational studies · 2013
  11. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies · 2011
  12. Systematic reviewDietary Meat Categories and Descriptions in Chronic Disease Research Are Substantively Different within and between Experimental and Observational Studies: A Systematic Review and Landscape Analysis · 2020
  13. Meta-analysisRed Meat and Colorectal Cancer: A Quantitative Update on the State of the Epidemiologic Science · 2015
  14. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies · 2016
  15. Meta-analysisAssociation between red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis of prospective studies · 2025
  16. Systematic reviewAssociations between the consumption of red meat and processed meat and the incidence of colorectal cancer in Asia: a meta-analysis · 2025
  17. Systematic reviewGenetic Variability Impacts Genotoxic and Transcriptome Responses in the Human Colon after the Consumption of Processed Red Meat Products and Those with Added Phytochemical Extracts · 2024
  18. Meta-analysisThe current and future costs of colorectal cancer attributable to red and processed meat consumption in Brazil · 2023
  19. Randomized trialEffects of meat-based, meat-based with α-tocopherol, and pesco-vegetarian diets on biomarkers associated with colorectal cancer risk: a randomized behavioral intervention trial · 2025
  20. Randomized trialRed and processed meat intake and cancer risk: Results from the prospective NutriNet-Santé cohort study · 2018
  21. Systematic reviewSex/gender differences in the association between behavioural factors and cancers: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with quantitative synthesis · 2025
  22. Systematic reviewRole of diet in the risks of esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma: an updated umbrella review · 2024
  23. Systematic reviewAssociation between red meat consumption and colon cancer: A systematic review of experimental results · 2017
  24. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat intake and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies · 2015
  25. Meta-analysisSystematic review with meta-analysis: meat consumption and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2014
  26. Meta-analysisMeat consumption is associated with esophageal cancer risk in a meat- and cancer-histological-type dependent manner · 2014
  27. Meta-analysisMeat, fish, and esophageal cancer risk: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis · 2013
  28. Meta-analysisMeat intake and risk of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis · 2012
  29. Systematic reviewDietary patterns and colorectal cancer risk: Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review · 2025
  30. Systematic reviewRisk factors for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses · 2025
  31. Meta-analysisTotal, unprocessed, and processed red meat intake in relation to the risk of pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies · 2025
  32. Systematic reviewAdulthood dietary and lifestyle patterns and risk of breast cancer: Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review · 2025
  33. Meta-analysisMaternal and infant diet play a role in acute leukemia development: An expanded systematic review and meta-analysis · 2025
  34. Meta-analysisSalted fish and processed foods intake and nasopharyngeal carcinoma risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies · 2022
  35. Systematic reviewDiet and gastric cancer risk: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies · 2022
  36. Meta-analysisThe Relationship Between Plant-Based Diet and Risk of Digestive System Cancers: A Meta-Analysis Based on 3,059,009 Subjects · 2022
  37. Systematic reviewAssociation Between Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis · 2022
  38. Meta-analysisMeat Intake and the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies · 2022
  39. Systematic reviewRole of Diet in Colorectal Cancer Incidence: Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Prospective Observational Studies · 2021
  40. Systematic reviewDiet and Esophageal Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies · 2022
  41. Systematic reviewThe role of dietary factors in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease to hepatocellular carcinoma progression: A systematic review · 2022
  42. Meta-analysisPatterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies · 2019
  43. Systematic reviewRed and processed meat consumption and cancer outcomes: Umbrella review · 2021
  44. Meta-analysisConsumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies · 2021
  45. Meta-analysisFoods and beverages and colorectal cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies, an update of the evidence of the WCRF-AICR Continuous Update Project · 2017
  46. Meta-analysisDietary Protein Sources and Incidence of Breast Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies · 2016
  47. Meta-analysisRed Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Risk: A Dose-response Meta-analysis of Observational Studies · 2016
  48. Meta-analysisAssociation Between Consumption of Red and Processed Meat and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis · 2017
  49. Systematic reviewModifiable risk factors for the prevention of bladder cancer: a systematic review of meta-analyses · 2016
  50. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies · 2012
  51. Meta-analysisProcessed meat and colorectal cancer: a quantitative review of prospective epidemiologic studies · 2010
  52. Meta-analysisA review and meta-analysis of red and processed meat consumption and breast cancer · 2010
  53. Meta-analysisQuantitative assessment of red meat or processed meat consumption and kidney cancer · 2009
  54. Systematic reviewDietary patterns and risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review of cohort studies (2000-2011) · 2012
  55. Meta-analysisPopulation Attributable Fraction of Established Modifiable Risk Factors on Colorectal Cancer in Korea · 2021
  56. Systematic reviewTotal, red and processed meat consumption and human health: an umbrella review of observational studies · 2022
  57. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat consumption and risk of bladder cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies · 2018
  58. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat consumption and gastric cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis · 2017
  59. Systematic reviewMediterranean diet and colorectal cancer: A systematic review · 2017
  60. Meta-analysisMeat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies · 2006
  61. Meta-analysisMeat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies · 2002
  62. Meta-analysisProcessed meat consumption and stomach cancer risk: a meta-analysis · 2006
  63. Meta-analysisBeyond the Plate: Unveiling the Association Between Meat Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk · 2026
  64. Meta-analysisThe Global Incident Gastrointestinal Cancers Attributable to Suboptimal Diets From 1990 to 2018 · 2024
  65. Systematic reviewEvidence Update on the Relationship between Diet and the Most Common Cancers from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study: A Systematic Review · 2021
  66. Meta-analysisProcessed meat intake and incidence of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies · 2020
  67. Meta-analysisHow to Keep the Balance between Red and Processed Meat Intake and Physical Activity Regarding Mortality: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis · 2023
  68. Meta-analysisMeat Consumption and Risk of Metabolic Syndrome: Results from the Korean Population and a Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies · 2018
  69. Review articleTrends in colorectal cancer burden attributable to lifestyle in China (1990-2021): based on the global burden of disease study, revealing declining impact of dietary factors and rising influence of tobacco, alcohol, and obesity · 2026
  70. Meta-analysisObservational Dose-Response Meta-Analysis Methods May Bias Risk Estimates at Low Consumption Levels: The Case of Meat and Colorectal Cancer · 2024
  71. Meta-analysisAdherence to the WCRF/AICR Dietary Recommendations for Cancer Prevention and Risk of Cancer in Elderly from Europe and the United States: A Meta-Analysis within the CHANCES Project · 2017
  72. Meta-analysisProcessed Meat and Risk of Renal Cell and Bladder Cancers · 2018
  73. Randomized trialDietary patterns and change in food consumption in overweight or obese breast cancer survivors: the InForma randomized intervention trial · 2026
  74. Review articleInteractions between genetic predisposition to obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes risk, and food or beverage intake for incident type 2 diabetes: European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) InterAct case-cohort study · 2026
  75. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat consumption and breast cancer: UK Biobank cohort study and meta-analysis · 2018
  76. Meta-analysisIntake of Various Food Groups and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies · 2021
  77. Systematic reviewBladder cancer risk factors: a comprehensive umbrella review of meta-analyses · 2026
  78. Meta-analysisThe association between major gastrointestinal cancers and red and processed meat and fish consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational studies · 2024
  79. Meta-analysisMeat Intake and the Risk of Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies · 2023
  80. Systematic reviewAssociations of lifestyle factors with oral cancer risk: An umbrella review · 2025
  81. Meta-analysisAdolescent Dietary Intake and Breast Cancer in Adulthood: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis · 2025
  82. Meta-analysisDietary Patterns and Risk of Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies · 2023
  83. Clinical trialGut microbiota drives colon cancer risk associated with diet: a comparative analysis of meat-based and pesco-vegetarian diets · 2024
  84. Meta-analysisFood groups and risk of colorectal cancer · 2018
  85. Systematic reviewA summary of meat intakes and health burdens · 2018
  86. Systematic reviewDo alcoholic beverages, obesity and other nutritional factors modify the risk of familial colorectal cancer? A systematic review · 2017
  87. Meta-analysisReduction of Red and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Mortality and Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies · 2019
  88. Meta-analysisDifference in Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Mortality by Dietary Pattern Analysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis · 2025
  89. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat consumption and esophageal cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis · 2020
  90. Meta-analysisModifiable factors and esophageal cancer: a systematic review of published meta-analyses · 2018
  91. Systematic reviewRed/processed meat consumption and non-cancer-related outcomes in humans: umbrella review · 2023
  92. Systematic reviewDietary patterns and colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis · 2012
  93. Clinical trialDietary patterns and colorectal adenoma and cancer risk: a review of the epidemiological evidence · 2010
  94. Systematic reviewDiets, Dietary Patterns, Single Foods and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses · 2022
  95. Meta-analysisRed and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas: a meta-analysis of observational studies · 2013
  96. Meta-analysisMeat consumption and risk of lung cancer: evidence from observational studies · 2012
  97. Systematic reviewCancer Risk and Mortality Following Substitution of Animal Foods with Plant Foods: A Systematic Review · 2025
  98. Meta-analysisA risk scoring system to predict the individual incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer · 2022
  99. Systematic reviewAssociations of Diet with Health Outcomes in the UK Biobank: A Systematic Review · 2024
  100. Meta-analysisAssociation between processed meat and red meat consumption and risk for glioma: a meta-analysis from 14 articles · 2015
  101. Meta-analysisMeat intake and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies · 2016
  102. Systematic reviewThe Isocaloric Substitution of Plant-Based and Animal-Based Protein in Relation to Aging-Related Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review · 2022
  103. Systematic reviewRole of Dairy Foods, Fish, White Meat, and Eggs in the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies in 2018-2022 · 2022
  104. Systematic reviewDo people change their eating habits after a diagnosis of cancer? A systematic review · 2023
  105. Meta-analysisPost-diagnosis dietary factors, supplement use and colorectal cancer prognosis: A Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review and meta-analysis · 2024
  106. Systematic reviewFeasibility, acceptability, and effects of behavior change interventions for improving multiple dietary behaviors among cancer survivors: a systematic review · 2022
  107. Meta-analysisMeat, fish, dairy products and risk of hematological malignancies in adults - a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies · 2019
  108. Meta-analysisLifestyle factors and small intestine adenocarcinoma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis · 2015
  109. Systematic reviewFoodstuffs and colorectal cancer risk: a review · 2006
  110. Review articleGenetic evidence for associations between food intake and prostatic diseases: a Mendelian randomization study · 2026
  111. Meta-analysisThe association between red, processed and white meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies · 2023

Keep exploring

See the live research feed, the per-compound profiles in cancer-fighting agents, and the cancer-type guides. Everything across the site is built from the same reviewed, cited evidence.