There’s nothing quite like a hot dog or burger on a sunny summer afternoon – and this coming weekend millions of Brits are likely to chow down on a barbecue buffet of meaty treats. But this week, scientists have warned that processed meat – already thought to be fairly bad for you – may be even worse than we thought. US researchers have now reviewed more than 70 previous studies, involving several million participants, looking at the link between processed meat and Type 2 diabetes, cancer and ischemic heart disease.
Even compared to trans fats and sugary drinks, processed meat was found to be the worst addition to someone’s diet, even in very small amounts. In fact, there may be no safe amount at all, according to the research reported this week.
The University of Washington team writes in their paper: “The monotonic increases in health risk with increased consumption of processed meat suggest that there is not a ‘safe’ amount of processed meat consumption with respect to diabetes or colorectal cancer risk.
“Habitual consumption of even small amounts of processed meat, sugary drinks, and trans fatty acids is linked to increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease and colorectal cancer.”
The equivalent of one hot dog a day was associated with at least an 11% higher risk of Type 2 diabetes, and a 7% higher risk of colorectal cancer compared to eating no meat at all.
Current NHS guidelines state that anyone eating processed meat should cut down to 70g or less.
The NHS says: “Eating too much processed meat and red meat probably increases your risk of bowel (colorectal) cancer.
“Processed meat can also be high in salt and eating too much salt can increase your risk of high blood pressure.
“If you currently eat more than 90g (cooked weight) of red or processed meat a day, it is recommended that you cut down to 70g.”
But according to the research, even that may be too high. The authors of the study, published in Nature, say they need to keep researching the issue, but that there is a ‘merit’ to limiting consumption.
They wrote: “These associations each received two-star ratings reflecting weak relationships or inconsistent input evidence, highlighting both the need for further research and—given the high burden of these chronic diseases—the merit of continuing to recommend limiting consumption of these foods.”
