A major Canadian study has found that most people can continue to eat red and processed meat as they do now without suffering health problems.
The research – which scientists said was “sure to be controversial” – was led by Dalhousie and McMaster universities.
Its results contradict nutrition guidelines compiled by the Canadian government.
Most Europeans and North Americans have about three or four servings of red or processed meat a week, current estimates show.
The new study consisted of four systematic reviews of trials and studies conducted by other scientists who were investigating links between consuming red and processed meat and cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes.
In one of the reviews, the scientists found no “significant” or “important” association between eating meat and developing heart disease, diabetes or cancer.
Three of the reviews of studies that followed millions of people found only a “very small” reduction in risk among people who had three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week than the average person.
The association between lower consumption levels and a reduction in health risks was also branded “uncertain".
Bradley Johnston, corresponding author on the reviews and associate professor of community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University, said the research team is aware the results contradict many national nutritional guidelines.
"This is not just another study on red and processed meat, but a series of high quality systematic reviews resulting in recommendations we think are far more transparent, robust and reliable," he said.
He added, however, that the team is also aware that arguments against meat are not solely based on health outcomes.
"We [...] did not consider animal welfare or environmental concerns when making our recommendations,” he explained.
"We are however sympathetic to animal welfare and environmental concerns with a number of the guideline panel members having eliminated or reduced their personal red and processed meat intake for these reasons."
The study appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine today.
An editorial by authors at the Indiana University School of Medicine added: "This is sure to be controversial, but is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date. Because that review is inclusive, those who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence with which to build an argument."
