Less processed meat: what are the effects on your health? – Futura, le média qui explore le monde

The research was led by Joe Kennedy, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Edinburgh’s Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, with co-investigators from the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health. The team built a microsimulation model called mSHIFT using dietary data from two cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted in 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to 2018, creating a simulated population representing 242 million US adults.
The simulation tested reductions of 5%, 10%, 30%, 50%, 75%, and 100% in processed meat, unprocessed red meat, and both combined. The 30% reduction scenario sits in the middle of that range and represents a realistic policy target rather than an extreme dietary shift.
When both processed meat and unprocessed red meat were reduced by 30%, the model projected 1,073,400 fewer diabetes cases, 382,400 fewer cardiovascular disease cases, and 84,400 fewer colorectal cancer cases over the same period.
The larger combined reduction reflects the higher average intake of unprocessed red meat across the US population.
A 30% reduction in unprocessed red meat alone, roughly equivalent to one fewer quarter-pound beef burger per week, resulted in more than 732,000 fewer diabetes cases, 291,500 fewer cardiovascular disease cases, and 32,200 fewer colorectal cancer cases. The disease burden reduction for unprocessed red meat runs higher than for processed meat in absolute numbers because Americans consume more of it.
The mSHIFT model draws on established risk associations between meat consumption and chronic disease, then applies them to a representative population to estimate downstream outcomes. It does not track individuals over time or establish cause and effect. The results are as reliable as the underlying risk models, which themselves carry uncertainty, particularly for unprocessed red meat where the evidence base is less consistent than for processed meat.
The researchers note substantial uncertainty regarding the relationship between unprocessed red meat and chronic disease risk, which is why the processed meat findings carry more weight in their conclusions.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as carcinogenic to humans, placing it in Group 1 alongside tobacco and asbestos in terms of classification level, though not in terms of magnitude of risk. The US National Cancer Institute links processed meat to increased colorectal cancer risk and notes potential associations with stomach cancer. Red meat sits in Group 2A, meaning probably carcinogenic, based on evidence linking it to colon and rectal cancer.
The American Heart Association recommends minimizing processed meat intake, favoring fresh fish, seafood, legumes, and lean cuts instead. The CDC advises choosing fresh or frozen meat over cured, salted, or smoked products as part of sodium reduction guidance, since excess sodium is a major contributor to elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular risk.
The Edinburgh team called for the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans to include an explicit recommendation limiting processed meat intake, arguing it would be consistent with existing guidance on sodium and saturated fat and that the change could have widespread implications, especially for children and young people.
Reducing meat consumption has been recommended by the Climate Change Committee and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock sector.
The mSHIFT study did not model environmental outcomes directly, but its disease projections sit alongside a body of research showing overlapping health and climate benefits from the same dietary shifts.
The study does not argue that processed meat must disappear from the diet. It quantifies what a moderate, population level reduction would likely produce in disease burden terms, and those numbers are large enough to carry clear public health implications.

source