Domingo · Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 2017 · narrative review · n=?

Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: A review of scientific news since the IARC decision.

Cited 226 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review synthesizing post-IARC literature without a systematic review or meta-analytic methodology.

PubMed 28450127 · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.028 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The author reviewed epidemiological studies and reviews published following the October 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decision regarding the carcinogenicity of red meat ("probably carcinogenic to humans") and processed meat ("carcinogenic to humans"). The review evaluates the updated evidence and identifies unresolved research gaps.

What was found

The abstract provides no quantitative data or risk estimates. It qualitatively reports that new epidemiological studies and reviews published since the 2015 IARC evaluation consistently support the original conclusions regarding cancer risk. Identified knowledge gaps include the precise biological mechanisms for colorectal and other cancers, the distinct role of pre-existing versus cooking-induced carcinogens, and the specific risk profiles of white meat and poultry.

Why it matters

It reaffirms that post-2015 literature broadly aligns with the IARC meat carcinogenicity classification while highlighting specific research priorities regarding cooking methods and alternative meat types.

Limits

The abstract describes a narrative review without explicit systematic search parameters, quantitative data, or sample sizes. Causality cannot be established, and the paper relies on broad summaries rather than presenting specific effect sizes or hazard ratios.

Cited by