Clinical Guidelines19 November 2019
    Author, Article and Disclosure Information

    This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.

    Description:

    Dietary guideline recommendations require consideration of the certainty in the evidence, the magnitude of potential benefits and harms, and explicit consideration of people's values and preferences. A set of recommendations on red meat and processed meat consumption was developed on the basis of 5 de novo systematic reviews that considered all of these issues.

    Methods:

    The recommendations were developed by using the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) guideline development process, which includes rigorous systematic review methodology, and GRADE methods to rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome and to move from evidence to recommendations. A panel of 14 members, including 3 community members, from 7 countries voted on the final recommendations. Strict criteria limited the conflicts of interest among panel members. Considerations of environmental impact or animal welfare did not bear on the recommendations. Four systematic reviews addressed the health effects associated with red meat and processed meat consumption, and 1 systematic review addressed people's health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption.

    Recommendations:

    The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

    Primary Funding Source:

    None. (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017074074; PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018088854)

    References

    • 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Health and Human Services December 2015. Google Scholar
    • 2. Public Health EnglandThe Eatwell Guide. London, UK Public Health England 2016. Google Scholar
    • 3. World Cancer Research Fund; American Institute for Cancer Research. Meat, fish and dairy products and the risk of cancer. Continuous Update Project Expert Report 2019. 2019. Accessed at www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 4. Bouvard V Loomis D Guyton KZ et alInternational Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working GroupCarcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol2015;16:1599-600. [PMID: 26514947] doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Blake P Durão S Naude CE et alAn analysis of methods used to synthesize evidence and grade recommendations in food-based dietary guidelines. Nutr Rev2018;76:290-300. [PMID: 29425371] doi:10.1093/nutrit/nux074 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Ioannidis JPA The challenge of reforming nutritional epidemiologic research. JAMA2018;320:969-70. [PMID: 30422271] doi:10.1001/jama.2018.11025 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Johnston BC Alonso-Coello P Bala MM et alMethods for trustworthy nutritional recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and accessible Evidence summaries Composed of Systematic reviews): a protocol. BMC Med Res Methodol2018;18:162. [PMID: 30518328] doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0621-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Rabassa M Garcia-RiberaRuiz S Solà I et alNutrition guidelines vary widely in methodological quality: an overview of reviews. J Clin Epidemiol2018;104:62-72. [PMID: 30171900] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.08.018 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Zeraatkar D Johnston BC , and  Guyatt G Evidence collection and evaluation for the development of dietary guidelines and public policy on nutrition. Annu Rev Nutr2019;39:227-47. [PMID: 31433741] doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-082018-124610 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. Brouwers MC Kho ME Browman GP et alAGREE Next Steps ConsortiumAGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ2010;182:E839-42. [PMID: 20603348] doi:10.1503/cmaj.090449 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Institute of Medicine; National Academy of Sciences. Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2011. Accessed at www.nationalacademies.org on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 12. Johnston BC Seivenpiper JL Vernooij RWM et alThe philosophy of evidence-based principles and practice in nutrition. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes2019;3:189-99. [PMID: 31193887] doi:10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2019.02.005 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Han MA Zeraatkar D Guyatt GH et alReduction of red and processed meat intake and cancer mortality and incidence. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ann Intern Med2019;171:711-20. doi:10.7326/M19-0699 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Vernooij RWM Zeraatkar D Han MA et alPatterns of red and processed meat consumption and risk for cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ann Intern Med2019;171:732-41. doi:10.7326/M19-1583 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Zeraatkar D Johnston BC Bartoszko J et alEffect of lower versus higher red meat intake on cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes. A systematic review of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med2019;171:721-31. doi:10.7326/M19-0622 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Zeraatkar D Han MA Guyatt GH et alRed and processed meat consumption and risk for all-cause mortality and cardiometabolic outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ann Intern Med2019;171:703-10. doi:10.7326/M19-0655 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Valli C Rabassa M Johnston BC et alHealth-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. A mixed-methods systematic review. Ann Intern Med2019;171:742-55. doi:10.7326/M19-1326 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Guyatt GH Oxman AD Vist GE et alGRADE Working GroupGRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ2008;336:924-6. [PMID: 18436948] doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Andrews J Guyatt G Oxman AD et alGRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol2013;66:719-25. [PMID: 23312392] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Andrews JC Schünemann HJ Oxman AD et alGRADE guidelines: 15.Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol2013;66:726-35. [PMID: 23570745] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Valli C, Rabassa M, Zeraatkar D, et al. Adults' beliefs, preferences and attitudes about meat consumption: a systematic review protocol. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018088854. Accessed at www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=88854 on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 22. Zeraatkar D, Bala M, Webber-Adams T, et al. Red meat and health outcomes: a systematic review. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017074074. Accessed at www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=74074 on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 23. World Cancer Research Fund; American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. 2007. Accessed at www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/english.pdf on 26 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 24. Daniel CR Cross AJ Koebnick C et alTrends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutr2011;14:575-83. [PMID: 21070685] doi:10.1017/S1368980010002077 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Surveys (Nutrition) 2004 and 2015. 2018. Accessed at www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-nutrition-surveillance/health-nutrition-surveys/canadian-community-health-survey-cchs/2015-canadian-community-health-survey-nutrition-food-nutrition-surveillance.html on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 26. United Kingdom meat consumption. Results of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) rolling programme for 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016. 2019. Accessed at www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ndns-results-from-years-7-and-8-combined on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 27. Suarez MV, Mañas RJ, Fernández SR, et al. Spanish national dietary survey in adults, elderly and pregnant women. EFSA J. 2016;13. Accessed at https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-1053 on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 28. Micha R Khatibzadeh S , and  Shi P Global Burden of Diseases Nutrition and Chronic Diseases Expert Group (NutriCoDE)Global, regional and national consumption of major food groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis including 266 country-specific nutrition surveys worldwide. BMJ Open2015;5:e008705. [PMID: 26408285] doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008705 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: McMaster University; 2015. Accessed at https://gradepro.org on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 30. Sarwar N Gao P Seshasai SR et alEmerging Risk Factors CollaborationDiabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies. Lancet2010;375:2215-22. [PMID: 20609967] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60484-9 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31. Ferlay J Soerjomataram I Dikshit R et alCancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer2015;136:E359-86. [PMID: 25220842] doi:10.1002/ijc.29210 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 32. Lewin S Bohren M Rashidian A et alApplying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 2: How to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implement Sci2018;13:10. [PMID: 29384082] doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0689-2 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 33. Alonso-Coello P Oxman AD Moberg J et alGRADE Working GroupGRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ2016;353:i2089. [PMID: 27365494] doi:10.1136/bmj.i2089 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 34. Haider LM Schwingshackl L Hoffmann G et alThe effect of vegetarian diets on iron status in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr2018;58:1359-74. [PMID: 27880062] doi:10.1080/10408398.2016.1259210 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Kersting M Kalhoff H Melter M et al[Vegetarian diets in children?—an assessment from pediatrics and nutrition science]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr2018;143:279-86. [PMID: 29471576] doi:10.1055/s-0043-119864 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Fewell Z DaveySmith G , and  Sterne JA The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol2007;166:646-55. [PMID: 17615092] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Clonan A Wilson P Swift JA et alRed and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutr2015;18:2446-56. [PMID: 25766000] doi:10.1017/S1368980015000567 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 38. Godfray HCJ Aveyard P Garnett T et alMeat consumption, health, and the environment. Science2018;361. [PMID: 30026199] doi:10.1126/science.aam5324 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 39. Pimentel D  and  Pimentel M Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am J Clin Nutr2003;78:660S-3S. [PMID: 12936963] doi:10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Sanchez-Sabate R  and  Sabaté J Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health2019;16. [PMID: 30959755] doi:10.3390/ijerph16071220 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Springmann M Clark M Mason-D’Croz D et alOptions for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature2018;562:519-25. [PMID: 30305731] doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Etemadi A Sinha R Ward MH et alMortality from different causes associated with meat, heme iron, nitrates, and nitrites in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study: population based cohort study. BMJ2017;357:j1957. [PMID: 28487287] doi:10.1136/bmj.j1957 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 43. Sinha R Peters U Cross AJ et alMeat, meat cooking methods and preservation, and risk for colorectal adenoma. Cancer Res2005;65:8034-41. [PMID: 16140978] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 44. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012: Integrating Nutrition and Physical Activity. Copenhagen Nordisk Ministerråd 2012. Google Scholar
    • 45. Health Canada. Canada's Dietary Guidelines for Health Professionals and Policy Makers. 2019. Accessed at https://food-guide.canada.ca/static/assets/pdf/CDG-EN-2018.pdf on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 46. International Agency for Research in Cancer. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Red and Processed Meat. Vol 114. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research in Cancer; 2015. Accessed at https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono114.pdf on 16 August 2019. Google Scholar
    • 47. Balshem H Helfand M Schünemann HJ et alGRADE guidelines: 3.Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol2011;64:401-6. [PMID: 21208779] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 48. Guyatt GH Oxman AD Sultan S et alGRADE Working GroupGRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol2011;64:1311-6. [PMID: 21802902] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 49. Ludwig DS Lowering the bar on the low-fat diet. JAMA2016;316:2087-8. [PMID: 27681384] doi:10.1001/jama.2016.15473 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 50. Patel CJ Burford B , and  Ioannidis JP Assessment of vibration of effects due to model specification can demonstrate the instability of observational associations. J Clin Epidemiol2015;68:1046-58. [PMID: 26279400] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.029 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar