Processed meat intake may be involved in the etiology of colorectal cancer, a major cause of death in affluent countries. The epidemiologic studies published to date conclude that the excess risk in the highest category of processed meat-eaters is comprised between 20% and 50% compared with non-eaters. In addition, the excess risk per gram of intake is clearly higher than that of fresh red meat. Several hypotheses, which are mainly based on studies carried out on red meat, may explain why processed meat intake is linked to cancer risk. Those that have been tested experimentally are (i) that high-fat diets could promote carcinogenesis via insulin resistance or fecal bile acids; (ii) that cooking meat at a high temperature forms carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; (iii) that carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds are formed in meat and endogenously; (iv) that heme iron in red meat can promote carcinogenesis because it increases cell proliferation in the mucosa, through lipoperoxidation and/or cytotoxicity of fecal water. Nitrosation might increase the toxicity of heme in cured products. Solving this puzzle is a challenge that would permit to reduce cancer load by changing the processes rather than by banning processed meat.
The effect of meat consumption on cancer risk is a controversial issue. However, recent meta-analyses show that high consumers of cured meats and red meat are at increased risk of colorectal cancer. This increase is significant but modest (20-30%). Current WCRF-AICR recommendations are to eat no more than 500 g per week of red meat, and to avoid processed meat. Moreover, our studies show that beef meat and cured pork meat promote colon carcinogenesis in rats. The major promoter in meat is heme iron, via N-nitrosation or fat peroxidation. Dietary additives can suppress the toxic effects of heme iron. For instance, promotion of colon carcinogenesis in rats by cooked, nitrite-treated and oxidized high-heme cured meat was suppressed by dietary calcium and by α-tocopherol, and a study in volunteers supported these protective effects in humans. These additives, and others still under study, could provide an acceptable way to prevent colorectal cancer.
Potential chemopreventive agents for colorectal cancer are assessed in rodents. We speculated that the magnitude of the effect is meaningful and ranked all published agents according to their potency. Data were gathered systematically from 137 articles with the aberrant crypt foci (ACF) end point and from 146 articles with the tumor end point. The potency of each agent to reduce the number of ACF is listed in one table and the potency of each agent to reduce the tumor incidence in another table. Both tables are shown in this review and on a website with sorting abilities (http://www.inra.fr/reseau-nacre/sci-memb/corpet/indexan.html). Potency was estimated as the ratio of the value in control rats to the value in treated rats. From each article, only the most potent agent was kept, except in articles reporting the effect of more than seven agents. Among the 186 agents in the ACF table, the median agent reduced the number of ACF by one-half. The most potent agents to reduce azoxymethane-induced ACF were Plu...