How much chicken you’d have to eat a week to increase your risk of dying by 27% — it’s a lot less than you think

” player=”SPdDOYds” platform=”jw-player” playlist=”Toq2ZZoq” playlisttype=”recommendations” placement=”true” jwpropertyid=”XDErnc08″ /]

Is poultry a pollutant?

Chicken has long been lauded as a healthy alternative to red and processed meats, which have been linked to diabetes, heart disease, and several cancers. 

But a new study has found a clucking scary link between chicken consumption, overall mortality, and gastrointestinal cancer — and you don’t have to eat that much to experience negative effects.

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared that red meat — such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat — is “probably carcinogenic to humans,” while poultry was left off the table as a risk factor.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans defines chicken as a “noble food” because it is high in protein and lower in fat than other animal meats. The DGA suggests a standard poultry portion of 100 g and recommends eating it one to three times per week.

However, Italian researchers recently found that people who eat more than 300 grams of chicken per week, or just under four servings, are 27% more likely to die from any cause than those who eat less than 100 grams (a little over one serving).

How the scientists figured this out

Researchers from the National Institute of Gastroenterology in Italy collected data on the diets of 4,869 adults and tracked the health of participants for 19 years.

Height, weight and blood pressure of participants were recorded, as well as information about their eating habits. Through interviews, participants gave information about their demographic background, general health, lifestyle habits and medical history.

They were asked to report the amount of poultry, red meat, and total meat they consumed. This data was then organized into four levels of protein intake.

Of the 1,028 participants who died over the course of the study, white meat (rabbit and poultry) accounted for approximately 41% of their weekly meat intake, with poultry comprising 29% of that total.

Those who consumed more than 300 grams of poultry per week were 2.27 times more likely to die from digestive cancer than those who ate less than 100 grams.

Interestingly, researchers found that the risk increased as the portion of white meat increased, and was higher compared to consuming the same portion of red meat.

This risk was higher for men than women; men who consumed more than 300 grams of poultry per week were 2.6 times more likely to die from digestive cancer than those who ate less than 100 grams.

“Our results showed that men have a higher risk than women of dying from [gastrointestinal cancer] for the same proportion of poultry consumed,” the authors said.

Researchers think that the difference in sex hormones, specifically the presence of estrogen in females, may influence the body’s ability to metabolize nutrients and develop certain diseases.

In a previous study, researchers showed that combining the consumption of red meat with a portion of vegetables reduced the risks associated with meat consumption. However, this effect was not observed for white meat.

Why is all this chicken linked to higher mortality?

The research team remains unclear about why the increase in white meat increases cancer risk, but they believe the uptick could be partly caused by overcooking chicken.

They theorize that burning breast meat may create high levels of mutagens, substances that cause genetic mutation. Furthermore, the industrialized production and processing of chickens may contribute to an increased risk of cancer.

Pesticides used on feed and/or medications or hormones administered to chickens can create toxic residues that remain in the meat, thereby exposing consumers to carcinogens.

Many people opt for organic chicken to reduce potential exposure to these chemicals. On average, this choice costs consumers $4 more per pound for chicken breasts.

The study authors acknowledged the limitations of their research; the questionnaire did not specify different cuts of poultry, preparation methods, or how the meat was processed, all factors that can significantly influence health outcomes.

The team is hopeful their research will inspire further studies to explore the effects of processed poultry.

In the meantime, or meat time, they suggest a strategy of moderation,”We believe it is beneficial to moderate poultry consumption, alternating it with other equally valuable protein sources, such as fish. We also believe it is essential to focus more on cooking methods, avoiding high temperatures and prolonged cooking times.”