Francesca Biagioli A new Italian study finds a strong correlation between chicken consumption and gastrointestinal cancer risk, calling for moderation and a more balanced, varied diet.
We’re used to thinking of red meat as the real dietary villain, often associated with a range of health issues, including cancer. Chicken, on the other hand, has long enjoyed a reputation as the safer, lighter alternative—lean, protein-packed, and somehow morally superior when it lands on our plate. But a new Italian study is challenging that comforting assumption, suggesting that even moderate chicken consumption may carry hidden risks.
The surprising findings from southern Italy
Researchers from the IRCCS Saverio de Bellis in Castellana Grotte (Bari, Italy) followed a group of more than 4,800 people, carefully analyzing their meat consumption habits—red and white—and tracking health outcomes over time. What they discovered might cause some pause for those who see poultry as a health panacea.
The data revealed that eating between 3.5 and 7 ounces (100–200 g) of chicken per week was linked to a 35% increase in the risk of death from gastrointestinal cancers. Even more startling: when weekly intake exceeded 7 ounces (200 g), the associated risk doubled—a 100% increase.
When comparing the impact of white meat to red, the contrast is interesting. Red meat consumption only showed a 23% increase in risk, and only when weekly intake surpassed 12.3 ounces (350 g). In short, both meats are best consumed in moderation, but the idea that chicken is inherently safer? That may need a second look.
Moderation and variety: the cornerstone of good nutrition
The findings align with recent updates to Italy’s official dietary guidelines. The Italian Society of Human Nutrition (SINU) has repositioned poultry near the top of the new food pyramid, among the foods that should be eaten less frequently.
As a side note, SINU’s new pyramid emphasizes plant-based foods, suggesting a shift away from all types of meat in favor of vegetables, legumes, and whole grains. The Mediterranean diet—long hailed as a model of balance—has been subtly evolving.
It’s crucial to stress what this study does not claim. It doesn’t say that eating chicken causes cancer. Rather, it identifies a correlation: people who ate more chicken were more likely to have died from gastrointestinal cancers. That distinction matters.
The research relies on observational data and self-reported dietary questionnaires, tools that, while informative, come with blind spots. Cooking methods, meat quality, genetic predispositions, and overall lifestyle all influence cancer risk, and these elements can’t be fully captured through food frequency surveys.
Questions raised, and limitations admitted
The study sparked heated debate on social media, with many pointing out its acknowledged limitations. One key issue is cooking methods. The authors admit that how meat is prepared plays a significant role. For instance, braising and oven roasting may present more risks for poultry than for red meat. Grilling and barbecuing, on the other hand, can create carcinogenic compounds in both types.
Another blind spot: the lack of detail around processed poultry. The questionnaire didn’t distinguish between fresh chicken and, say, deli meats or sausages, which may carry very different risks. Nor did it account for whether the poultry came from conventional farms, organic sources, or free-range operations—all factors that may influence the outcome.
The researchers also acknowledge that they did not account for physical activity, a key factor in both cancer risk and overall mortality. And like many dietary studies, self-reporting introduces room for error: memory lapses, underestimations, or even wishful thinking.
As the authors themselves caution in the study published in Nutrients:
“Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and to better understand the effects of processed poultry. We believe it’s important to deepen our understanding of the long-term effects of this food category—white meat—widely consumed by the global population and perhaps mistakenly believed to be absolutely healthy. We suggest moderating poultry consumption and alternating it with other valuable protein sources, such as fish. We also believe it’s essential to pay greater attention to cooking methods, avoiding high temperatures and long cooking times.”
No panic—just awareness
This isn’t a call to ditch chicken altogether. But it is a reminder that nutrition science is rarely black and white, and our assumptions about “healthy” foods deserve to be revisited as new research emerges. The IRCCS De Bellis study is a meaningful contribution to the ongoing conversation about how diet impacts health, particularly in the long term.
Rather than sparking alarm, the findings should encourage a more mindful, informed approach to eating—one rooted in variety, balance, and evidence-based guidelines. And if nothing else, it’s a good excuse to explore more plant-based proteins or fresh fish the next time you’re meal planning.
Fonte: Nutrients
