Background - Vegetarian diets might influence cancer risk.

Methods - We studied 1,645,555 meat eaters, 57,016 poultry eaters, 42,910 pescatarians, 63,147 vegetarians and 8849 vegans in 9 cohorts (UK, US, Taiwan, India). After a median 16 years follow-up, incident cancers were: 4504 mouth and pharynx, 1308 oesophagus (squamous cell), 2105 oesophagus (adenocarcinoma), 3578 stomach, 30,528 colorectum, 2970 liver, 8030 pancreas, 3077 lung (never smokers), 61,368 breast, 11,220 endometrium, 8076 ovary, 45,946 prostate, 7193 kidney, 6869 bladder, 11,651 non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 4658 multiple myeloma and 7306 leukaemia. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate cohort-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the results were combined using meta-analysis.

Results - Compared to meat eaters, poultry eaters had lower risk of prostate cancer (0.93, 0.88–0.98), pescatarians had lower risks of colorectal (0.85, 0.77–0.93), breast (0.93, 0.88–0.98) and kidney cancer (0.73, 0.58–0.93), vegetarians had lower risks of cancers of the pancreas (0.79, 0.65–0.97), breast (0.91, 0.86–0.97), prostate (0.88, 0.79–0.97), kidney (0.72, 0.57–0.92) and multiple myeloma (0.69, 0.51–0.93) but higher risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus (1.93, 1.30–2.87), and vegans had higher risk of colorectal cancer (1.40, 1.12–1.75). Conclusions

Vegetarian diets might influence risk for several cancers. The generalisability should be considered cautiously.

Full Paper - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-025-03327-4

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

If red meat gives you colon cancer, why do vegans have a higher association when compared to omnivores?

Not sure about the red meat. The paper talks about vegans eating insufficient calcium. If you add dairy to their diet, the risk is reduced.

Edit: Remember most of these people are probably on a particular diet for cultural or economic reasons and vegan for moral reasons.

If they optimized their diet and lifestyle for health, I feel the outcomes would be vastly different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    The paper talks about vegans eating insufficient calcium.

    They speculate with their opinions, but that doesn't address the schism in the data.

    If you add dairy to their diet, the risk is reduced.

    You are making causal statement from observational data. This data, and especially the authors opinions, don't inform us on cause and effect. This is not the right type of study to give you any advice on your diet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    I agree that the causal connection to calcium or other micronutrients needs demonstration.

    I see it as weak but best available evidence so far. So we can use such data / speculations to improve your lifestyle or reject them. Completely up to you.

  • source
  • parent