4.7 Review

Heterocyclic amines in cooked meat products, shortcomings during evaluation, factors influencing formation, risk assessment and mitigation strategies

期刊

MEAT SCIENCE
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108693

关键词

Cooked meat; Heterocyclic amines; Cancer risk; Dietary intake; Mitigation strategies

资金

  1. National Natural Science Founda-tion of China [31972137]
  2. China agriculture research system [CARS-41]
  3. Natural Science Foundation Program of Jiangsu Province [BK20180300]
  4. Agricultural science and technology innovation fund projects of Jiangsu Province [CX (18) 1006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current evidence suggests a stronger link between the consumption of well-done meat and cancer incidence than 20 years ago. While there are inconsistencies in some studies, most research indicates that frequent consumption of red meat cooked at high temperatures may increase the risk of cancer.
At this point in time, the evidence of a link between well-done meat intake and the incidence of cancer is stronger than it was 20 years ago. Several cohort and case-control studies have confirmed this evidence, and have shown a higher odd ratio and increased exposure to heterocyclic amines (HCAs) among those who frequently consume red meat. However, in most epidemiological studies, dietary assessment, combined with analytical data, is used to estimate the intake of HCAs, which has many inconsistencies. In addition, there is a lack of findings indicating a substantial correlation between various factors, like types of raw meat, types of meat products, and cooking methods that directly or indirectly influence the occurrence of cancer. Although numerous mitigation strategies have been developed to reduce HCAs levels in meat, there is still a high prevalence of carcinogenesis caused by HCAs in humans. The aim of this review is to summarise conflicting reports, address shortcomings and identify emerging trends of cutting-edge research related to HCAs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据