Chicken’s Halo Slips as Studies Reveal Health and Climate Risks  

For decades, chicken has enjoyed its status as the “healthy” meat—low in fat, high in protein, and widely promoted as the smarter choice over red or processed meats. Yet, two new studies are now upending this conventional wisdom, suggesting the supposed benefits of poultry come with caveats for both personal health and the planet’s future.

A growing number of scientists now say there is a measurable threshold for how much meat is genuinely sustainable for people and the environment. At the same time, troubling new data from Italy points to a direct link between even moderate chicken consumption and an increased risk of cancer and all-cause mortality—raising urgent questions about the true cost of those skinless breasts and lunchtime salads.

Angela Bailey

New research redefines sustainable meat intake

A landmark study published in Nature Food led by Caroline Gebara, an environmental scientist at the Technical University of Denmark, aims to give clarity on one of the biggest questions in modern nutrition: how much meat is actually okay? 

“Most people now realize that we should eat less meat for both environmental and health reasons. But it’s hard to relate to how much ‘less’ is and whether it really makes a difference in the big picture,” Gebara said in a statement.

Researchers calculated a figure meant to guide grocery lists everywhere: 255 grams, or nine ounces, of poultry or pork per week. This equates to about two chicken breasts. For context, it is six to 10 times less meat than the average person in the US or Europe consumed in 2021, according to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Adobe

RELATED: All of These Foods Have More Protein Than Eggs

The study’s takeaway is even starker for red meat, particularly beef. “Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one’s diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study,” Gebara says. 

The rationale is rooted in the carbon cost of livestock, especially cattle and sheep, which require extensive land and water and release high amounts of methane and nitrous oxide—both greenhouse gases many times more potent than carbon dioxide. A single cow can emit as much as 80 to 110 kilograms of methane per year, amplifying the climate impact of beef far beyond other foods.

According to the United Nations Environment Program, animal agriculture accounts for 14.5 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions globally, with beef responsible for about 41 percent of that total. But meat’s planetary toll is not limited to emissions. The environmental footprint of animal products includes land degradation, deforestation for feed crops, and the heavy use of water and fossil fuels to raise, process, and transport livestock products to market.

Unsplash

Gebara’s team of researchers developed a model that takes into account both nutritional needs—32 key requirements—and environmental sustainability benchmarks. The conclusion: while cheese, eggs, fish, and white meat can be part of otherwise plant-forward healthy diets, these foods must be consumed within strict limits. Red meat, however, does not fit within planetary boundaries at all.

Still, the study acknowledges its limitations: “Our study focused on the biophysical limits of human nutrient intake and environmental impacts, but overlooked other aspects such as accessibility, affordability, and cultural acceptance,” the authors write. “Achieving truly sustainable diets requires universal availability, which must be supported by policymakers at all levels.”

Poultry’s health halo slips as new evidence links chicken to higher mortality, cancer risk

If the environmental argument for less meat seems familiar, the health data behind chicken’s halo is getting a major revision. A new long-term cohort study led by researchers at Italy’s National Institute of Gastroenterology tracked the diets and health outcomes of 4,869 adults over nineteen years. The results challenge poultry’s reputation as a “noble food.”

While the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend chicken as a lean, protein-rich staple to be consumed one to three times per week, this new study found that those eating more than 300 grams of chicken per week—just under four standard servings—were 27 percent more likely to die from any cause compared to those eating less than one serving. Even more concerning: higher poultry intake was linked to a more than double increase in risk of death from gastrointestinal cancer.

“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. 

Men consuming over 300 grams per week were 2.6 times more likely to die from digestive cancer than those who ate less than 100 grams.

The study raises several possibilities for this association. Industrialized chicken production may expose consumers to pesticides, medications, or hormone residues left in the meat, while high-temperature or prolonged cooking methods can generate mutagens that damage DNA. The researchers also note that while combining red meat with vegetables has been shown to mitigate some health risks, this effect was not seen with poultry.

Interestingly, as the proportion of white meat increased in the diet, the mortality risk also rose—a trend not observed for red meat at the same consumption levels. The research team suggests that estrogen in females may play a role in how the body metabolizes nutrients and fights disease, contributing to the lower risk in women.

However, the authors are quick to acknowledge the study’s limitations. The dietary questionnaire did not distinguish between cuts of poultry, preparation methods, or whether the chicken was processed or organic—factors that could significantly influence health outcomes.

Getty

“We believe it is beneficial to moderate poultry consumption, alternating it with other equally valuable protein sources […] We also believe it is essential to focus more on cooking methods, avoiding high temperatures and prolonged cooking times,” the authors advise.

For those hoping to sidestep potential contaminants, organic chicken comes with a price tag: an average of four dollars more per pound compared to conventional chicken breasts. Yet, as researchers push for more studies on processed poultry, consumers face tough choices as they try to balance health, ethics, and budget.

With environmental and health experts converging on the message that moderation—if not minimization—of animal meat is key, there is increasing pressure on policy, food companies, and consumers alike to reconsider what fills our plates. For now, it seems the only noble approach is transparency, variety, and a renewed focus on plant-forward diets.