This study: “Does Poultry Consumption Increase the Risk of Mortality for Gastrointestinal Cancers? A Preliminary Competing Risk Analysis” (Nutrients, 2025), presents a conclusion that is not only inconsistent with the broader scientific literature but is also fraught with methodological issues, confounding information, and speculative interpretations. It is exceptionally subjective and the latest case of “nutrition whiplash” for consumers.

This preliminary study using participants from Southern Italy is inconsistent with the broader body of international scientific literature, including findings from the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), which the authors point to in their paper. In fact, AICR specifically states that chicken is not linked to an increased risk of cancer. The study fails to distinguish between processed and unprocessed poultry or account for critical factors like cooking methods and physical activity, limiting its applicability. In contrast, a growing body of literature demonstrates that chicken can play a beneficial role in health when consumed as part of a balanced diet. Given the limitations and inconsistencies in the recent Italian study, consumers should continue to feel confident including chicken as a nutrient-dense, high-quality protein in their diets, aligned with global dietary guidance.

In addition to the vast evidence of chicken’s nutritional benefits, there is also growing evidence of how eating chicken can positively impact risk factors for certain diseases like cancer and diabetes. Available research suggests that eating more poultry, like chicken, decreases the risk of certain cancers and may be moderately protective against colon, prostate, esophageal, breast, blood (i.e., leukemia), gastric, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

Technical explanation: Why this study Is scientifically flawed

1. Preliminary and observational by design

The authors call this a “preliminary” analysis, which already signals caution. Observational studies cannot prove causation. Researchers even say there is not a direct cause and effect.

2. Lack of clarity on poultry type

The Food Frequency Questions used did not distinguish between processed poultry (e.g., nuggets, deli meats) and unprocessed, lean poultry (e.g., grilled chicken breast). Nor did it distinguish between different “types” of poultry, e.g. chicken, turkey or duck.

3. Failure to account for cooking methods

Although the discussion speculates that high-temperature cooking methods (e.g., grilling or frying) may explain the associations, no cooking method data were collected or adjusted for in the analysis. This makes their mechanistic explanation purely speculative.

4. Contradicts robust prior evidence

Extensive meta-analyses and guidance from bodies like the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) do not find poultry to be associated with increased cancer risk. In fact, some studies suggest poultry may be protective for colorectal cancer.

5. Small event count for gastrointestinal cancer deaths

108 participants died of GC over nearly 28,000 person-years. Drawing strong conclusions from this number of cause-specific deaths, especially after stratifying by sex and multiple intake categories, makes results unstable and likely due to chance.

6. Residual confounding

There was no adjustment for physical activity which is an important determinant of both mortality and cancer risk. Nor did the study account for socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, or genetic predisposition. Nor did it account for what other foods the subjects were eating.

7. P-Hacking and over-modeling risk

Six different Cox models were built, and multiple comparisons made, increasing the risk of type I error (false positives). Selective reporting of statistically significant results, such as in this publication, is a hallmark of weak science.

8. Misleading implications in the conclusion

The authors suggest moderation of poultry consumption and imply it may not be a healthy food, despite the lack of mechanistic or interventional evidence to support that position. That’s a big leap from a weak correlation.

The bottom line?

Consumers can remain confident about keeping chicken on the center of their plates as part of a healthy, balanced diet.

Source: National Chicken Council