Abstract B44: Differences in meat consumption patterns between African Americans and Caucasians in Arkansas: Potential contribution to cancer disparities.
Authors: Kadlubar Susan , Dhakal Ishwori B. , Ambrosone Christine B. , Henry-Tillman Ronda , Lang Nicholas P. 
Published: August 2014

Increased meat consumption, especially well-done cooked meats, has been associated with increased risk of several cancer types primarily due to increased exposure to food-borne carcinogens. A recent report from two prospective cohort studies demonstrated that red meat consumption in particular is associated with cancer mortality as well. Cancer disparities between African Americans and Caucasians have been well-documented in recent years. Access to health care, socioeconomic and cultural factors contribute, but do not fully explain cancer disparities. We hypothesized that there could be differences in red meat consumption patterns between African Americans and Caucasians that could potentially explain a portion of the observed disparity in cancer risk between the two groups. To test this hypothesis, we examined meat variables in healthy individuals in Arkansas. These individuals were control participants in case-control studies of breast and prostate cancer risk conducted in Arkansas from 1996 - 2004. 235 African American and 579 Caucasian participants completed interviewer-administered dietary questionnaires that addressed specific meats consumed, frequency, amounts and level of doneness. Differences between groups were assessed by Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and males and females were compared separately, since men overall consumed significantly more meat than women.

Among men, African Americans consumed significantly more total well-done meat than Caucasians (66.8 vs. 50.2 grams per day, respectively; p = 0.0006). When types of meat were examined separately, Caucasians consumed significantly more steak than African Americans (25.5 vs. 19.1 grams per day, respectively; p = 0.002, although preference for doneness was similar between groups (p = 0.096). Burger intake and doneness preference was not significantly different in males. Consumption of pork, however, was markedly different between African American and Caucasian men. African Americans consistently consumed more bacon, sausage and pork chops (11.1, 6.1 and 19.1 vs. 7.0, 4.8 and 12.7 grams per day, respectively), and were also more likely to pan-fry these meats until they are well-done (p = 0.001).

Meat consumption patterns among women differed from those of men, but African American women still consumed significantly more meat than Caucasian women (p = 0.03). Trends of pork consumption were similar to those found in males , with African American women consuming significantly more bacon, sausage and pork chops than Caucasian women ( p = 0.001, 0.009 and 0.003, respectively). Cooking methods also varied among women; African American women were more likely to pan-fry burgers (p 0.03) while Caucasian women were more likely to grill burgers (p = 0.02). Caucasian women consumed slightly more steak than African American women (14.6 vs. 13.8 grams per day, p = 0.07), and also favored grilling over pan-frying, the cooking technique favored by African American women (p &lt; 0.0001).

Taken together, these data indicate that meat consumption and cooking methods could contribute to cancer disparities, and rational dietary interventions could serve to reduce these disparities. Additionally, differences in meat consumption and cooking methods should be considered in studies when assessing cancer risk related to diet.

Citation Format: Susan Kadlubar, Ishwori B. Dhakal, Christine B. Ambrosone, Ronda Henry-Tillman, Nicholas P. Lang. Differences in meat consumption patterns between African Americans and Caucasians in Arkansas: Potential contribution to cancer disparities. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Fifth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2012 Oct 27-30; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21(10 Suppl):Abstract nr B44.