Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 18, 2026

Palatable Western-style Cafeteria Diet as a Reliable Method for Modeling Diet-induced Obesity in Rodents
Published on: November 1, 2019
Cost Effectiveness of Nutrition Policies on Processed Meat: Implications for Cancer Burden in the U.S
David D Kim1, Parke E Wilde2, Dominique S Michaud3
1Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Introduction:
Processed meats are associated with increased risk of colorectal and stomach cancers, but health and economic impacts of policies to discourage processed meats are not well established. This paper aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of implementing tax and warning labels on processed meats.
Methods:
A probabilistic cohort-state transition model was developed in 2018, including lifetime and short-term horizons, healthcare, and societal perspectives, and 3% discount rates for costs and health outcomes. The model simulated 32 subgroups by age, gender, and race/ethnicity from the U.S. adult population and integrated nationally representative 2011-2014 data on processed meat consumption, with etiologic effects of processed meat consumption on cancer incidence, medical and indirect societal costs, and policy costs.
Results:
Over a lifetime, the 10% excise tax would prevent 77,000 cases of colorectal cancer (95% uncertainty interval=56,800, 107,000) and 12,500 cases of stomach cancer (95% uncertainty interval=6,880, 23,900), add 593,000 quality-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval=419,000, 827,000), and generate net savings of $2.7 billion from a societal perspective, including $1.1 billion healthcare costs saved. The warning label policy would avert 85,400 cases of colorectal cancer (95% uncertainty interval=56,600, 141,000) and 15,000 cases of stomach cancer (95% uncertainty interval=6,860, 34,500), and add 660,000 quality-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval=418,000, 1,070,000), with net savings of $4.5 billion from a societal perspective, including $1.3 billion healthcare costs saved. In subgroup analyses, greater health and economic benefits accrued to (1) younger subpopulations, (2) subpopulations with greater cancer risk, and (3) those with higher baseline processed meat consumption.
Conclusions:
The model shows that implementing tax or warning labels on processed meats would be a cost-saving strategy with substantial health and economic benefits. The findings should encourage policy makers to consider nutrition-related policies to reduce cancer burden.
More Related Videos
03:35Determining Gender-Based Differences in Retinal and Choroidal Thickness in Underweight Individuals via Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography
Published on: December 1, 2023
08:55The Colon-26 Carcinoma Tumor-bearing Mouse as a Model for the Study of Cancer Cachexia
Published on: November 30, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Prevention
Some...
Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity
Cancer Survival Analysis
Overview of Protein Metabolism
Amino acids play various roles in the body once they are absorbed into cells. They are restructured...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Lifestyle Factors and Health
Benefits of Physical Activity
Physical activity, whether through structured exercise or casual activities like walking, biking, or dancing, is a cornerstone of a...