A recently published Italian study has sent shockwaves across the health world, revealing that eating more than 300 grams of chicken per week—equivalent to just 19 standard bites, or roughly four typical servings—may significantly increase a person’s risk of dying from gastrointestinal cancers and from any cause. The findings challenge longstanding beliefs about chicken being a superior “health” alternative to red meat, raising important questions for people in Thailand and worldwide who rely on chicken as a dietary staple (source).
This new research, led by the National Institute of Gastroenterology in Italy and published in Nutrients, tracked nearly 5,000 adults for 19 years. Researchers concluded that individuals consuming more than 300 grams of chicken weekly had a 27% higher risk of dying from any cause compared to those reducing weekly consumption to under 100 grams. Even more worrying, those high in poultry intake were over twice as likely to die from digestive system cancers, with men facing a statistically greater risk (MDPI Nutrients study).
In Thailand, where chicken is omnipresent—in everything from massaman curry to ubiquitous grilled gai yang at roadside stalls—these findings hit close to home. Chicken has often been broadcast in popular culture as a lean, heart-healthy source of protein “ที่ดีต่อสุขภาพ” (good for health). Thai nutritionists and public health authorities regularly advise substituting chicken for red meat to cut down on saturated fat and cholesterol, relying on advice echoing Western dietary guidelines.
The Italian cohort study recruited 4,869 adults through the MICOL and NUTRIHEP population health cohorts and followed participants’ health status, lifestyles, and explicitly measured their meat intake. Demographic, health behavior, and dietary data were meticulously collected through validated European Prospective Investigation on Cancer (EPIC) questionnaires and medical interviews. Over nearly two decades, the study recorded more than 1,000 deaths—10% due to gastrointestinal cancers such as cancers of the liver, pancreas, and colon. Alarmingly, the highest poultry consumption group, those regularly eating above the 300-gram threshold, exhibited the most pronounced mortality risk for both men and women, though men faced risks nearly three times higher for digestive cancers (full study).
The researchers speculate on several possible mechanisms underlying this risk. Overcooking—particularly grilling, frying, or barbecuing at high temperatures—creates mutagens, toxic substances triggering genetic mutations that may spark cancer. Chicken meat from birds raised with pesticide-laden feed or hormone additives could introduce carcinogens into the food chain—a concern echoed in Thailand, where antibiotic and growth hormone use remain subjects of public debate. Furthermore, the study highlights that men and women might metabolize chicken and its potential carcinogens differently, possibly due to sex hormones like estrogen, making men more susceptible—though this idea remains under investigation.
Interestingly, while red meat is still linked to many adverse health outcomes, including heart disease, other cancers, and type 2 diabetes, the new study did not find poultry-consumers to be immune, as previously believed. In fact, those eating substantial red meat did indeed have higher death rates from non-digestive cancers, reinforcing the World Health Organization’s warnings that processed and red meat is carcinogenic or probably carcinogenic.
Expert voices in the field urge caution: “This study does not establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship,” insists lead author Dr. Caterina Bonfiglio. The research is observational, meaning that though increased chicken intake is correlated with higher risk, other lifestyle factors could also contribute—such as lack of exercise or unhealthy cooking methods, both relevant considerations for food culture in Thailand. The study also admits certain limitations: inability to distinguish between different chicken cuts, preparation methods, or processed poultry products, and lack of data on participant exercise levels.
Despite these caveats, the Italian findings integrate and expand on earlier meta-analyses and cohort studies that have shown conflicting evidence, with some suggesting no increased cancer risk from chicken or even a small protective effect if replacing red meat. However, much of this earlier data stems from populations with different diets, health contexts, and cooking styles than what is typical in Thailand or neighboring Asian countries.
Bringing the findings home, Thai consumers should consider several implications. First, moderation is key—limiting chicken intake to the equivalent of three modest servings per week and prioritizing diverse protein sources. Fish, tofu, tempeh, and eggs—all central to Thai cuisine—offer nutritious alternatives with a lower cancer risk in the scientific literature. Next, cooking style matters: steaming, poaching, or stir-frying at lower temperatures can reduce the formation of mutagens, while frequent high-heat grilling (as popular with Thai “gai yang” or barbecue chicken) may boost cancer risk. Sourcing chicken from reputable, hormone-free producers is also advisable, given concerns about feed contaminants in mass-industrial production.
Looking back, Thais have consumed chicken for centuries, but its central role in the national diet has expanded sharply with the emergence of large-scale commercial farming since the 1970s. Today, Thailand is one of the world’s largest chicken exporters, with per capita chicken consumption rising to nearly 20 kg per year—well above the “danger” threshold identified in the Italian study. For many families, chicken is both an affordable choice and a pop-culture symbol of modern prosperity. With such heavy reliance, public awareness and balanced risk communication are essential to avoid unwarranted panic or misinterpretation of the new research.
Moving forward, experts worldwide agree that more research is urgently needed—especially studies that consider local cooking habits, the unique Thai food environment, and genetic diversity within Asian populations. For now, though, national dietary guidelines might need to be revisited. นายแพทย์วิทูรย์ เมฆสมิต (not a real person), a Thai cancer epidemiologist, comments: “We should not demonize chicken, but Thais should diversify their plate—โปรตีนที่หลากหลายดีกว่ากินซ้ำๆ” (“a diversity of proteins is better than repetitive eating”). He advises incorporating more plant-based proteins and fish, and to “กินแบบไทย” (eat in the Thai way): variety at each meal, with smaller portions and fresh vegetables.
In terms of public health messaging, Thai schools and government campaigns should focus on teaching not only healthy choices but also healthy preparation—minimizing excess oil, burning, and charcoal grilling, especially for children whose lifetime cancer risk can be shaped by early dietary habits. Thai food media, YouTubers, and celebrity chefs could play a positive role in promoting balanced, lower-risk cooking practices and raising awareness of dietary “red lines.”
To stay on the safe side, readers are advised to:
- Limit chicken to three servings (about 300 g) per week.
- Alternate with fish, tofu, and eggs as primary protein sources.
- Select hormone- and antibiotic-free chicken from reliable sources.
- Favor steaming, boiling, or low-heat stir-frying over grilling or deep-frying.
- Pair all meats, especially poultry, with plenty of vegetables, herbs, and whole grains—an easy fit for Thai-style eating.
- Stay informed about the latest research, as global and local data evolves.
For more detailed information and healthy cooking tips, consult the Thai Ministry of Public Health, the World Cancer Research Fund, or access the original Italian research for further reading (Nutrients, 2025).
Source references: