Edible oils form an essential part of the modern diet. These oils play a role as an energy source, and provide the diet with many beneficial micronutrients. Although a popular conception may be that fat should be avoided, certain edible oils as a dietary supplement may play an important role in the improvement of cardiovascular health. CVD has become one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Dietary supplementation with different oils may have beneficial effects on cardiovascular health. While olive oil and sunflower-seed oil are known to reduce serum cholesterol, fish oil has become well known for reducing potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmias. Recently, red palm oil research has shown beneficial effects on cardiac recovery from ischaemia–reperfusion injury. It is clear that dietary supplementation with edible oils may play a vital role in reducing the mortality rate due to heart disease. The specific benefits and disadvantages of these oils should, however, be explored in greater depth. The present review will attempt to identify the benefits and shortcomings of four popular edible oils, namely olive oil, sunflower-seed oil, fish oil and palm oil. Additionally the present review will aim to reveal potential areas of research which could further enhance our understanding of the effects of edible oils on cardiovascular health.

The relationship between meat consumption and breast cancer has been the focus of several epidemiological investigations, yet there has been no clear scientific consensus as to whether red or processed meat intake increases the risk of breast cancer. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis incorporating data from several recently published prospective studies of red or processed meat intake and breast cancer. In the meta-analysis utilising data from the Pooling Project publication (includes data from eight cohorts) combined with data from nine studies published between 2004 and 2009 and one study published in 1996, the fixed-effect summary relative risk estimate (SRRE) for red meat intake (high v. low) and breast cancer was 1·02 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·07; P value for heterogeneity = 0·001) and the random-effects SRRE was 1·07 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·17). The SRRE for each 100 g increment of red meat was 1·04 (95 % CI 1·00, 1·07), based on a fixed-effects model, and 1·12 (95 % CI 1·03, 1·23) based on a random-effects model. No association was observed for each 100 g increment of red meat among premenopausal women (SRRE 1·01; 95 % CI 0·92, 1·11) but a statistically significant SRRE of 1·22 (95 % CI 1·04, 1·44) was observed among postmenopausal women using a random-effects model. However, the association for postmenopausal women was attenuated and non-significant when using a fixed-effects model (SRRE 1·03; 95 % CI 0·98, 1·08). The fixed- and random-effect SRRE for high (v. low) processed meat intake and breast cancer were 1·00 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·01; P value for heterogeneity = 0·005) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·01, 1·16), respectively. The fixed- and random-effect SRRE for each 30 g increment of processed meat were 1·03 (95 % CI 1·00, 1·06) and 1·06 (95 % CI 0·99, 1·14), respectively. Overall, weak positive summary associations were observed across all meta-analysis models, with the majority being non-statistically significant. Heterogeneity was evident in most analyses, summary associations were sensitive to the choice of analytical model (fixed v. random effects), and publication bias appeared to have produced slightly elevated summary associations. On the basis of this quantitative assessment, red meat and processed meat intake does not appear to be independently associated with increasing the risk of breast cancer, although further investigations of potential effect modifiers, such as analyses by hormone receptor status, may provide valuable insight to potential patterns of associations.

Butyrate is a natural substance present in biological liquids and tissues. The present paper aims to give an update on the biological role of butyrate in mammals, when it is naturally produced by the gastrointestinal microbiota or orally ingested as a feed additive. Recent data concerning butyrate production delivery as well as absorption by the colonocytes are reported. Butyrate cannot be detected in the peripheral blood, which indicates fast metabolism in the gut wall and/or in the liver. In physiological conditions, the increase in performance in animals could be explained by the increased nutrient digestibility, the stimulation of the digestive enzyme secretions, a modification of intestinal luminal microbiota and an improvement of the epithelial integrity and defence systems. In the digestive tract, butyrate can act directly (upper gastrointestinal tract or hindgut) or indirectly (small intestine) on tissue development and repair. Direct trophic effects have been demonstrated mainly by cell proliferation studies, indicating a faster renewal of necrotic areas. Indirect actions of butyrate are believed to involve the hormono–neuro–immuno system. Butyrate has also been implicated in down-regulation of bacteria virulence, both by direct effects on virulence gene expression and by acting on cell proliferation of the host cells. In animal production, butyrate is a helpful feed additive, especially when ingested soon after birth, as it enhances performance and controls gut health disorders caused by bacterial pathogens. Such effects could be considered for new applications in human nutrition.