A large French study found an association involving meat-derived Neu5Gc, but could not establish that the compound itself causes diabetes.
A naturally occurring sugar found in red meat has been associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes in preliminary research presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’s 2026 annual meeting in Milan.
Researchers examined 89,953 adults participating in France’s NutriNet-Santé study. During a median follow-up of 7.2 years, 966 participants developed type 2 diabetes. Dietary records were used to estimate consumption of N-glycolylneuraminic acid, commonly called Neu5Gc.
People in the highest fifth of meat-derived Neu5Gc intake had a 63% higher relative risk than those in the lowest fifth, after adjustment for several health and lifestyle factors. Neu5Gc from dairy products showed no significant association with diabetes risk.
The headline percentage requires careful interpretation. Lead researcher Leopold Fezeu explained that it compares risk between the two groups; it does not mean that 63% of high consumers developed diabetes. Diabetes remained relatively uncommon during the study period.
Neu5Gc is produced naturally by most mammals, but humans cannot manufacture it. Researchers proposed that an immune response to dietary Neu5Gc could contribute to chronic inflammation. However, Fezeu said the study did not measure antibodies against the compound, so it could not directly test that mechanism.
An important limitation emerged after accounting for total red-meat consumption: the association weakened and was no longer statistically significant. This makes it difficult to separate Neu5Gc’s possible contribution from other components of meat or related dietary patterns.
The findings were preliminary and had not yet undergone journal peer review. Because the study was observational, it cannot establish cause and effect. Researchers also did not test whether replacing red meat with other foods would reduce diabetes risk.
The results identify a biological hypothesis worth investigating. Confirming it will require further research that measures the proposed immune response and examines whether changing exposure affects health outcomes.
Sources:
