Time to look at the primary research.  I’m doing my best not to select for studies that support my opinions, of course — just reading them in the order of the search results.  It’s also important to keep in mind that it’s at least possible (if not likely) that the type of meat intake is important (process vs unprocessed, preservatives, grass-fed vs corn-fed.. none of which are frequently controlled for).

Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1620S-1626S. Epub 2009 Mar 11.
Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford).
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, Travis RC, Roddam AW, Allen NE.
Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have examined cancer incidence among vegetarians. OBJECTIVE: We report cancer incidence among vegetarians and nonvegetarians in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) study. DESIGN: This was a prospective study of 63,550 men and women recruited throughout the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Cancer incidence was followed through nationwide cancer registries. RESULTS: The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. In a comparison of vegetarians with meat eaters and after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.

PMID: 19279082 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article

Haha
Chem Senses. 2006 Oct;31(8):747-52. Epub 2006 Aug 4.
The effect of meat consumption on body odor attractiveness.
Havlicek J, Lenochova P.
Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, Husnikova 2075, 158 00 Prague 13, Czech Republic. [email protected]
Abstract
Axillary body odor is individually specific and potentially a rich source of information about its producer. Odor individuality partly results from genetic individuality, but the influence of ecological factors such as eating habits are another main source of odor variability. However, we know very little about how particular dietary components shape our body odor. Here we tested the effect of red meat consumption on body odor attractiveness. We used a balanced within-subject experimental design. Seventeen male odor donors were on “meat” or “nonmeat” diet for 2 weeks wearing axillary pads to collect body odor during the final 24 h of the diet. Fresh odor samples were assessed for their pleasantness, attractiveness, masculinity, and intensity by 30 women not using hormonal contraceptives. We repeated the same procedure a month later with the same odor donors, each on the opposite diet than before. Results of repeated measures analysis of variance showed that the odor of donors when on the nonmeat diet was judged as significantly more attractive, more pleasant, and less intense. This suggests that red meat consumption has a negative impact on perceived body odor hedonicity.</p>

PMID: 16891352 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Jun;27(6):728-34.
Diet and body mass index in 38000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans.
Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ.
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. [email protected]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare body mass index (BMI) in four diet groups (meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans) in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford) and to investigate lifestyle and dietary factors associated with any observed differences. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of self-reported dietary, anthropometric and lifestyle data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 37875 healthy men and women aged 20-97 y participating in EPIC-Oxford. RESULTS: Age-adjusted mean BMI was significantly different between the four diet groups, being highest in the meat-eaters (24.41 kg/m(2) in men, 23.52 kg/m(2) in women) and lowest in the vegans (22.49 kg/m(2) in men, 21.98 kg/m(2) in women). Fish-eaters and vegetarians had similar, intermediate mean BMI. Differences in lifestyle factors including smoking, physical activity and education level accounted for less than 5% of the difference in mean age-adjusted BMI between meat-eaters and vegans, whereas differences in macronutrient intake accounted for about half of the difference. High protein (as percent energy) and low fibre intakes were the dietary factors most strongly and consistently associated with increasing BMI both between and within the diet groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fish-eaters, vegetarians and especially vegans had lower BMI than meat-eaters. Differences in macronutrient intakes accounted for about half the difference in mean BMI between vegans and meat-eaters. High protein and low fibre intakes were the factors most strongly associated with increasing BMI.

PMID: 12833118 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

Public Health Nutr. 2002 Oct;5(5):645-54.
Hypertension and blood pressure among meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans in EPIC-Oxford.
Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ.
Cancer Research UK, Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Gibson Building, The Radcliffe Infirmary, UK. [email protected]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of self-reported hypertension and mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures in four diet groups (meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans) and to investigate dietary and other lifestyle factors that might account for any differences observed between the groups. DESIGN: Analysis of cross-sectional data from participants in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). SETTING: United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: Eleven thousand and four British men and women aged 20-78 years at blood pressure measurement. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence of self-reported hypertension was significantly different between the four diet groups, ranging from 15.0% in male meat eaters to 5.8% in male vegans, and from 12.1% in female meat eaters to 7.7% in female vegans, with fish eaters and vegetarians having similar and intermediate prevalences. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly different between the four diet groups, with meat eaters having the highest values and vegans the lowest values. The differences in age-adjusted mean blood pressure between meat eaters and vegans among participants with no self-reported hypertension were 4.2 and 2.6 mmHg systolic and 2.8 and 1.7 mmHg diastolic for men and women, respectively. Much of the variation was attributable to differences in body mass index between the diet groups. CONCLUSIONS: Non-meat eaters, especially vegans, have a lower prevalence of hypertension and lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures than meat eaters, largely because of differences in body mass index.

PMID: 12372158 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):533S-538S.
Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford.
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Allen NE, Spencer EA, Travis RC.
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Three prospective studies have examined the mortality of vegetarians in Britain. OBJECTIVE: We describe these 3 studies and present preliminary results on mortality from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford). DESIGN: The Health Food Shoppers Study and the Oxford Vegetarian Study were established in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively; each included about 11 000 subjects and used a short questionnaire on diet and lifestyle. EPIC-Oxford was established in the 1990s and includes about 56 000 subjects who completed detailed food frequency questionnaires. Mortality in all 3 studies was followed though the National Health Service Central Register. RESULTS: Overall, the death rates of all the subjects in all 3 studies are much lower than average for the United Kingdom. Standardized mortality ratios (95% CIs) for all subjects were 59% (57%, 61%) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 52% (49%, 56%) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 39% (37%, 42%) in EPIC-Oxford. Comparing vegetarians with nonvegetarians within each cohort, the death rate ratios (DRRs), adjusted for age, sex and smoking, were 1.03 (0.95, 1.13) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 1.01 (0.89, 1.14) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 1.05 (0.86, 1.27) in EPIC-Oxford. DRRs for ischemic heart disease in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians were 0.85 (0.71, 1.01) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 0.86 (0.67, 1.12) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 0.75 (0.41, 1.37) in EPIC-Oxford. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western vegetarians.

PMID: 12936946 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article

I noticed that the cancer incidence in this one (12936946) appears to be exactly the same between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, although the first abstract up top I believe may be the same cohort at a different time point..  Interesting quote:</p>

Mortality rates did not differ significantly between vegetarians and nonvegetarians. Vegetarians had higher mortality from all malignant neoplasms [DRR = 1.11 (0.82, 1.51)], cerebrovascular disease [DRR = 1.13 (0.65, 1.96)], and all other causes [DRR = 1.10 (0.77, 1.58)] and reduced mortality from all circulatory dis- eases [DRR = 0.93 (0.65, 1.32)] and IHD [DRR = 0.75 (0.41, 1.37)]. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians [DRR = 1.05 (0.86, 1.27)].</i></div>

Public Health Nutr. 2002 Feb;5(1):29-36.
Mortality in British vegetarians.
Appleby PN, Key TJ, Thorogood M, Burr ML, Mann J.
Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, The Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, UK. [email protected]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mortality of British vegetarians and non-vegetarians. DESIGN: Analysis of original data from two prospective studies each including a large proportion of vegetarians—the Oxford Vegetarian Study and the Health Food Shoppers Study. Standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) compared with the population of England and Wales were calculated from deaths before age 90 for vegetarians and non-vegetarians in each study. Death rate ratios (DRRs) for vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians within each study were calculated for each of 14 major causes of death. SETTING: UK. SUBJECTS: Twenty-one thousand men and women aged 16-89 years at recruitment, including more than 8,000 vegetarians. RESULTS: SMRs for all causes of death were significantly below the reference level of 100 in both studies: 52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 49-56) based on 1,131 deaths in the Oxford Vegetarian Study and 59 (57-61) based on 2,346 deaths in the Health Food Shoppers Study. For all causes of death, the DRR for vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians was close to one in both studies: 1.01 (95% CI 0.89-1.14) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, 1.03 (0.95-1.13) in the Health Food Shoppers Study. CONCLUSIONS: British vegetarians have low mortality compared with the general population. Their death rates are similar to those of comparable non-vegetarians, suggesting that much of this benefit may be attributed to non-dietary lifestyle factors such as a low prevalence of smoking and a generally high socio-economic status, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish.
PMID: 12001975 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):660S-663S.
Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment.
Pimentel D, Pimentel M.
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.
PMID: 12936963 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article
Public Health Nutr. 1998 Mar;1(1):33-41.
Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians: a collaborative analysis of 8300 deaths among 76,000 men and women in five prospective studies.
Key TJ, Fraser GE, Thorogood M, Appleby PN, Beral V, Reeves G, Burr ML, Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R, Kuzma JW, Mann J, McPherson K.
Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK. [email protected]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mortality rates of vegetarians and non-vegetarians. DESIGN: Collaborative analysis using original data from five prospective studies. Death rate ratios for vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians were calculated for ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, cancers of the stomach, large bowel, lung, breast and prostate, and for all causes of death. All results were adjusted for age, sex and smoking. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates of effect for all studies combined. SETTING: USA, UK and Germany. SUBJECTS: 76,172 men and women aged 16-89 years at recruitment. Vegetarians were those who did not eat any meat or fish (n = 27,808). Non-vegetarians were from a similar background to the vegetarians within each study. RESULTS: After a mean of 10.6 years of follow-up there were 8330 deaths before the age of 90 years, including 2264 deaths from ischaemic heart disease. In comparison with non-vegetarians, vegetarians had a 24% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease (death rate ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.94). The reduction in mortality among vegetarians varied significantly with age at death: rate ratios for vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians were 0.55 (95% CI 0.35-0.85), 0.69 (95% CI 0.53-0.90) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.73-1.16) for deaths from ischaemic heart disease at ages <65, 65-79 and 80-89 years, respectively. When the non-vegetarians were divided into regular meat eaters (who ate meat at least once a week) and semi-vegetarians (who ate fish only or ate meat less than once a week), the ischaemic heart disease death rate ratios compared to regular meat eaters were 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.89) in semi-vegetarians and 0.66 (95% CI 0.53-0.83) in vegetarians (test for trend P< 0.001). There were no significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from the other causes of death examined. CONCLUSION: Vegetarians have a lower risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease than non-vegetarians.
PMID: 10555529 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]
BMJ. 1994 Jun 25;308(6945):1667-70.
Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters.
Thorogood M, Mann J, Appleby P, McPherson K.
Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Comment in:
BMJ. 1994 Oct 8;309(6959):955.
Comment on:
BMJ. 1994 Jun 25;308(6945):1671.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the health consequences of a vegetarian diet by examining the 12 year mortality of non-meat eaters and meat eating controls. DESIGN: Prospective observational study in which members of the non-meat eating cohort were asked to nominate friends or relatives as controls. SETTING: United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: 6115 non-meat eaters identified through the Vegetarian Society of the United Kingdom and the news media (mean (SD) age 38.7 (16.8) years) and 5015 controls who were meat eaters (39.3 (15.4) years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardised mortality ratios for cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and total mortality in the two cohorts and death rate ratio in the non-meat eaters compared with meat eaters after adjustment for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: Standardised mortality ratios (taking the value among the general population as 100) for ischaemic heart disease were 51 (95% confidence interval 38 to 66) for meat eaters and 28 (20 to 38) for non-meat eaters (P < 0.01). Values for all cancers were 80 (64 to 98) and 50 (39 to 62) for meat eaters and non-meat eaters respectively. After adjustment for the effects of smoking, body mass index, and socioeconomic status death rate ratios in non-meat eaters compared with meat eaters were 0.72 (0.47 to 1.10) for ischaemic heart disease and 0.61 (0.44 to 0.84) for all cancers. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced mortality from cancer among those not eating meat is not explained by lifestyle related risk factors, which have a low prevalence among vegetarians. No firm conclusion can be made about deaths from ischaemic heart disease. These data do not justify advice to exclude meat from the diet since there are several attributes of a vegetarian diet apart from not eating meat which might reduce the risk.
PMID: 8025458 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]PMCID: PMC2540657Free PMC Article
Circulation. 2010 May 17. [Epub ahead of print]
Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D.
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine and Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: -Meat consumption is inconsistently associated with development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, limiting quantitative recommendations for consumption levels. Effects of meat intake on these different outcomes, as well as of red versus processed meat, may also vary. Methods and Results-We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for relationships of red (unprocessed), processed, and total meat consumption with incident CHD, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. We searched for any cohort study, case-control study, or randomized trial that assessed these exposures and outcomes in generally healthy adults. Of 1598 identified abstracts, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective cohorts and 3 case-control studies. All data were abstracted independently in duplicate. Random-effects generalized least squares models for trend estimation were used to derive pooled dose-response estimates. The 20 studies included 1 218 380 individuals and 23 889 CHD, 2280 stroke, and 10 797 diabetes mellitus cases. Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25). Conversely, processed meat intake was associated with 42% higher risk of CHD (n=5; relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.89; P=0.04) and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus (n=7; relative risk=1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.27; P<0.001). Associations were intermediate for total meat intake. Consumption of red and processed meat were not associated with stroke, but only 3 studies evaluated these relationships. Conclusions-Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.
PMID: 20479151 [PubMed — as supplied by publisher]
</div>

</span></span></span></div>