I've read this study and it says several times in the report that there was a statistical significance only for higher consumption of processed meat - no association of early death with non processed meat consumption - so why did the media quote say to limit red meat as well as processed meat?
the numbers are: of the 448,568 participants in the study there were 26344 deaths and of those the authors reckon 790 would have lived longer if they reduced processed meat consumption below 20g per day.
The intro to the paper states that meat "has several potential nutritional benefits but also some potential adverse effects". The 'drawback' to meat apparently is the high content of cholesterol and saturated fatty acids both of which have been shown to be "positively associated with LDL concentrations and risk of coronary heart disease."
my take on it is that the lead researcher thinks the above so she thinks to be on the safe side you should limit all meat even although her study does not support that statement. 
later on in the report is mentioned the fact that there was a statistical significance in processed meat consumption and early death amongst MEN ONLY - eg in the highest processed meat category 29 women died early and 194 men died early.
there is a statistically signify association between processed meat consumption and smoking
so all my researches reveal that statistics can say many things depending on the message you want to give
NB I have read somewhere other research which says that the LDL raised by red meat of of the large fluffy variety which is good. off to see if I can find it again
ps morning all!