The studies I've seen generally look at two groups of people, one of which will be the big meat eaters. This group will eat all sorts - preserved meat full of nitrites, fast food, grain-fed meat, and presumably some good meat too. But the design of the studies don't account for the possibility that high quality meat deserves a group of its own, i.e. that it may have different effects on health to junk. That group fares worse and all red meat gets a bad name because of it. They're also usually retrospective studies which are pretty useless and full of confounding factors.
I'm not aware of useful studies so I rely on evolutionary/anthropological arguments to decide, and that gives me no cause for concern eating good red meat. Also I think, but can't prove, that fit paleo/primal folks with low inflammation and low insulin and masses of nutrients, antioxidants etc, are less at risk from environmental toxins in general than the sick majority who form the populations studied.
Here's an example:
Dietary patterns and colorectal cancer: sy... [Eur J Cancer Prev. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI