How Much Beef Does the Us Consume Journal Articles

• Periodical List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC3045642

Public Health Nutr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 Apr 1.

Published in final edited class as:

PMCID: PMC3045642

NIHMSID: NIHMS253312

Trends in meat consumption in the U.s.a.

Carrie R. Daniel

¹Nutritional Epidemiology Co-operative, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Md, U.s.A.

Amanda J. Cross

ⁱNutritional Epidemiology Branch, Segmentation of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Section of Health and Man Services, Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.

Corinna Koebnick

ⁱⁱSection of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, United statesA.

Rashmi Sinha

¹Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Segmentation of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Section of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To narrate the trends, distribution, potential determinants, and public health implications of meat consumption within the U.s.a..

DESIGN

We examined temporal trends in meat consumption using nutrient availability information from the Nutrient and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and United states Department of Agronomics (USDA); and farther evaluated meat intake past type (red, white, processed) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) linked to the MyPyramid Equivalents Database (MPED).

RESULTS

Overall meat consumption has continued to rise in the U.Due south., European union, and developed earth. Despite a shift toward college poultry consumption, ruby meat still represents the largest proportion of meat consumed in the U.S (58%). Twenty-ii per centum of the meat consumed in the U.S. is processed. According to NHANES 2003–2004, total meat intake averaged 128 thousand/day. The type and quantities of meat reported varied by education, race, age, and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the plausible epidemiologic evidence for red and processed meat intake in cancer and chronic disease risk, agreement the trends and determinants of meat consumption in the U.Due south., where meat is consumed at more than 3 times the global average, should be specially pertinent to researchers and other public wellness professionals aiming to reduce the global burden of chronic disease.

Keywords: ruddy meat, poultry, processed meat, U.South. diet, chronic disease

INTRODUCTION

Meat intake varies widely throughout the world. In the U.S. and other developed countries, meat composes a significant portion of the normal diet, contributing more than xv% to daily energy intake, 40% to daily protein intake, and 20% to daily fat intake(1–three). The demand for meat in developing countries continues to grow as the production and consumption of meat increases with bachelor income(4, 5). A shift toward a dietary pattern characterized by high meat consumption also appears to supplant the consumption of cereals and other foods of plant origin(1, 6, seven).

Early ecologic comparisons provided the first indication that loftier meat consumption correlated with higher rates of chronic disease(8, nine), including cardiovascular affliction (CVD) and cancer, the electric current leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the U.Southward. and other westernized countries(ten). Health risks associated with meat consumption vary based on the creature the meat is derived from, likewise as rearing, processing, and preparation methods. Meat tin be further classified as red meat or white meat by the quantity of ruby versus white muscle fibers, and fresh or candy by preparation methods such as smoking, curing, salting, and/or addition of preservatives. Components of meat linked to chronic disease risk include fat content, peculiarly saturated fat in red meat, and dietary cholesterol(xi, 12). Meat can besides be a source of several known mutagens, including North-nitroso compounds (NOCs) in processed meats, and heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formed during high-temperature cooking and grilling(13).

Intake of fat and meat, primarily from cherry-red meat, has been of public health concern since the late 1950s when the American Heart Association first recommended that dietary cholesterol, saturated fat, and total fat be reduced for the prevention of CVD(12, 14); and to engagement, numerous epidemiologic studies have investigated meat intake and cancer take a chance(15–17). According to the Globe Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Enquiry (AICR) report in 2007(18), the prove linking red and processed meats to colorectal cancer was deemed `convincing'(19); "limited or suggestive" for red meat and cancers of the esophagus, lung, pancreas and endometrium, as well as candy meat and cancers of the esophagus, lung, stomach, and prostate(18). Smoked or grilled (charred) meat was as well associated with higher chance of stomach cancer(18). In 2009, a big U.S. prospective accomplice study reported an increased gamble of decease from cancer, CVD, and all causes with loftier intake of red and processed meat(20).

Based on the evidence to date, electric current dietary recommendations for the prevention of diet-related chronic diseases(xviii, 21–23), suggest to limit intake of red and processed meat and to eat mostly foods of plant origin. This report describes the trends, distribution, and potential determinants of meat consumption inside the U.S. and other parts of the developed earth over the terminal several decades. Farther give-and-take addresses recent epidemiologic evidence for meat intake and chronic illness risk, and impending public wellness concerns.

METHODS

We used publicly accessible per capita nutrient availability data provided by the Food and Agronomical System (FAO) of the United Nations(24) and the United states Section of Agronomics (USDA)(25) to compare temporal trends in meat consumption in the U.S. and other developed countries (divers by FAO as Nippon in Asia, Canada and the U.S. in Northward America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and all of Europe). FAO and USDA databases provide historical and chronological population-based product and disappearance data (referred to as food availability or consumption). We compared temporal trends in U.S. meat disappearance information to dietary intake data collected at the individual level from the National Health and Diet Examination Surveys (NHANES)(26).

FAO

The FAOSTAT(24) is the globe's largest online agricultural database (available at http://faostat.fao.org/), and includes data from 190 FAO member countries. This data captures per capita meat consumption based on data submitted by fellow member countries in response to standard questionnaires and supplemented by reviews of national sources and staff estimates or imputations to embrace critical gaps(v). The FAO classifies total meat (excluding fish) as the sum of beef, poultry, pork, sheep, goat and other game. Per capita meat consumption (g/capita/day), divers as the total amount of the commodity available for human consumption (that is, after exports, and other waste material from farm to household), were available from 1961 through 2005. Data from 1990 were revisited, resulting in changes in the historical information. The methodology for the estimation of food residuum sheets were too revised in FAOSTAT, including new aggregation techniques for the conversion of transformed commodities into principal equivalents(27).

USDA

To look at U.South. meat consumption components and trends in more item, we referenced food availability data (also known as U.S. Food Supply Data or Disappearance Data) from the USDA Economic Inquiry Service (ERS) and accessible at http://world wide web.ers.usda.gov/Information/Foodconsumption(25). The ERS food information system reflects the food availability per capita on an annual ground from 1909 through 2007 at the national level and serves every bit a pop proxy for bodily consumption. This information represents the boneless, trimmed (edible) weight of fresh meat. Loss-adjusted data (removal of non-edible food parts and nutrient lost through spoilage, plate waste, and other losses in the dwelling house and marketing organization) were only available get-go from 1970. While both adjusted and unadjusted data were examined, just unadjusted values from the more comprehensive fourth dimension period are presented to better narrate long-term trends. Red meat commodities included beef, veal, pork, lamb, and mutton. Poultry commodities included turkey and craven. Fish and shellfish included fresh and frozen, canned, and cured products. Figures were calculated on the basis of raw and edible meats, which exclude edible offal, bones, and viscera for cerise meat and fishery products, just included pare, neck, and giblets for poultry. Consumption of game meats or fishery products and use of craven for commercially-prepared pet food were likewise excluded(25). The USDA data provided in pounds/capita/twelvemonth was converted to grams/capita/twenty-four hours (453.6 g/lb; 365.2 d/yr) for the sake of comparison to other data sources.

NHANES

Nosotros examined data from NHANES for 1999–2000 (northward=viii,074 people), 2001–2002 (n=9,033 people), and 2003–2004 (due north=8,273 people). NHANES is a cantankerous-sectional national survey conducted by the National Centre for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Illness Control and Prevention (CDC). The dietary portion was designed to provide nationally representative estimates of food intake in adults and children (civilian, non-institutionalized population), and to rails changes in health and nutritional condition over time. A single 24-hour dietary recollect from all respondents age 2 and older with reliable dietary data was included and advisable weighting factors were applied to adjust for differential probabilities of selection and non-response. Additional information on the survey designs, data drove protocols, weighting procedures, and response rates are described elsewhere(26).

To approximate meat intake we merged the NHANES data with the appropriate MyPyramid Equivalents Database (MPED). A new version of the MPED is developed for each NHANES data release; thus, MPED 1.0(28) was practical to survey data prior to 2002 and MPED 2.0(29), the most current version bachelor, to 2003–2004. MPED for USDA Survey Foods translates the amounts of foods eaten in USDA's What We Swallow in America (WWEIA) survey, the dietary intake component of NHANES, into the number of equivalents for the 32 MyPyramid major groups and subgroups(29). Meat intake reported in the 24-hr dietary call up is converted to the equivalent number of cup or ounce-equivalents (servings) later disaggregating mixtures and discretionary fats. Commanded fat in the meat group includes that present in lean cuts of meat trimmed of all fat and poultry without pare. Cooked lean meat ounce-equivalents (servings) were defined as no more than 9.28 yard fat per 100 g of meat, poultry, or fish; or 3.53 ounces of cooked lean meat per 100 g of product(29). MPED estimates were converted to grams per twenty-four hours (28 grand/oz). We used the following food group variables from the database: meat, poultry, fish with high omega-3 fat acid content, fish with low omega-iii fatty acid content, and processed meat. The poultry grouping was composed of mainly chicken and turkey. Total fish was the sum of both loftier and depression omega-three fish and shellfish. To generate a total cherry-red meat variable we included red meat (beef, pork, veal, lamb, game) from meat, as well as the appropriate components of processed meat and organ meats, based on the recipe files for each of the food items in these food categories. Similarly, a full white meat variable was generated from poultry and processed or organ components from each of these groups. Total meat was the sum of fresh (not candy) carmine and white meat, plus cured meat, such equally bacon and ham, besides every bit organ meats and fish. Soy products were excluded. Processed meat, by MPED definition(29), included frankfurters, sausage, and lunch meats (fabricated from meat or poultry), but did not include cured meats, such equally ham or bacon.

We used SUDAAN to generate weighted means and standard errors for each meat detail (crimson meat, poultry, fish, and processed meat; grams per 24-hour interval). We additionally examined meat intake stratified by gender, age (two–11 years, 12–xix years, twenty–49 years, 50–69 years, and greater than 70 years), ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Mexican-American/Other Hispanic, Other), and education (less than high school, high school, greater than loftier school). Using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons, a two-sided p<0.0005 was considered statistically significant for any single pair-wise comparison.

RESULTS

Temporal trends in meat consumption in developed countries

According to international FAO data, total meat consumption (excluding fish) in the U.S., European Marriage (E.U.), and adult earth every bit a whole has increased relatively steadily over the period from 1961 to 2003 (Figure ane). As early as 1961, full meat consumption in the U.South. was virtually double that of the Due east.U. and the adult globe as a whole. From 1961 to 2003, total meat consumption continued to increase in all regions: nearly doubling in the E.U. and increasing approximately ane.5-fold in the U.S. and developed world, as a whole. There appeared to exist a slight decrease and plateau through the 1990s in the developed globe, followed by an increase through 2003. Recent U.S. meat consumption appears somewhat unstable, peaking and falling in recent years. Consumption in the E.U. appears to accept stabilized from the belatedly 1990s through 2003. Overall, meat consumption appears to be on the rising in the developed globe as whole, simply remains considerably lower than in the U.S.

Total meat consumption in the U.S., Due east.U., and adult world, FAOSTAT, 1961–2003

Looking in more than particular at U.S. meat consumption, USDA information indicates that full meat consumption has increased notably over the last century, virtually doubling between 1909 and 2007 (Effigy 2). The everyman meat consumption occurred in the 1930s and the highest meat consumption was reached during the virtually contempo decade. Farther examination attributes much of the increase to a ascent in poultry consumption outset in the 1950s and standing to escalate through contempo decades to make upward a loftier proportion of the total meat consumed in the U.S. Red meat consumption appears to have decreased over the last few decades get-go in the 1980s, but still remains the highest contributor to full meat consumption. In dissimilarity, fish consumption has remained low and stable over the past century.

Total meat, red meat, poultry, and fish consumption in the U.S., USDA, 1909–2007

The same data adjusted for loss, but simply bachelor from 1970, is comparable to the trends shown in Effigy 2 with a marked increase in poultry consumption, a slight decrease in red meat consumption, and an overall tendency for increasing meat consumption. For the period 1970 to 2007, red meat consumption dropped from 105 to 85 g/cap/d, while poultry consumption more than doubled from 25 to 55 g/cap/d (loss-adjusted data non shown). Full loss-adjusted meat consumption was highest in 2004 at 154 m/cap/d with current estimates remaining close to this value (data not shown).

Components and determinants of meat consumption in the U.S.

NHANES (2003–2004) data from a single 24-hour dietary remember indicates that around 58% of the meat consumed in the U.South. was ruddy meat, 32% poultry, and 10% fish (Figure 3). Processed meat intake constituted 22% of the total meat consumed from either cherry-red meat or poultry categories. Women consumed a slightly college proportion of poultry than men (34% and thirty%, respectively), a lower proportion of red meat (55% and 60%, respectively), and nearly equal proportions of processed meat (information not shown).

Per centum intake of different types of meat in U.Southward. as estimated by a single 24-hour dietary recollect, NHANES, 2003–2004

A) Distribution of meat types that contribute to full meat intake. B) Percentage of total meat that is processed.

Table 1 describes U.Southward. meat intake from NHANES (2003–2004) by gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching level. In this nationally representative sample, full meat intake averaged 128 thou/day (sum of red meat, poultry, and fish). Compared to women, men consumed more of every type of meat per solar day [all pair-wise comparisons (not shown) statistically significant (p<0.0005)]. With the exception of fish, top meat consumption occurred in adults aged 20 through 49, particularly for red meat (80.3 k/day), with lower intakes at younger and older ages (p<0.0005 for ages 20–49 compared to seventy+ for cerise meat, poultry, full meat, and processed meat) . Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics all reported similar intakes of red meat. Blacks consumed the highest amount of poultry (54.four thou/day) compared to Whites (p<0.0005) and Hispanics [p<0.001, not statistically significant (NS) for multiple comparisons]. Hispanics reported lower processed meat intake than Whites [p<0.001 (NS)] and Blacks (p<0.0005). Poultry and fish consumption appeared to increment with education level. Results from 1999–2000 and 2001–2002 were non notably different from the 2003–2004 results presented here. Across the 1999–2000, 2001–2002, 2003–2004 surveys, red meat intake appeared to decrease slightly, while poultry intake appeared to increment slightly (information not shown), which is in agreement with the information from the USDA (Figure 2).

Tabular array 1

Meat intake in the U.S. according to demographic factors, NHANES, 2003–2004

Meat intake (chiliad/day)◊
		Red Meat		Poultry		Fish		Total Meat		Processed
Factor	due north	mean	SE	mean	SE	mean	SE	mean	SE	mean	SE
All	8,272	69.eight	2.5	43.3	ane.v	14.8	1.2	127.9	three.seven	23.ii	0.8
Gender
Men	four,036	87.6	2.8	48.8	1.vii	17.four	one.6	153.eight	four.1	29.0	1.0
Women	four,236	52.8	2.half dozen	38.1	1.vii	12.3	1.0	103.2	3.6	17.seven	0.8
Age (years)
two–11	one,663	43.5	1.9	30.vi	1.half-dozen	5.9	1.0	80.i	2.3	18.8	1.0
12–19	2,161	68.0	3.2	46.ii	2.4	7.6	one.0	121.8	3.1	25.4	1.2
twenty–49	ii,251	80.3	iii.8	51.7	one.vi	17.0	1.6	149.0	4.8	25.6	one.iv
l–69	1,229	73.0	iii.5	37.ii	2.viii	xx.viii	3.1	130.9	vi.4	23.2	2.0
70+	968	53.0	2.nine	29.ix	1.6	13.6	1.4	96.8	3.ii	fifteen.4	i.2
Race
White	3,500	69.6	iii.1	41.4	2.2	13.3	1.five	124.4	4.6	24.2	one.0
Black	ii,257	69.6	2.five	54.2	2.ii	16.4	1.six	140.2	two.nine	26.3	1.3
Hispanic	ii,280	73.1	4.v	41.three	ane.9	14.ii	1.4	128.vi	4.3	17.6	1.ii
Other	235	62.3	4.seven	48.8	vii.0	38.2	six.1	149.4	ix.viii	xiv.5	2.2
Didactics
< Loftier School	four,029	65.1	two.5	39.7	one.half dozen	11.0	1.2	115.7	3.9	21.0	0.nine
High Schoolhouse	one,288	82.0	3.5	44.8	2.nine	12.5	i.4	139.4	5.3	25.8	1.6
> High Schoolhouse	2,184	71.8	three.3	47.0	ii.0	20.0	ane.8	138.8	four.8	24.two	ane.one

DISCUSSION

Nutrient availability data indicate that overall meat consumption is on the rise in the developed nations of the world and that the U.S. remains the highest consumer of total meat. Despite a shift toward increased poultry consumption, red meat still represents the largest proportion of meat consumed in the U.S. and nearly a quarter of the meat consumed is processed. Meat option and consumption behaviors appeared to vary by education, race, age, and gender.

Despite virtually record-high per capita consumption of full meat in contempo years, the proportion of fatty, particularly saturated fat, in the U.Due south. food supply from meat, poultry, and fish has been slowly declining(30). Public health and consumer concerns regarding fat and cholesterol in the late 1980s led to greater demand for lean meat and poultry, increased trimming of visible fat on meat at the retail level, and consumer commutation of poultry for cherry-red meat(30, 31). Reports on fat consumption trends in the U.S. have shown a marked reduction in the proportion of fat from foods identified equally major sources of saturated fat, including cherry-red meat (pork and beefiness) over the past several decades(32, 33).

Previous reports have shown that consumer's knowledge and sensation of diet and health may affect the proportion of red versus white meat consumed both at dwelling house and away from home(34). Chronological USDA data suggest that although poultry consumption has increased, cherry-red meat consumption has decreased comparably trivial, leaving total meat on the rise. Both loss-adjusted USDA data and intake values in NHANES advise that current total meat intake for adults in the U.S. ranges from 100 to 150 g/day with more half (50 to 90 g/24-hour interval) coming from ruby meat. The affordability of meat in the U.S., combined with rise consumer incomes, may explicate this tendency. While vertical integration in U.Due south. poultry production resulted in a large, depression-toll supply of poultry, the U.Southward. remains the world's largest beef producer and exporter, every bit well equally a leading beef importer(30, 35). During the menstruation 1994 to 1996, beefiness was a shut 2nd to yeast bread as the leading source of energy in U.S. adults; and the primary source of both protein and full fatty(36). Meat consumption, product, and trade flows are also subject to temporary fluctuations due to food-condom issues. The bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or "mad cow affliction" outbreak identified in the U.G. in the 1980s and later in the U.S. (2003) was a considerable blow to the beef industry and trade(37, 38).

NHANES data advise that recent patterns of meat intake and overall consumption differ within the U.South. population according to various demographic factors, reflecting perhaps cultural, social, regional, and financial influences on diet. NHANES may provide a different picture of meat intake in U.South. individuals than have large, U.S. prospective cohorts, whose participants are largely Caucasian, age 50 or older, and college-educated. Although on a national-level the demand for meat would be expected to increase with economic growth, private intake has tended to level off, and may even turn down, at the highest levels of socio-economic status (SES)(39). Lower meat intake, particularly red and candy meat, with increasing adult age and pedagogy may reverberate heightened awareness of health and/or adoption of dietary practices for the prevention or direction of chronic disease.

Possible wellness implications of meat consumption

Meat in the diet provides an important source of protein and micronutrients, such as fe, zinc, and B-vitamins(40). However, energy-dumbo diets, purported to exist high in meat, fats and sugars, and farther compounded by sedentary lifestyle, have been implicated in the growing epidemics of obesity and nutrition-related chronic diseases(eighteen, 41). Evidence suggests vegetarians may be at lower risk for CVD, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and cancer(42–45). Even so, depression-fat/high-sugar diets have not been wholly positive or successful in reducing the brunt of chronic disease within the general population(46–48); and lean meat and fish proceed to be part of recommendations for a balanced, healthy diet (12, 49).

Inflammation and oxidative stress have also been linked to intake of meat and affliction chance. Blood-red meat, possibly due to its fat and iron content, may increment inflammation and oxidative stress, but less is known regarding lean and white meats(45, 50). Conversely, intake of fish has been shown to subtract markers of inflammation and oxidative stress(51, 52). Meat cooking (high-temperature, charring) and processing techniques, such every bit smoking, curing, salting or add-on of chemical preservatives lead to the formation of carcinogenic compounds, such as N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)(53–55). Exposure to NOCs occurs from both endogenous formation, which is directly related to blood-red meat intake(56), as well as exogenous exposure from nitrite-preserved meats(57). While NOCs are also present in non-meat sources, such equally vegetables and fruits(58), red meat is a cardinal source of readily available heme atomic number 26, which may increase endogenous NOC germination(59). HCAs and PAHs, which are formed during high-temperature cooking of meat(lx), dose-dependently generate DNA adducts(61).

The about robust human prove is for red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer(18, nineteen, 62–66). To engagement, findings for other major cancers such every bit prostate, breast, lung, kidney, and pancreatic cancer are less consistent and prospective data for rarer cancers are particularly thin(67–72). Withal, in a comprehensive investigation from a U.Due south. prospective study of over 500,000 men and women, a meaning increased risk of incident cancers of the colorectum, esophagus, lung, and liver were associated with ruby meat; and increased take chances of colorectal and lung cancer was associated with higher intake of processed meat(53); ruby-red and candy meat intake was also associated with all-cause, CVD, and cancer mortality, while higher intake of white meat was associated with lower risk of death(20).

Strengths and Limitations

Results presented herein should be viewed with caution and the limitations of food supply/disappearance and cantankerous-sectional data conspicuously best-selling. There are a number of disadvantages of using food availability information, fifty-fifty though information technology is important for international comparisons equally well every bit for looking at the overall, historic trends. The meat consumption data presented here are primarily based on annual nutrient availability per capita at the national level and serve every bit pop proxies for actual consumption. The FAO derives their values from data submitted by member countries and are therefore limited by the abyss and accuracy of reporting at the national level.

It is important to recognize that while each data source appears to tell a like story of U.S. meat consumption trends, USDA food availability and NHANES individual intake information serve different objectives(32). The U.Southward. nutrient availability and consumption information measure out the menses of raw and semi-processed agronomical commodities throughout the U.S. marketing system at an aggregate level(73). For both FAO and USDA food consumption information, human food intake is not directly measured and losses from trimming, cooking, waste, and spoilage are not fully estimable despite utilize of conversion factors which attempt to adjust for probable losses; this appeared to result in as much as a 100 gram difference between current adjusted and unadjusted USDA values. Individual-level intake data, such as that collected in NHANES from individual sample respondents, measure out just edible and reportedly consumed foods from a designated menstruum or point in time. In a large sample, such as NHANES, a single 24-hr dietary think should provide a valid estimate of total meat intake at a population level and should likewise be acceptable to capture relative consumption of different types of meat(74, 75). The NHANES population itself presents a number of advantages for studying current U.S. meat intake. NHANES sampling aims to capture the variety, besides as regional variation in the U.S. population. Younger historic period groups and minority populations sampled in NHANES are oftentimes under-represented in most large epidemiologic and U.S. prospective studies. Additionally, well-nigh prospective cohorts in the U.S. and Europe began in the mid 1980s to 1990s, serving as the baseline level of intake, which USDA and NHANES data suggest may be considerably lower than electric current U.S. intake. Thus, comparably modest associations with meat in accomplice populations may or may non translate to the broader U.Due south. population, which national estimates advise, may exist at differential, if not greater, risk in the near future.

Although quantities may not be precise representations of individual consumption, historical data is particularly valuable for understanding irresolute meat consumption in the U.S. The methodology for measuring food availability has remained relatively consistent over time and comparing USDA and FAO data with dietary assessment information from NHANES is a useful fashion to approve bodily meat consumption patterns and trends(33). For the menses 2003–2004, nosotros found similar meat intake patterns for the relative proportion of types of meat consumed from both USDA and NHANES data. Unfortunately, the lag in the evolution and linkage of the MPED, the USDA's food group database, limits our ability to nowadays NHANES meat intake data across 2003–2004. NHANES was the only data source in our analysis that shed calorie-free on candy meat intake and although it appears to make upwards a high proportion of the full meat currently consumed, nosotros are unable track long-term changes in its availability and consumption. USDA and FAO tracking methods, by nature, practise non permit for historical trend data on meat that has undergone processing, which may be derived from both fresh red meat and poultry. Due to emerging epidemiologic prove on the risks of various cancers associated with high processed meat intake, recommendations to reduce processed meat are relatively new compared to those for carmine meat. Additionally, there is no generally agreed upon definition of processed meat, making it difficult to define and target in both public health enquiry and exercise.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the trends and determinants of meat consumption in the U.S., where meat is consumed at more than than three times the global boilerplate(5), should be particularly pertinent to researchers and other public wellness professionals aiming to reduce the global burden of chronic affliction. While saturated fatty intake appears to be declining (xxx–33), other components of red and processed meat keep to pose a health risk particularly when consumed in large quantities(xvi, 54–57, 59–61). Studying food consumption and choice behaviors sheds light on the barriers we proceed to face with the nutrient manufacture and consumers, besides equally international foresight in to future epidemics and their causes. As the main determinant of per capita meat consumption across the world appears to exist wealth, examining trends in the U.South. and the rest of the developed world may forecast the global public health and environmental burdens we should expect to face in the highly-populated developing world(iv). The growing preference in the U.S. for poultry, but non fish, as a replacement for red meat suggests the demand for more epidemiologic investigations of white meat and its relation to long-term wellness and disease outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The authors' responsibilities were as follows—CRD: concept, assay, interpretation of results, writing of the manuscript; AJC: interpretation of results, writing of manuscript; CK: assay, interpretation of results; RS: concept, interpretation of results, writing of manuscript; and all authors: critical review and blessing of the final manuscript.

We give thanks Jill Reedy for her contributions to this manuscript.

This research was supported by the Intramural Research Programme of the NIH, National Cancer Plant.

Abbreviations

(FAO)	Nutrient and Agricultural Arrangement
(USDA)	United States Department of Agriculture
(NHANES)	National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys
(CVD)	cardiovascular disease
(NOC)	N-nitroso compound
(HCA)	heterocyclic amine
(PAH)	polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(WCRF)	World Cancer Enquiry Fund
(AICR)	American Institute for Cancer Enquiry
(USDA)	United States Section of Agriculture
(ERS)	Economic Research Service
(NCHS)	National Center for Health Statistics
(CDC)	Centers for Illness Control and Prevention
(MPED)	MyPyramid Equivalents Database
(WWEIA)	What Nosotros Eat in America
(Due east.U.)	European union

Footnotes

None of the authors had a financial or personal conflict of involvement.

References

2. Hiza HAB, Bente L, Fungwe T. Nutrient Content of the U.S. Nutrient Supply, 1909–2005. Home Economics Research Report. 2008;58 [Google Scholar]

three. United States Section of Agriculture U.South. Food Supply Database: 1909 to 2005 [Google Scholar]

4. Walker P, Rhubart-Berg P, McKenzie Due south, et al. Public health implications of meat production and consumption. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8:348–356. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Speedy AW. Global Production and Consumption of Animal Source Foods. J Nutr. 2003;133:4048S–4053. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

six. Krebs-Smith SM. Progress in improving diet to reduce cancer risk. Cancer. 1998;83:1425–1432. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Terry P, Terry JB, Wolk A. Fruit and vegetable consumption in the prevention of cancer: an update. J Intern Med. 2001;250:280–290. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Dwyer T, Hetzel BS. A comparison of trends of coronary center disease bloodshed in Australia, USA and England and Wales with reference to three major run a risk factors-hypertension, cigarette smoking and nutrition. Int J Epidemiol. 1980;nine:65–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Armstrong B, Doll R. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and bloodshed in dissimilar countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer. 1975;15:617–631. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ten. World Health Organization . Globe Health Statistics 2009. World Wellness Organization Press; Geneva: [Google Scholar]

11. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. Dietary saturated fats and their nutrient sources in relation to the adventure of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;seventy:1001–1008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Lichtenstein AH, Appel LJ, Brands M, et al. Nutrition and Lifestyle Recommendations Revision 2006: A Scientific Argument From the American Heart Association Diet Committee. Circulation. 2006;114:82–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Cross AJ, Sinha R. Meat-related mutagens/carcinogens in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2004;44:44–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. AHA American Heart Association Scientific Statements and Exercise Guidelines for Researchers and Scientists: Diet/Nutrition. 2008. http://world wide web.americanheart.org.

15. Alaejos MS, Gonzalez Five, Afonso AM. Exposure to heterocyclic aromatic amines from the consumption of cooked ruby-red meat and its effect on human cancer chance: a review. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Command Expo Risk Assess. 2008;25:2–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xvi. Cross AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH, et al. A prospective study of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer take chances. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e325. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Huxley RR, Ansary-Moghaddam A, Clifton P, et al. The impact of dietary and lifestyle risk factors on risk of colorectal cancer: A quantitative overview of the epidemiological evidence. International Journal of Cancer. 2009;125:171–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xviii. World Cancer Research Fund. American Institute for Cancer Enquiry . Food, Nutrition, Physical Activeness, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. AICR; Washington, DC: 2007. [Google Scholar]

19. Larsson SC, Wolk A. Meat consumption and take chances of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:2657–2664. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Sinha R, Cross AJ, Graubard BI, et al. Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over one-half a million people. Curvation Intern Med. 2009;169:562–571. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Krauss RM, Eckel RH, Howard B, et al. Revision 2000: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart Association. J Nutr. 2001;131:132–146. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Kushi LH, Byers T, Doyle C, et al. American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: Reducing the Take a chance of Cancer With Healthy Nutrient Choices and Physical Activity. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:254–281. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. A comparing of nutrient-based recommendations and food values of 3 nutrient guides: USDA's MyPyramid, NHLBI's Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Eating Program, and Harvard's Salubrious Eating Pyramid. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:522–528. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO Statistical Databases (FAOSTAT): Food Consumption Information. Dec 16, 2008. http://faostat.fao.org/

26. National Center for Wellness Statistics (NCHS) National Health and Nutrition Test Survey (NHANES) Data . U.S. Department of Health and Homo Services, Centers for Disease Command and Prevention; Hyattsville, MD: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. [Google Scholar]

28. Fri JE, Bowman SA. MyPyramid Equivalents Database for USDA Survey Food Codes, 1994–2002. Version i.0. USDA, ARS, Community Nutrition Research Group; Beltsville Physician: 2006. Online. http://world wide web.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/fsrg/ [Google Scholar]

29. Bowman SA, Fri JE, Mosehfegh A. MyPyramid Equivalents Database, two.0 for USDA Survey Foods, 2003–2004 [Online] Food Surveys Research Group. Beltsville Human being Diet Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agronomics; Beltsville, Dr.: 2008. http://world wide web.ars.usda.gov/ba/fsrg. [Google Scholar]

30. United States Section of Agronomics Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002. Chapter 2: Profiling Food Consumption in America. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/index.html.

31. Committee on Technological Options to Amend the Nutritional Attributes of Beast Products . National Enquiry Council. Designing foods: animal product options in the market. National Academy Press; Washington, DC: 1988. [Google Scholar]

32. Popkin BM, Siega-Riz AM, Haines PS, et al. Where's the fat? Trends in U.S. diets 1965–1996. Prev Med. 2001;32:245–254. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Chanmugam P, Guthrie JF, Cecilio Due south, et al. Did fat intake in the U.s.a. really reject between 1989–1991 and 1994–1996? J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:867–872. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Lin BH, Yen Southward, Davis C. Consumer Knowledge and Meat Consumption in the U.Southward. International Association of Agricultural Economists. Gold Coast; Australia: 2006. [Google Scholar]

35. Brester GW, Marsh JM, Plain RL. International red meat trade. Vet Clin North Am Nutrient Anim Pract. 2003;19:493–518. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Cotton PA, Subar AF, Friday JE, et al. Dietary sources of nutrients among US adults, 1994 to 1996. J Am Nutrition Assoc. 2004;104:921–930. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Nathanson Northward, Wilesmith J, Griot C. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE): Causes and Consequences of a Common Source Epidemic. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145:959–969. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Harman JL, Silva CJ. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Clan. 2009;234:59–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Purcell WD, Lusk J. Demand for ruby-red meats: principles, research show, and issues. Vet Clin North Am Nutrient Anim Pract. 2003;19:463–492. viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Stipanuk M. Biochemical, Physiological & Molecular Aspects of Human Diet. 2 ed. Saunders; 1999. [Google Scholar]

41. Mente A, de Koning Fifty, Shannon HS, et al. A Systematic Review of the Testify Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:659–669. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Fraser GE. Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases? Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1607S–1612. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Cardinal TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, et al. Mortality in British vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford) Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1613S–1619. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Central TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, et al. Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford) Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1620S–1626. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Szeto YT, Kwok TC, Benzie IF. Effects of a long-term vegetarian diet on biomarkers of antioxidant status and cardiovascular illness risk. Nutrition. 2004;twenty:863–866. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Hodgson JM, Burke V, Beilin LJ, et al. Partial substitution of saccharide intake with protein intake from lean red meat lowers blood pressure in hypertensive persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83:780–787. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Appel LJ, Sacks FM, Carey VJ, et al. Effects of Protein, Monounsaturated Fat, and Carbohydrate Intake on Blood Pressure and Serum Lipids: Results of the OmniHeart Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2005;294:2455–2464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, et al. Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 91:502–509. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Kant AK, Graubard BI. A comparison of three dietary pattern indexes for predicting biomarkers of diet and disease. J Am Coll Nutr. 2005;24:294–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Hodgson JM, Ward NC, Burke V, et al. Increased Lean Scarlet Meat Intake Does Non Drag Markers of Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in Humans. J Nutr. 2007;137:363–367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Lopez-Garcia E, Schulze MB, Manson JE, et al. Consumption of (n-three) fat acids is related to plasma biomarkers of inflammation and endothelial activation in women. J Nutr. 2004;134:1806–1811. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Wijendran V, Hayes KC. Dietary north-6 and n-3 fat acid balance and cardiovascular health. Annual Review of Nutrition. 2004;24:597–615. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Cantankerous AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH, et al. A Prospective Study of Red and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Adventure. PLoS Medicine. 2007;4:e325. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ, Cross AJ, Silverman DT, et al. Meat and meat-mutagen intake and pancreatic cancer risk in the NIH-AARP accomplice. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:2664–2675. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Sinha R, Norat T. Meat cooking and cancer take a chance. IARC Sci Publ. 2002;156:181–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Hughes R, Cantankerous AJ, Pollock JR, et al. Dose-dependent effect of dietary meat on endogenous colonic N-nitrosation. Carcinogenesis. 2001;22:199–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Mirvish SS, Haorah J, Zhou L, et al. Total Due north-nitroso compounds and their precursors in hot dogs and in the gastrointestinal tract and feces of rats and mice: possible etiologic agents for colon cancer. J Nutr. 2002;132:3526S–3529S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Hord NG, Tang Y, Bryan NS. Food sources of nitrates and nitrites: the physiologic context for potential health benefits. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90:1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Cross AJ, Pollock JR, Bingham SA. Haem, not poly peptide or inorganic fe, is responsible for endogenous abdominal N-nitrosation arising from red meat. Cancer Res. 2003;63:2358–2360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Sinha R, Rothman N, Salmon CP, et al. Heterocyclic amine content in beef cooked past different methods to varying degrees of doneness and gravy made from meat drippings. Food and Chemic Toxicology. 1998;36:279–287. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Turteltaub KW, Dingley KH, Curtis KD, et al. Macromolecular adduct formation and metabolism of heterocyclic amines in humans and rodents at depression doses. Cancer Letters. 1999;143:149–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Norat T, Bingham Southward, Ferrari P, et al. Meat, Fish, and Colorectal Cancer Take a chance: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:906–916. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

63. Cross AJ, Ferrucci LM, Risch A, et al. A Big Prospective Study of Meat Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk: An Investigation of Potential Mechanisms Underlying this Clan. Cancer Res. 2010;70(six):2406–2414. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Susanna C, Larsson AW. Meat consumption and take a chance of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. International Periodical of Cancer. 2006;119:2657–2664. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Norat T, Lukanova A, Ferrari P, et al. Meat consumption and colorectal cancer chance: Dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. International Periodical of Cancer. 2002;98:241–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Chao A, Thun MJ, Connell CJ, et al. Meat consumption and run a risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:172–182. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Cross AJ, Peters U, Kirsh VA, et al. A prospective study of meat and meat mutagens and prostate cancer chance. Cancer Res. 2005;65:11779–11784. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Alexander DD, Cushing CA. Quantitative assessment of red meat or processed meat consumption and kidney cancer. Cancer Detection and Prevention. 2009;32:340–351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Pala V, Krogh V, Berrino F, et al. Meat, eggs, dairy products, and risk of chest cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Diet (Epic) accomplice. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90:602–612. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

70. Lee JE, Spiegelman D, Hunter DJ, et al. Fat, Poly peptide, and Meat Consumption and Renal Cell Cancer Risk: A Pooled Assay of 13 Prospective Studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008:djn386. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Larsson SC, Hakanson Northward, Permert J, et al. Meat, fish, poultry and egg consumption in relation to run a risk of pancreatic cancer: a prospective study. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:2866–2870. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. Missmer SA, Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, et al. Meat and dairy food consumption and breast cancer: a pooled analysis of accomplice studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:78–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Kantor LS. A comparison of the U.S. food supply with the Nutrient Guide pyramid recommendations. In: Frazao E, editor. American's eating habits: changes and consequences, Information Bull 750. U.s. Section of Agricultureed; Washington, DC: 1999. pp. 71–95. [Google Scholar]

74. Sekula West, Nelson M, Figurska Chiliad, et al. Comparison between household budget survey and 24-hour recall data in a nationally representative sample of Polish households. Public Wellness Nutrition. 2005;8:430–439. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Basiotis PP, Welsh And then, Cronin FJ, et al. Number of Days of Food Intake Records Required to Estimate Individual and Grouping Food Intakes with Defined Confidence. J Nutr. 1987;117:1638–1641. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

roachdonentolon.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/