How Much Beef Average American One Year

• Periodical Listing
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC3045642

Public Health Nutr. Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2011 Apr ane.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC3045642

NIHMSID: NIHMS253312

Trends in meat consumption in the United States

Carrie R. Daniel

ⁱNutritional Epidemiology Co-operative, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Section of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Doc, United states of americaA.

Amanda J. Cantankerous

¹Nutritional Epidemiology Co-operative, Partitioning of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Found, National Institutes of Health, Section of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Doc, U.s.a.A.

Corinna Koebnick

²Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, U.S.A.

Rashmi Sinha

ⁱNutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Constitute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, United statesA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the trends, distribution, potential determinants, and public health implications of meat consumption within the Us.

DESIGN

We examined temporal trends in meat consumption using food availability data from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and United States Department of Agronomics (USDA); and further evaluated meat intake by blazon (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.Southward., European union, and developed world. Despite a shift toward higher poultry consumption, cerise meat still represents the largest proportion of meat consumed in the U.South (58%). Twenty-two percent of the meat consumed in the U.S. is processed. According to NHANES 2003–2004, total meat intake averaged 128 g/twenty-four hour period. The blazon and quantities of meat reported varied by didactics, race, age, and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the plausible epidemiologic show for blood-red and processed meat intake in cancer and chronic illness risk, understanding the trends and determinants of meat consumption in the U.S., where meat is consumed at more than than three times the global average, should be especially pertinent to researchers and other public health professionals aiming to reduce the global burden of chronic disease.

Keywords: cherry meat, poultry, processed meat, U.S. diet, chronic affliction

INTRODUCTION

Meat intake varies widely throughout the world. In the U.S. and other developed countries, meat composes a significant portion of the normal nutrition, contributing more than 15% to daily free energy intake, twoscore% to daily protein intake, and 20% to daily fat intake(ane–3). The demand for meat in developing countries continues to grow equally the production and consumption of meat increases with available income(four, v). A shift toward a dietary pattern characterized by high meat consumption likewise appears to supplant the consumption of cereals and other foods of plant origin(i, 6, 7).

Early ecologic comparisons provided the commencement indication that high meat consumption correlated with higher rates of chronic disease(8, ix), including cardiovascular illness (CVD) and cancer, the current leading causes of morbidity and bloodshed in the U.S. and other westernized countries(10). Health risks associated with meat consumption vary based on the brute the meat is derived from, as well as rearing, processing, and preparation methods. Meat tin can be farther classified equally red meat or white meat by the quantity of red versus white musculus fibers, and fresh or processed by preparation methods such as smoking, curing, salting, and/or improver of preservatives. Components of meat linked to chronic disease risk include fatty content, particularly saturated fat in cherry-red meat, and dietary cholesterol(xi, 12). Meat tin can also exist a source of several known mutagens, including N-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 crimson meat, has been of public wellness concern since the late 1950s when the American Heart Clan first recommended that dietary cholesterol, saturated fat, and total fat be reduced for the prevention of CVD(12, fourteen); and to date, numerous epidemiologic studies have investigated meat intake and cancer gamble(15–17). According to the Earth Cancer Inquiry Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) report in 2007(18), the evidence linking ruddy and processed meats to colorectal cancer was deemed `disarming'(xix); "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 too associated with college risk of tum cancer(18). In 2009, a large U.S. prospective cohort study reported an increased risk of expiry from cancer, CVD, and all causes with high intake of carmine and processed meat(20).

Based on the evidence to date, current dietary recommendations for the prevention of nutrition-related chronic diseases(xviii, 21–23), suggest to limit intake of red and processed meat and to consume mostly foods of institute origin. This report describes the trends, distribution, and potential determinants of meat consumption within the U.South. and other parts of the developed world over the last several decades. Further discussion addresses recent epidemiologic testify for meat intake and chronic disease risk, and impending public health concerns.

METHODS

We used publicly accessible per capita food availability information provided by the Food and Agronomical Organization (FAO) of the United Nations(24) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)(25) to compare temporal trends in meat consumption in the U.S. and other adult countries (defined by FAO as Nippon in Asia, Canada and the U.South. in North America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and all of Europe). FAO and USDA databases provide historical and chronological population-based production and disappearance information (referred to equally food availability or consumption). Nosotros compared temporal trends in U.Due south. meat disappearance data to dietary intake data nerveless at the individual level from the National Wellness and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES)(26).

FAO

The FAOSTAT(24) is the world'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 past member countries in response to standard questionnaires and supplemented by reviews of national sources and staff estimates or imputations to encompass critical gaps(five). The FAO classifies full meat (excluding fish) as the sum of beef, poultry, pork, sheep, caprine animal and other game. Per capita meat consumption (k/capita/day), divers every bit the full amount of the commodity bachelor for human consumption (that is, after exports, and other waste product 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 interpretation of food rest sheets were also revised in FAOSTAT, including new aggregation techniques for the conversion of transformed commodities into primary equivalents(27).

USDA

To look at U.Due south. meat consumption components and trends in more detail, we referenced food availability data (also known as U.S. Food Supply Data or Disappearance Information) from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) and accessible at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Foodconsumption(25). The ERS food data system reflects the food availability per capita on an annual basis from 1909 through 2007 at the national level and serves equally a popular proxy for actual consumption. This data represents the boneless, trimmed (edible) weight of fresh meat. Loss-adapted information (removal of not-edible food parts and nutrient lost through spoilage, plate waste, and other losses in the home and marketing system) were but available starting time from 1970. While both adapted and unadjusted data were examined, only unadjusted values from the more comprehensive time period are presented to better characterize long-term trends. Crimson meat commodities included beef, veal, pork, lamb, and mutton. Poultry commodities included turkey and chicken. 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 blood-red meat and fishery products, but included skin, cervix, and giblets for poultry. Consumption of game meats or fishery products and use of chicken for commercially-prepared pet food were also excluded(25). The USDA data provided in pounds/capita/year was converted to grams/capita/day (453.6 g/lb; 365.ii d/yr) for the sake of comparing to other information sources.

NHANES

Nosotros examined data from NHANES for 1999–2000 (n=viii,074 people), 2001–2002 (n=9,033 people), and 2003–2004 (n=8,273 people). NHANES is a cantankerous-sectional national survey conducted by the National Middle for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The dietary portion was designed to provide nationally representative estimates of food intake in adults and children (noncombatant, non-institutionalized population), and to rails changes in health and nutritional status over time. A unmarried 24-hour dietary recall from all respondents historic period 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 collection protocols, weighting procedures, and response rates are described elsewhere(26).

To estimate meat intake nosotros merged the NHANES information 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 applied to survey data prior to 2002 and MPED 2.0(29), the most electric current version available, to 2003–2004. MPED for USDA Survey Foods translates the amounts of foods eaten in USDA's What We Eat 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 24-60 minutes dietary recall is converted to the equivalent number of cup or ounce-equivalents (servings) after disaggregating mixtures and discretionary fats. Allowable fatty in the meat group includes that present in lean cuts of meat trimmed of all fat and poultry without skin. Cooked lean meat ounce-equivalents (servings) were defined as no more 9.28 m fatty per 100 g of meat, poultry, or fish; or iii.53 ounces of cooked lean meat per 100 g of product(29). MPED estimates were converted to grams per day (28 g/oz). We used the following food grouping variables from the database: meat, poultry, fish with loftier omega-3 fatty acid content, fish with depression omega-3 fatty acid content, and processed meat. The poultry group was composed of mainly chicken and turkey. Full fish was the sum of both high and low omega-3 fish and shellfish. To generate a total cerise meat variable we included red meat (beefiness, pork, veal, lamb, game) from meat, also as the appropriate components of processed meat and organ meats, based on the recipe files for each of the food items in these nutrient categories. Similarly, a total white meat variable was generated from poultry and candy or organ components from each of these groups. Full meat was the sum of fresh (not candy) red and white meat, plus cured meat, such as bacon and ham, likewise every bit organ meats and fish. Soy products were excluded. Processed meat, by MPED definition(29), included frankfurters, sausage, and tiffin meats (fabricated from meat or poultry), only did not include cured meats, such equally ham or bacon.

Nosotros used SUDAAN to generate weighted means and standard errors for each meat item (cherry meat, poultry, fish, and candy meat; grams per 24-hour interval). We additionally examined meat intake stratified past gender, age (2–eleven years, 12–19 years, 20–49 years, 50–69 years, and greater than seventy years), ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Mexican-American/Other Hispanic, Other), and education (less than high school, high schoolhouse, greater than high school). Using Bonferroni correction to conform for multiple comparisons, a two-sided p<0.0005 was considered statistically significant for whatever unmarried pair-wise comparison.

RESULTS

Temporal trends in meat consumption in developed countries

According to international FAO data, full meat consumption (excluding fish) in the U.Southward., Eu (E.U.), and developed world as a whole has increased relatively steadily over the menses from 1961 to 2003 (Figure ane). Equally early as 1961, total meat consumption in the U.Southward. was nearly double that of the E.U. and the developed world equally a whole. From 1961 to 2003, total meat consumption continued to increase in all regions: well-nigh doubling in the E.U. and increasing approximately 1.5-fold in the U.S. and developed world, as a whole. At that place appeared to be a slight subtract and plateau through the 1990s in the developed world, followed by an increase through 2003. Recent U.S. meat consumption appears somewhat unstable, peaking and falling in recent years. Consumption in the East.U. appears to have stabilized from the belatedly 1990s through 2003. Overall, meat consumption appears to be on the rise in the developed world as whole, but remains considerably lower than in the U.Due south.

Total meat consumption in the U.Southward., E.U., and adult world, FAOSTAT, 1961–2003

Looking in more detail at U.S. meat consumption, USDA information indicates that full meat consumption has increased notably over the final century, nearly doubling betwixt 1909 and 2007 (Figure two). The lowest meat consumption occurred in the 1930s and the highest meat consumption was reached during the most recent decade. Further examination attributes much of the increase to a ascent in poultry consumption first in the 1950s and standing to escalate through recent decades to make up a loftier proportion of the total meat consumed in the U.S. Ruby meat consumption appears to have decreased over the last few decades beginning in the 1980s, just still remains the highest correspondent to total 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.Southward., USDA, 1909–2007

The aforementioned data adjusted for loss, only but available from 1970, is comparable to the trends shown in Figure two with a marked increase in poultry consumption, a slight subtract in ruddy meat consumption, and an overall trend for increasing meat consumption. For the menstruation 1970 to 2007, carmine 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 not shown). Total loss-adapted 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-hr dietary recollect indicates that around 58% of the meat consumed in the U.South. was cerise meat, 32% poultry, and 10% fish (Figure iii). Processed meat intake constituted 22% of the total meat consumed from either red meat or poultry categories. Women consumed a slightly higher proportion of poultry than men (34% and xxx%, respectively), a lower proportion of red meat (55% and 60%, respectively), and nearly equal proportions of processed meat (information not shown).

Percent intake of different types of meat in U.S. as estimated by a unmarried 24-hour dietary recall, NHANES, 2003–2004

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

Table i describes U.S. meat intake from NHANES (2003–2004) past gender, age, ethnicity, and education level. In this nationally representative sample, total meat intake averaged 128 g/24-hour interval (sum of cherry-red meat, poultry, and fish). Compared to women, men consumed more than of every blazon of meat per twenty-four hour period [all pair-wise comparisons (not shown) statistically significant (p<0.0005)]. With the exception of fish, peak meat consumption occurred in adults aged 20 through 49, particularly for crimson meat (80.3 g/day), with lower intakes at younger and older ages (p<0.0005 for ages 20–49 compared to 70+ for red meat, poultry, total meat, and candy meat) . Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics all reported similar intakes of cherry-red meat. Blacks consumed the highest corporeality of poultry (54.4 g/twenty-four hour period) 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 increase with educational activity level. Results from 1999–2000 and 2001–2002 were not notably dissimilar from the 2003–2004 results presented hither. Beyond the 1999–2000, 2001–2002, 2003–2004 surveys, blood-red meat intake appeared to decrease slightly, while poultry intake appeared to increment slightly (data not shown), which is in agreement with the data from the USDA (Figure two).

Table one

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

Meat intake (grand/day)◊
		Red Meat		Poultry		Fish		Total Meat		Processed
Gene	n	mean	SE	mean	SE	mean	SE	mean	SE	mean	SE
All	viii,272	69.8	2.5	43.3	1.5	fourteen.viii	1.2	127.ix	three.7	23.2	0.8
Gender
Men	4,036	87.6	2.eight	48.8	one.7	17.four	1.vi	153.8	four.1	29.0	1.0
Women	four,236	52.eight	ii.6	38.1	1.seven	12.3	1.0	103.2	3.vi	17.7	0.8
Age (years)
2–xi	ane,663	43.5	1.9	30.6	1.six	five.nine	1.0	80.1	two.3	eighteen.8	one.0
12–xix	2,161	68.0	iii.ii	46.2	2.4	7.half dozen	1.0	121.viii	three.1	25.4	ane.2
twenty–49	two,251	80.three	3.8	51.7	1.six	17.0	ane.half-dozen	149.0	4.8	25.half-dozen	one.4
l–69	one,229	73.0	iii.5	37.two	two.8	20.8	3.one	130.9	six.four	23.2	ii.0
lxx+	968	53.0	2.9	29.ix	1.vi	thirteen.half dozen	one.4	96.8	3.ii	15.4	1.two
Race
White	3,500	69.half-dozen	3.1	41.iv	two.two	13.3	one.5	124.4	four.half dozen	24.ii	1.0
Blackness	ii,257	69.6	2.5	54.2	2.2	16.4	one.6	140.2	ii.9	26.3	one.3
Hispanic	2,280	73.1	4.5	41.3	ane.nine	14.2	1.4	128.6	four.3	17.6	i.two
Other	235	62.3	4.seven	48.8	vii.0	38.ii	6.i	149.4	9.8	14.5	2.2
Education
< High School	four,029	65.1	2.five	39.7	1.6	11.0	1.2	115.7	iii.9	21.0	0.ix
High School	1,288	82.0	iii.5	44.viii	2.9	12.five	1.4	139.iv	5.3	25.eight	1.half dozen
> High School	two,184	71.8	3.3	47.0	two.0	20.0	1.8	138.eight	four.viii	24.2	1.ane

DISCUSSION

Food availability data indicate that overall meat consumption is on the rising in the developed nations of the earth and that the U.Due south. remains the highest consumer of full meat. Despite a shift toward increased poultry consumption, red meat even so represents the largest proportion of meat consumed in the U.Due south. 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 tape-loftier per capita consumption of total meat in contempo years, the proportion of fat, particularly saturated fat, in the U.South. food supply from meat, poultry, and fish has been slowly declining(30). Public health and consumer concerns regarding fat and cholesterol in the tardily 1980s led to greater demand for lean meat and poultry, increased trimming of visible fat on meat at the retail level, and consumer substitution of poultry for carmine meat(30, 31). Reports on fatty consumption trends in the U.S. have shown a marked reduction in the proportion of fat from foods identified every bit major sources of saturated fat, including red meat (pork and beefiness) over the past several decades(32, 33).

Previous reports have shown that consumer'southward knowledge and awareness of diet and health may affect the proportion of cerise versus white meat consumed both at home and abroad from home(34). Chronological USDA information advise that although poultry consumption has increased, red meat consumption has decreased comparably piddling, leaving total meat on the rise. Both loss-adapted USDA information and intake values in NHANES suggest that current full meat intake for adults in the U.Due south. ranges from 100 to 150 one thousand/day with more than half (l to 90 chiliad/twenty-four hour period) coming from ruby meat. The affordability of meat in the U.Due south., combined with rising consumer incomes, may explain this trend. While vertical integration in U.S. poultry product resulted in a big, depression-cost supply of poultry, the U.South. remains the world's largest beef producer and exporter, as well as a leading beef importer(30, 35). During the menstruum 1994 to 1996, beef was a close 2nd to yeast bread as the leading source of free energy in U.South. adults; and the primary source of both protein and full fat(36). Meat consumption, production, and trade flows are also field of study to temporary fluctuations due to food-safe problems. The bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or "mad cow disease" outbreak identified in the U.K. in the 1980s and later in the U.S. (2003) was a considerable blow to the beef industry and trade(37, 38).

NHANES data suggest that recent patterns of meat intake and overall consumption differ inside the U.Southward. population according to various demographic factors, reflecting peradventure cultural, social, regional, and fiscal influences on diet. NHANES may provide a different motion picture of meat intake in U.S. individuals than have large, U.Southward. prospective cohorts, whose participants are largely Caucasian, historic period l 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 refuse, at the highest levels of socio-economic status (SES)(39). Lower meat intake, particularly blood-red and candy meat, with increasing developed age and educational activity may reflect heightened awareness of health and/or adoption of dietary practices for the prevention or management of chronic disease.

Possible wellness implications of meat consumption

Meat in the diet provides an of import source of protein and micronutrients, such as iron, zinc, and B-vitamins(forty). However, free energy-dense diets, purported to exist loftier in meat, fats and sugars, and further compounded by sedentary lifestyle, have been implicated in the growing epidemics of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases(18, 41). Show suggests vegetarians may be at lower hazard for CVD, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and cancer(42–45). However, low-fat/high-carbohydrate diets take not been wholly positive or successful in reducing the burden of chronic disease inside the general population(46–48); and lean meat and fish go on to be part of recommendations for a counterbalanced, healthy diet (12, 49).

Inflammation and oxidative stress have also been linked to intake of meat and disease risk. Red meat, possibly due to its fat and iron content, may increment inflammation and oxidative stress, merely 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 addition 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 reddish meat intake(56), equally well every bit exogenous exposure from nitrite-preserved meats(57). While NOCs are as well present in non-meat sources, such as vegetables and fruits(58), crimson meat is a primal source of readily bachelor heme iron, which may increase endogenous NOC formation(59). HCAs and PAHs, which are formed during high-temperature cooking of meat(sixty), dose-dependently generate DNA adducts(61).

The most robust human being evidence is for red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer(18, 19, 62–66). To date, 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 sparse(67–72). Yet, in a comprehensive investigation from a U.Southward. prospective study of over 500,000 men and women, a significant increased gamble of incident cancers of the colorectum, esophagus, lung, and liver were associated with red meat; and increased risk of colorectal and lung cancer was associated with higher intake of processed meat(53); red and processed meat intake was likewise associated with all-crusade, 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 nutrient supply/disappearance and cantankerous-sectional data clearly best-selling. There are a number of disadvantages of using food availability data, fifty-fifty though it is important for international comparisons as well equally for looking at the overall, celebrated trends. The meat consumption information presented here are primarily based on annual food availability per capita at the national level and serve every bit popular proxies for bodily consumption. The FAO derives their values from data submitted by fellow member countries and are therefore express past the completeness and accuracy of reporting at the national level.

It is of import to recognize that while each data source appears to tell a similar story of U.S. meat consumption trends, USDA food availability and NHANES private intake data serve dissimilar objectives(32). The U.S. food availability and consumption data measure the menses of raw and semi-processed agricultural bolt throughout the U.Due south. marketing system at an amass level(73). For both FAO and USDA food consumption data, human nutrient 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 likely losses; this appeared to result in as much as a 100 gram departure between current adapted and unadjusted USDA values. Individual-level intake information, such as that collected in NHANES from private sample respondents, mensurate only edible and reportedly consumed foods from a designated menses or bespeak in time. In a large sample, such as NHANES, a single 24-hour dietary recollect should provide a valid estimate of total meat intake at a population level and should too 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.Southward. meat intake. NHANES sampling aims to capture the diversity, too as regional variation in the U.S. population. Younger age groups and minority populations sampled in NHANES are often under-represented in well-nigh 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 current U.S. intake. Thus, comparably modest associations with meat in cohort populations may or may not translate to the broader U.S. population, which national estimates advise, may be at differential, if not greater, take chances in the near future.

Although quantities may not exist precise representations of individual consumption, historical information is particularly valuable for understanding changing meat consumption in the U.S. The methodology for measuring nutrient availability has remained relatively consequent over time and comparison USDA and FAO data with dietary assessment data from NHANES is a useful style to approve bodily meat consumption patterns and trends(33). For the catamenia 2003–2004, we 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 development and linkage of the MPED, the USDA'due south food group database, limits our ability to present NHANES meat intake data across 2003–2004. NHANES was the but data source in our analysis that shed light on processed meat intake and although it appears to make upwards a high proportion of the full meat currently consumed, we are unable track long-term changes in its availability and consumption. USDA and FAO tracking methods, by nature, do not allow for historical trend information on meat that has undergone processing, which may exist derived from both fresh scarlet meat and poultry. Due to emerging epidemiologic evidence on the risks of various cancers associated with high candy meat intake, recommendations to reduce processed meat are relatively new compared to those for red meat. Additionally, at that place is no generally agreed upon definition of candy meat, making information technology difficult to define and target in both public health enquiry and practise.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the trends and determinants of meat consumption in the U.S., where meat is consumed at more 3 times the global average(five), should be particularly pertinent to researchers and other public health professionals aiming to reduce the global brunt of chronic disease. While saturated fatty intake appears to be declining (30–33), other components of red and processed meat continue to pose a health risk particularly when consumed in big quantities(16, 54–57, 59–61). Studying food consumption and selection behaviors sheds light on the barriers we continue to face with the food industry and consumers, also equally international foresight in to future epidemics and their causes. As the main determinant of per capita meat consumption beyond the world appears to be wealth, examining trends in the U.Due south. and the rest of the adult world may forecast the global public health and environmental burdens nosotros should expect to face in the highly-populated developing world(four). The growing preference in the U.S. for poultry, only not 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: analysis, estimation of results; RS: concept, interpretation of results, writing of manuscript; and all authors: disquisitional review and approving of the final manuscript.

We thank Jill Reedy for her contributions to this manuscript.

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

Abbreviations

(FAO)	Nutrient and Agricultural Organization
(USDA)	U.s. Department of Agriculture
(NHANES)	National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys
(CVD)	cardiovascular disease
(NOC)	Northward-nitroso compound
(HCA)	heterocyclic amine
(PAH)	polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(WCRF)	World Cancer Inquiry Fund
(AICR)	American Institute for Cancer Research
(USDA)	United States Department of Agriculture
(ERS)	Economic Inquiry Service
(NCHS)	National Center for Wellness Statistics
(CDC)	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(MPED)	MyPyramid Equivalents Database
(WWEIA)	What We Eat in America
(East.U.)	European Marriage

Footnotes

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

References

ii. Hiza HAB, Bente L, Fungwe T. Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909–2005. Habitation Economic science Research Report. 2008;58 [Google Scholar]

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

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

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

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

seven. 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 heart affliction bloodshed in Commonwealth of australia, The states and England and Wales with reference to three major risk factors-hypertension, cigarette smoking and nutrition. Int J Epidemiol. 1980;9:65–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

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

11. Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;70:1001–1008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Lichtenstein AH, Appel LJ, Brands M, et al. Nutrition and Lifestyle Recommendations Revision 2006: A Scientific Statement From the American Eye Association Nutrition 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]

fourteen. AHA American Center Association Scientific Statements and Practice Guidelines for Researchers and Scientists: Diet/Nutrition. 2008. http://www.americanheart.org.

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

sixteen. Cross AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH, et al. A prospective written report of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer hazard. PLoS Med. 2007;iv:e325. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

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

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

20. Sinha R, Cantankerous AJ, Graubard BI, et al. Meat intake and mortality: a prospective report of over half a million people. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:562–571. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

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

23. Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. A comparison of food-based recommendations and nutrient values of three nutrient guides: USDA'south MyPyramid, NHLBI's Dietary Approaches to Cease Hypertension Eating Plan, and Harvard's Good for you Eating Pyramid. J Am Nutrition Assoc. 2008;108:522–528. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the Un FAO Statistical Databases (FAOSTAT): Food Consumption Data. Dec xvi, 2008. http://faostat.fao.org/

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

28. Friday JE, Bowman SA. MyPyramid Equivalents Database for USDA Survey Food Codes, 1994–2002. Version 1.0. USDA, ARS, Community Nutrition Research Group; Beltsville MD: 2006. Online. http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/fsrg/ [Google Scholar]

29. Bowman SA, Friday JE, Mosehfegh A. MyPyramid Equivalents Database, 2.0 for USDA Survey Foods, 2003–2004 [Online] Food Surveys Research Group. Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Middle, Agricultural Enquiry Service, U.S. Section of Agriculture; Beltsville, MD: 2008. http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/fsrg. [Google Scholar]

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

31. Committee on Technological Options to Better the Nutritional Attributes of Animate being Products . National Research Council. Designing foods: beast production options in the marketplace. 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.South. diets 1965–1996. Prev Med. 2001;32:245–254. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Chanmugam P, Guthrie JF, Cecilio S, et al. Did fat intake in the United States actually decline between 1989–1991 and 1994–1996? J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:867–872. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

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

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

37. Nathanson N, 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 Association. 2009;234:59–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Purcell WD, Lusk J. Need for red meats: principles, research evidence, and issues. Vet Clin N Am Food Anim Pract. 2003;19:463–492. viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

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

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

43. Central TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, et al. Bloodshed 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. Key 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 condition and cardiovascular disease risk. Nutrition. 2004;20:863–866. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Hodgson JM, Burke 5, Beilin LJ, et al. Partial substitution of carbohydrate intake with protein intake from lean reddish meat lowers blood pressure level 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 Poly peptide, Monounsaturated Fat, and Saccharide Intake on Blood Pressure and Serum Lipids: Results of the OmniHeart Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2005;294:2455–2464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Siri-Tarino Prisoner of war, Lord's day Q, Hu FB, et al. Saturated fatty, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 91:502–509. [PMC free 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 Red Meat Intake Does Not Elevate 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-3) fatty 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 northward-six and n-3 fatty acid balance and cardiovascular wellness. Annual Review of Diet. 2004;24:597–615. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Cross AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH, et al. A Prospective Study of Crimson and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Risk. PLoS Medicine. 2007;iv: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 cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:2664–2675. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

56. Hughes R, Cantankerous AJ, Pollock JR, et al. Dose-dependent outcome 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. Full N-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. Nutrient sources of nitrates and nitrites: the physiologic context for potential health benefits. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;xc:i–x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

threescore. Sinha R, Rothman Due north, 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 low doses. Cancer Letters. 1999;143:149–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Norat T, Bingham S, Ferrari P, et al. Meat, Fish, and Colorectal Cancer Risk: 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 Large Prospective Study of Meat Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk: An Investigation of Potential Mechanisms Underlying this Association. Cancer Res. 2010;lxx(6):2406–2414. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

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

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

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

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

69. Pala 5, Krogh V, Berrino F, et al. Meat, eggs, dairy products, and hazard of breast cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90:602–612. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

71. Larsson SC, Hakanson N, Permert J, et al. Meat, fish, poultry and egg consumption in relation to 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 chest cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort 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'south eating habits: changes and consequences, Information Bull 750. US Department of Agricultureed; Washington, DC: 1999. pp. 71–95. [Google Scholar]

74. Sekula W, Nelson M, Figurska K, et al. Comparison between household budget survey and 24-hour call up data in a nationally representative sample of Smooth households. Public Health Nutrition. 2005;8:430–439. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

ammonsbrilivele.blogspot.com

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

Share this post