Per-capita Consumption (Disappearance) of Beef Pork and Lamb
Meat intake varies widely throughout the globe. In the U.s.a. and other developed countries, meat comprises a significant portion of the normal diet, contributing more than than fifteen % to daily energy intake, 40 % to daily protein intake and twenty % to daily fat intake( 1 – three ). The need for meat in developing countries continues to abound every bit the production and consumption of meat increases with available income( Reference Walker, Rhubart-Berg and McKenzie iv , Reference Speedy 5 ). A shift towards a dietary pattern characterized past loftier meat consumption also appears to supersede the consumption of cereals and other foods of plant origin( 1 , Reference Krebs-Smith half dozen , Reference Terry, Terry and Wolk 7 ).
Early on ecological comparisons provided the first indication that high meat consumption correlated with higher rates of chronic disease( Reference Dwyer and Hetzel 8 , Reference Armstrong and Doll ix ), including CVD and cancer, the current leading causes of morbidity and bloodshed in the USA and other Westernised countries( 10 ). Wellness risks associated with meat consumption vary based on the animal the meat is derived from, too as rearing, processing and grooming methods( Reference Bough xi ). Meat can be further classified by the quantity of carmine v. white muscle fibres; thus, beef, pork and lamb products are generally defined equally red meat and poultry products every bit white meat. Preparation methods such equally smoking, curing, salting and/or addition of preservatives further differentiate processed and fresh meat( Reference Bough 11 ). The components of meat linked to chronic affliction risk include fat content, particularly saturated fat in red meat, and dietary cholesterol( Reference Hu, Stampfer and Manson 12 , Reference Lichtenstein, Appel and Brands thirteen ). Meat can also be a source of several known mutagens, including Northward-nitroso compounds (NOC) in processed meats, and heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic effluvious hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during high-temperature cooking and grilling( Reference Cantankerous and Sinha 14 ).
Intake of fat and meat (primarily from red meat) has been of public health concern since the late 1950s when the American Center Association showtime recommended that dietary cholesterol, saturated fatty and total fat be reduced for the prevention of CVD( Reference Lichtenstein, Appel and Brands 13 , xv ); and to date, numerous epidemiological studies accept investigated meat intake and cancer risk( Reference Alaejos, Gonzalez and Afonso 16 – Reference Larsson and Wolk 19 ). According to the World Cancer Enquiry Fund/American Establish for Cancer Inquiry written report in 2007, the evidence linking cherry and processed meats to colorectal cancer was deemed 'disarming' and 'express or suggestive' for other cancer sites( 20 ).
Based on the evidence to date, electric current dietary recommendations for the prevention of diet-related chronic diseases( xx – Reference Reedy and Krebs-Smith 23 ) suggest to limit intake of red and processed meat and to swallow by and large foods of plant origin. The present study describes the trends, distribution and potential determinants of meat consumption within the United states and other parts of the developed world over the past several decades. Further discussion addresses recent epidemiological evidence 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 FAO( 24 ) and the US Department of Agronomics (USDA)( 25 ) to compare temporal trends in meat consumption in the USA and other developed countries (divers by the FAO every bit Japan in Asia, Canada and the USA 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 data (referred to as food availability or consumption). We compared temporal trends in the The states meat disappearance data to dietary intake data collected at the individual level from the National Wellness and Diet Examination Surveys (NHANES)( 26 ).
FAO
FAOSTAT( 24 ) is the earth's largest online agricultural database (available at http://faostat.fao.org/) with data from 190 FAO member countries. FAO compiles supply and disappearance information submitted by member countries in response to standard questionnaires, supplemented with reviews of national sources and staff estimates or imputations to cover critical gaps( Reference Speedy 5 ). The FAO classifies total meat (excluding fish) as the sum of beef, poultry, pork, sheep, goat and other game. Per capita meat consumption (m/d), defined as the total corporeality of the commodity available for human consumption (i.due east. after exports, and other waste product from farm to household), was available from 1961 through 2005. Data from 1990 were revisited, resulting in changes in the historical data. The methodology for the interpretation of nutrient residue sheets was also revised in FAOSTAT, including new assemblage techniques for the conversion of transformed commodities (candy and semi-processed) into primary equivalents (i.e. fresh meat, excluding offal and fatty)( 24 ).
US Department of Agriculture
To expect at US meat consumption and trends in more than detail, nosotros referenced food availability data (likewise known as US Food Supply Data or Disappearance Data) from the USDA Economic Enquiry Service (ERS) and accessible at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Information/Foodconsumption ( 25 ). The ERS food information organisation reflects food availability per capita on an almanac footing from 1909 through 2007 at the national level and serves as a popular proxy for actual consumption. These data stand for the boneless, trimmed (edible) weight of fresh meat. Loss-adjusted data (removal of not-edible nutrient parts and food lost through spoilage, plate waste material and other losses in the habitation and marketing system) were only available beginning from 1970. Ruby-red meat commodities included beefiness, 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 footing of raw and edible meats, which exclude edible offal, bones and viscera for red meat and fishery products, just included skin, neck and giblets for poultry( 25 ). The USDA per capita information, provided in lb/year, were converted to chiliad/d (453·6 g/lb; 365·2 d/year) for the sake of comparing with other data sources.
National Health and Nutrition Test Surveys
Nosotros examined data from NHANES for 1999–2000 (8074 people), 2001–2002 (9033 people) and 2003–2004 (8273 people). NHANES is a cross-sectional national survey conducted by the National Eye for Health Statistics of the Centers for Illness Control and Prevention. The dietary portion was designed to provide nationally representative estimates of nutrient intake in adults and children (civilian, non-institutionalized population), and to track changes in health and nutritional status over time. A single 24 h dietary recall from all respondents aged ii years and older with reliable dietary data was included and appropriate weighting factors were applied to adjust for differential probabilities of selection and not-response. Boosted data on the survey designs, data drove protocols, weighting procedures and response rates is given elsewhere( 26 ).
To estimate 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( Reference Friday and Bowman 27 ) was applied to survey information earlier 2002 and MPED 2·0( Reference Bowman, Friday and Mosehfegh 28 ), the near current version bachelor, to 2003–2004. MPED for USDA Survey Foods translates the amounts of foods eaten in USDA's What We Eat in America survey, the dietary intake component of NHANES, into the number of equivalents for the thirty-two MyPyramid major food groups and subgroups( Reference Bowman, Fri and Mosehfegh 28 ). Meat intake reported in the 24 h 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 peel. Cooked lean meat ounce equivalents (servings) were defined equally no more than nine·28 g fat per 100 thousand of meat, poultry or fish, or 3·53 ounces of cooked lean meat per 100 g of production, with the balance classified equally discretionary fatty( Reference Bowman, Friday and Mosehfegh 28 ). MPED estimates were converted to g/d (28 g/oz). We used the following food grouping variables from the database: meat, poultry, fish with loftier n-three fatty acid content, fish with low n-3 fat acid content and processed meat. The poultry group consisted mainly of chicken and turkey. Full fish was the sum of fish both high and low in northward-three fatty acids plus shellfish. To generate a total reddish meat variable, nosotros included red meat (beef, pork, veal, lamb, game), besides as the advisable components of processed meat and organ meats, based on the recipe files for each of the food items in these food categories. Similarly, a total 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 processed) ruby-red and white meat, plus cured meat, such as bacon and ham, equally well as organ meats and fish. Soya products were excluded. Processed meat, past MPED definition( Reference Bowman, Fri and Mosehfegh 28 ), included frankfurters, sausage and luncheon meats (fabricated from meat or poultry), but did not include cured meats, such as ham or bacon.
Nosotros used SUDAAN (Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) to generate weighted ways (sampling weights provided by NHANES)( 26 ) and standard errors for each meat item (red meat, poultry, fish and processed meat; chiliad/d). Nosotros additionally examined meat intake stratified by gender, age group, ethnicity and education level. Using a Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons, a two-sided P < 0·0005 was considered statistically significant for whatever single pair-wise comparison.
Results
Temporal trends in meat consumption in adult countries
Co-ordinate to the international FAO data, total meat consumption (excluding fish) in the U.s.a., European Union (EU) and the adult earth every bit a whole has increased relatively steadily over the period from 1961 to 2003 (Fig. 1). Equally early every bit 1961, total meat consumption in the USA was nigh double that of the European union and the developed world every bit a whole. From 1961 to 2003, total meat consumption continued to increment in all regions: virtually doubling in the European union and increasing approximately 1·5-fold in the USA. Overall, meat consumption appears to be on the rising in the adult world as whole, simply remains considerably lower than in the USA.
Fig. 1 Total meat consumption in the USA, European Spousal relationship and the developed world, 1961–2003 (FAOSTAT( 24 ))
Looking in more item at meat consumption in the United states of america, USDA data indicate that total meat consumption has increased notably over the past century, nearly doubling between 1909 and 2007 (Fig. 2). The lowest meat consumption occurred in the 1930s and the highest meat consumption was reached during the most recent decade. Farther examination attributes much of the increase to a rise in poultry consumption starting time in the 1950s through recent decades to make up a loftier proportion of the total meat consumed in the United states. Ruby-red meat consumption appears to have decreased over the past few decades beginning in the 1980s, but notwithstanding remains the highest correspondent to the total meat consumed. In dissimilarity, fish consumption has remained low and stable over the past century.
Fig. 2 Full meat, red meat, poultry and fish consumption in the USA, 1909–2007 (US Department of Agriculture, Economical Research Service( 25 ))
The same data adjusted for loss, only only available from 1970, are comparable to the trends shown in Fig. 2 with a marked increase in poultry consumption, a slight decrease in red meat consumption and an overall trend for increasing meat consumption. For the period 1970–2007, per capita red meat consumption dropped from 105 to 85 k/d, while per capita poultry consumption more than doubled from 25 to 55 g/d (loss-adjusted data not shown). Per capita full loss-adjusted meat consumption was highest in 2004 at 154 g/d with electric current estimates remaining close to this value (information not shown).
Components and determinants of meat consumption in the The states
The NHANES (2003–2004) data from a unmarried 24 h dietary call back indicate that approximately 58 % of the meat consumed in the U.s. was scarlet meat, 32 % poultry and x % fish (Fig. three). Processed meat intake constituted 22 % of the total meat consumed from either red meat or poultry categories. Women consumed a slightly college proportion of poultry than men (34 % and 30 %, respectively), a lower proportion of cherry-red meat (55 % and 60 %, respectively) and nearly equal proportions of processed meat (information not shown).
Fig. 3 Percentage intake of different types of meat in the USA estimated by a single 24 h dietary recall, National Health and Diet Examination Survey, 2003–2004: (a) distribution of meat types that contribute to total meat intake; (b) percentage of total meat that is candy
Tabular array ane describes Usa meat intake from NHANES (2003–2004) by gender, age, ethnicity and pedagogy level. In this nationally representative sample, total meat intake averaged 128 g/d (sum of red meat, poultry and fish). Compared with women, men consumed more than of every blazon of meat per day (all pair-wise comparisons (not shown) were statistically significant (P < 0·0005)). With the exception of fish, superlative meat consumption occurred in adults aged 20–49 years, specially for cerise meat (80·3 chiliad/d), with lower intake at younger and older ages (P < 0·0005 for ages 20–49 years compared to ≥70 years for reddish meat, poultry, total meat and processed meat). Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all reported like intake of red meat. Blacks consumed the highest corporeality of poultry (54·4 yard/d) compared to Whites (P < 0·0005) and Hispanics (P < 0·001, 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 teaching level. Results betwixt 1999–2000 and 2001–2002 were non notably different from the 2003–2004 results presented hither. Across the 1999–2000, 2001–2002 and 2003–2004 surveys, red meat intake appeared to decrease slightly, while poultry intake appeared to increase slightly (data non shown), which is in understanding with the data from the USDA (Fig. two).
Table i Meat intake in the United states of america according to demographic factors, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003–2004
*Cooked lean meat ounce-equivalents (MPED two·0) converted to grams.
Word
Food 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 full meat. Despite a shift towards increased poultry consumption, red meat notwithstanding represents the largest proportion of meat consumed in the Us and nearly a quarter of the meat consumed is candy. Meat selection and consumption behaviours appeared to vary past education, race, age and gender.
Despite the virtually tape-high per capita consumption of full meat in contempo years, the proportion of fat, specially saturated fat, in the US food supply from meat, poultry and fish has slowly declined( 3 ). Public health and consumer concerns regarding fat and cholesterol in the late 1980s led to greater need for lean meat and poultry, increased trimming of visible fatty on meat at the retail level and consumer exchange of poultry for cherry-red meat( 3 , 29 ). Reports on fatty consumption trends in the United states accept shown a marked reduction in the proportion of fat from foods identified as major sources of saturated fatty, including ruddy meat (pork and beef) over the past several decades( Reference Popkin, Siega-Riz and Haines xxx , Reference Chanmugam, Guthrie and Cecilio 31 ).
Previous reports accept shown that the consumer's knowledge and awareness of diet and wellness may affect the proportion of cerise 5. white meat consumed both at home and away from habitation( Reference Lin, Yen and Davis 32 ). Chronological USDA data propose that although poultry consumption has increased, cerise meat consumption has decreased comparably picayune, leaving total meat consumption on the rise. Both loss-adjusted USDA data and intake values in NHANES suggest that current total meat intake for adults in the Usa ranges from 100 to 150 g/d with more than one-half (50–90 thou/d) coming from crimson meat. The affordability of meat in the USA, combined with rising consumer incomes, may explain this trend. While vertical integration in US poultry product resulted in a big, low-cost supply of poultry, the USA remains the world's largest beefiness producer and exporter, too equally a leading beef importer( 3 , Reference Brester, Marsh and Plain 33 ). During 1994–1996, beef was a close 2d to yeast bread equally the leading source of energy in US adults; and the principal source of both protein and total fatty( Reference Cotton fiber, Subar and Fri 34 ). Meat consumption, product and trade flows are also subject to temporary fluctuations due to food prophylactic bug. The outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy or 'mad cow affliction' identified in the United kingdom in the 1980s and later in the U.s.a. (2003) was a considerable blow to the beef industry and trade( Reference Nathanson, Wilesmith and Griot 35 , Reference Harman and Silva 36 ).
The NHANES information suggest that contempo patterns of meat intake and overall consumption differ inside the Usa 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 US individuals than have large, US prospective cohorts, whose participants are largely Caucasian, historic period 50 years or above, and college educated. Although at a national level the demand for meat would be expected to increase with economic growth, individual intake has tended to level off, and may even decline, at the highest levels of socio-economical status( Reference Purcell and Lusk 37 ). Lower meat intake, particularly blood-red and processed meat, with increasing adult age and education may reflect heightened sensation of health and/or adoption of dietary practices for the prevention or management of chronic affliction.
Possible health implications of meat consumption
Meat in the diet provides an important source of protein and micronutrients, such as iron, zinc and vitamin B( Reference Stipanuk 38 ). However, free energy-dumbo diets, purported to be high in meat, fats and sugars, and farther compounded by sedentary lifestyle, have been implicated in the growing epidemics of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases( 20 , Reference Mente, de Koning and Shannon 39 ). Evidence suggests that vegetarians may be at lower take a chance for CVD, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity and some cancers( Reference Fraser 40 – Reference Key, Appleby and Spencer 44 ). However, low-fat/high-carbohydrate diets accept not been wholly positive or successful in reducing the burden of chronic disease within the general population( Reference Hodgson, Burke and Beilin 45 – Reference Siri-Tarino, Sun and Hu 47 ); and lean meat and fish keep to be role of the recommendations for a balanced, good for you diet( Reference Lichtenstein, Appel and Brands xiii , Reference Kant and Graubard 48 ).
Inflammation and oxidative stress have also been linked to the intake of meat and disease risk. Red meat, possibly due to its fat and atomic number 26 content, may increase inflammation and oxidative stress, but less is known regarding lean and white meats( Reference Szeto, Kwok and Benzie 41 , Reference Hodgson, Ward and Burke 49 ). Conversely, the intake of fish has been shown to subtract markers of inflammation and oxidative stress( Reference Lopez-Garcia, Schulze and Manson 50 , Reference Wijendran and Hayes 51 ). Meat cooking (loftier temperature, charring) and processing techniques, such as smoking, curing, salting or the addition of chemical preservatives, lead to the germination of carcinogenic compounds, such equally NOC, HCA and PAH( Reference Cross, Leitzmann and Gail 17 , Reference Stolzenberg-Solomon, Cross and Silverman 52 , Reference Sinha and Norat 53 ). Exposure to NOC occurs from both endogenous germination, which is straight related to ruddy meat intake( Reference Hughes, Cross and Pollock 54 ), as well as exogenous exposure from nitrite-preserved meats( Reference Mirvish, Haorah and Zhou 55 ). Nitrate, which can be reduced to nitrite and contribute to NOC germination, is also present in non-meat sources, such as vegetables and fruits( Reference Hord, Tang and Bryan 56 ); still, ruby-red meat is a fundamental source of readily bachelor haem iron, which may further increase endogenous NOC formation( Reference Cross, Pollock and Bingham 57 ). HCA and PAH, which are formed during high-temperature cooking of meat( Reference Sinha, Rothman and Salmon 58 ), dose-dependently generate Dna adducts( Reference Turteltaub, Dingley and Curtis 59 ).
The most robust human evidence is for reddish and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer( Reference Larsson and Wolk xix , twenty , Reference Norat, Bingham and Ferrari 60 – Reference Larsson, Rafter and Holmberg 64 ). To date, there appears to be little or no clan for meat intake and chest cancer( Reference Linos and Willett 65 – Reference Pala, Krogh and Berrino 69 ), while findings for other major cancers such every bit prostate, lung, kidney and pancreatic cancer are less conclusive( Reference Lee, Spiegelman and Hunter seventy – Reference Sinha, Park and Graubard 73 ). In a comprehensive investigation from a US prospective report of over 500 000 men and women, a significant increased take chances of incident cancers of the colorectum, oesophagus, lung and liver was associated with ruddy meat and increased risk of colorectal and lung cancer was associated with higher intake of candy meat( Reference Cross, Leitzmann and Gail 17 ); crimson and processed meat intake was also associated with all-crusade, CVD and cancer bloodshed, while higher intake of white meat was associated with lower risk of decease( Reference Sinha, Cross and Graubard 74 ). The relationship between meat intake and cancer risk is not wholly consistent and the complex mechanisms involved continue to warrant further investigation. Current epidemiological research suggests that moderate meat intake may not increment risk( Reference Spencer, Fundamental and Appleby 75 ) and that endogenous and exogenous mutagens formed during meat cooking and processing may be important( Reference Sinha and Norat 53 , Reference Cross, Ferrucci and Risch 61 , Reference Pala, Krogh and Berrino 69 , Reference Sinha, Park and Graubard 73 , Reference Truswell 76 , Reference Genkinger and Koushik 77 ).
Strengths and limitations
Results presented herein should be viewed with circumspection and the limitations of food supply/disappearance and cross-sectional data clearly best-selling. There are a number of disadvantages to using food availability data, even though it is of import for international comparisons likewise as for looking at the overall, historic trends. Meat consumption data presented hither are primarily based on annual food availability per capita at the national level and serve equally pop proxies for actual consumption. The FAO derives their values from data submitted by member countries and are therefore limited by the completeness and accuracy of reporting at the national level.
It is important to recognise that while each data source appears to tell a like story of US meat consumption trends, USDA food availability and NHANES individual intake information serve different objectives( Reference Popkin, Siega-Riz and Haines 30 ). The US food availability and consumption data measure the flow of raw and semi-processed agricultural bolt throughout the Us marketing system at an aggregate level( Reference Kantor 78 ). For both FAO and USDA food consumption information, homo food intake is non directly measured and losses from trimming, cooking, waste and spoilage are not fully estimable despite use of conversion factors that attempt to arrange for probable losses; this appeared to result in as much as a 100 g difference between electric current adapted (150 k/d) and unadjusted USDA values (250 g/d). Individual-level intake information, such as those nerveless in NHANES from individual sample respondents, measure merely edible and reportedly consumed foods from a designated period or betoken in time. In a large sample, such as NHANES, a single 24 h dietary call back should provide a valid approximate of total meat intake at a population level and should also exist adequate to capture relative consumption of different types of meat( Reference Sekula, Nelson and Figurska 79 , Reference Basiotis, Welsh and Cronin 80 ). The NHANES population itself presents a number of advantages for studying electric current US meat intake. The NHANES sampling aims to capture the variety, as well as regional variation in the US population. Younger age groups and minority populations sampled in NHANES are ofttimes under-represented in almost large epidemiological and U.s. prospective studies. In addition, nigh prospective cohorts in the USA 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 the current US intake. Thus, comparably modest associations with meat in accomplice populations may or may not translate to the broader Usa population, which national estimates suggest may exist at differential, if not greater, risk in the near time to come.
Although historical food availability data may not be a precise representation of intake, the measurement methodology has remained relatively consistent over fourth dimension. Thus, comparing FAO and USDA data with NHANES data is a useful way to corroborate irresolute meat consumption patterns and trends( Reference Chanmugam, Guthrie and Cecilio 31 ). For the period 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 evolution and linkage of the MPED, the USDA's food grouping database, limits our power to present NHANES meat intake data across 2003–2004. NHANES was the just data source in our analysis that shed calorie-free on processed meat intake and although information technology appears to make up a loftier proportion of the total meat currently consumed, we are unable to track long-term changes in its availability and consumption. USDA and FAO tracking methods, by nature, do not allow for historical tendency data on meat that has undergone processing, which may be derived from both fresh crimson meat and poultry. Due to emerging epidemiological evidence on the risks of diverse cancers associated with loftier processed meat intake, recommendations to reduce consumption of processed meat are relatively new compared to those for red meat. In improver, there is no generally agreed upon definition of candy meat, making information technology difficult to ascertain and target in both public health research and practice.
Conclusion
Agreement the trends and determinants of meat consumption in the USA, where meat is consumed at more than than three times the global average( Reference Speedy 5 ), should exist particularly pertinent to researchers and other public health professionals aiming to reduce the global burden of chronic affliction. While saturated fat intake appears to exist declining( three , 29 – Reference Chanmugam, Guthrie and Cecilio 31 ), other components of red and candy meat continue to pose a health hazard, peculiarly when consumed in large quantities( Reference Cantankerous, Leitzmann and Gail 17 , Reference Stolzenberg-Solomon, Cross and Silverman 52 – Reference Mirvish, Haorah and Zhou 55 , Reference Cross, Pollock and Bingham 57 – Reference Turteltaub, Dingley and Curtis 59 ). Dietary recommendations for meat should perchance begin to increment sensation regarding potentially harmful cooking and processing methods( Reference Cross and Sinha 14 , Reference Sinha and Norat 53 ). Studying food consumption and selection behaviours sheds light on the barriers we keep to face with the food industry and consumers, too as international foresight into future epidemics and their causes. Equally the principal determinant of per capita meat consumption across the world appears to be wealth, examining trends in the USA and the residual of the adult earth may forecast the global public health and environmental burdens we should expect to face in the highly populated developing globe( Reference Walker, Rhubart-Berg and McKenzie iv ). The growing preference in the USA for poultry, but not fish, every bit a replacement for red meat suggests the need for more epidemiological investigations of white meat and its human relationship with long-term wellness and disease outcomes.
Acknowledgements
The present study was supported by the Intramural Inquiry Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute. None of the authors had a financial or personal conflict of involvement. C.R.D. contributed to the concept, analysis, interpretation of results and writing of the manuscript; A.J.C. contributed to the interpretation of results and writing of the manuscript; C.Chiliad. helped the assay and interpretation of the results; R.Due south. contributed to the concept, estimation of the results and writing of the manuscript; and all authors contributed to the critical review and approval of the final manuscript. The authors thank Jill Reedy and Lisa Kahle for their contributions to this manuscript.
References
2. Hiza, HAB , Bente, L & Fungwe, T (2008) Nutrient content of the US nutrient supply, 1909–2005. Abode Econ Res Rep 58.Google Scholar
4. Walker, P , Rhubart-Berg, P , McKenzie, South et al. (2005) Public health implications of meat product and consumption. Public Health Nutr 8, 348–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
vii. Terry, P , Terry, JB & Wolk, A (2001) Fruit and vegetable consumption in the prevention of cancer: an update. J Intern Med 250, 280–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Dwyer, T & Hetzel, BS (1980) A comparison of trends of coronary eye disease mortality in Australia, U.s. and England and Wales with reference to three major take chances factors – hypertension, cigarette smoking and diet. Int J Epidemiol 9, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
nine. Armstrong, B & Doll, R (1975) Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in unlike countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer 15, 617–631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ten. Earth Wellness Organization (2009) World Wellness Statistics. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
eleven. Bender, A (1992) Meat and Meat Products in Human being Nutrition in Developing Countries. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper no. 53. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
12. Hu, FB , Stampfer, MJ , Manson, JE et al. (1999) Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary center disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr seventy, 1001–1008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
thirteen. Lichtenstein, AH , Appel, LJ , Brands, M et al. (2006) Nutrition and lifestyle recommendations revision 2006: a scientific statement from the American Eye Association Diet Committee. Circulation 114, 82–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Cross, AJ & Sinha, R (2004) Meat-related mutagens/carcinogens in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Environ Mol Mutagen 44, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
xv. American Heart Association (2008) American Middle Association Scientific Statements and Practice Guidelines for Researchers and Scientists: Diet/Nutrition. Dallas, TX: AHA Inc.; available at http://www.americanheart.orgGoogle Scholar
xvi. Alaejos, MS , Gonzalez, Five & Afonso, AM (2008) Exposure to heterocyclic aromatic amines from the consumption of cooked cherry meat and its outcome on man cancer run a risk: a review. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 25, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Cross, AJ , Leitzmann, MF , Gail, MH et al. (2007) A prospective study of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer risk. PLoS Med iv, e325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
xviii. Huxley, RR , Ansary-Moghaddam, A , Clifton, P et al. (2009) The impact of dietary and lifestyle risk factors on risk of colorectal cancer: a quantitative overview of the epidemiological evidence. Int J Cancer 125, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Larsson, SC & Wolk, A (2006) Meat consumption and chance of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Cancer 119, 2657–2664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. World Cancer Research Fund/American Constitute for Cancer Research (2007) Food, Nutrition, Physical Action, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: AICR.Google Scholar
21. Krauss, RM , Eckel, RH , Howard, B et al. (2001) Revision 2000: a argument for healthcare professionals from the Nutrition Committee of the American Middle Association. J Nutr 131, 132–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Kushi, LH , Byers, T , Doyle, C et al. (2006) American Cancer Club guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. CA Cancer J Clin 56, 254–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Reedy, J & Krebs-Smith, SM (2008) A comparing of food-based recommendations and nutrient values of iii food guides: USDA's MyPyramid, NHLBI's dietary approaches to finish hypertension eating program, and Harvard's healthy eating pyramid. J Am Diet Assoc 108, 522–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2008) FAO Statistical Databases (FAOSTAT). Food consumption data. http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed Dec 2008).Google Scholar
28. Bowman, SA , Friday, JE & Mosehfegh, A (2008) MyPyramid Equivalents Database, ii.0 for USDA Survey Foods, 2003–2004. Food Surveys Inquiry Group. Beltsville, Md: Beltsville Man Nutrition Research Center, ARS, USDA; available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/fsrgGoogle Scholar
29. Committee on Technological Options to Improve the Nutritional Attributes of Brute Products, National Inquiry Council (1988) Designing Foods: Fauna Product Options in the Marketplace. Washington, DC: National University Printing.Google Scholar
30. Popkin, BM , Siega-Riz, AM , Haines, PS et al. (2001) Where's the fatty? Trends in U.s.a. diets 1965–1996. Prev Med 32, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Chanmugam, P , Guthrie, JF , Cecilio, S et al. (2003) Did fatty intake in the The states really decline between 1989–1991 and 1994–1996? J Am Diet Assoc 103, 867–872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Lin, BH , Yen, Southward & Davis, C (2006) Consumer Knowledge and Meat Consumption in the U.s.a.. Gilt Coast, Australia: International Association of Agronomical Economists.Google Scholar
33. Brester, GW , Marsh, JM & Plain, RL (2003) International red meat trade. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract nineteen, 493–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Cotton, PA , Subar, AF , Fri, JE et al. (2004) Dietary sources of nutrients among US adults, 1994 to 1996. J Am Nutrition Assoc 104, 921–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Nathanson, N , Wilesmith, J & Griot, C (1997) Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): causes and consequences of a common source epidemic. Am J Epidemiol 145, 959–969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Purcell, WD & Lusk, J (2003) Demand for carmine meats: principles, research prove, and issues. Vet Clin Northward Am Food Anim Pract 19, 463–492, viii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Stipanuk, M (1999) Biochemical, Physiological & Molecular Aspects of Man Nutrition, 2d ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
39. Mente, A , de Koning, L , Shannon, HS et al. (2009) A Systematic review of the show supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 169, 659–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Fraser, GE (2009) Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases? Am J Clin Nutr 89, 1607S–1612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Szeto, YT , Kwok, TC & Benzie, IF (2004) Furnishings of a long-term vegetarian diet on biomarkers of antioxidant status and cardiovascular disease risk. Nutrition 20, 863–866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Cardinal, TJ , Appleby, PN , Spencer, EA et al. (2009) Cancer incidence in British vegetarians. Br J Cancer 101, 192–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Cardinal, TJ , Appleby, PN , Spencer, EA et al. (2009) Mortality in British vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Diet (Ballsy-Oxford). Am J Clin Nutr 89, 1613S–1619S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Key, TJ , Appleby, PN , Spencer, EA et al. (2009) Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Diet (Epic-Oxford). Am J Clin Nutr 89, 1620S–1626S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Hodgson, JM , Burke, V , Beilin, LJ et al. (2006) Partial substitution of carbohydrate intake with poly peptide intake from lean red meat lowers blood pressure in hypertensive persons. Am J Clin Nutr 83, 780–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Appel, LJ , Sacks, FM , Carey, VJ et al. (2005) Effects of protein, monounsaturated fat, and carbohydrate intake on blood pressure level and serum lipids: results of the OmniHeart randomized trial. JAMA 294, 2455–2464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Siri-Tarino, PW , Sunday, Q , Hu, FB et al. (2010) Meta-analysis of prospective accomplice studies evaluating the clan of saturated fat with cardiovascular illness. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 535–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Kant, AK & Graubard, BI (2005) A comparison of three dietary pattern indexes for predicting biomarkers of diet and illness. J Am Coll Nutr 24, 294–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Hodgson, JM , Ward, NC , Burke, V et al. (2007) Increased lean red meat intake does not drag markers of oxidative stress and inflammation in humans. J Nutr 137, 363–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Lopez-Garcia, East , Schulze, MB , Manson, JE et al. (2004) Consumption of (n-3) fatty acids is related to plasma biomarkers of inflammation and endothelial activation in women. J Nutr 134, 1806–1811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Wijendran, 5 & Hayes, KC (2004) Dietary n-6 and n-3 fatty acrid balance and cardiovascular health. Annu Rev Nutr 24, 597–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52. Stolzenberg-Solomon, RZ , Cantankerous, AJ , Silverman, DT et al. (2007) Meat and meat-mutagen intake and pancreatic cancer risk in the NIH–AARP cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev sixteen, 2664–2675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Sinha, R & Norat, T (2002) Meat cooking and cancer risk. IARC Sci Publ 156, 181–186.Google ScholarPubMed
54. Hughes, R , Cantankerous, AJ , Pollock, JR et al. (2001) Dose-dependent effect of dietary meat on endogenous colonic N-nitrosation. Carcinogenesis 22, 199–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55. Mirvish, SS , Haorah, J , Zhou, 50 et al. (2002) Total Northward-nitroso compounds and their precursors in hot dogs and in the gastrointestinal tract and carrion of rats and mice: possible etiologic agents for colon cancer. J Nutr 132, 3526S–3529S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56. Hord, NG , Tang, Y & Bryan, NS (2009) Food sources of nitrates and nitrites: the physiologic context for potential wellness benefits. Am J Clin Nutr 90, 1–ten.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57. Cantankerous, AJ , Pollock, JR & Bingham, SA (2003) Haem, not protein or inorganic atomic number 26, is responsible for endogenous abdominal North-nitrosation arising from ruby meat. Cancer Res 63, 2358–2360.Google ScholarPubMed
58. Sinha, R , Rothman, Northward , Salmon, CP et al. (1998) Heterocyclic amine content in beef cooked by different methods to varying degrees of doneness and gravy fabricated from meat drippings. Food Chem Toxicol 36, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59. Turteltaub, KW , Dingley, KH , Curtis, KD et al. (1999) Macromolecular adduct formation and metabolism of heterocyclic amines in humans and rodents at low doses. Cancer Lett 143, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
lx. Norat, T , Bingham, S , Ferrari, P et al. (2005) Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. J Natl Cancer Inst 97, 906–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61. Cross, AJ , Ferrucci, LM , Risch, A et al. (2010) A large prospective study of meat consumption and colorectal cancer run a risk: an investigation of potential mechanisms underlying this association. Cancer Res 70, 2406–2414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62. Norat, T , Lukanova, A , Ferrari, P et al. (2002) Meat consumption and colorectal cancer run a risk: dose–response meta-assay of epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer 98, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63. Chao, A , Thun, MJ , Connell, CJ et al. (2005) Meat consumption and take chances of colorectal cancer. JAMA 293, 172–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64. Larsson, SC , Rafter, J , Holmberg, L et al. (2005) Ruby-red meat consumption and adventure of cancers of the proximal colon, distal colon and rectum: the Swedish Mammography Accomplice. Int J Cancer 113, 829–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65. Linos, E & Willett, West (2009) Meat, dairy, and breast cancer: exercise we have an respond? Am J Clin Nutr 90, 455–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66. Wu, K , Sinha, R , Holmes, Doc et al. (2010) Meat mutagens and breast cancer in postmenopausal women – a cohort analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19, 1301–1310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67. Kabat, GC , Cross, AJ , Park, Y et al. (2009) Meat intake and meat preparation in relation to adventure of postmenopausal breast cancer in the NIH–AARP diet and health study. Int J Cancer 124, 2430–2435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68. Missmer, SA , Smith-Warner, SA , Spiegelman, D et al. (2002) Meat and dairy nutrient consumption and breast cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort studies. Int J Epidemiol 31, 78–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69. Pala, Five , Krogh, 5 , Berrino, F et al. (2009) Meat, eggs, dairy products, and adventure of breast cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. Am J Clin Nutr xc, 602–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70. Lee, JE , Spiegelman, D , Hunter, DJ et al. (2008) Fat, protein, and meat consumption and renal cell cancer risk: a pooled analysis of 13 prospective studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 100, 1695–1706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71. Larsson, SC , Hakanson, N , Permert, J et al. (2006) Meat, fish, poultry and egg consumption in relation to hazard of pancreatic cancer: a prospective study. Int J Cancer 118, 2866–2870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72. Tasevska, N , Cross, AJ , Dodd, KW et al. (2010) No effect of meat, meat cooking preferences, meat mutagens or heme iron on lung cancer run a risk in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Int J Cancer.Google ScholarPubMed
73. Sinha, R , Park, Y , Graubard, BI et al. (2009) Meat and meat-related compounds and risk of prostate cancer in a large prospective cohort written report in the U.s.a.. Am J Epidemiol 170, 1165–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74. Sinha, R , Cross, AJ , Graubard, BI et al. (2009) Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people. Arch Intern Med 169, 562–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75. Spencer, EA , Key, TJ , Appleby, PN et al. (2010) Meat, poultry and fish and take chances of colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of data from the UK dietary accomplice consortium. Cancer Causes Control (Epublication ahead of impress version).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78. Kantor, LS (1999) A comparing of the United states of america food supply with the food guide pyramid recommendations. In American'due south Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Information Bulletin no. 750, pp. 71–95 [E Frazao, editor]. Washington, DC: USDA.Google Scholar
79. Sekula, W , Nelson, Yard , Figurska, K et al. (2005) Comparison between household upkeep survey and 24-hour remember data in a nationally representative sample of Smooth households. Public Wellness Nutr eight, 430–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
fourscore. Basiotis, PP , Welsh, And then , Cronin, FJ et al. (1987) Number of days of food intake records required to gauge individual and group nutrient intakes with defined confidence. J Nutr 117, 1638–1641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/trends-in-meat-consumption-in-the-usa/AF54FD0E4A321394C09BC8087640AA0C
 of Beef Pork and Lamb){kind=link}
Post a Comment for "Per-capita Consumption (Disappearance) of Beef Pork and Lamb"