4 ms·
edit: Ignore this, I'm an idiot and got hypnotized by the pretty graphs without actually reading the FA. The thing that really jumped out at me was the more th
by fencepost 10y ago
edit: Ignore this, I'm an idiot and got hypnotized by the pretty graphs without actually reading the FA.
The thing that really jumped out at me was the more than tripled cooking oil consumption over that time, without a corresponding decrease in usage of other oils (cooking oil went from 13g to 44.7g; margarine went from 6.5g to 1.6g). That's an enormous change, and it ramped up fast starting in 2000 (13g to 23g 71-88; flattish 21g to 24g 89-99; 28g to 45g 2000-2008; flattish until 2013 with a dip in 2009).
Putting it in calorie count numbers, that's a change of +230ish calories in oils over that time period ignoring the less-used ones. In terms of decreases there are really only a couple that seem notable - beef dropping from 2.6 oz/day to 1.8 oz/day and whole milk dropping from 0.7c to 0.16c - neither of which is going to have a significant impact on calories consumed.
I wonder what changed at the inflection points on the cooking oil (and shortening, which had a bump during 2000-2007) scales - they somewhat correspond with presidencies, but not directly (e.g. Clinton was still in office in 2000 during the first year of the rapid rise period).
- trelltron 10y agoIt explains the cooking oil rise in the article as: "a change in reporting to the Census Bureau"