3 ms·

If you assume red meat declined and white meat made up the difference, sure - but you'd be wrong. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domesti

If you assume red meat declined and white meat made up the difference, sure - but you'd be wrong. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/livestock-meat-domestic-data/#Red%20meat%20and%20poultry%20production https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domest... Scroll down to the Beef pivot table. Increases year over year. Yes, red meat consumption is on the rise, along with others.

WillPostForFood 9y ago
Ok, so your first link was bad because it included poultry, your second link is worse because it is total production, not per capita consumption (and some production is exported). You might be right, but still don’t have any data to support your claim.
- windexh8er 9y ago
  Domestic disappearance is a measure of how much beef is used on the domestic market. So unless the meat is being used for not consumption, then yes.
toasterlovin 9y ago
This link[0] also from the USDA, shows availability of red meat (pork + beef) as decreasing from >120 pounds per person in 1970 to about 100 pounds per person in 2014. The best I could gather from the spreadsheets on the link you provided was that red meat consumption has gone up in the last 4 years (2014-2017, not covered by my link), but the overall trend has been way down over the last 40 years, unless I'm grossly mistaken. And, given that this same time frame has coincided with the obesity epidemic, it seems hard to make the case that red meat is bad for you. I think the best argument you could make is that red meat is bad for you in a small way, but something else is causing the Really Bad Stuff™. I'm open to changing my mind, but the data has to lead me there. [0]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us-per-capita-availability-of-red-meat-poultry-and-fish-lowest-since-1983/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us...

WillPostForFood 9y ago

Ok, so your first link was bad because it included poultry, your second link is worse because it is total production, not per capita consumption (and some production is exported). You might be right, but still don’t have any data to support your claim.

windexh8er 9y ago
Domestic disappearance is a measure of how much beef is used on the domestic market. So unless the meat is being used for not consumption, then yes.

toasterlovin 9y ago

This link[0] also from the USDA, shows availability of red meat (pork + beef) as decreasing from >120 pounds per person in 1970 to about 100 pounds per person in 2014. The best I could gather from the spreadsheets on the link you provided was that red meat consumption has gone up in the last 4 years (2014-2017, not covered by my link), but the overall trend has been way down over the last 40 years, unless I'm grossly mistaken. And, given that this same time frame has coincided with the obesity epidemic, it seems hard to make the case that red meat is bad for you. I think the best argument you could make is that red meat is bad for you in a small way, but something else is causing the Really Bad Stuff™. I'm open to changing my mind, but the data has to lead me there. [0]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us-per-capita-availability-of-red-meat-poultry-and-fish-lowest-since-1983/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us...