7 ms·

12% of Americans eat half the nation's beef

senttoschool 3y ago
>Those below the age of 29 and above the age of 66 were least likely to eat large amounts of beef. Rose said this indicated that the younger generation might be more interested in mitigating the effects of climate change. Also, people below the age of 29 are likely more food-health conscious. IE. vegans, vegetarians, gluten free, etc.
- profeatur 3y ago
  People below the age of 29 are still likely to believe what they were taught in school, and haven’t yet suffered the consequences of the lifestyle they’ve been told their whole lives is more healthy and virtuous.
  - raincole 3y ago
    That's my personal experience too. I thought fatty meat is bad all the way through my teenage and early 20s.
  - ginko 3y ago
    What consequences does one suffer from eating less beef?
    - profeatur 3y ago
      Depends on what you replace it with. For the majority of people less beef means more soy, more seed oils, or more chicken (the meat most easily modifiable by modern industrial techniques). The consequence is low muscle mass and high body fat (skinny fat), chronic health issues and screwed up hormone profiles.
      - RetroTechie 3y ago
        That's just nonsense. There are vegan bodybuilders & other top athletes out there. I've been vegetarian since I was ~10y old, now 50+ and bordering on vegan, and doing fine health wise. If not better than many peers my age. It's just a matter of making sure you get all vitamins, minerals & other nutrients the body needs. As opposed to just dropping food categories & hope for the best. For vegans in particular, that means vit. B12 supplements, and have a good look at things like calcium and iron intake. But with that in order: NO problem.
      - delfinom 3y ago
        Uh, humans for the majority of existence have lived off grains, veg, fruits and only some meat. Meat being a everyday thing is purely a 20th century invention, and on that list of meat being available once in awhile, beef was very low on the list, pig was king. You are starting to sound like one of those fragile male ego types that rants about soy having _plant estrogen_.
        watwut 3y ago
        It heavily depends on place and period. Humans also lived a lot from eggs and milk products. That being said, we are bigger and stronger. Humans suffered from malnutrition a lot. Many previously normal malnutrition caused diseases are basically nonexistent now.
        profeatur 3y ago
        >humans for the majority of existence… This is not globally true. Animal products have always been the most important part of the Northern European diet. Earlier, nomadic herders in Asia and Europe ate primarily animal products (while famously conquering every sedentary civilization they came across). Ötzi, the 5300 year old mummy found in the alps, had a stomach full of meat. Going back further, hunter gatherers traditionally derived most of their calories from animal products, and Neanderthals had a completely carnivore diet.
      - ginko 3y ago
        I didn't say no beef. I said less beef. The average American eats 55lbs/25kg beef a year. For 12% of Americans to eat 50% of the beef they have to consume over 4 times as much as the average American. That'd mean they'd eat a ~270g beef steak every single day. I'm by no means a vegetarian, let alone a vegan, but even you have to admit that this is excessive. This could easily be replaced with nothing and you wouldn't be protein deficient.
  - theupsidedown 3y ago
    [flagged]
- kuriho 3y ago
  They are also poorer and less likely to be able to afford beef on a daily basis. But I'm sure that is a mere coincidence and in no shape or form relevant to the outcome of the study at hand.
- theupsidedown 3y ago
  This is a common trend I see. Younger people are making more environmental conscious choice, because of course they will suffer the most because bad decisions taken by the previous generation. Personally I would not replace it with meat substitutes even though I understand why they exists. We can look at mediterranean and indian vegetarian diets for lot of inspiration on eating healthy vegetarian food.
themerone 3y ago
The cattle industry is the lowest hanging fruit in reducing greenhouse emissions. Ranchers and meet packers won't be happy about efforts to reduce beef consumption, but there losses could be offset by higher prices. Beef consumers would be very unhappy about higher prices, but beef becoming a luxury item would cause minimal harm, as there are plenty of substitute protein sources. Politicians on all sides are afraid of policies that could be seen as anti agricultural, so they focus all there efforts on much more costly measures.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  > The cattle industry is the lowest hanging fruit in reducing greenhouse emissions. Citation needed. This is a recurring meme in online discussion and I am honestly a bit aggravated by this. I am all for curbing the slaughter industry for the ethical aspect of animal suffering but the argument for ecological reasons seems like something introduced in public discourse to create distraction. For example fugitive methane emissions from oil wells, pipelines, and coal pits, account for 5.8 % of GHG (This is also I suspect largely underreported). In contrast Livestock emissions and Manure/Fertilizer related emissions are also 5.8%. [0] Please explain how it will be easier to stop Farmers in remote parts of Brazil and Argentina from raising cattle versus forcing billion dollar companies to sequester methane at extraction sites in US/Canada/Gulf countries? In fact let's take it further if we look at the GHG emissions of: - Iron/Steel Industry (7.2%) - Cement Industry (3%) - Fugitive methane emissions from Oil/Gas/Coal (5.8%) - Petrochemical industry/refinement (3.6%) These 4x GHG sources alone produce more GHG emissions than our _entire_ Agricultural activity (Plants + Livestock) including deforestation and crop burning. [0] Our governments/regulators are failing us. We expect a 180 change from developing countries when entire billion dollar industries are idle in jurisdictions where we actually have a saying. As much as I agree with it for Animal welfare, in my view, Beef as an ecological battle _is_ a distraction. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
  - helsinkiandrew 3y ago
    > These 4x GHG sources alone produce more GHG emissions than our _entire_ Agricultural activity (Plants + Livestock) including deforestation and crop burning If someone wants to decrease their green house emissions, its very hard to personally do anything about the Steel/Cement/Oil industry without a fair amount of effort - particularly if you're part of the "younger generation". Changes to those industries takes concerted political/industrial effort and vested interests want to maintain the status-quo. However, anyone can give up or reduce the amount of beef they're eating without much effort, no government regulation needed.
notmypenguin 3y ago
That would make them beefeaters. (Cue funny furry hats)
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
I've thought for years, the difficulty in getting artificial beef products promoted is due to the fact that so few people give a flying fart about it. Now we have actual statistics. Half of beef is die-hard beef eaters who won't even go chicken, much less faux meat. I personally disregard 'how much like beef' the new products are. Pork, chicken, fish aren't much like beef either. The idea is to find good recipes for making it delicious.
mattnewport 3y ago
Now do some other foods and demonstrate that this isn't a typical distribution of consumption for any food item. I guess 12% of Americans eat half the nation's lentils would not be as headline grabbing?
- asddubs 3y ago
  well, lentils aren't as catastrophic for the environment, so rightfully no?
- bosch_mind 3y ago
  Lentils, much like most legumes, have a neat trick up their sleeve. They partner with root bacteria to capture nitrogen from the air and stash it underground. This not only gives the legumes a nutrient boost but also helps the soil retain more water and essential nutrients for the next crop. Plus, it reduces the need for those carbon-heavy nitrogen fertilizers. When it comes to meat production, it operates quite differently from legumes like lentils. Meat production primarily relies on the consumption of feed by animals, such as cows, pigs, or chickens. These animals don't have the nitrogen-fixing capabilities found in legumes. Instead, they require protein-rich diets, often in the form of soybean meal or other crops. The issue arises because these animals, during digestion, release a significant amount of nitrogen into the environment in the form of ammonia and other nitrogen compounds. This process is known as nitrogen excretion. Unlike legumes, which enrich the soil with nitrogen, meat production can lead to nitrogen pollution when excess nitrogen is not properly managed. This pollution can harm water quality and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, making it less environmentally sustainable compared to legume cultivation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
jbandela1 3y ago
> The study, published in the journal Nutrients, analyzed data from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which tracked the meals of more than 10,000 adults over a 24-hour period. 12% of Americans ate half the beef on a single day. It is the unlikely that the 12% are the same people from day to day. You may have been one of the 12 percent when you went out for a steak dinner or especially if you visited a Brazilian all you can eat steakhouse. This seems a very weak foundation to draw a lot of conclusions from.
- mcv 3y ago
  Yeah, that makes rather a big difference. If everybody eats a big beef meal once per week, those 12% suddenly become 84%.
- mannerheim 3y ago
  Applying the same logic the study's authors apply to their results, you would also come to the conclusion that 45% of Americans consume no beef at all, rather than that 45% of Americans happen to not eat beef on any given day. How did this not set off anyone's bullshit detector? And how did this get published?
- euroderf 3y ago
  But is it making a point that beef consumption is not a 7 days a week thang.
  - mannerheim 3y ago
    The authors appear to be unaware of this obvious flaw in their methodology. >"On one hand, if it's only 12% accounting for half the beef consumption, you could make some big gains if you get those 12% on board," Rose said. "On the other hand, those 12% may be most resistant to change."
    - peteradio 3y ago
      What an absolute turd. I don't know what would make me madder, someone who lies through their teeth to manipulate or someone who is this highly educated and yet so astoundingly dumb.
nottorp 3y ago
In other parts of the world where beef isn't so traditional, the percentage may be even lower. (But the beef consumption per capita would probably be 1/100 of the traditional countries.)
exabrial 3y ago
Regulating cattle has nothing to do with green initiatives and is harmful to seeing real change that could actually make a difference in climate change. It would be useful to dives from these conversations and focus on issues that will actually take a chunk of out emissions. Silly things like this, with their obvious fabricated headlines, signal the intent here is to harass a population segment, which is counter productive, instead of having useful relationship building conversations, where real change happens.

>Those below the age of 29 and above the age of 66 were least likely to eat large amounts of beef. Rose said this indicated that the younger generation might be more interested in mitigating the effects of climate change. Also, people below the age of 29 are likely more food-health conscious. IE. vegans, vegetarians, gluten free, etc.

profeatur 3y ago
People below the age of 29 are still likely to believe what they were taught in school, and haven’t yet suffered the consequences of the lifestyle they’ve been told their whole lives is more healthy and virtuous.
- raincole 3y ago
  That's my personal experience too. I thought fatty meat is bad all the way through my teenage and early 20s.
- ginko 3y ago
  What consequences does one suffer from eating less beef?
  - profeatur 3y ago
    Depends on what you replace it with. For the majority of people less beef means more soy, more seed oils, or more chicken (the meat most easily modifiable by modern industrial techniques). The consequence is low muscle mass and high body fat (skinny fat), chronic health issues and screwed up hormone profiles.
    - RetroTechie 3y ago
      That's just nonsense. There are vegan bodybuilders & other top athletes out there. I've been vegetarian since I was ~10y old, now 50+ and bordering on vegan, and doing fine health wise. If not better than many peers my age. It's just a matter of making sure you get all vitamins, minerals & other nutrients the body needs. As opposed to just dropping food categories & hope for the best. For vegans in particular, that means vit. B12 supplements, and have a good look at things like calcium and iron intake. But with that in order: NO problem.
    - delfinom 3y ago
      Uh, humans for the majority of existence have lived off grains, veg, fruits and only some meat. Meat being a everyday thing is purely a 20th century invention, and on that list of meat being available once in awhile, beef was very low on the list, pig was king. You are starting to sound like one of those fragile male ego types that rants about soy having _plant estrogen_.
      - watwut 3y ago
        It heavily depends on place and period. Humans also lived a lot from eggs and milk products. That being said, we are bigger and stronger. Humans suffered from malnutrition a lot. Many previously normal malnutrition caused diseases are basically nonexistent now.
      - profeatur 3y ago
        >humans for the majority of existence… This is not globally true. Animal products have always been the most important part of the Northern European diet. Earlier, nomadic herders in Asia and Europe ate primarily animal products (while famously conquering every sedentary civilization they came across). Ötzi, the 5300 year old mummy found in the alps, had a stomach full of meat. Going back further, hunter gatherers traditionally derived most of their calories from animal products, and Neanderthals had a completely carnivore diet.
    - ginko 3y ago
      I didn't say no beef. I said less beef. The average American eats 55lbs/25kg beef a year. For 12% of Americans to eat 50% of the beef they have to consume over 4 times as much as the average American. That'd mean they'd eat a ~270g beef steak every single day. I'm by no means a vegetarian, let alone a vegan, but even you have to admit that this is excessive. This could easily be replaced with nothing and you wouldn't be protein deficient.
- theupsidedown 3y ago
  [flagged]
kuriho 3y ago
They are also poorer and less likely to be able to afford beef on a daily basis. But I'm sure that is a mere coincidence and in no shape or form relevant to the outcome of the study at hand.
theupsidedown 3y ago
This is a common trend I see. Younger people are making more environmental conscious choice, because of course they will suffer the most because bad decisions taken by the previous generation. Personally I would not replace it with meat substitutes even though I understand why they exists. We can look at mediterranean and indian vegetarian diets for lot of inspiration on eating healthy vegetarian food.

themerone 3y ago

The cattle industry is the lowest hanging fruit in reducing greenhouse emissions. Ranchers and meet packers won't be happy about efforts to reduce beef consumption, but there losses could be offset by higher prices. Beef consumers would be very unhappy about higher prices, but beef becoming a luxury item would cause minimal harm, as there are plenty of substitute protein sources. Politicians on all sides are afraid of policies that could be seen as anti agricultural, so they focus all there efforts on much more costly measures.

DoingIsLearning 3y ago
> The cattle industry is the lowest hanging fruit in reducing greenhouse emissions. Citation needed. This is a recurring meme in online discussion and I am honestly a bit aggravated by this. I am all for curbing the slaughter industry for the ethical aspect of animal suffering but the argument for ecological reasons seems like something introduced in public discourse to create distraction. For example fugitive methane emissions from oil wells, pipelines, and coal pits, account for 5.8 % of GHG (This is also I suspect largely underreported). In contrast Livestock emissions and Manure/Fertilizer related emissions are also 5.8%. [0] Please explain how it will be easier to stop Farmers in remote parts of Brazil and Argentina from raising cattle versus forcing billion dollar companies to sequester methane at extraction sites in US/Canada/Gulf countries? In fact let's take it further if we look at the GHG emissions of: - Iron/Steel Industry (7.2%) - Cement Industry (3%) - Fugitive methane emissions from Oil/Gas/Coal (5.8%) - Petrochemical industry/refinement (3.6%) These 4x GHG sources alone produce more GHG emissions than our _entire_ Agricultural activity (Plants + Livestock) including deforestation and crop burning. [0] Our governments/regulators are failing us. We expect a 180 change from developing countries when entire billion dollar industries are idle in jurisdictions where we actually have a saying. As much as I agree with it for Animal welfare, in my view, Beef as an ecological battle _is_ a distraction. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  > These 4x GHG sources alone produce more GHG emissions than our _entire_ Agricultural activity (Plants + Livestock) including deforestation and crop burning If someone wants to decrease their green house emissions, its very hard to personally do anything about the Steel/Cement/Oil industry without a fair amount of effort - particularly if you're part of the "younger generation". Changes to those industries takes concerted political/industrial effort and vested interests want to maintain the status-quo. However, anyone can give up or reduce the amount of beef they're eating without much effort, no government regulation needed.

notmypenguin 3y ago

That would make them beefeaters. (Cue funny furry hats)

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

I've thought for years, the difficulty in getting artificial beef products promoted is due to the fact that so few people give a flying fart about it. Now we have actual statistics. Half of beef is die-hard beef eaters who won't even go chicken, much less faux meat. I personally disregard 'how much like beef' the new products are. Pork, chicken, fish aren't much like beef either. The idea is to find good recipes for making it delicious.

mattnewport 3y ago

Now do some other foods and demonstrate that this isn't a typical distribution of consumption for any food item. I guess 12% of Americans eat half the nation's lentils would not be as headline grabbing?

asddubs 3y ago
well, lentils aren't as catastrophic for the environment, so rightfully no?
bosch_mind 3y ago
Lentils, much like most legumes, have a neat trick up their sleeve. They partner with root bacteria to capture nitrogen from the air and stash it underground. This not only gives the legumes a nutrient boost but also helps the soil retain more water and essential nutrients for the next crop. Plus, it reduces the need for those carbon-heavy nitrogen fertilizers. When it comes to meat production, it operates quite differently from legumes like lentils. Meat production primarily relies on the consumption of feed by animals, such as cows, pigs, or chickens. These animals don't have the nitrogen-fixing capabilities found in legumes. Instead, they require protein-rich diets, often in the form of soybean meal or other crops. The issue arises because these animals, during digestion, release a significant amount of nitrogen into the environment in the form of ammonia and other nitrogen compounds. This process is known as nitrogen excretion. Unlike legumes, which enrich the soil with nitrogen, meat production can lead to nitrogen pollution when excess nitrogen is not properly managed. This pollution can harm water quality and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, making it less environmentally sustainable compared to legume cultivation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

jbandela1 3y ago

> The study, published in the journal Nutrients, analyzed data from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which tracked the meals of more than 10,000 adults over a 24-hour period. 12% of Americans ate half the beef on a single day. It is the unlikely that the 12% are the same people from day to day. You may have been one of the 12 percent when you went out for a steak dinner or especially if you visited a Brazilian all you can eat steakhouse. This seems a very weak foundation to draw a lot of conclusions from.

mcv 3y ago
Yeah, that makes rather a big difference. If everybody eats a big beef meal once per week, those 12% suddenly become 84%.
mannerheim 3y ago
Applying the same logic the study's authors apply to their results, you would also come to the conclusion that 45% of Americans consume no beef at all, rather than that 45% of Americans happen to not eat beef on any given day. How did this not set off anyone's bullshit detector? And how did this get published?
euroderf 3y ago
But is it making a point that beef consumption is not a 7 days a week thang.
- mannerheim 3y ago
  The authors appear to be unaware of this obvious flaw in their methodology. >"On one hand, if it's only 12% accounting for half the beef consumption, you could make some big gains if you get those 12% on board," Rose said. "On the other hand, those 12% may be most resistant to change."
  - peteradio 3y ago
    What an absolute turd. I don't know what would make me madder, someone who lies through their teeth to manipulate or someone who is this highly educated and yet so astoundingly dumb.

nottorp 3y ago

In other parts of the world where beef isn't so traditional, the percentage may be even lower. (But the beef consumption per capita would probably be 1/100 of the traditional countries.)

exabrial 3y ago

Regulating cattle has nothing to do with green initiatives and is harmful to seeing real change that could actually make a difference in climate change. It would be useful to dives from these conversations and focus on issues that will actually take a chunk of out emissions. Silly things like this, with their obvious fabricated headlines, signal the intent here is to harass a population segment, which is counter productive, instead of having useful relationship building conversations, where real change happens.