Retail Purchases of Red and Processed Meat by State in the United States
Semba RD, Ramsing R, Thorne-Lyman AL, Rahman N, Altema-Johnson D, Chang KB, Young R, Nussbaumer E, Bloem MW, Love D
Nutrition and cancer · 3 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Cross-sectional study (classified by our AI screen)
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2022-08-09 · Nutr Cancer · vol. 75 · issue 1 · pp. 247–255
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Cited
- 4 citations · more than 67% of similar papers · 0.6× the field average
- References
- 31 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability · Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- Business, State (computer science), Agricultural economics, Red meat, Food science, Commerce, Advertising, Economics, Chemistry, Computer science
- MeSH
- diet, food handling, meat, united states, consumer behavior, red meat
10 authors
From US
- Richard D. Semba · correspondingJohns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Rebecca RamsingJohns Hopkins University
- Andrew Thorne‐LymanJohns Hopkins University
- Nihaal K. RahmanJohns Hopkins University
- Daphene Altema-JohnsonJohns Hopkins University
- Kenjin B. ChangJohns Hopkins University
Abstract
The specific aim was to characterize retail purchases of red and processed meat and other major protein-rich foods in the U.S. and by state. Supermarket scanner data from grocery stores, supermarkets, and big box stores collected from 2017-2019 (NielsenIQ, New York, NY) was used to characterize retail purchases of red meat, processed meat, and other protein-rich foods in thirty-one states representative of US retail food sales. Red meat, processed meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, other meats, and non-meat foods (beans, nuts, seeds, meat alternatives) by weight accounted for 25.9%, 20.4%, 25.8%, 5.9%, 12.6%, 1.3%, and 10.1%, respectively of total sales in 2017-2019. Mean per capita purchases of red meat by weight was 30.1 g/d, ranging from 45.4 g/d in Mississippi to 21.9 g/d in New York. Mean per capita purchases of processed meat by weight was 23.8 g/d, ranging from 36.6 g/d in Mississippi to 15.2 g/d in California. We observed statistically significant correlations between red and processed meat purchases with cardiovascular mortality and colorectal cancer by state. Per capita retail purchases of red and processed meat appear to reflect a dietary pattern that is not consistent with current national and international dietary recommendations.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.