Dataset Information

Heterogeneity in Meat Food Groups Can Meaningfully Alter Population-Level Intake Estimates of Red Meat and Poultry.

ABSTRACT: Heterogeneity in meat food groups hinders interpretation of research regarding meat intake and chronic disease risk. Our objective was to investigate how heterogeneity in red meat (RM) and poultry food groups influences US population intake estimates. Based on a prior systematic review, we created an ontology of methods used to estimate RM [1= unprocessed RM; 2 (reference)= unprocessed RM + processed RM; 3= unprocessed RM + processed RM + processed poultry; and 4=unprocessed RM + processed RM + processed poultry + chicken patties/nuggets/tenders (PNT)] and three for poultry [A=unprocessed poultry; B= unprocessed poultry + PNT; C (reference)= unprocessed poultry + processed poultry + PNT). We applied methods to 2015-18 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to estimate RM and poultry intake prevalence and amount. We estimated and compared intakes within RM and within poultry methods via the NCI Method for individuals ≥2 years old (n = 15,038), adjusted for age, sex, and race/Hispanic origin. We compared the population percentage that exceeded age- and sex-specific RM and poultry allotments from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended eating patterns. The percent that consumed RM ranged from 47 ± 1.2% to 75 ± 0.8% across methods and mean amount ranged from 10.5 ± 0.28 to 18.2 ± 0.35 lean oz-equivalents/week; 38 ± 1.2% to 71 ± 0.7% and 9.8 ± 0.35 to 13.3 ± 0.35 lean oz-equivalents/week across poultry methods. Estimates for higher, but not lower, intake percentiles differed across RM methods. Compared to the reference, Method 1 was ≥3.0 oz-equivalents/week lower from 20th-70th percentiles, ≥6.0 oz-equivalents/week lower from 75th-90th percentiles, and ≥9.0 oz-equivalents/week lower for the 95th percentile. Method 4, but not Method 3, was ≥3.0 oz-equivalents/week higher than the reference from 50 to 95th percentiles. The population percentage that exceeded allotments was 27 ± 1.8% lower for Method 1, 9 ± 0.8% higher for Method 3, and 14 ± 0.9% higher for Method 4 compared to the reference. Differences were less pronounced for poultry. Our analysis quantifies the magnitude of bias introduced by heterogeneous meat food group methodology. Explicit descriptions of meat food groups are important for development of dietary recommendations to ensure that research studies are compared appropriately.

SUBMITTER: O'Connor LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8714904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough the associations between processed meat intake and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality have been established, the associations of unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish consumption with CVD and all-cause mortality are still uncertain.ObjectiveTo identify the associations of processed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish intake with incident CVD and all-cause mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study analyzed individual-level data of adult participants in 6 prospective cohort studies in the United States. Baseline diet data from 1985 to 2002 were collected. Participants were followed up until August 31, 2016. Data analyses were performed from March 25, 2019, to November 17, 2019.ExposuresProcessed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish intake as continuous variables.Main outcomes and measuresHazard ratio (HR) and 30-year absolute risk difference (ARD) for incident CVD (composite end point of coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and CVD deaths) and all-cause mortality, based on each additional intake of 2 servings per week for monotonic associations or 2 vs 0 servings per week for nonmonotonic associations.ResultsAmong the 29 682 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline, 53.7 [15.7] years; 13 168 [44.4%] men; and 9101 [30.7%] self-identified as non-white), 6963 incident CVD events and 8875 all-cause deaths were adjudicated during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 19.0 (14.1-23.7) years. The associations of processed meat, unprocessed red meat, poultry, or fish intake with incident CVD and all-cause mortality were monotonic (P for nonlinearity ≥ .25), except for the nonmonotonic association between processed meat intake and incident CVD (P for nonlinearity = .006). Intake of processed meat (adjusted HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]; adjusted ARD, 1.74% [95% CI, 0.85%-2.63%]), unprocessed red meat (adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.06]; adjusted ARD, 0.62% [95% CI, 0.07%-1.16%]), or poultry (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.06]; adjusted ARD, 1.03% [95% CI, 0.36%-1.70%]) was significantly associated with incident CVD. Fish intake was not significantly associated with incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.98-1.02]; adjusted ARD, 0.12% [95% CI, -0.40% to 0.65%]). Intake of processed meat (adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.02-1.05]; adjusted ARD, 0.90% [95% CI, 0.43%-1.38%]) or unprocessed red meat (adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05]; adjusted ARD, 0.76% [95% CI, 0.19%-1.33%]) was significantly associated with all-cause mortality. Intake of poultry (adjusted HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97-1.02]; adjusted ARD, -0.28% [95% CI, -1.00% to 0.44%]) or fish (adjusted HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97-1.01]; adjusted ARD, -0.34% [95% CI, -0.88% to 0.20%]) was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that, among US adults, higher intake of processed meat, unprocessed red meat, or poultry, but not fish, was significantly associated with a small increased risk of incident CVD, whereas higher intake of processed meat or unprocessed red meat, but not poultry or fish, was significantly associated with a small increased risk of all-cause mortality. These findings have important public health implications and should warrant further investigations.

Project description:BackgroundHigh consumption of red and processed meat contributes to both health and environmental harms. Warning labels and taxes for red meat reduce selection of red meat overall, but little is known about how these potential policies affect purchases of subcategories of red meat (e.g., processed versus unprocessed) or of non-red-meat foods (e.g., cheese, pulses) relevant to health and environmental outcomes. This study examined consumer responses to warning labels and taxes for red meat in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsIn October 2021, we recruited 3,518 US adults to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four arms: control (no warning labels or tax), warning labels only (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat), tax only (prices of products containing red meat were increased 30%) or combined warning labels + tax. Participants selected items to hypothetically purchase, which we categorized into food groups based on the presence of animal- and plant-source ingredients (e.g., beef, eggs, pulses), meat processing level (e.g., processed pork versus unprocessed pork), and meat species (e.g., beef versus pork). We assessed the effects of the warning labels and tax on selections from each food group.ResultsCompared to control, all three interventions led participants to select fewer items with processed meat (driven by reductions in processed pork) and (for the tax and warning labels + tax interventions only) fewer items with unprocessed meat (driven by reductions in unprocessed beef). All three interventions also led participants to select more items containing cheese, while only the combined warning labels + tax intervention led participants to select more items containing processed poultry. Except for an increase in selection of pulses in the tax arm, the interventions did not affect selections of fish or seafood (processed or unprocessed), eggs, or plant-based items (pulses, nuts & seeds, tofu, meat mimics, grains & potatoes, vegetables).ConclusionsPolicies to reduce red meat consumption are also likely to affect consumption of other types of foods that are relevant to both health and environmental outcomes.Trial registrationNCT04716010 on www.Clinicaltrialsgov .

Dataset Information

Heterogeneity in Meat Food Groups Can Meaningfully Alter Population-Level Intake Estimates of Red Meat and Poultry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets