zlacker

>>atestu+(OP)
Of note: the US's per capita consumption of meat has increased by more than 100 pounds over the last century[1]. We now consume an immense amount of meat per person in this country. That increase is disproportionately in poultry, but we also consume more beef[2].

A demand for the average American to eat more meat would have to explain, as a baseline, why our already positive trend in meat consumption isn't yielding positive outcomes. There are potential explanations (you could argue increased processing offsets the purported benefits, for example), but those are left unstated by the website.

[1]: https://www.agweb.com/opinion/drivers-u-s-capita-meat-consum...

[2]: https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detai...

>>woodru+fO
> the US's per capita consumption of meat

That number seemed unreal to me, so I looked it up. I think it represents the total pre-processing weight, not the actual meat meat consumption. From Wikipedia:

> As an example of the difference, for 2002, when the FAO figure for US per capita meat consumption was 124.48 kg (274 lb 7 oz), the USDA estimate of US per capita loss-adjusted meat consumption was 62.6 kg (138 lb)

Processing, cutting into sellable pieces, drying, and spoilage/loss mean the amount of meat consumed is about half of that number.

>>Aurorn+oY
Drying doesn't mean anything... The nutrients are still there you're only really losing water.

What evidence do you have that the loss adjusted numbers have gone down while the preprocessed numbers have gone up so dramatically?