Disproportionate  meat consumption — common in the United States — contributes to poor dietary health. Meat consumption not only contributes to negative health conditions, but also to climate change, with animal farming accounting for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is most true for farming cows — on an edible portion weight basis, cow meat is eight times more impactful than chicken meat and six times more impactful than pig meat.

Due to negative effects on health and the environment, many official dietary bodies in high-income countries like the United States now recommend eating less meat. One strategy to reduce meat consumption is to provide education on its negative effects. To help this effort, we need to understand who is eating the most beef, so this education can be effectively targeted at them.

In this study, researchers analyzed data from the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), including over 10,000 individuals representative of the U.S. population. Based on the food participants reported eating in the past 24 hours, the researchers estimated how much beef each person was consuming on a regular basis. Reported consumption was therefore only based on one-day recall, an important limitation of this study. Respondents were classified as being ‘disproportionate beef eaters’ if they consumed more than four ounces of beef per 2,200 calories.

The researchers also looked at a range of demographic and socioeconomic measures, including age, gender, race, and level of education. Finally, they looked at factors related to the participants’ behavior, such as whether they had looked up specific health campaigns, and how much ready-to-eat food they consumed. Taking all of these factors together, the researchers assessed who was most likely to be categorized as a disproportionate beef eater. 

45% of respondents reported not eating beef on a given day. 12% could be classified as disproportionate beef eaters — these individuals accounted for 50% of the beef consumed across the whole sample. This indicates that disproportionate consumption is therefore driven by a small number of individuals. 

Consistent with previous research, gender was the strongest predictor, with men being about 50% more likely to fall into this category than women. The authors argue this may be due to associations between meat and masculinity. Beyond this, previous evidence has suggested that men are more likely to view meat as healthy, and to value the lives of humans above those of animals.

Race was also a factor, with non-Hispanic whites being more likely to be disproportionate consumers than non-Hispanic Blacks and Asians. This was also predicted by age, with those aged 50-65 falling in this category more often than those in other age brackets. Non-college graduates were associated with higher likelihood of disproportionate beef consumption, while family size and income was not predictive.

When measuring behavioral characteristics, the researchers found that respondents were less likely to be disproportionate beef consumers if they were aware of the USDA’s MyPlate dietary campaign, which promotes healthy eating. This suggests that educational interventions might be key. If so, reaching more people with these types of interventions could be very effective. However, the researchers point out that it may just be that those who are already motivated to eat more healthily are more likely to look up campaigns like this; in other words, the direction of this effect was not clear. No other measure of behavior predicted disproportionate beef consumption in this study.

Although not discussed in this paper, animal advocates should be aware that asking people to reduce their beef consumption can have unintended negative consequences. Consumers may choose to simply replace beef with chicken, for instance. Given that more chickens are needed to get the same amount of meat one would get from a farmed cow, this means the slaughter of more individual animals. To avoid this pitfall, advocates can push for the best of both worlds by actively encouraging disproportionate beef eaters to switch to plant-based alternatives, rather than to other animal products.

Overall, reducing beef consumption in the U.S. could be very beneficial for individual health and for the planet. The findings of this study demonstrate that a large amount of beef is consumed by a relatively small number of people, and that several demographic factors predict this behavior. Campaigns that are specifically targeted at this group could have a substantial impact. Future research is needed in order to understand which strategies are likely to be the most effective in reaching these individuals.