Designing Foods: Animal Product Options in the Marketplace (1988)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 Consumer Consents and Animal Product Options The combined sales of food and food products in stores and eating establishments in the United States totaled more than $389 billion in 198~nearly 11 percent of the U. S. gross national product. (The U. S. gross national product in 1985 was $3.573 trillion in 1982 dollars. ~ Consumers spent more than $203.5 billion on food in grocery stores and supermarkets and another $185.6 billion in restaurants, school dining halls, and work cafeterias (National Restaurant Association, 1986; Supermarket Business, 1986a). In re- cent years, nutrition and health concerns have had an increasingly significant influ- ence on the consumer's food choices, in both the at-home and away-from-home mar- ketplaces. In response, food service estab- lishments and grocery stores and super- markets have begun to offer a wider variety offoods and food products that reflect chang- ing consumer tastes and preferences. CHANGING CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND INDUSTRY RESPONSES General Trends Several recent surveys have indicated that consumer behavior regarding food choices 63 is changing. From 1979 to 1980, the Eco- nomics and Statistics Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted a na- tionwide survey to obtain data linking con- sumer health and nutrition concerns with stated food use practices. The purpose of the survey was to provide information upon which to base future nutrition education programs (Iones and Weimer, 1981~. About 28 percent of households making a change in food use for health or nutrition reasons cited a concern about fat intake; 23 percent were concerned about cholesterol; another 23 percent were trying to reduce salt intake or to control high blood pressure; and 43 percent wanted to lose weight. More recent surveys confirm this contin- uing interest in the nutritional composition of foods and the diet as a whole. The 1986 consumer attitude and behavior survey con- ducted by the National Restaurant Associ- ation found that at least half of the respond- ents indicated that they were making a conscious decision to restrict the use of certain food components such as salt, sugar, fat, and cholesterol. About two-thirds in- dicated that they were including other types  of nutritious foods in their diet, including

64 those high in fiber, calcium, and starch. More than one-thircI either were on a special diet or had been on one during the previous year. The 1986 edition of the Food Marketing Institute's Trends: Consun?er Attitudes ~ Thin Supermarket reported that 93 percent of shoppers stated that they were concerned about the nutritional content of the food they ate, and 83 percent stated that the vitamin/ mineral, salt, fat, cholesterol, or calorie con- tent concerned them most (Food Marketing Institute, 1986~. More than 4 out of 10 re- spondents considered cholesterol, fats, or salt in foods to be a serious health Howard. Consumer Behavior Away from Home The Foot] Marketing Institute report also indicated that nearly three-fourths of the survey population was concerned! about food ingredients when eating out. Two Gallup surveys, conducted for the National Restau- rant Association in 1983 and 1986, con- cluded that consumers are changing their eating habits "by increasing their consump- tion of fruits, vegetables, or whole grains or by decreasing their consumption of refined sugar, animal fats, or salt." They revealed that 6 out of 10 consumers reportect altering their at-home eating habits en c! 4 out of 10 were changing their away-from-home choices. The responses were very similar cluring both survey years, indicating that concern about nutrition has remained a strong influence and is not merely a passing fad. The consumers surveyed for the National Restaurant Association stated that when dining in restaurants they were using less salt or no salt (23 percent), using less fat (20 percent), and avoiding fried foods (15 per- cent). Respondents were asked which of a list of various foods they were likely to try at a restaurant; the responses included lean meats (64 percent), broiled/baked fish or seafood (63 percent), poultry without skin (47 percent), and food cooked without salt (36 percent). DESIGNING FOODS What consumers say they are doing and what they actually are doing clo not always coincide, but in this instance the Gallup surveys confirmed consumer practice. The CREST (Consumer Reports on Eating Share Trends) Household Report, which evaluated menu changes from 1982 to 1985, indicated that the largest increases were in nonfried fish, main dish sala:ls, rice, fruit, chicken, anc! Asian foods (CREST, 1986~. The 1986 Gallup Organization's Survey of Restaurant Managers indicated that about one-third of the respondents mentioned more requests for lean meat, foods prepared without sauces and butter, and foods cooked without salt  (Restaurants USA, 1986~. New Restaurant Concepts, another National Restaurant As- sociation survey conducted in 1985 and again in 1986, provides further evidence for this changing consumer behavior. It found that in 1986, 3 out of 10 consumers had patronized restaurants specializing in diet or light menu items, as compared to one- fourth in 1985. Response by Restaurateurs In response to increasing concern about health and nutrition among consumers, many food service establishments have made changes in their menus or in their methods of Preparation. In 1983 a report fended by the American Express Foundation de- scribed a series of innovative programs by restaurants geared toward preparing and promoting healthier foods (Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, 1983~. It noted that restaurants emphasizing nutritious of- ferings almost always included a focus on freshness, simpler and lighter preparation, innovative use of menus, and varied pro- motional techniques, including publicized affiliation with health organizations and con- sumer groups. The 1986 Gallup Survey of Restaurant Managers reported that 38 percent stated that they either featured a health or nutri- tion promotion or they planned to do so in

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS the future. About one-third said they would honor requests for reduced-calorie salad dressings, low-fat or skim milk, or salt substitutes. Nearly three-fourths reported that they would alter preparation methods upon request. Nine out of 10 would serve sauce or salad dressing on the side, cook without salt, or substitute unsaturated for saturated fats upon request. Among those who would honor requests to alter cooking methods, 8 out of 10 would bake or broil a food rather than fry it and 6 out of 10 would remove the skin from poultry before cook- ing. Consumer Behavior in Grocery Stores and Supermarkets According to the Food Marketing Insti- tute's findings, consumers are concerned about the nutritional content of the food they buy, specifically its fat and cholesterol (30 percent), vitamin/mineral (22 percent), salt (20 percent), and calorie (11 percent) contents. Nearly half of all respondents indicated that they frequently checked food labels for protein and fat content, and more than a third avoided buying products that had no nutritional information. A Nielson report on consumer behavior cited three top motivators in the purchase offood items: taste, price, and healthfulness, with the order dependent on the circumstances (Carlson, 1983~. It also estimated that about three-fourths of consumers were consider- ing nutrition in their food purchasing de- cisions but that they would not buy a product more than once if the taste was not accept- able, even if it was cheaper and more healthful. Others have suggested that con- venient preparation is the dominant theme among toclay's new products, with nutrition replacing price as the key consideration in many food purchase decisions (PF New Products Annual, 1986a). In line with this attitude, sales of calorie- and portion-controlled frozen dinners hit an all-time high of $232 million in 1985, ac 65 counting for more than a third of all frozen food sales (PF New Products Annual, 1986b; Progressive Grocer, 1986a). In addition, 1985 sales of dietetic and low-calorie sauces and dressings increased nearly 10.5 percent, artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes by 10.8 percent, and salt substitutes and low-sodium salt by almost 9 percent. Con- sumers are, in large part, putting into prac- tice what they consider to be healthier eating habits. For example, the categories with the largest volume increases in dollar sales in 1985 included fresh and frozen poultry, fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh fish and seafood, and yogurt and fresh milk  (Supermarket Business, 1986b). Yogurt sales alone increased 18.6 percent, bringing in nearly $1.6 billion. The categories experi- encing the largest volume decreases in dol- lar sales further reflected consumer health perceptions: fresh and frozen beef, sugar, natural cheese, fresh and cured ham and pork, and bacon. However, items like alcoholic coolers, frozen French toast and pancakes, and potato chips also enjoyed large increases in sales. Indeed, high-calorie, high-fat, pre- mium foods were selling as well as some of the newer low-calorie, low-fat products. Langer (1985) has termed this phenomenon the "work out/pig out" paradox. Superprem- ium ice cream, such as Haagen-Dazs~, Fru- sen Glade, and DoveBars~, contains 15 to 20 percent butterfat, as compared with 10 to 16 percent for traditional ice cream. Yet, sales of superpremium ice cream in- creased 20 percent in 1985 (Progressive Grocer, 1986b). Perhaps what we are seeing is actually an emerging new philosophy of nutrition: that a balanced diet can be achieved from a variety of foods high-fat as well as low-fat-consumed over several days or even a week, compared with the more traditional thinking of three square meals a day. The National Consumer Retail Beef Study, conducted jointly by Texas A&M Univer- sity, the National Live Stock & Meat Board, and the National Cattlemen's Association,

66 was an industry-wide program aimed at identifying consumer preferences for beef (Cross et al., 19864. It found that consumers considered price, fatness, ant] cholesterol as the three most important factors in the purchase of beef. Consumers perceived the closer or completely trimmed retail cuts of beef as being more appetizing, better tast- ing, and more nutritious (lower in choles- terol). Some consumers shower] a clear purchase preference for the Goocl/Select grade (called Select in that study), even when it was pricer] higher than the Choice grade. A major recommendation of this study was to merchandise both gracles of beef, each for its own strengths: Choice for its taste appeal ant] Good/Select for its leanness. Another national survey of consumer opinions on issues regarding beef was the Farm Journal (1987) Beef Extra Survey of consumers, concluctec! in November 1986. A nationally representative sample of con- sumers was asked to identify which grade of beef had the least amount of fat; 56 percent said Prime, 16 percent said Choice, 3 percent said Good, 11 percent said Stand- ard, and 14 percent inclicate~l that they slid not know. Fifty-eight percent of those sur- veyed states] that U. S. gracles were helpful in making purchasing decisions. About one- thirc] indicated that they had eaten less beef in 1986 than in 1985, and, of this group, 71 percent states] that they had done so for health reasons. Seventy-eight percent in- (licated that they would pay more for lower fat beef if it were available. The American Meat Institute (1987) pub- lishec] the results of a survey conclucted for Giant Food Inc. on consumer awareness, usage, an(l purchase patterns of a No-Roll (ungraded) beef equivalent to the Good/ Select grade (Giant Lean=) versus beef of the Choice gracle. Consumers purchasing Giant Lean_ ranked taste, healthfulness, value, nutrition, and leanness among the most important reasons for choosing this type of beef. Those who purchased Giant DESIGNING FOODS Lean_ also bought more beef, pork, lamb, veal, and fish than those who die] not buy Giant Lean-. When asked which of four gracles Giant Lean was, consumers an- swerecl Prime (34 percent), Choice (38 per- cent), Good (14 percent), and Stan(lard (4 percent), with 9 percent answering that they clid not know. This confirms previous re- search indicating that consumers are con- fused about gracles. Response by Supermarkets A number of supermarkets, grocery stores, and commodity organizations have devel-  oped consumer information programs to help the shopper identify the nutritional attributes of different food products. For example, Xtra Super Foot] Centers (Pom- pano, Florida), Giant Food Inc. (Washing- ton, D. C. ), and A&P Stores (Montvale, New lersey) all have shelf-labeling programs that alert the consumer to foocis that are low in calories, sodium, cholesterol, or fat. The National Dairy Board has a calcium ecluca- tion program that includes booklets keyec] to different age groups and information about specific dairy products. Nutri-Facts _, a joint program of the Food Marketing Institute, the American Meat Institute, and the National Live Stock & Meat Board, provides point-of-purchase information about various cuts of meat. Giant Food Inc. ant] Safeway Stores, Inc. have comprehensive nutrition education programs for their consumers, with printed recipes; brochures for special groups, such as the elderly, infants and toddlers, and pregnant women, and on different aspects of nutrition; point-of-purchase materials; acI- vertising messages; and seasonal programs. Other food stores have developed unique consumer information programs; one ex- ample is Red Owl Stores (Hopkins, Min- nesota). As a result of the university-basec3 Minnesota Heart Health Project, Red Owl Stores instituted their Better Health with Lean Meat Program, which includes] iden

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS tifying leaner cuts of meat with stickers bearing a red heart-shaped logo, printed recipes and brochures, cooking demonstra- tions, and a nutrition hotline. As a direct result of the National Con- sumer Retail Beef Study's findings (Cross et. al., 1986), which were released in .lan- uary 1986, several national and regional retail supermarket chains, including Kroger and Safeway, began closely trimming (0.25 inch) or completely trimming (no external fat) their retail cuts of beef. Meat packers, such as EXCEL Corporation, have reduced the level of external fat on their wholesale and subprimal cuts of beef. In addition, several organizations, including Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association, petitioned the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture (USDA) to change the name of the Good grade to Select to improve its connotation for consumers. The Ameri- can Meat Institute and the National Cattle- men's Association encouraged the USDA to make this change, and the department of- ficially changed the name of the Good grade to Select, eEective November 23, 1987. One of the most visible responses by food retailers has been the growth of the service delicatessen, in-store bakery, fresh fish and seafood department, and salad bar, as well as the expansion in size and variety of the produce department. More than half of the nation's supermarkets have both a service delicatessen and an in-store bakery (Pro- gressive Grocer, 1986d). In 1985, both these departments had increased sales by more than 12.5 percent over 1984, followed by fresh fish and seafood (10.8 percent) and produce (2.9 percent for vegetables, 5.8 percent for fruits) (Supermarket Business, 1986c). Consumer Behavior at Home Several national surveys commissioned by the American Meat Institute and the 67 National Live Stock & Meat Board indicate changing consumption patterns of meat and other animal products (Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., 1985~. These surveys found that households reported serving red meat less often and in smaller portions than in previous years. In addition, more house- holds were serving poultry. Of the 30 per- cent of respondents who reported that their families had reduced red meat consumption, 40 percent reported that they had done so for health reasons. An additional 26 percent indicated that their rec] meat consumption had declined because there had been house- hold changes affecting family meals, includ-  ing fewer individuals eating or living at home, smaller meals, and eating out more often. Several trends in food purchases reflect what consumers eat at home, how often they eat, how they prepare meals, and their changing food preferences. One-fourth of shoppers in the Food Marketing Institute's Trends report indicated that they frequently purchased delicatessen or carry-out food items; one-fifth often purchased items from the salad bar; 18 percent regularly bought food products designed especially for mi- crowave cooking; and 14 percent consist- ently used fresh, partially prepared foods that required less at-home preparation time. Similar trends were observed in grocery sales; for example, the service delicatessen ranked number one in 1985 as having the largest volume increase in dollar sales (Su- permarket Business, 1986b). More than 40 percent of U.S. households already own microwave ovens, and this figure is expected to increase to 70 percent by the end of the decade (PF New Products Annual, 1986c). Ethnic foods, particularly Mexican, Italian, and Oriental, are becoming increasingly popular, as indicated by rising sales of burritos, chips, tortillas, salsas, and clips, as well as sauces and ethnic entrees. Among the best-selling frozen food items in 1985 were Italian dishes (sales up more than $96 million since 1984) and Oriental (fishes (sales

68 up more than $36 million since 1984) (AcI- vertising Age, 1985~. Data from the 1985 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) in- dicate that individuals are eating more fre- quently throughout the day than they were at the time of the 1977-1978 National Foot] Consumption Survey (NFCS); these trends are presented in Table (1. For example, in 1977, about half of the adult respondents ages 19 to 50 reported eating three or fewer times per day ant! half reported eating four or more times per day. In 1985, this had changed to only about one-third reporting eating three or fewer times per (lay and t`vo-thircis eating four or more times per clay. The trend with young children ages 4 and 5 is even more dramatic; about 40 percent ate three or fewer times per day in 1977, comparer] to about 20 percent in 1985. Less than 60 percent of these children ate four or more times per clay in 1977, com- pared to nearly 80 percent in 1985. Food sales and surveys confirm data from the 1985 CSFII in that they reflect the trend toward "grazing" snacking throughout the day rather than eating the traclitional three full meals. A recent national survey com- missioned by the Conde Nast Package of Women reported that about one-third of women in the United States have abandoned regular eating habits in favor of snacking whenever they are hungry (Mark Clements TABLE 4-1 Eating Occasions per Day (in percent) DESIGNING FOODS Research/National Family Opinion Survey, 19851. As states] earlier, trends in food choices are somewhat contradictory. Snack food sales increased more than 8 percent in 1985, totaling nearly $7.5 billion (Supermarket Business, 19866~. Within this category, fruit rolls and bars showed the largest percentage increase since 1984, up nearly 23 percent. Potato chip sales increased by more than 9 percent over 1984 figures, with more than twice the dollar sales (over $1.8 billion) of any other snack item. Sales of popcorn (packaged, unpoppecl), which is perceived as a healthy snack because of its Tow-calorie, high-fiber content, increased by more than 18.5 percent in 1985 for a total of nearly $400 million. The 17 brands of microwave popcorn and the 3 brands in the frozen food case are an interesting example of the com- bination of"healthful" food, the trend to- ward snacking as a meal, and microwave cooking (Progressive Grocer, 1986e). Another irony of the grazing and health trends is the rise in candy and gum sales, up 3.7 percent for a total of nearly $9 billion in 1985 (Supermarket Business, 1986e). Of this figure, about $61 million (0.68 percent)  was diet, low-calorie, or sugarless candy and gum. Chocolate bar sales, up 2.8 percent, accounted for over $2.6 billion in 1985. The largest percent increase was in the sale of chocolate-covered nuts, up more than 14 Children Females Males E. Ding 1-3 Years 4-5 Years 19-34 Years 35-50 Years 19-34 Years 35-50 Years Occasions Per Day 1977 1985 1977 1985 1977 1985 1977 1985 1977 1985 1977 1985 s3 33 15.3 40.7 20.4 52.4 33.3 47.5 31.8 51.3 39.0 47.1 30.7 24 67 84.7 59.3 79.6 47.6 66.7 52.5 68.2 48.7 61.0 52.9 69.3 . SOURCES: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. P. 50 in Women 19-50 Years and Their Children 1-5 Years, 1 Day. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. Report 85-1, Human Nutrition Information Service. Hyattsville, Md.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. U. S. Department of Agriculture.1986. P.48 in Men 19-50 Years, 1 Day. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. Report 85-3, Human Nutrition Information Service. Hyattsville, Md.: U. S. Department of Agriculture.

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS percent since 1984. Per capita candy con- sumption has risen by 1 pound per year since 1982, to a total of 20 pounds per year in 1985 (Progressive Grocer, 1986fl. Sales of other foods also reflect the con- sumer's desire for smaller meals requiring less preparation, but consumers may not fully realize the quality of nutrition they may be trading for convenience. In-store bakeries ranked fourth in volume increases in dollar sales in 1985, with a 12.6 percent increase over 1984 figures (Supermarket Business, 1986b). Like the service delica- tessen, the in-store bakery provides ready- to-eat products, convenience, and service. The interest in premium products is strong here, too: croissants have become a super- market staple and account for $700 million in sales a year (Progressive Grocer, 1986g). Frozen prepared (precooked) foods fit the consumer s preference for convenience, taste, and healthfulness, but often at a premium price. This category is the largest dollar segment in the frozen food section, and it is growing; sales increased by 8.3 percent in 1985, to a total of over $3.6 billion (Supermarket Business, 1986f). Frozen din- ners had the largest increase in this cate- gory 10.3 percent over 1984 figures gen- erating more than $1.5 billion. Frozen pizza was second up 4 percent, for a total ex- ceeding $1 billion. OPTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE A key focus of the committee's work is to encourage the availability of animal products in the marketplace that could make it easier for consumers to comply with target levels of specific nutrients in their diets. These animal product options should be made available for consumers who have been advised to alter their diets by health profes- sionals as well as for those who wish to change their eating habits on their own. To develop a sense of unmet needs, the com- mittee surveyed products currently avail- able. The committee sent written requests 69 for product information and nutritional com- position to companies introducing new an- imal products between October 1985 and October 1986 that were lower in calories, fat, cholesterol, or saturated fatty acids or higher in calcium or iron. Between October and December 1986, the committee con- tacted 65 companies; 13 provided data on their new products. This information is presented in Tables (3 and (12. For many animal products, new or modified versions appear weekly that offer varying degrees of reduced calories, fat, sodium, or cholesterol at comparable prices.  The nutritional characteristics of both traditional and modified animal products are discussed in this section. Information is included on how well the nutritional com- position of individual products matches the defined target levels of nutrients in the diet as a whole. The traditional and modified versions are compared in terms of differ- ences in total caloric content; total fat, cholesterol, saturated fatty acids, and so- dium contents; and vitamin and mineral composition. By comparing the nutritional content of individual foods in the diet, more flexibility can be gained in food selection and preparation. At the end of this chapter, these modified animal products are used in example diets for adult men and women. Milk and Milk Products The dairy industry has been particularly responsive to consumer health needs and preferences. Table (2 gives the nutrient composition of many traditional dairy prod- ucts, as well as some of the modified versions of these products. Milk and milk products are the main sources of calcium in the food supply and provide substantial amounts of high-quality protein, zinc, riboflavin, mag- nesium, and fortified vitamin D (Table ~1~. However, milk and milk products are also a major source of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol, nutrients identified as detri- mental to the health of certain segments of

0 0 o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u) o o o o o . . . ~ ~ o o o o o o o 'o 'o ~ 's '~ 'o ~ ~ o O O O C~ ~ CD 00 C~ CO CO ~ d4 ~ ~ C~ ~- C~ - 0 oo ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ ~ - - - ~ - c] ~ ~ ~ . . . . . o o o o o o o o ~ - o o 0 0 C~ CO C ~ _ 00 _ O CD ~ CO ~ C~ _ O o c~ c] - - 5- o bC o o 'e - ~ c~ bC bt v' c~ so~ - · ~ - ~; 4= c) - u: o o · · v' o p~ o c) ce o · - ·s~ z ~c bC o ~c  v) -- ~ 5o~ c~ ~ - ~c .- c) =, ~ c - o s~ c~ -O bc ¢ ~^ ~4 -= ¢ - ~ o oo ·s~ ~ 'e cq ¢ c - ct = ct o Ce bC " · ~o bC c~ .o s~ ~ o ttS c) = c] ) ~o ] ~ ~ oo ~ u) oo oo - - c~ - - 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 0 - ~ c~ ~ ~ - - - o o o . . . ~ ~ o o o o o ~ ~ co o ~ ~ c~ o - o o o o ~ o c~ t '~ c~ - o ~ ~ ~ . . o o o o o 00 0 CD C~ c~ o c~ ~ - . . . . . ~ - o o co ~ c~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ o - . . . . .  ~ - - o ~ cs o oo ~ o oo ~ oo . . . . . oo 0 c~ 0 - ] O c;, ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ oo co r~ I0 0 o o _ ~ ~ C~ C~ 0 . . . . . . . . . . o o o o o o o o o o 0 oo ~ _ C~ _ ~ C~ ~ C~ C ~ U~ CD C~ C] ..... ..... ~ 0 0 0 _ ~ d~ CC o _ CM C~ C] ~ o ~ _ . . . . . C~ ~ o o o 0 C] di U o C~ ~ oo . . . . . _ _ o C~ _ C~ C] _ C~ _ ~ o ~ C~ . . . . . . _ C~ _ _ ~ o oo ~ ~ 0 C] oo C] . . . . . C~ _ _ o C~ ~ o C~ _ C~ . . . . o ~ ~ ~ _ _ C~ oo _ U: ] ] o oo co cM oo oo c] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o - cv) ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . ] c~ o c] O ~ ~ 0 00 C~ CD ~ 0 - 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ 0 ~ - ~ oo ~- - - c~ - c~ ~ - c~ _ O C~ ~U) c~ O C ~- ~ d~ ~ CO ) '~ ~ 'o c] o z ~ ~ 0 c~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ~0 0 0 0 0 1~1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ==ooo C~ Ct 4- ~C ^  _ C~ CV) Ca _ C~ 70 C~ ~ ~ CD C~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ O d~ O _ _ _ ~ C~ r o o o o o o o o o o o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _________~ o o o o o o o o o o o N ·_ U' Ct C ~"C C) ~ Ct 0 ~ ~ a, :4 ~ ¢ (: o0 _ C,) ;;~` ~ ~ C C~e c¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- .- ~: ct c~ ~ c~ r' c~ c; 5 ·_ ~ ~ U)

o ~ u) oo X~ r~ co o o ~o o o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o o oo o o 'c oo o cM c~ cM ~ ~ ~ o ~ c~c~ ~ ~u) CO C~ CD ~ ~ - ~ u: ~ o ~ ~ ~ U) ~ ~O O Od~ o o oo o o~ c~ ~ d~ ~ - c~ ~ c~ ~ ~r 0 ao cc c~ o oo ~ ~ cc a~ co c~ o ~ o o ~ c~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ x o 00 _ CD ~ ~ ~ c~ c ~ ~ oo M ~- ~ ~ oO o ~ . . . c~ ~ ~cM ~ c~ 0 ~ co ~r~ c: O ~CD ~ O U: ~ ~- ~ c~ ~ ~co ~ cs ~ o o o ~ 1 1 1 1 o o o o  e ~ ~ ~ - ~ cs o c: c) - - s-4 ~- o x c~ ~ c~ 1 1 o o · - ~ o v, · · e~ - oo o ~ ~ o o o ~ u) o · - v) oo . o z o o _~ V ~5 _Ct o U) __ O~ _._ V_ bt U) V) ~~ C ~ ~V CM C~ ~O C~ O _X _ ~ O O O O O CM ~CO C ~- ~ ~ ~co a: . ~ C~ O O oo ~O C~ ~ ~ . . . . C~ O  C~ - o o U' -0 ~o a; ~i .o - 5 ._ V) o v C¢ ~_ t~O Ct v - - o Ct - V) Ct - 3 v ._ v V) bt bt r~ P~ bt ~0 o ~V Ct - ·_ Ct o V X o z C~ V ·_ V Ct ;^ . . V ~oo ~V C~ O ~O O I ~ V ~O  V7 O ~0 _ ~ ~O - -t a; V ~ ._ ._ _ _ bt O _ o z z '_ a' z Ct ~q C~ Ct .. ~ o z 'o 5- v~ . - '- V_, c~v -~ o v ~ ~ ~c c~ ~ s . vo ~ ~ x ~ - vu) V Ce O ~ - v ~ ~ v c~ ~ ~.e <~: V ~ ~V ~ ~ o - ~ 'e ~ ~ o ~ c~ c~ ~ ~{ v Q ~u) v ~o · . s~ o v 71

72 the population. In addition. milk and milk ~ . , 1 . . 1 . .1 . ~ . . .1 products uniquely contribute lactose to the diet, which some adults are unable to digest. Table 4-3 provides information on some of the most recently formulates] milk and milk products, reduced in one or more of these components, and compares them to their traditional counterparts. Traditional Versus Modifed Products The change in the way fluic! milk is sold today versus a few years ago provides a classic example of a successful industry re- sponse to changing consumer preferences. In 1975, Tow-fat and skim milk constituted 66.8 pounds of per capita sales; by 1985, this figure hac! risen to 98 pouncis (Table 2~201. Yogurt is another example of a grow- ing variety of products developed to meet consumer demand. Sales of yogurt in 1985 were nearly $1.6 billion, up more than 18 percent over the 1984 figure (Supermarket Business, 1986g). As shown in Table 4-2, all the reduced- fat (modified) products offer more nutrients per 100 grams and, if comparably priced, offer more nutrients per dollar than do their traditional counterparts. A comparison of regular and low-fat fluid milks illustrates this difference. A change from 3.7 percent fat (whole) milk to 2 percent fat (Iow-fat) milk (which may represent a more accept- able alternative than skim milk for many people) offers a number of significant nu- tritional advantages: There is a 22 percent decrease in caloric content; a 48 percent decrease in both total fat and saturated fatty acid contents; a decrease of 43 percent in cholesterol content; increases in protein, vitamin A, the B vitamins, and calcium; ant! no significant change in all other minerals. The most dramatic nutritional differences are seen in a change from fluid whole milk to skim milk. There is a 45 percent reduction in calories and a 9S percent reduction in both total fat ant! saturated fatty acid con- tents; cholesterol content drops 86 percent; the protein and vitamin A contents increase; DESIGNING FOODS and all other nutrients remain about the same. Mollified versions of mozzarella and ri- cotta cheese are also available. A change from whole-milk to part-skim-milk mozza- relIa represents a 10 percent reduction in calories and a 25 percent decrease in total fat, saturated fatty acid, and cholesterol contents. All the B vitamins, as well as protein, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, vi- tamin A, potassium, and zinc, increase about 25 percent. In addition, the calcium content  is increased around 25 percent in the part- skim-milk mozzarella; the product supplies 646 mg of calcium per 100 grams of cheese. Changing from whole-milk to part-skim- milk ricotta has even more dramatic nutri- tional benefits for individuals seeking Tow- calorie and low-fat alternatives. The total caloric content is reduced 21 percent, and the total fat, saturated fatty acid, and cho- lesterol contents are decreased about 40 percent each. In addition, the sodium con- tent is reduced by nearly half. Calcium content increases about 31 percent, with part-skim-milk ricotta providing 272 mg of calcium per 100 grams of cheese. Ice cream is another dairy product for which industry has provided several op- tions. The nutritional composition of ice creams with 16 or 10 percent fat and of ice milk with 4 percent fat are presented in Table 4-2. A change in ice cream from 16 percent fat to 10 percent fat results in a 14 percent decrease in calories, a 33 percent decrease in both total fat and saturated fatty acid contents, and a 21 percent decrease in cholesterol. A change from ice cream with 16 percent fat to ice milk with 4 percent fat represents much larger decreases in calories (41 percent) and total fat, saturated fatty acid, and cholesterol (73 to 76 percent each). Trablitional Versus the Newest Formulations The dairy industry has responded to the varied health needs of Americans and pro- duced an array of new products to meet the

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS nutritional and health requirements of dif- ferent groups. For example, during 1986, at least 10 new milks appeared on the market, including milk extra-fortified with calcium (Vital 15', by the California Milk Advisory Board, with 40 percent of the Recommended Dietary Allowance f RDA] per 8 ounces), promoted to meet the needs of the postmenopausal woman, and low- lactose/low-fat milk (LactAid~, with 70 per- cent less lactose and 1 percent fat), aimed at the adult segment of the population. In 1985, a variety of nondairy, calcium- fortified products were introduced, includ- ing Tabs with Calcium by the Coca-Cola Company and calcium-fortified baking flours by Pillsbury and General Mills. During the past 12 months, at least four new kinds of sour cream have appeared, all with reduced calorie or fat content or both, and at least eight new types of ice cream or frozen dairy- based desserts have been introduced that are lower in fat and cholesterol than tradi- tional versions. Dozens of new cheeses have been mar- keted with modified proportions of fat, cho- lesterol, calcium, and sodium (see Tables t2 and (34. In nearly every case, the amount of fat and the cholesterol content have been reduced. Many of the newest products contain less sodium than their traditional counterparts, but may also have a lower calcium content. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these products still get 50 percent or more of their calories from fat. Many consumers assume that part skim means low fat, which it does not. However, these foods need not be eliminated from the diet, just used sparingly; other food selections lower in fat should be used more frequently to compensate. Fresh Beef Beef is a nutrient-dense food especially rich in protein, the B vitamins, iron, and zinc. The nutrient composition of fresh, cooked beef differs by cut and grade and, to a lesser degree, by method of preparation, 73 since most fresh beef is cooked by broiling and roasting (dry heat) or braising (moist heat). The greatest variation occurs because of differing amounts of external arid seam fat left on or in the cut during its retail preparation. In the home? the nutrient con- tent of fresh beef depends directly on how much of the external and seam fat the consumer actually eats. Most U.S. supermarkets carry the U.S. Choice grade of beef, a large number sell ungraded (No-Roll) beef, and a few carry U.S. Prime (almost always as an alternative gourmet item). A few supermarkets are  selling Prime, Choice, and ungraded beef (largely Good/Select grade but actually a composite of Good/Select, Standard, Com- mercial, and Utility grades, plus Choice grade carcasses that are fatter than yield grade 3, plus occasional bullock and heifer- ette carcasses). Nutrient composition data for several cuts from each of three quality grades are presented in Table (4, along with data for ground beef of three fatness levels. The following discussion describes the nutritional differences between cuts and grades of beef and how consideration of both factors can optimize selection of cuts to fit dietary and palatability needs of consumers. Options Between Grades Chuck Blade. Even with a relatively fat cut of beef, such as chuck blade, grades differ substantially in the content of total fat and saturated fatty acids. For example, a cut of chuck blade from the Good/Select grade, braised, would have 13 percent less total fat and saturated fatty acids and 7 percent fewer calories than a cut of chuck blade from the Choice grade, also braised. The differences between the Prime and Good/Select grades are even greater. Prime is not universally available to the consumer at the retail level but is a frequent option in restaurants. The Good/Select grade is 19.5 percent lower in calories and has only two-thirds the fat and saturated fatty acids.

::::~::~: ~:~ ~ ::~:::: : ~: ::~ : :~::: ~ ~ ~ :0 0 0 C~O O (D ~ U: oo O ~: ~ ~ c~c] ~ - ::~:~c~::: - ~ oo O cO ~-- u) ~ ~ cO ~ u) ~:~: ~ ~i~ ~ T ~ ~::~:~: ~- - ~:~- :~ ~:::::::: ~::: :::: ~:: ~ ~ :::~:: ::::~:~: ~: : ~:~:: ~::~: ~ ~::::~::::~:~ ~: O ~O CD ~ ~ O O ~O C~ ~ ~<D~:= ~ O o c] o o ~ ~:~ o o ~o c~ ~ ~ c~ 'o ~ r ~- ~( ~ ~ ~- 'o ~:~ ~:~ ~:~: ~ :~::~::~::: :~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ::: ::~:::~ ~:: ::: ~:~:: ~:~:~:~ :~ ~:~:~ v - v 5 ~ - - v c~ ~ - v c~ - o 3 z -v v - CQ - v C~ Ct . - o -v C. s~ o o ._ o - Ct 4- o ._ ._ s" 4 - ~ ~ o  Z ~ - C~ ~ o ¢ o ~ _ :~:~: ~: :~:~: ~: ~::: ~ ~: :~: ~U) o ~ ~o ~.~ - ~ ~ o :.~ oo . . ~ :: :~:::::: ~ ~o C~ . .. .. ~ ~ ooC~ _ __C~ :: ::: :::: - ~ ~ ::::: ~::~: ~ ~-~ :::: :~ :: :: :: :: ::::: ~ oo ~CO~. ~ oo ~ ~id,~ ~ ~ tS ~:~::~: ::~::~ · i C ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~i :~:~:~:~:~:~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~ :~: ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~:~0: 0 0 ~O ~ ~as3~= =~-~ ~ ~ ~= ~ ~0 ~ O ~:~ :~: ~:: ::~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ U) _ :.~:~,~: ~:~j~ ~j - ~_ _ _ _ _ ~:~ ~:: ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ::: : ~ ~:~, ~ :~ :~: ~: ~-~. ~:~ ~:~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~:: ~ ~ : ~:: :::~:: _ ~ ~ .~:~ :~:~: : ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: _ ~.~C4~ CD CS ~e~i~ C~ - CD :~-~ 0 exS ~.~m =0 ~= ~ ~=~= ~.~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::~: _ . ~ ~ ~ ~: :~:~ ~ ~ :~ : ~ ,~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ :: :::: :: : :: ~ ~: . ~ . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: : :~: :~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~:~.~.~.~: ~.~.~ ~. ~ _ ::: ::::: ~ ::: _ ~7 ::: ~ :: - ~ - : :~ ::: s ~ ~'- ~ ~:~ ~ ~:~:~:~:~:~. ~ ~ ~ ~'~2~.~. ~'~:~'~.~ ~: ::~:~:~: ~ ~ :: ~ ~'~'~'~'~' ~'~'~" ~O 0~ ~'.~.,".'<< ¢ ~P ~ ~ O C) - .. ,~.~.~ Z Z :-~ ~ Z Z .... : : ~ ~:::: ~ ~ ~ ::~: ~:~ .: ~:~ :::~::: .~.~.~:~ ~.~ ~ i ~,~.~::~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~:~::~:~ .,.~.~., ~ ~j~: ~:~.~.~:~.~:~ ~' .. , ~.-., ~- ~- ~-~'~.~,~.~'~'~. ~.~.~.~ ~:~: ~ ~::~:~ ~: ~'''2m'm Cil ~-~453 (~ C] C~ O ~',.20i''-~'C~ C4~O 0 _ '~-i~-~  ~ _ ~.:,,~. - -:~ ~ ~ ~:: ~:~C¢~ ~.'-'~.~-2~'-''2,', ~' ~,~,~,~,~. ~.~ .~. :~ ~ ~ ~.~.-~.~.~: ~:~:~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~:~.: ~.~,~,~,.~.~. Ct .~:~., -.~. .~,~ ,~.~ .--~,~,~-~. -~.~-~,~. ~,~-~ _ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~.~.~. O '"."'-'',,'~ ~':~;C?~'~2~ oo ~'~:. -:.:~ ~ ~ ~= ,.,,- ~ ~ -~,~,, ~.~ ~ ..~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~,,,.~,.~ ~j~.~,~.~--~- ~, ~,~.~. . ~.. ~., ,,-~-.~ ~'~-.t,3 ~: It) O ~:~: ~.~ 1:~ ~ 2"¢~,'2~ C', _ -~.~ -.,.~.~.~:~ ~ ~..- -:~-~ -,~.~ .-~ -~. .~: ~.. ,~. ,.~.~ . _ ,,~ . - -, s~ '_ -~ .,: ~-.~. O te .'.,$.. ~ ~ _ .. -., ,~. .. - . ~ ~.,. . :~: .~ ~: :~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~:: : ~.~:~ .~.~ :~ .~: ....: .~:,i, ~:: ~ :~:~:~: :. ~. :. .: .~ .i.~.,.,..:. :~ ~: .~:~ ~:~i:.,.~. :: .~ :~ ~:~ . .. ~ : . ~: ~ ~: : ~.~.~. ~: ~:~: :.. . .~ . ~ :~.~:~:~ .: : ::: .~:::  ~:~ : ~ . : ~:~ . ~:: :: ::~ ~: ~:~: ~: ~... ::. ~ :~ ~. ~:.~:~=, . ~: u) ~:: ~ ... - ~ :~ :: .:.~: ~: ~. c.) :~..~: - : :~ ~: ~ 'e .. i c-) .. . :~ ~.:~. u] .~ ~ ..~.. ^o ~ ~ ~ s~ ~.~.~ ~ cas~: c'S ~ ~ ~ z o -.~ ~:: ~ :~: ~:: ~: :~ ~:~ ~:~::~ ~:~ :~ ~:~::~: ~:~ ~: ~ ~:~ ~:~::~::~ ~:~ ~:~ :~ :~:~::~:~:~ ~ cD~ o o : ~ ~: ~ ~ :~:~: ,~:,:~4.~. ·~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~:~: ~::~:~ ~: ~:~:~ ~:~ :~:~:~ ~ ~ ~:~:: ~ ta~-) ::: . :~ ~ : ~. :~:~:~ :~s,~:~ :~ ~ ~:~: ~: ~:~ ~:~:~ : ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~: ~:: :~:~:~ ~: ~:~:~ ~ ~: ~= ~ c~ :~ ~ ::: ~ ~: :~:~:~:~: ~:~ ~:~ :: ~. ::~ :~ ~ :~ .~: ~: ~:~.~ ~.~:~ .~:  ~: . :: ~:~ ~ ~:~:~:: ~ ~ ~ :: ::~:: ~:~ :~:~ ~;~ :::~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~:::~:::~ ::~: !::~:~::~: ~:~:::~ ~ ~:~:~ ~ ~:~::~: : ~ ~ ~:~ : ~ ~ ~:~ :~ ~. : ~ :::: :~ ~ :~:::~ :~:~:: ~:~ ~::~ : ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~:~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ::~ ~: ~ ~ ~ : ~: ~ ~ ::~:~::::::~:= :~.~.~. ~3 : :~ :::~ ,y ~"~-'~'-~-~: r_~t ~:~ - - ~. ~.~.~ ~o ~: ~:~ :~:~ ~ 5 - ~ ~i O ~:~,~:~:~ ~ ~ ~-~-~.-2. ~,~ ~:~:~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ,.,,~, ~ ~: Ct V ~. ~,,~, O ~:~:~:~ ~4 ~S _ i~:,.,. ~ U) ·- ,,,.,.~ . .-: ~ ~: ~ ~ C) ~5 :~:~ ~ ~: ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~:.~,~-~.~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~r~ ~: ::: 0) t ~.~,,. ~.~.~ _ :~::~ :~ ~: ~ ~ ~.~.~.~. ~,~.~.~ t', :: ~::~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~,.~. ,~, :~ ~:~ ~= 4p 0 ~-.~.~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =, (,, , ~,~.~, ~ ~ ~ ~ C) ~ ~ o~ ~.,~.--. o~ ~::: :::: ~ Ct _ ~,,.~. ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~- ~ ._ ~:~: ~: ~:~ Ct rCt ~2~'~'P4. '~ c':::~:::~ r ~ ~ S ~.. ~ - ~ Ct ~:~:~ ~ ~,=.- ~ , ~ ~:~:::~:~:::~ _4 ~ ~- ~-~- ~J~ C - Z ~'2''-E''''< ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~... ~. ~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~" ~ ~ ~: ~:~;~ - ~ ~- ~ m ;~, ~ ~- :! ~ C) ....,:..~,~.~. -.~,~ ............ ::::~: :: :::: ::::::: :: :::::::: :::: ::: : :::: ::::: :: ::: ::: CO :~:~CO~:~' C~ C~ ~ :: :: :: ~ :: ~ .~ ~ :::: :: :::: . :: ::: :: :::: ::: ::: C~ ~Cl~ U, ~ CS ~>~ ~ ~ 00 :::::: ::: ::::::: ::::: ::: :::: :::~::: :: :::::~:~::: ~:::~ ~:~ ~::: ~:: ~:  o o ~ o ~ ~t o ~ ~ oo 'tt ~t oc) ~c] - - ~ - ~ c~ ~ 5) r~, v,c) ~ c) ~ u) ~o ~ g , 3u ~ ~c : ~u, u ~h ~u ) ~-' o ~' so~ h~ G) ~·$,., ,h~ . ~ o ~ ~ 5: - ~, ct ct ~ ~ ~ -l c ~ o _ ~3_ 3 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ c c ~ ~ ~ ~ o - - s: s~ <u 4u t4 ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ 74 V: :::~::~:~:::~:~ ~: ~: :: : ~:::~:::::~ ~ ~:: :::: :::~::~:~:~:~: .~ ~ ~ ~:~:~::~:: :: :~ ~-~ . ~:~:~:~:~: :~: :~:: ~:~:~ U, .c -. .~ : .~ :~:~:~::: :~: ::~:~:~ ~::~ ~:~::~: .~.~.~. . . .~ ~ -~ .~ ~. .~ .~ ~ ~:~ =~ i,{) ~o ~ ~. . . .  ~.~, - ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ .~.~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ..~.~.~. .~.~.~.~. .~.~ .~.~. ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~0~.~.~ ~ u: r ~0 0 CO ~ ~. . . . . . . ~,, - ~ =, =, C;, _ ~t' C] ~C] C~ C~ : ~:~ ~..:.~::- ~ ~...~:j,,jj :~i~.~,-i~.~2 ~ ~,~j j~j~,~,~j~ -: j,~ ~j~j~ ~j~j,j~:~j~ .~:j:j:::j.~:j ~ ~:~ j~j~j~:~.~ ~:~j~ ,9 .~-~-~co CO C~ .-.-j~.~.~ ~:. ~:j ~ ~:j:j:~:~ -.-: .~.~,~.~..,~..~. j :~j j.: -~ ~ :~: ~- ~j ~jj ~ j~ .~j.~-~j.~. .~j~,~ j~-~ j~ j~ ~,,~ ~ jj .~-~.~,~, .~ . ~.~.~j.j ,.~-~ j,j, ~ ~:~j~j- :~j:.:-:j~j ~ ::- j:j: ,~.~, ~ ,~:.~..~ ~ ~ ~ j:~ j~j - ~:~ ~-~j~j~.. j~. ~-j~,~j.:~ .j ,j, .j. j ~j~,- ~j ~,~. ~j~. -.~-~-. ~j j - ,j~,~.j.~j~ j~ j j~.~.~,j ~ ~j~.~,~-~. ~ j: .~-~ ~.-.i~'~'~ j~.,j,- ~. ~j.j~j~. ~.~,.~j~ ~,~, ~.,~.~. ~,~ i,~''~. ~ ~-~ ~ ~. :- ~-.j~: U) '~i~'~i~'~-~i'~' ~(~O -~'.~-".".'2~i'~ :.-:- ~:i i -. .,- i ~ :~ ,-,~j ,:~j, ~_ :~j~.~,~- j~.~.~.~, ~Ce) j.~,~ j j~.~,~,j~ ~..~-~-.~ ~.i~ '~i~.-~'~'~.~'i~i~' ~_t ~j j~.~ j~,~ ~: _ ~.j ~--.~ tC ~ ·~.~.,.~jj~: :Z ~ ~j. : ~ ~ .~,~,~ .j,j,j ~ r i -.~.~.-.~,~. ~- ~ _ :~.~j~ji~. ~i-~-~.~-i.i~i~- ~ Ct i~ ~-.~:~- ~C.) ~  ~.~j.~ ~ ~-~- :~ ~:: ~ j~.~j~i~i'-~- ~1~1 ~ ~:~j~jj~j~-~j ~' tV :~.~i ji~i~i. ~j~:~-~ j~ ~.i~.~.~.~..~.~i :~'~.'~.~2i'~i~: '""''' '= P:; ~.~ :1 _ U, .~.,-~-~ ~ e~ i~.~.~,~,~i~i~i~ C) ·, ~,-,- C\3 ~ ~ .'.~,''~.,.,.-~ Ct Ct .j~j :~:.~ Cd Z Z ~i~-~.~-L;~'.'i ~ .j<~.~,.= :~i~ ~ ~=,'~- ~ . ~..-~. , . ..i~:.~ :~,V,-j ~-- ~ -~.~-. ....~-.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : :. ~:~.m,~.~ ~ oO - ..~.~i~i _ C~ oo ~' =- ~.~ C~ C~ _ : ~,. ~,~,~ ~,.-.~:~.. ~,~j.-~ ~-~:~ ~ -,.,~j, ~,~,.~j.j . ~j..~j ~.j eS ,~,~j~ ~.,,~.~.~.~j~.~- ~r5 ~-.:. .-.j~ ~ i i~.~ ~..~ .i ~.~.~.~:j ~S ~.~j~,~,j,~j ~ O ~-i~.-~.~.~.~.i ,~ O s ~.~.~ ~. j~ ~ j 5- ~--i.,~,~,~..-,~i~i .~-.~i,.-~.,.i~i u 41; .~-2 2 ~ ~'- ''.'2'-'-' '. ~ o ~C ~.j.-.-~.~. ~,= s~ C ,,,~,,,~.~,~,~, ~C) j~ ..j.~..-.~.,, U) j~ ~ j ~ ,~, -~. L ~U ~ ~'~"'~"~' ~ ~ ~ C) .. ~. ~.~. . U) C) N o ~ ~O 50 ^- jjj~ ..~.~.. ,_ 5- '~.'-2,~,~',~'~ ~V ~ ~.~,.:"-2W2~2,~ V ct5 N --- ~ N ~- 2~ '" 2'2~' Ct '- ~ ~ C~ 2~'....'.i2-.2~.'."2 O C) G,) :~ - - ~i ;~` ~ ~ ~ -~j~.,,-.~:',~ (D ~ Ct Ce ~ -'''''.'.2'''''.-" 41) Ct c4 V ii'i'~" ~,~'~'~ ~ ~ C:S O Ct5 "2'2''2"''2''" O o =5 _ ~ ~.~,~-,~.~ ~ ~ Z :2~'..'2.2'~.~.~,o~ C3S ~ r ~ ~ - i '~"':'i :X ~ V ~ CD '"--"22_b~ =~ '~ CtS ~ C~ ~,-"",''~_`  C) I~ .....-,,,~,.~ ~ ~ ~ /13 ~ ~ " ',~ C et ~ ""~"2_ ~ O C ~ C ~ '".i:^ Z Z C ,~ ~ ,= sO~ (~D ~ ..-~.e ~ ~ 3 3 ~ ~ 3 3 3 d o0 ~n C] _ C]

co ~ o oo c~ o~ ~ x ~ o M oo x r ~cO c: ~c] co c: .< x z o : ~ o x~ ~ ~ ~ o o o x c ~ ~ 'c z o u: ~cO~ ~ . . ... 0O c~ c~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ c~ ~r ~ c~ 0 a, - ~ ~ c~ ~ x r~ ~ ~ o c ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . .. .~ . . . . ~ - ~ ~ o ~ ~ cO C~ ~ ~C~ C:_ G~ C~ CJ U) ~ ~ O ~ . . ~ . . c] c~ c~ ~ o ~ - 40 x ~ cO ] c ~c  5 o s~ :~: ~: ~: tC : : ~: C<S ~V) O ~O O ~ r; t£ ~ :: C~ _ ~ ·;- ,_, U: ~:~ ~ 5 :: Ct ~: ~ _ V, Ct- C~ ::: ^= 5 059 V, . - ._ Ct O : ,1° z - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ¢ ~ ;~) u: o c) z ~ oF : ~: ~: o c~ ~ ~ c ~ . ~ . - C~ ~ ~ C~ C\1 o ~ -  ·73, v) ~s ct ~ - o c~ · · s~ c~ z - : ~ : 6g :: ~ - ~ o : ~ p;: u: ¢ o u) z - o o cM ~ . . 'o o ~ ~ o oo . . -~ ~ c~ ~ o c: . . . ~ - ~ ~ o ~ o - oO o - ~ . . . . ~ . . c~ oc 'o - ~c] ~ u: ~ c~ ~ c~ c~ ) c: ~3 o x O ~ x C~ cr co c~ cC c~ - c] - c)  o s~ p~ ~ ~ - u, c) ~ o v: u) c; a~ 0 a; : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o v) ct a 3 3 ~ ~ s~ ~ TS, U' ~, C~ C~ - ¢= u: ~ 3 ~ ~ L~ Z ~ ~ V) V) ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 5~ ~ U2 Z Z ~ .= ~ ~ ~ _ ~S ~ ~ ~ ~ V, ·- ·- ·_ ·_ ._ U) . _ Ct : : .~ ~S: ~ (~0 ~ C: ~ ~:: C; - 75 o 4; o ~V) , o Z ~ .' ~V) Ct ~o o ~ C ~ · o U) o ~C) ~ _ _ X ~o ~ ,=  o ~ C ~ 3 ~ ~ o o ~ ~- , ~o _ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ Q~ 't ~ ,,) ~ C: ~ o o 40- ~k° ° 't° ~° ° C.h 'b° ~t a; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ `- Ct (t Ct (t CTS C~ (t Ct ~a ~ a ~ a a ~ a v, - O=; ~c~ ct. c~ 400 O~ btC _~ ~40 400 07,4 O O ~_ ct 5 O 40 u: 000 . -~ s~_ 04~ v:O O bt _c~ ~.~ ~c~ ct a~0 O c;_ _c O bt c~ 0 o _ . -c ~, v, ~bt ~O O ;)_ . ~5~ ~a' .= a O V2  c~ _ 40 O bf) c~ _ z ~u: ~ ~.= O ~ 0 ~ . ~ O ct ,? s~ ~ c' 0 ~ =, c 0 ct c~ ~ ~3 (t V) a^= 3 ~ a a' ~ ~ ~ ct ~ 0 =5 .~,~ Q,

be o ~ cD - 5o~ ~ ~ - ~ Em ~ 'e - o us o be ;4 o o - · o 'e - - in hi ct v' ~4 to to - 4- 4- o o · - · - 4 A, o o 'e o · · - 4 - as ~ - ~- - - ct ~ ~ ~ cn C) be ~ O O ~- ce 'e E-° - ~ · - 50- to I) . 5-  o At In ~ o z m z . =5 hi == _ ~ ~IS CO Cal ~ _ ~Cal ~ Cal U) ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ CD Cal CO r~ . . . . . . CO C ~CO CO oo oo oo~ ~ ~ u) C~ CS) CS~ ~ ~ d~ . . .. . . . . . ~ c~- - - c~ cO ~ c~u) ~ ~c~ c] - - - - - C~ ~ CS - - - ~ C~ CD ~ ~ ~o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ o o ~ - - C~ _ ~ C~ CS~ CC ~ C~ _ C~ CD O~ ~ cOcO ~ ~c] o o oo o oo o o o o o o o o C~ O _00 CD C'] C':) ~ ~ ~ ooo ~ ~ o - cs ~ ~ ~ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . di C ~ ~ CD C~ C~ C4- 00 ~ CD oo c~ cs) oo '~ oo In c~ O cs) O . . . . . - - - c~ c] ~ - ~ CDO 00 (D ~ ~ 'ocO o Co . . .~ ~ . o o oc~ c~ - ~ ~ - ~ c~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 14 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . c~ co IO co c ~oo co u ~c~ ~ ~ co O ~ ~ c] o .. . . . . c] 0 oo 'c o ~ c~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o )~ cs ~ cO ~ . . .. . .~ ~ . o u) c~oo cs ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~C ~ ~ ~ C5) ~O 0 00 IO U) ~O O O O O O~ ~ C~C] C~ ~ . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . - - -c~ cO ~- - -oo oo oo~ oo oo c~ cO cO'c cO ~cO cO c~c~ c] c] 0 ~ ~- ~ c~ ~ c~ -~ c~ c~ ] c]  oo ~ ~oo ~ oo c~ o ~ - ~ ~ oo ~ oo cs ] c ~- - - c~ c~ c] O C ~00 di C ~ O C ~O C~ 00 C~ o (st < - - - o o o o o o - - - ~ ~ ~ c~ cO 'o ~o ~ cO c ~c~ cO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w o s~ w o ~,,: ~3 ~ ~W WW W ~ ~ 3 ~ ~` ~^~ ~` ~` ~ .C) ~ ~ ~ .o ~ ~ ~ .o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ o o ~ 53 o o =: ~ o o ~o ~ o o ~ bO 0 ·5, ~ 0 C~ I, ~ 0 C) ·5_, ~ 0 5 4 ~ 0 ~ W W ~0 P~ ~ V ~ ~ C) C: ~ ~ C: V >.~ ~ ~ C' S°, ~ ~ 76

~ ~ ~c~ ~ ~ u) CD ~ ~ CD CO (D ~ CD ]x oo oo ) c~ cM c~c o o o ~ ~ ~x x x ~ ~ ~x x x cM cM c ~cM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'o cc c~ c] c ~r ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ x x x oo x x x oo oo x oo oo CD O ~ X ~ c~ ~C~ O O ~ c~ cC ~ ~ c ~ 'c c~ o o o o o o o o o o o o u: ~ ~ ~x ~ cM x ~ ~ cO c~ C~ CD CD c c~ o c~ ~ ~ - - - - cO - ~ ~ - O O~ ~ CD 5) ~ ~O C~ X ~ ~ ooX r~ c ~CD X ~- c~ X r~ u) ~ c~ cv:, c'~ c'] c'] c~ c] 0 u: r~cC ~ ~co ~ c ~ ~ oo ~ ~ c~co ~ c ~0 r~ r ~oo ~ c~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x c~ ~c~ ~ x 0 r~ cC) oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ c~ c~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ o o oc~ c] c] ~ ~ ~ co D cox x x x x x - - ~ ] c ~cM c: c~ cO o cO c~c~ ~ 'c ~ '~ c ~ ~ ~ x c: -c~ o ~- ~ x ~ ~ oo Mc~ c~ ~c~ - - cM c ~ o~ ~ cD 'o cM ~ oo ~ ~ ~o o o c] - c~ o o oc~ c~ cM c~ cM c ~c~ cM cM ~ ~ cO~ c~ c: cO c: cO c~ ~ cO - - -- - - - - - - - - ~5 a: · -  o s~ r9 t ~ ~ o c) ~ so ~(~: -= ~ £ o o :, £ o ~ 5 ~ 0 0 5 ~ 'O 5 ~ ·_ ,= o ~ ·_ 51 o ~ ·k, 51 o s~ ~ o ,9 ~ ~ (: ~ ~ ~ ~ .= ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ .c Ct s~ G ~ v: bO ~G ~ _ O . ._ ~ - C~ ::S 40- £ ~ ~o CM C~ ~- - - v) o c~ ~ t c~ ~ £ ~ ~,~; C~ c5 £ ~o ~o 4 - - ~ o ,.^ V) ~ ~ ~ C~ o -= £ C~ ~ Ct == ,= :~ _ ~sv,s: o (t C~ C) V) o ·, C; Ct ~ ~ ~ o ~ .o ~ U) C; bt O ~ ~O £ .£ bO ._ ~ ~ ._ . bf C~ .= £ ~o £ ~ °£  Ct a; o ~ C5~t g ~ ~o o £ £ C't ~ ° - -^ ~= 40 £ ~ ~ ~^ o o ~ z £ V2 ~ Ct - o o bt ._ U) ;- C~ - oo - x o z o o Ct a; - ._ bt £ o z m z V) £ Z . C¢ C; m ~ CC ., ~ c~ z u: c, ~ 77 - - o U: - o £ V, _ _ ~C; ._ V) ._ C~  ~V: o C) ~o o ~ ~4 ~40 ~m Ct C~ Ct 50 o _4 ._ - ._ C¢ C~ V ~ ~ ~ £ Ct c~S · Ct ~ >- .m o,= X C~ C~ ·- '~ .. .. Ct C) sl °= U) ~ ~ ~ ~ C) o z o o ~Q C~ - . . V) o o 40 o o ._ ._ V, o £ o C: x - a; - C~ ._ bt ¢ 40 o U) .  C~ ~i O ~ .= O s~ C~

78 Top Round. Although this is a lean cut of beef, there are still some differences between grades. From Prime to Good/Se- lect, there is a 14 percent difference in calories, a 39 percent difference in total fat content, and a 40 percent difference in saturated fatty acid] content. Between Choice and Good/Select, the differences are smaller: 5 percent in calories ant] 17 percent in total fatty acid and saturated fatty acid contents. Ground Beef. Many stores carry three types of ground beef, which cliEer in the percentage of total fat after cooking: regular (19.46 percent total fat), lean (17.64 percent total fat), and extra lean (15.80 percent total fat). Ground beef is an animal product with a high fat content; even extra lean ground] beef gets more than 53 percent of its calories from fat and 21 percent from saturated fatty acids. Nevertheless, eating extra lean ground! beef rather than regular ground beef does result in a 9 percent decrease in caloric content, a 10.5 percent decrease in calories from fat, ant] a 19 percent reduction in total fat ant! saturated fatty acid contents. A November 1987 revision of USDA-FSIS Policy Memo 070B has clarified the labeling of ground beef and hamburger as lean or extra lean (see Chapter 5~. Recent research has shown that the method of cooking affects percent yield and com- position of ground beef patties over a wide range of fat levels (Berry and Lecicly, 19841. It was found that the leaner formulations increased in fat percentage with cooking, while the fatter patties decreased in fat percentage with cooking. Ofthe six different cooking methods analyzed (electric broiling, charbroiling, roasting, convection heating, frying, and microwaving), microwaving pro- duced cooked ground beef patties with the lowest fat ant! calorie contents. Options Between Cuts Bottom Round Versus Top Round. Changing from one cut of beef to another DESIGNING FOODS similar, but leaner cut, still within the same grade, can provide substantial shifts in the proportions of nutrients. For example, within the Choice grade, top round has 14 percent fewer calories ant! 35 to 36 percent less total fat ant! saturated fatty acids than bottom round. Good/Select top round] has 18 per- cent fewer total calories ant] 46 to 47 percent less total fat and saturated fatty acids than Choice bottom roun~l. Chuck Blade Versus Chuck Arm. Reductions in fat and calories can be seen in chuck arm versus chuck blade of the  same grade. Fat and calories can also be reduced by choosing different cuts from different grades. For the Choice grade, chuck arm has 15 percent fewer calories and 35 to 39 percent less fat and saturated fatty acids than chuck blade. GoocI/Select chuck arm has 19 percent fewer total calories, 43 percent less total fat content, ant! 47 percent less saturated fatty acid than Choice chuck blacle. Minimum-Maximum Intramuscular Fat Content. Research at Texas A&M Univer- sity has indicates! that a minimum fat content in beef muscle of about 3 percent on an uncooked basis (equivalent to meat cuts that gracle low Good/Select) is necessary for acceptable palatability and that no more than 7.3 percent fat (equivalent to meat cuts that grade high Choice) should be present to ensure nutritional merit. Based on these parameters, Figure 4~1 was developecl to show the propose(l "window of acceptabil- ity for intramuscular fat content for meat products. The background data and research upon which this figure is based are pre- sented in the paper by Savell and Cross (this volume). Nutrient Content of Leaner Beef. A change to leaner beef would have multiple beneficial effects on the total diet, including a higher concentration of the B vitamins, iron, phosphorus, and zinc in the beef

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODU('T OPTIONS 7 - ._ Q 6 co = a) O 4 Overall Palatabillty-Strip Loin 0 Grams of Fat In Two Servings of Meat ,0' 0' 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Percent of Fat FIGURE (1 Window of acceptability for fat Motet off It Palatability versus grams of fat, two servings). The window is based on a fat content range of 3.0 to 7.3 percent. This is equivalent to meat cuts that grade in the lower range of Good/Select (3.0 to 4.77 percent fat content) to those that grade in the high range of Choice (4.28 to 8.0 percent fat content). Source: Savell and Cross, this volume. consumed. The riboflavin and iron content of beef ranges from about 10 to 20 percent of the RDA for 100 grams, with increased concentrations present in the leaner cuts. Niacin, phosphorus and pyridoxine are also more concentrated in leaner tissue and average about 15 to 30 percent of the RDA per 100 grams. Leaner tissue contains much higher levels of both zinc and vitamin Bit, too' contributing between 36 and 68 percent of the RDA per 100 grams. Pork A significant reduction of back fat and increased muscling (lean tissue) has oc- curred in the U. S. pig population since 1960. The grading system, genetic and nu- tritional effects on lean tissue composition, and options for the diet-conscious consumer are discussed in this section. 79 22.5 17.5 7.5 2.5 Grading Systemfor Pork  - ~n - There are two USDA quality designations for swine and pork carcasses acceptable, designated Grade U.S., and unacceptable, designated Grade U. S. Utility and four curability grades Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Grades are based on the interactions of back fat. carcass length or carcass weight, and muscling. U.S. No. 1 denotes the highest curability (least fat), and U. S. No. 4 denotes the lowest curability (most fat). The grading system has undergone several revisions (in 1955, 1968, and 1985) in response to im- provements in leanness of swine and pork carcasses. Processors and packing compa- nies who have grade and yield purchasing options have updated their grading criteria and price differentials in synchrony with the National Pork Producers Council's Pork Value program which recognizes the reduc

80 lion in back fat and the increase in muscling of pigs that have occurred] in the U.S. industry (National Pork Producers Council, 1982~. This program encourages packers to pay for hogs based on lean yielcI. Table t5 presents data from three nationwide ~JSDA surveys of barrow ant] gilt carcasses that show the chances in cork carcass comoosi- 1960-196i 967-1968 980 tion (as evidenced by changes in USDA grades) that have occurred in the swine industry. A remarkable reduction in back fat and an increase in lean tissue (muscling) occurred in the market hog population from 1963 to 1983 (U. S. Department of Agricul- ture, 1963, 1983~. Changes from 1963 to 1983 The leanness of retail cuts of pork im- proved markedly between 1963 ant] 1983. This is evident in Table 44, which compares lean and fat percentages for selected cuts for the years 1963 and 1983. Some of the differences in leanness or fatness shown can be accounted for by improvements in the leanness of market hogs during that period. There appears to be little or no relation- ship between the amount of subcutaneous fat (back fat thickness) and the amount of intramuscular fat (marbling) in the market hog. The consensus is that genetic selection for back fat thickness and longissimus mus- cle intramuscular fat could be pursued in- dependently with little influence of one on the other (Hays, 1968; Omtvedt, 1968~. The amount of (lietary protein fee] to growing-finishing swine greatly influences the fat content of the longissimus muscle (Hays, 1968; Wallace, 1968~. For example, the ether-extractable (total lipid) content of the longissimus dorsi (Ioineye) muscle of market hogs fed a 12 percent crude protein diet averaged 16.3 percent, whereas that of swine fed a 16 percent crude protein diet averaged only 9.3 percent (dry matter basis). The energy concentration in the cliet also influences the intramuscular fat level, as does limiting or restricting feet] intake. DESIGNING FOODS TABLE 4-5 Distribution of Barrow and Gilt Carcasses (in percent) Among Cutability Grades for Selected Years Using 1968 USDA Grading Standards Grade, U.S. No. Year Surveyed 1 2 4 Utility 8.1 71.7 33.0 38.8 42.1 35.7 24.2 3.7  25.9 2.2 12.2 1.8 0.3 0.1 NOTE: Grades are based on combinations of back fat, carcass length or carcass weight, and muscling. U.S. No. 1 denotes the highest curability (least fat) and U. S. No. 4 denotes the least curability (most fat). In terms of quality designation, utility means unac- ceptable. The 1960-1961 survey included 45,000 head; the 1967-1968 survey, 57,000 head; and the 1980 survey, 36,000 head. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1969. Marketing Research Report No. 849. Economic Re- search Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1982. ERS-675. Economic Research Service. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture. Pork Quality Standards The system of having only two USDA quality grades for pork acceptable (Grade U.S.) and unacceptable (Grade U.S. Util- ity~to predict differences in flavor, juici- ness, and tenderness of the cooked product is not nearly as discriminating as the USDA grading system for beef. Pork grading stand- ards have been proposed for wholesale cuts that would categorize the product by dif- ferences in color, structure, firmness, ant] degree of marbling in the lean tissue (Uni- versity of Wisconsin, 1963~. Some packing and processing companies use a quality grading system similar to that proposed by the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion to segregate or identify fresh pork cuts and cured products. The brancled hams that contain 5 percent or less fat are a good example. These hams are selected to meet strict color and intramuscular fat stan(lards. Other examples of"quality" standar(lization are packaging, shelf life, and trim; quality standards also exist for the oven-ready or

£ .= ~ to £ Cal ~ o £ £ . _ ~ £ - C: £ ~ b^£ i< .o ·C¢ ° by b^£ Ct Ct O b.0 ._ =0 be V) O ct: ~ ~ X up O ~ ~ ~ _ X CD CO rib ~ ~ x Ct ~ X ~ ~ ~ C~ C~ _ ~ C~ ~ C~ _ _ C~ C] C ~_ C~ ~s o Z m Z ¢ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 c~ X X ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ x r~ x ~ _ _ X u: ~ ~ ~ CD C~ ~ X ~ O c~ ~ r~ x ·Q X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ - - ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ ~ O 00 CD C] ~ X x x ~ ~ c: c~ c~ co c~ x c~ ~ x x 0~_0___C~i_~i0__CM_ o ._ o ._ a: - g a' -  a; - Ct Ct P4 V) bt o o s~ o 0 o . - o _ U) o o Ct o ._ ._ s~ z ~ ~ ~ c~ co ~ C~ X _ ~ (>] (D t- ~-' O CC ~ CD ~ ~ ~ CD r~ ~ ~ ~ x c: ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ CO ~ ~ CD C~ C~ X ~ ~ ~ C~ C: CO ~ ~ C~ X X C~ 0 ~ CM ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X 0 ~ ~ 0 _ ~ _ C~ _ ~ ~ 0 _ ~ _ ~ ~ c~ c~ ~ O r~ c~ ~ _ ~ ~ co ~ ~ O ~ X d~ - oo X CD C~ ~ CD _ U) CC C~ ~ 00 C~ C~ ~ C~ _ ~ CO C~ ~ C~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ C~ ~ ~ 0 0 X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ c~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ cc ~ ~ - x c~ cr~ oo c~ X C;) ~ ~ _ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ e~ ~ Lr, ~ ~ C~ ~ - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ - x o cM ~ ~ ~ x ~ cc cA ~ ~ ~ cO - c~ ~ o oo ~ ~ x c~ cO cM ~ 0 c~ 0 x CD X ~ c~ x ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ cO c ~cM c ~cM c~ cM #: '~ ~ ~ ~ co c~ ~ o o o o o o c o o o o o o c ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - ~ 2 82 ~£ o C: o ._ _ o ~X o o V) ~ ~o o o  C ~Ct V) ._ ~< o ~ a; . o·C; P~ X ~.. o C ~o Z ~ o ~ o Ct o o C ~C ~ . ~a' g o £ , ~ O bf ~X ~ ¢ ~ ~ ^ ·- ~ c1: ~ . ~ ~s ¢= ~ z ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ = v) z Ce ~ ~ 'e o c~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Q~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ·o ~ ·y ~ ~ ~ .= o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~u)

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS Cut 81 TABLE 4-6 Comparison of Nutrient Composition Between 1963 and 1983 Market Hogs Nutrient Composition (%) Protein Fat Year kcal/100 g Separable lean Boston, blade 1963 180 18.0 11.4 1983 165 19.0 9.3 Ham 1963 152 19.8 7.5 1983 136 20.5 5.4 Loin, whole 1963 189 20.1 11.4 1983 156 20.7 7.5 Picnic 1963 150 19.2 7.5 1983 140 19.8 6.2 NOTE: The 1963 data are based on an assumed distribution of 34, 40, and 25 percent of thin, medium, and fat pig types, respectively. For the 1983 data, 71.7 percent of the retail cuts were from U. S. Grade No. 1 carcasses; 24.2 percent from No. 2; and 3.7 percent from No. 3. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1963. Composition of Foods: Raw, Processed, and Prepared. Agriculture Handbook No. 8. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Marketing Research Report No. 849. 1969. Economic Research Service. Washington, D.(~.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1982. ERS-675. Economic Research Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Composition of Foods: Pork Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-10. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. microwave-ready fresh pork products that some companies with national distribution are now marketing (Allen ant! Pierson, 1986~. For the untrained consumer who is pur- chasing fresh pork products in the super- market, there is no universal identification system to ensure that he or she is selecting a product that is low or moderately low in fat. Such a system could be very useful for those people who want to minimize their intake of fat en c] calories. If such an iden- tification system were used, incentive would exist to significantly reduce fat content be- low the level listed in USDA Handbook ~10 for pork loin (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1983~. Research suggests that the longissimus dorsi muscle of the pork loin would have acceptable palatability if the intramuscular fat level was 3.5 to 4.5 percent on a fresh basis (Smith and Car- penter, 1976~. When broiled, chops with 3.5 to 4.5 percent intramuscular fat would contain an estimated 6.7 to 8.5 percent fat, which is about one-half the fat content of the lean tissue of loin cuts listed in USDA Handbook ~10 (U.S. Department of Ag riculture, 1983~. Recent research suggests that some pork carcasses may be as lean as 4.3 percent fat (K. I. Prusa, Iowa State University, personal communication, 19871. The nutritional composition of selected pork products is shown in Table =7. Summary A quality grading system for pork cuts  would help the consumer identify lean tissue with low, but acceptable, levels of intra- muscular fat. With present technology, breeding and Beetling programs could be developed immediately and implemented to ensure desirable levels of intramuscular fat in pork cuts. The alternative for the untrained, diet-conscious consumer is to select cuts of pork that are, on the average, lower in fat and cholesterol, as shown in the example cliets presented at the end of this chapter. Lamb and Veal Data from the food supply indicate that about 1.5 pounds of veal and 1.1 pounds of

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS lamb are consumed per capita per year (Table 2-16~. The primary differences be- tween kinds of lamb and between kinds of veal with regard to composition of cuts are related to the ages at which they are slaugh- tered. (A versus B maturity for lamb; Bob veal versus Speeial Fed veal for bovine animals slaughtered at ages less than 3 months.) Tables (8 and (9 present the nutritional composition of a variety of cuts of two types of lamb and two types of veal, respectively. Lamb Overall, cuts from older lambs (B maturity in Table Animals that were 8 to 9 months old at slaughter versus A matu- rity animals that were 4 to 4.5 months old at slaughter) have fewer calories and less total fat and cholesterol. For example, loin chops from B maturity lambs are 15 percent 83 lower in fat and 5 percent lower in calories and cholesterol than loin chops from A maturity lambs; blade chops from B maturity lambs are 33 percent lower in fat, 16 percent lower in calories, and 12 percent lower in cholesterol than blade chops Tom A matu- rity lambs (Table (8~. Veal Bob veal, which is slaughtered at less than 4 weeks of age, tends to be lower in total fat and calories but higher in choles- terol than Speeial Fed veal, which is slaut,h- tered at about 16 weeks of age. For example, a rib roast from Bob veal contains 64 percent less fat and 38 percent fewer calories but 10 percent more cholesterol than Special Fed veal. A Bob veal loin chop has 67 percent less fat and 24 percent fewer calories but 23 percent more cholesterol than a Speeial Fed veal loin chop (Table (9~. TABLE 4-8 Nutritional Composition of Cooked Lamb (100 g, separable lean only, edible portion) Calories Protein Total Fat Cholesterol Calcium Iron Sodium Cut Age Group (kcal) (g) (g) (1ng) (lug) (lug) (flag) Arm chop, braised A 277 35.97 13.81 119 21 2.2 72 B 280 35.18 14.36 124 30 3.2 79 Blade chop, roasted A 229 26.71 12.79 96 23 1.6 94 B 197 25.79 9.65 86 25 2.0 82 Foreshank, braised A 198 32.61 6.47 106 14 2.0 74 B 176 29.42 5.57 102 25 2.6 74 Leg-shank, roasted A 184 28.42 7.00 95 7 1.9 63 B 176 27.84 6.35 79 9 2.2 69 Leg-sirloin, roasted A 221 29.96 10.29 100 8 2.1 70 B 187 27.00 8.05 84 8 2.3 71 Loin chop, broiled A 221 29.77 10.42 97 15 1.8 84 B 211 30.20 8.92 92 22 2.2 83 Rib roast, roasted A 248 25.96 15.16 92 18 1.5 79  B 217 26.36 11.57 83 24 2.0 83 NOTE: "A" animals were 4 to 4.5 months of age at slaughter and raised on shelled corn and mineral-vitamin pellets. "B" animals were 8 to 9 months of age at slaughter and raised on pasture supplemented with shelled corn and mineral-vitamin pellets. Most retail lamb in the United States is type B. SOURCE: K. Ono, B. W. Berry, PI. K. Johnson, E. Russek, C. F. Parker, V. B. Cahill, and P. G. Althouse. 1984. Tables 2 and 5 in Nutrient composition of lamb of two age groups. J. Food Sci. 49:1233.

84 DESIGNING FOODS TABLE 4-9 Nutritional Composition of Cooked Veal (100 g, separable lean only, edible portion) cut Type of Calories Protein Total Fat Veal (kcal) (g) (g) Cholesterol Calcium (mg) (mg) 174 152 ~2 154 154 120 Iron Sodium (mg) (mg) 1.85 113 1.33 86 1.79 121 1.41 98 1.37 98 0.79 73 Arm steak, braised Blade steak, braised Cutlet, pan fried B SFV B SFV B SFV 173 206 163 204 178 184 33.9 36.1 31.4 32.9 32.7 33.3 3.09 5.73 3.15 7.06 4.24 4.69 34.1 29.6 49.7 38.5 11.5 6.2 Loin chop, braised B 188 31.7 5.82 192 45.5 1.65 109 SFV 233 33.9 9.74 148 29.2 1.00 79  Rib roast, roasted B 134 25.0 2.98 142 24.0 1.16 124 SFV 185 25.9 8.23 128 15.2 0.93 92 Sirloin chop, braised B 178 32.8 4.16 186 27.6 1.79 97 SFV 208 34.1 6.93 133 17.4 1.12 78 NOTE: "B" stands for Bob veal, which is from animals raised on maternal milk and slaughtered at less than 4 weeks of age (predominantly grade USDA Good/Select). "SFV" stands for special fed veal, which is from animals fed a special formulated liquid diet and slaughtered at about 16 weeks of age (predominantly grade USDA Choice). USDA Choice and Good/Select grades of beef are from animals less than 42 months of age. The grades differ by the amount of fat within muscle tissue (marbling). Choice grade contains a small, modest, or moderate amount of marbling. Good/Select contains a slight amount of marbling. SOURCE: K. Ono, B. W. Berry, and L. W. Douglass. 1986. Table 2 in Nutrient composition of some fresh and cooked retail cuts of veal. J. Food Sci. 51C5:1352. Convenience Meats The modified version of bologna is 39 percent lower in fat and has 21 percent fewer calories than the traditional version. A mollified version of corned beef (Oscar Mayer Select Slices is 67 percent lower in fat and has 36 percent fewer calories but is 24 percent higher in sodium. The mocli- fied versions of pastrami are 76 to 92 percent lower in total fat and have 60 to 72 percent fewer calories than the traditional product but contain a comparable amount of sodium. Modifier! cooked ham is 36 to 50 percent lower in calories and 61 to 74 percent lower in fat than the traditional version. Several modified versions of frankfurters are available, including chicken franks, tur- key franks, and modified beef franks. Chicken franks are 18 percent lower in calories, 32 percent Tower in total fat, and 54 percent lower in saturated fatty acids but have 34 percent more sodium than the traditional beef frank. Turkey franks and modified beef franks are 23 percent lower in calories and 39 percent lower in fat than the traditional beef franks. Poultry Poultry makes substantial nutrient con- tributions to the food supply, particularly in terms of protein, niacin, and vitamin Be. Like beef, the nutritional content can differ with the cut or part as well as by the method of preparation (Table (10~. This latter factor is particularly important because chicken is so often batter-friecl. Frying can increase the caloric content by nearly a third! and double the amount of fat in the product in comparison with roasting or stewing. Chicken The leg portion and other dark meat parts of chicken have higher fat and calorie con

o · - o a; - ~ - on of - - - o He o o ~ - ~ - u, o o - c~ ~ - o ~ - By o ¢ .- ~ u°' £ C) b{) o ~ o ~ bO Ce o,. U: ~ bC U) Ct - C~ E~ C~  o .= o bC .o o Ce U) ~, ~s, ~ ~ X o Z Z == o ° 53 :; ~- o~ ~ U: o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~ _ ~ _ Cc ~ C~ ~ C~ C~ o C~ ~ o . . . . . . ~4 _ _ o C~ U) X ~ oo oo CO CO CM ~O C5, (D . . . CM o C~ ~ _ _ (D ~ . . C~ _ (D ~ C~ . . C~ c~ - ~ o c~ o ) o ~ . . ~ ~ u) c~ cO ~ x u: c~ o ~ ~ ~ - o o o Ct ~ ~ ~ - o ~ c~ o ~ oo c~ cM c~ x ~ ~ c~ ~ o o x - o o ~ - ~ ~ o ~ cO O ~ _ cr M c o x ~ o - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cs ~ ~ o o o o o o u) ~ ~ ~ u: o o o o o o  .= ce ·= ct o ~ oo ~ s- ~ s~ e o 'e o ~ c ~ F- ~ c~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ 3 .o .o ~ Ct ~ 4 pO; ~ bC ~ ~ ~m ~ 85 oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo tS ~ ~ CO CO C~ o v U) C~ C~ CO C~ _ CM CO ~ ~ _ ~ C~ C~ . . . . CM C~ _ _ ~r ~ ~ x oo X r~ ~x oo ~ c~ x c: c~ c~ x x o o o (D ~ C~ c~ o oo ~o o c oo X (D c~ ~ cD ~ - CD ~ O X O O c~ cO o cM o ~ x ~ c~ o c~ c~ o - ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ o o o o c~ ~ c~ ~r ~ ~ o c~ ~ - c~ M cC - ~ ~ - o o o o ~ ~oo ~ ~ o ~ : ~ ~ ~ _ CD C~ X oO ~ ~ oo M cO r~ ~0 c~ r~ _ r~ oo c~ ~ ~ c~ - c~ o x ~ cc ~ ~00 GO X - - - ~ ~ u) ~ ~ ~ o o o o o c~  x - - o =:=: c~v' ~ ~ ~ 3 .b(.bC ,- ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ o C~ o Ct Ct a' V) ._ C~ o V, o V) . .o X ;~-~ o ~ ~o ~ o c~ c ~v) 1~ ~o - ~ c) ~ ~ - - bt o ~ ~ - o ~ m Z ~ )5- Ct Z Ct =: ~s ~ ~ 0= ~ m ~ ~ ~5 ~ 5 ~ 5 O' G ~C ~ o bC ~_ V, C~ C~ o z o o ~Q Ct - a; - - ~_ bt  C) - o S~ - o . . C~ o o o o ~_ ~_ o o C) - - ~_ o S~ C~ a C~ ~ · C) ~ 0 .= _ 0 C~

~6 tents than equivalent amounts of chicken breast or other white meats. The method of cooking, particularly deep fat frying, a(lds to this difference. In comparing roasted poultry parts, a chicken breast is 15.1 per- cent lower in calories, about 42 percent lower in both total fat ant] saturated fatty acids, and 8.7 percent lower in cholesterol than a chicken leg. The vitamin and mineral contents of the breast and leg are about the same. A chicken breast that has been roasted, without batter, is 24 percent lower in cal- ories, 41 percent lower in fat, and 37 percent lower in saturated fatty acids than one that has been batter-clippe(1 and then fried. Turkey Removal of the skin from roasted turkey before eating results in a dramatic reduction in caloric and fat contents. Roasted white meat without the skin is 20.3 percent lower in total calories, 61.3 percent lower in total fat, 56 percent lower in saturates! fatty acids, ant! 9.2 percent lower in cholesterol than white meat with the skin intact. The levels of several micronutrients are increased, in- cluding niacin; pantothenic acid; vitamins Be, Be, and Bit; magnesium; phosphorus; and potassium. All other nutrients remain at about the same level. Roasted dark meat without skin has about 50 percent more fat and about 16 percent more calories than roasted white meat with- out the skin. However, it is still 15.4 percent lower in calories, 37.4 percent lower in total fat, and 30.7 percent lower in saturated fatty acids than dark meat with the skin. Duck Roasted cluck without the skin is 40.4 percent lower in calories, 60.5 percent lower in total fat, ant] 56.9 percent lower in saturates! fatty acids than roasted duck with the skin. The mineral contents, including zinc, potassium, magnesium, and phospho- rus, are increased 25 to 40 percent each. DESIGNING FOODS The increases in vitamin content are even greater, ranging from 33 to nearly 75 percent (for vitamin Bit) Fish, Shellfish, and Seafood As a group, fish, shellfish, and seafood contribute substantial amounts of protein, niacin, and vitamin BE to the food supply (Table 2-1). In ad(lition, their importance as a source of the omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids has only recently been appreciated. The nutritional compo- sition of selected fish prepared by different methods is shown in Table ~11. Like chicken, the nutritional composition of fish  can be dramatically altered by the method of preparation, including the liquid in which it is canned. Steamed or Canned Fish Versus Fried Fish In nearly every example, frying adcled considerably to the calorie, fat, and sodium contents of the seafood being compared. For example, the percentage of calories from fat doublet! in some cases and quadrupled in others as a result of frying. The total fat content increased from 2- to 13-fold with frying, (lepending on the type of seafood. Canned with Oil Versus Water or Brine Although the of} in canned seafood is usually clraine(1 before the seafoo :1 is eaten, a portion may still be consume(l with the procluct, thereby influencing the ultimate calorie, fat, and sodium contents. Data for tuna fish canned in oil versus tuna canned in water or brine are given in Table (11. Canning in oil increases the total fat content by 200 to 500 percent compare(1 with can- ning in water or brine. In a(lclition, the calorie content is increaser! 37 to 38 percent by canning in oil.

· - ~ ~ bC ° 6 ° 6 6 c, 6 b^£ o o ~ = ~ Ct X O U) ~ be Ct _ ~ ib~0 ~ Cal O E-- be ~ C: o ,o C) ~ on _ V) ~ .~- .~ o c,3 He m ~ E~ o ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Cal ~ ~ O ~ Go ~ LD _ ~(D O ~ Cal ~ ~ Cal or ~ cat ~ cat Cal ~ C;) Cat O ~ Cal O Cat _ C] ~C] ~ C5, ~X O CD ~ Cat ~ Cat Cal O OO ~ _ _ U) _ C ~ U) O It) CD ~ O~ ~ ~X ~CD ~ CD ~ ~ _ _ _ _ - 00- C~ CO~ . .. C~ OC]  C~ XCO 1OCD CAC~) _a) . .. .. . C~ O~ O~ O CJ~ CC)~ ~ cc ~ OO OO O . .. .. . O O- O_ O oO C~O ~X C~J ~ c~co _r~ . .. .. . _ OCM OC~ O 00~4 ~ . .. . ~ _O O - U: O~ O O O~ O ~5 ._ _0 _o ~ o ~ o 5 ~ c~cr: ~ CS)~ c~ X C~)O =' ~00 a) . .. . .. . C~ O~ O OCM O _ O ~) If) X C~ _~ =, . . .. . ~ O OC~ O _ =)CD -~ _ OO O~_ . .. .. _ O~ OC ' O C~) a) O , _ O O - O O O O O C~ Oa) a) X C~ CK~ CD~ _O C~ _ u: CC . .. .. . . . . CO OC~ OC~ O O ~ O C~CC) 1o _ CMC~ C~ __ O ~oo _ . .. . ~ CD00 ~ C~ _ ~C] ~ . . .. . C] _ O00 ~ c~ a,_  . .. _ C~O __ 1 0U) O a) .. . . C~_ O _ _ C ~ ~ C ~_ ~ . . . . . . . Oo ~ 0 ~n ~ co CM C~ C~ _ C~ C~ ~ 0 ~ co~ c ~c~ a c~ ~cr. co~ ~ a, cn ~ ~ C~ ~_C~ ~C~, _. _ . ~,= _y I ~b ;, ~ ~, ~ ~o 3 ~ o t^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ 87 _ o o C~ Ct V, V2 ·Ct s~ o V) o V, . J e~ C~ C~ V) O a~ _ Ct C~ C~ Ct . 50 V) Ct C) C~7 Ct C~ Ct V) .U~ ~ ~ C¢ :^ ~ ce ~ ~L., ) ' l:  c13 . ~ Ct (~S ~ O -o U) U) ~ ~ X - Ct ~; C~ ._ - - - · _ bt o C~ a~ . C: · _ C~ o ._ Ct =0, o ._ ._ z C~ . . C: ~c~

88 Mixtures One of the largest increases from the 1977-1978 NFCS to the 1985 CSFII was in the mixtures category: meat, fish, or poultry combined with sauces, grains, or other com- ponents of the diet. As discussed earlier in this report, animal products are being used more frequently as an ingredient in meals rather than as a separate entree. Table 12 (pages 90-91) gives the nutritional com- position of selected frozen entrees. In 1985, frozen foods accounted for almost $14 billion in supermarket sales (Progressive Grocer, 1986c). This category ranked among the largest volume increases in dollar sales in 1985, rising 10.3 percent (Supermarket Business, 1986b). Sales of diet dinners rose 3 percent in 1985, hitting a new high of $232 million (Progressive Grocer, 1986a). These products are aimed at meeting a variety of consumer needs; not only are they portion and calorie controlled, they are also convenient and easy to prepare. For these advantages, the consumer is often willing to pay the higher price charged for this type of product ant] to accept any tracle-offs in nutritional quality. Although the calorie, fat, and cholesterol contents of the entrees listed in Table (12 are all well within the target levels defined previously, the sodium contents range from 1,700 to 5,200 mgl 1,000 calories, depending on the entree chosen. USING ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS TO MEET TARGET LEVELS OF NUTRIENTS IN TlIE DIET There are numerous modifier! versions of traditional animal products in the market- place that are readily available ant! compar- atively priced. How these options can fit into the diet to meet target levels of nu- trients is the topic of this section. Example menus for adult women, ages 23-50, and for adult men, ages 51 and older, illustrate the use of animal product options to replace DESIGNING FOODS traditional versions in the diet. These diets were calculated with Michael lacobson's Nutrition Wizard_ software (copyright ~ 1986 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest); nutrient data from USDA's Home and Garden Bulletin Nutritive Value of Foods (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1985) and USDA's Agriculture Handbooks Dairy and Egg Products (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1976), Poultry Products (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1979), Pork Products (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1983), and Beef Products (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1986~.  Adult Women, Ages 2~50 In this diet, lower fat, lower cholesterol milk and milk products are substitutes! for traditional high-fat versions. As shown in Tables ~13 (pages 92-93) ant! (14 (page 93), low-fat (2 percent fat) milk was substi- tuted for whole milk, low-fat yogurt for whole-milk yogurt, ice milk for ice cream, evaporates! skim milk for light cream, imi- tation sour dressing for sour cream, and imitation mayonnaise for mayonnaise. Lower fat meats are also used in the modified diet. Extra lean (5 percent fat) ham is substituted for regular ham (11 per- cent fat). A leaner cut of pork tenderloin is used in place of a higher fat version, Boston blacle. To make the calorie content of both fliers comparable, an additional 0.5 ounce of breakfast cereal ant] an aciclitional slice each of raisin bread and whole wheat toast was added to the mollified cliet. These substitutions result in decreases in total fat (from 86 to 51 grams) anal the percentage of calories from fat (from 38 to 23 percent). The percentage of calories from saturated fatty acids is also reclucec] (from 17 to 10 percent), and the percentage of calories from monounsaturated fatty acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids is lowered to within target levels. The cholesterol con- tent is reduced to below the 300-mg target

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS level. The calcium and iron contents are increased, and both exceed the RDA. Adult Men, Ages 51 or Older Lower fat, lower cholesterol animal prod- ucts are substituted in the modified diet for the adult male. As shown in Tables (15 (pages 9~95) and (16 (page 95), nonfat yogurt was substituted for whole-milk yo- gurt, reduced-calorie American cheese for regular American cheese, evaporated skim milk for light cream, and imitation whipped topping for whipped cream topping. Leaner ham and beef was used in the modified diet, as well as a lower fat cooking method for poultry. A lower fat dessert angel food cake was substituted for a high-fat ver- sion pound cake. 89 The serving of oatmeal was increased from 1 cup to 1.5 cups, and graham crackers were added to the afternoon snack to bring the calorie content of the modified diet more in line with that of the traditional diet. These changes resulted in decreases in total fat (from 102 to 55 grams) and the percentage of calories from fat (from 41 to 21 percent). The percentage of calories from saturated, monounsaturated, and polyun- saturated fatty acids were all lowered to within target levels, and the cholesterol content was reduced to below the 300-mg target level. Calcium and iron levels ex- ceeded the targets in both traditional and modified diets for adult men. These example diets demonstrate that it is possible to meet the target levels of nutrients using options currently available in the marketplace.

.5~ An ~ £, 1 ~4 8 - _ U' 4 s°- a; - - o o o o C. 1 . o C) - U: 4- o o . . Cal o o Cal o . 4 - . 4 - Hi Cal 90 .= ') to o C) en o^ C.  C. E-° Cal o . so .~ o CtS .= IO cot Go cat c5 _ Go ~ ~ Cal _ o Cat Cat ~ Cal ~ U) . . . . . . . o o o o o _ o ~ U) d~ ~ O C~ 00 _ ~ _ ~ ~ _ C~ ~ C~ ~ CO C~ . . . . . . . C~ CO o ~ C~ _ C~ _ C~ ~ C~ ~ C~ C] . . . . . . . cO - - c] - c~ c~ ~ oo - 0 0 ~ o . . . . . . . 0 ~ 0 'o - o 0 ~ '~ ~ ~ - 'o '~ 'o . . . . . . . ~ ~ oo ~ c~ oo oo ~ c~ ~ - cO c~ c~ 0 ~ a' ~ ~ 0 oo 0 iO cs' o ~ o 0 0 oo - u) 0 'o o - C~ d~ ~ c~ ~ U, O c~ 'o ~ o . . . . . . . o o o o o o - c~ c] cs) . . . CD CO C~ 00 ~ r~ c~ cO - ~ ~ ~ cD ~ ~ o . . . . . . . c~] o 0 ~ u, . . . . . . . di CC CO _ _ c~ - - - - - ] 0 c~ cO . . . . . . . oo cs co u) ~ oo oo o - 0 ~ c~ c~ - ~ o 0 ~ o o ~ - - -  c) c) c~ ~s ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ ~ C; ~ ·_ Ce ~ C) ._ D U) o ~ ~ ~ e ~; j ~ r4 ~ :1 }~ _ v ~ = C {_ ~ ~ >, ·_ -- ~D = C m C) C~ .o ~; '' ·3 3 ~ ._ ·_ {D ~ o_ ~ et _t C) h~ V O ~ - o c:

CC C~ CD C5, oO~ ~ OX O O O O O O ~ O U: O ~CD ~ X ~_ CM CC c~ c~ c~ cO ~c~ ~ ~c ~c~ cM ~ ~ cM ~ x x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ~ c~ u: C~ CD X CO ~ X ~U) - X 0O ~ C~ _ 0 0 0 u: co O c ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ r~ cc 0 c~ c~ oo O ~ ~ ~ cD O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c~ ~_ ~ ~Lr) ~ cr: ~ - c~ c] c: ~ ~ c~ c] 00 C~1 ~ C~ ~ C~ ~X X X r~ ~ x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c: c~ ~ cO c ~c~ ~ ~cM c~ ~ 0 ~ X cs c~ ~c ~X r~ ~ cc ~i ~ ~ CA ~U: O ~ ~ C~ C~ a M ~ ~ ~ x cO oo ~ ~ o x ~ x ~oo x ~ ~ ~ ~ d~ oo r~ ~ cC ~ O cO O ~ ~ r~ ~ oo oO 0 ~ r~ ~ ~x ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ x ~O  0 O ,,,, ~ c) ~O ' ~~ E~ ~ ~ ~ C) V) · _ ~ ~ ~, O · ~ ~ ~ ~ . C.) C.) ~ ~ ~O E~ u: ~ C) ~ C) co s~ 3~ C¢O =5o ~7_ ~o C~U) _ o Z~ O~o5 ~o =, 11 bt o oC~ .^ .^. bt~ Z 11 .~ °:,: C,) .. V)~ ,~ ._~ o C~ _ ·> o _C~ oC: Ct^ o bt~ _~ ._~ m bt- 0 O~ ~O  ~$ .=~ U) _ 0m ~.- 7 C~ C~C~ O ~O ·V) O CO~ .0 s~ ¢ ~.. ~-ct ~ o ~ o z ~ ~ 91 . o o o s~ o s~

92 DESIGNING FOODS TABLE 4-13 Application of Animal Product Options to Meet Target Levels of Nutrients for Women, Ages 2~50 Eating Occasion Traditional Modified Breakfast Bran cereal Bran cereal Whole milk (3.3% fat)* Low-fat milk (2% fat)* Banana Banana Raisin bread with butter Raisin bread with butter Decaffeinated coffee with Decaffeinated coffee with evaporated light cream* skim milk* Lunch Sandwich with Sandwich with Ham (11% fat)* Ham (5% fat, extra lean)* Swiss cheese Swiss cheese Tomato and mayonnaise* Tomato and imitation mayonnaise* Whole wheat toast Whole wheat toast Fresh pear Fresh pear Club soda Club soda Snack Yogurt (whole milk)* Yogurt (low-fat milk)* Bran muffin Bran muffin Jam Jam Dinner Pork, Boston, blade, Pork, tenderloin, roasted* roasted* Baked potato with skin and Baked potato with skin and imitation sour cream* sour dressing* Steamed asparagus Steamed asparagus Cantaloupe with ice cream Cantaloupe with ice milk (10% fat)* (4% fat)* Decaffeinated coffee with Decaffeinated coffee with evaporated light cream* skim milk* Nutritional Composition Nutrients and Selected Target Levels Traditional Modified Calories, 1,600-2,400 kcal 2,033 2,013 Protein, g 82 100 Carbohydrate, g 255 320 Fat, g (' 30% kcal) 86 (38% kcal) 51 (23% kcal) SFAa (' 10% kcal) 39 (17% kcal) 23 (10% kcal) MFAb (c 15% kcal) 27 (12% kcal) 14 (6% kcal) PUFAC (' 10% kcal) 13 (6% kcal) 7 (3% kcal) Cholesterol, less than 300 mg 308 216 Fiber, g 30 36 Calcium, 800 mg (100% RDAd) 1,202 (150% RDA) 1,503 (188% RDA) Iron, 18 mg (100% RDA) 15.4 (86% RDA) 19.5 (108% RDA) Sodium, mg 2,384 2,693 NOTE: Animal product options are marked with an asterisk. This diet was calculated with Michael Jacobson's Nutrition Wizard_ software (copyright @) 1986 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest). a Saturated fatty acids. bMonounsaturated fatty acids. CPolyunsaturated fatty acids. dRecommended dietary allowance.

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS TABLE 4-13 (Continuecl) 93 SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. Composition of Foods: Dairy and Egg Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. Comnosition of Foods: Poultry Products. A~ric~lt~re IIan`1h`~,k Nil. 8-.~. ~ ~ 1 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. O U.S. Department of Agriculture. 19&1. Nutritive \7al~e of F<'od.s. Hone and Gardens Bulletin No. 79, Human Nutrition Information Service. Washington, I).C.: U.S. Government Prilltil~g Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Con~positiol~ of Foods: Pork Products. Agric~lt~rc FIaIldbook No. S-1(). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printings Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Composition of Foods: Beef Prods. Agric~lt~re Handbook No. S-13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. TABLE 4-14 Portion Changes in Traditional and Modified Diets for Women? Ages 23-50 Eating Occasion Traditional Portion Modified Portion Breakfast Bran cereal 1 oz Brall cereal 1.5 oz Whole milk (3.3% fat) 8 07. Low-fat milk (2% fat) 8 oz Banana 1 Banana 1 Raisin bread with 1 slice Raisin bread with 2 slices butter 1 pat flutter 1 pat Decaffeinated coffee with 6 oz Decaffeinated coffee with 6 oz light cream 1 tsp evaporated skim milk 1 tsp Lunch Sandwich with Sandwich with Ham (11% fat) 1.75 o% Ham (5% fat) 1.75 oz Swiss cheese 1 oz Swiss cheese 1 oz Tomato 1/2 Tomato 1/2 Mayonnaise 1 tbsp Imitation ma~vonnaise 1 tbsp Whole wheat toast 1 slice Whole wheat toast 2 slices Fresh pear 1 Fresh pear 1 Club soda 12 oz Club soda 12 oz Snack Yogurt (whole milk) 8 oz Yogurt (low-fat milk) 8 oz Bran muffin 1 Bran muffin 1 Jam 1 tbsp Jam 1 tbsp Dinner Pork, Boston, blade 3 oz Pork, tenderloin 3 on Baked potato with skin and 1 Baked potato with skin and 1 sour cream 2 tbsp imitation sour dressing 2 tbsp Steamed asparagus 4 spears Steamed asparagus 4 spears Cantaloupe with 1/2 Cantaloupe with 1/2 ice cream (10% fat) 1/2 cup ice milk (4% fat) 1/2 cup Decaffeinated coffee with 6 oz Decaffeinated coffee with 6 oz light cream 1 tsp evaporated skim milk 1 tsp NOTE: This diet was calculated with Michael Jacobson's Nutrition Wizard_ software (copyright ~ 1986 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest). SOURCES: U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. Composition of Foods: Dairv and Egg Products. Agriculture ~O Handbook No. 8-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. Composition of Foods: Poultry Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. Nutritive Value of Foods. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 72, Human Nutrition Information Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Composition of Foods: Pork Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-10. W:~chin~stc~n n ~ IT ~ (~.ov`~rnm~nt Printing Affirm ·-,0 O ~ . , . U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Composition of Foods: Beef Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

94 DESIGNING FOODS TABLE 4-15 Application of Animal Product Options to Meet Target Levels of Nutrients for Men, Ages 51 and Older Eating Occasion Traditional Modified Breakfast Lunch Snack Dinner 2,216 130 204 102 (41% kcal) 41 (17% kcal) 36 (15% kcal) 13 (5% kcal) 418 20 Calcium, 800 mg (100% RDAd) Iron, 10 mg (100% RDA) Sodium, mg NOTE: Animal product options are marked with an asterisk. This diet was calculated with Michael Jacobson's Nutrition Wizard_ software (copyright @) 1986 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest). aSaturated fatty acids. bMonounsaturated fatty acids. CPolyunsaturated fatty acids. Recommended dietary allowance. SOURCES: U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. Composition of Foods: Dairy and Egg Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Oatmeal Grapefruit juice Cured ham (11% fat)* Decaffeinated coffee with light cream* Chicken leg, batter-fried* Baking powder biscuits with  butter Sliced tomatoes Fresh peach Club soda Yogurt (whole milk)* Fresh strawberries Beef, chuck, blade (Choice)* Macaroni American cheese* Steamed broccoli Pound cake* with whipped cream topping* Decaffeinated coffee with light cream* Oatmeal Grapefruit juice Cured ham (5% fat)* Decaffeinated coffee with evaporated skim milk* Chicken breast, roasted* Baking powder biscuits with butter Sliced tomatoes Fresh peach Club soda Yogurt (nonfat milk)* Fresh strawberries Graham crackers Beef, chuck, arm (Good/Select)* Macaroni American cheese (reduced calorie)* Steamed broccoli Angel food cake* with imitation whipped topping* Decaffeinated coffee with evaporated skim milk* Nutritional Composition Nutrients and Selected Target Levels Calories, 2,000-2,800 kcal Protein, g Carbohydrate, g Fat, g (s30% kcal) SFAa ('10% kcal) MFAb ('15% kcal) PUFAC ('10% kcal) Cholesterol, '300 mg Fiber, g Traditional Modified 2,316 162 306 55 (21% kcal) 17.5 (7% kcal) 18 (7% kcal) 9 (3% kcal) 269 24 1,314 (164% RDA) 18.5 (185% RDA) 3,681 1,952 (244% RDA) 21 (210% RDA) 3,379

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS TABLE 4-15 (Continued) 95 U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. Composition of Foods: Poultry Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. Nutritive Value of Foods. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 72, Human Nutrition Information Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Composition of Foods Pork Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-10. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Composition of Foods: Beef Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-13. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. TABLE 4-16 Portion Changes in Traditional and Modified Diets for Men, Ages 51 and Older Eating Occasion Traditional Portion Modified Portion Breakfast Oatmeal 1 cup Oatmeal 1~/~ cups Grapefruit juice 8 oz Grapefruit juice 8 o% Cured ham (Lloyd fat) 3.5 oz Cured ham (5% fat) 3.5 oz Decaffeinated coffee with 6 oz Decaffeinated coffee with 6 oz light cream 1 tbsp evaporated skim milk 1 tbsp Lunch Chicken leg, batter-fried 3.5 oz Chicken breast, roasted 3.5 oz Baking powder biscuits with 2 Baking powder biscuits with 2 butter 1 pat butter 1 pat Sliced tomatoes 1 Sliced tomatoes 1 Fresh peach 1 Fresh peach 1 Club soda 12 oz Club soda 12 oz Snack Yogurt (whole milk) 8 oz Yogurt (nonfat milk) 8 oz Fresh strawberries 1 cup Fresh strawberries 1 cup Graham crackers 2 squares Dinner Beef, chuck, blade (Choice) 3.5 oz Beef, chuck, arm (Good/Select) 3.5 oz Macaroni 1 cup Macaroni 1 cup American cheese 2 oz American cheese (reduced calorie) 2 oz Steamed broccoli 2 spears Steamed broccoli 2 spears Pound cake with 1 slice Angel food cake with 1 slice whipped cream topping 2 tbsp imitation whipped topping 1 tbsp Decaffeinated coffee with 6 oz Decaffeinated coffee with 6 oz light cream 2 tbsp evaporated skim milk 2 tbsp NOTE: This diet was calculated with Michael Jacobson's Nutrition Wizard_ software (copyright ~ 1986 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest). SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. Composition of Foods: Dairy and Egg Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. Composition of Foods Poultry Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. Nutritive Value of Foods. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 72, Human Nutrition Information Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Composition of Foods: Pork Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-10. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Composition of Foods: Beef Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

96 REFERENCES Advertising Age. 1985. New products fatten '85 food- store sales. December 30, pp. 18-19. Allen, J. W., and T. R. Pierson. 1986. Packaging has rising role in red meat's turnaround. Natl. Provi- sioner 195:6. American Meat Institute. 1987. Giant Lean_ Aware- ness and Usage, Research Report to the Center for Meat Marketing Research, AMI. February. Photo copy. Berry, B. W., and K. Leddy. 1984. Beef patty com- position: Effects of fat content and cooking method. J. Am. Dietet. Assoc. 84:654. Carlson, K. O. 1983. Natural foods the consumer perspective. Presentation to the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, October 21, 1983, Wash- ington, D.C. CREST (Consumer Reports on Eating Share Trends Household Report). 1986. Survey performed by GDP/CREST Enterprises, Parkridge, Ill., 1982 and 1985, as quoted in Foodservice Trends: Nutrition continues to affect restaurant choices. National Res- taurant Association News. August, pp. 39 41. Cross, H. R., J. W. Savell, R. E. Branson, D. S. Hale, J. J. Francis, J. W. Wise, and D. L. Wilkes. 1986. National Consumer Retail Beef Study. Final report to the Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. De- partment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. Farm Journal. 1987. Beef Extra Survey. January, p. 26. Food Marketing Institute. 1986. Trends: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket 1986. Washington, D.C.: Food Marketing Institute. Hays, V. W. 1968. Nutritional management effects on performance and carcass measurements. Pp. 77-86 in The Pork Industry: Problems and Progress, D. G. Topel, ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Jones, J. L., and J. Weimer. 1981. Perspective on Health-Related Food Choices. National Economics Division, Economics and Statistics Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook Conference. Session No. 26. Washington, D.C. Langer, J. 1985. The workout/pigout paradox. Pro- gressive Grocer. September, p. 10. Mark Clements Research/National Family Opinion. 1985. Women and Food Survey. New York: Conde Nast. National Pork Producers Council. 1982. The pork value approach- paying for value. Des Moines, Iowa: National Pork Producers Council. National Restaurant Association. 1986. 1987 National Restaurant Association Foodservice Industry Fore- cast. National Restaurant Association, Washington, D.C. Omtvedt, I. T. 1968. Some heritability characteristics and their importance in a selection program. Pp. DESIGNING FOODS 128-135 in The Pork Industry: Problems and Prog- ress, D. G. Topel, ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press. PF New Products Annual. 1986a. The new product parade continues. September, pp. 1~20.  PF New Products Annual. 1986b. September, p. 14. PF New Products Annual. 1986c. September, p. 12. Progressive Grocer. 1986a. Supermarket sales manual: New players in the losing game. July, pp. 99-102. Progressive Grocer. 1986b. Ice cream: The cream also rises. July, p. 115. Progressive Grocer. 1986c. Frozen foods: The big squeeze. July, p. 105. Progressive Grocer. 1986d. Deli: A switch in product mix. July, pp. 43~4, 95. Progressive Grocer. 1986e. Snacks: Sales still snappy. July, pp. 147-148. Progressive Grocer. 1986f. Candy and gum: It's not just kid stuff. July, pp. 61-62. Progressive Grocer. 1986g. Bakery foods: A category on the rise. July, pp. 43~4. Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. 1983. Nu- trition and the American restaurant: A report on nutritious food offerings and consumer information programs. Washington, D.C.: Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. Restaurants USA. 1986. Foodservice trends: Operators responding to consumer nutrition concerns. August, pp. 39-41. Smith, G. C., and Z. L. Carpenter. 1976. Eating quality of meat animal products and their fat content. Pp. 147-183 in Fat Content and Composition of Animal Products. Washington, D.C.: National Acad- emy Press. Supermarket Business. 1986a. 39th Annual Consumer Expenditures Study. September, p. 75. Supermarket Business. 1986b. September, p. 69. Supermarket Business. 1986c. September, pp. 79, 81, 83. Supermarket Business. 1986d. September, p. 88. Supermarket Business. 1986e. September, p. 85. Supermarket Business. 1986f. September, p. 81. Supermarket Business. 1986g. September, p. 79. University of Wisconsin. 1963. Pork Quality Standards. Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station. Special Bulletin No. 9. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1963. Composition of Foods. Agriculture Handbook No. 8. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. Composition of Foods: Dairy and Egg Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. Composition of Foods: Poultry Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print- ing Office.

CONSUMER CONCERNS AND ANIMAL PRODUCT OPTIONS U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Composition of Foods: Pork Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-10. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department ofAgriculture. 1985. Nutritive Value of Foods. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 72. Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Composition of Foods: Beef Products. Agriculture Handbook No. 8-13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 97 Wallace, H. D. 1968. Nutritional and management effects on muscle characteristics and quality. Pp. 128-135 in The Pork Industry: Problems and Prog- ress, D. G. Topel, ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. 1985. The Con- sumer Climate for Meat Products. Prepared for the American Meat Institute. Washington, D. C., and the National Live Stock & Meat Board, Chicago, Ill. New York: Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc.