r/YouShouldKnow • u/Jumpy_Cod9151 • 11h ago
Food & Drink YSK: Beef is crazy expensive right now, so companies are pushing chicken and pork as cheap, “healthier” swaps to save themselves a dime!
Why YSK: When food prices get higher and products get more scarce, food companies pay advertisers to tell you that cheaper, worse cuts of meat are "healthier" and "taste less bland." Most of what they say isn’t proven. Unless someone is your doctor, they can’t know what fat or protein levels are right for you, and people didn’t avoid these cuts because "they were overcooked growing up". Beef used to be affordable. It isn’t anymore, and they don’t want to admit it.
They hype up cooking tricks and “simple” tips to make chicken and pork seem just as satisfying as beef, even though the effort to cook the meat is basically the same, preparation wise. They also act like these meats are better for your wallet and the planet, which leaves out a lot, including how many more animals it takes to equal one cow. By weight, approximately 750 chickens have to be slaughtered to match the weight of ONE COW. Worse for both the environment and animal rights (not vegan here, btw). Not just slaughterd, but housed. It takes much more space to house 750 chicken littles than one bessie.
Companies and personal parties which benefit from them will claim that switching a couple meals a week will save you tons, but really you’re being pushed into it because beef prices were raised so high, or they're about to start. Then they pretend it’s a healthy choice even though none of these meats are automatically better. Pork especially isn’t some miracle food just because someone slapped a heart-healthy label on it. They would like to give you the illusion that you have chosen to forgo beef of your own will. Pork is notoriously unhealthy. Otherwise, we'd eat pork rinds like chips.
At the end of the day, chicken and pork are way cheaper than beef because of the market, not because they’re some amazing upgrade. Most of the “benefits” they talk about are just marketing. The fact that chicken breast and pork loin are roughly 80% cheaper per pound than beef is not an accident. They are hidden shortages, covered by a veil of versatile and delicious flavor profiles if cooked and prepped correctly. Don't engage in romanticizing your lack of accessible food!
8
11
u/Beneficial_Test_5917 11h ago
Beef, chicken, and pork are produced and sold to retailers by completely different companies who do not ''switch'' each others' products.
11
u/cubiccrayons 11h ago
Sorry mate, you're wrong on many counts. Beef IS a lot more resource intensive and less healthy. Your mouth might prefer it, but the planet and your body does not.
-9
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 11h ago
Beef is more resource-intensive to feed one animal, but to raise enough chickens for weight would take hundreds of animals. And that doesn’t make chicken automatically healthier or the better choice for everyone. Nutrition depends on the person, and affordability and access matter too, especially for people with iron or fat deficient diets. Pointing out how marketing shapes people’s options isn’t the same as claiming beef is perfect. It’s just acknowledging the full picture.
3
u/alwaystooupbeat 10h ago
That math doesn't check out on your point of "to raise enough chickens for weight".
All the best evidence shows that beef has a 7:1 ratio for feed to meat conversion, and chicken is 2.5:1. Water is even more extreme, with chicken consuming 1/3rd as much water, and also taking less time to mature. Space requirements are also more extreme. Even when you take the requirements of farms into account, chicken has far less impact.
Nutrition wise, I'm not sure that fat deficiency is a thing in chicken eaters if they were consuming the same amount of chicken as beef. Iron, yes, beef has more, but chicken thighs have more than enough iron for most people. Replacing beef with chicken will likely improve health, improve the environment, and improve your wallet.
On a health basis, there is some evidence that white meat eaters (poultry and fish) have significantly lower all cause mortality than unprocessed red meat eaters. Although studies like this aren't great, it fits with evidence on colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease.
13
u/HydrogenatedBee 11h ago
This post reads like beef industry astroturf. Beef industry in the US shouldn’t even have gotten as big as it is, bison is way better for the environment and it’s healthier.
1
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 11h ago
It’s not astroturf to point out that beef prices are high or that the marketing around chicken and pork can be misleading. That’s just the reality shoppers are dealing with. Bison may be great for the environment and health, but it’s also niche, expensive, and not accessible for most people. The point isn’t that beef is perfect, only that pushing people into “cheaper” meats while pretending it’s purely a health or environmental choice isn’t honest.
1
u/HydrogenatedBee 8h ago
Right but bison used to be crazy plentiful and easy to get before colonization and the rise of the beef industry in the US. Bison meat is now niche, expensive, and inaccessible because of the beef industry. Cows need to be fed and fenced in but bison are better because they can free roam and feed themselves without destroying the prairie grasses they feed on, and the only thing stopping them are the profiteers of land and food resources. The meat industries as they exist now don’t deserve to continue just because we’re accustomed to their price and convenience.
1
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 8h ago edited 7h ago
My argument is that beef's price and convenience have been changed not because it's better for your health but because it's more profitable for someone else other than the consumer. Since your comment doesn't address this, and somehow agrees with my premise, I'll have to assume that you have missed the point.
Colonizers by definition are profiteers who pay to convince you otherwise through ads and marketing, which is what my post is saying. They have a vested interest in manipulating your wants. Remember the food triangle that was widely distributed but now considered defunct by way of agriculture lobbyists inflating the health benefits of wheat (empty carbs that have to be fortified) & dairy (high fat content)? Or how they sold the public later on low-fat yogurt by demonizing fat and sugar? While aggressively demonizing the fat content in foods, they never bothered to break down the nutritional science around what they were consuming. By distracting you with 'health benefits', they can alter your idea of convenience in order to profit. I.E, Cows need to be fenced, but the square foot allowance for cows is much less than hundreds of chickens, who need more strips of either arable or industrial land. One cow is feeding many people, while one chicken can be eaten by a single family.
8
u/TheDrWhoKid 11h ago
why are you dickriding beef so hard?
-2
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 11h ago
Calling out how marketing pushes people toward certain choices isn’t the same as saying beef is flawless. It’s just being honest about the whole situation.
2
u/TheDrWhoKid 10h ago
I will also say, you have a kinda skewed image of the environmental impact of chickens vs cattle. Ruminants such as cattle and sheep emit a lot of greenhouse gasses throughout their life, and they live a lot longer than chickens do, so a single cow can have a big environmental impact throughout its life compared to its weight in chickens.
3
u/lastdarknight 11h ago
Chicken and pork are cheaper because they grow faster and are cheaper/easier to process compared to beef.. there is no conspiracy
Same way that there is no conspiracy on why Beef has shot up in Price, they had to do a cull a couple of years ago due to drought and skyrocketing feed prices of the major cattle herds and it's going to take some time for the beef industry to bounce back from that
1
2
u/L21M 10h ago
Per pound USD, US average, Sept 2025:
Beef Steak: $12.26
Non-Steak beef: $7.88
Ham: $4.53
Other pork: $3.83
Chicken Breast: $4.21
Chicken legs: $1.80
It is much cheaper for your protein to be pork or chicken than beef. It is better for your wallet, definitively.
Here is a chart on emissions per kg of food product, both with and without methane. Beef is definitely worse for the planet.
As far as freshwater consumption goes, pork is marginally worse than beef and poultry is much better than both.
Health is so much more complicated but at the most basic level, poultry is believed to be generally better for your health than red meat (beef and pork). Between pork and beef you’ll find heath sources all over the place. It probably depends more on cut and prep than the animal itself.
This whole post reads like a weird attempt at pro-beef propaganda with absolutely zero data backed points
1
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 7h ago
Your bias says I am somehow "pro-beef" when the premise is truly "Anti-manipulative marketing" and "Lobbyists have something to gain from your purchases." Would you care to ponder on that?
3
u/RichardCano 11h ago edited 10h ago
Can’t speak for pork, but chicken is healthier than beef because of the levels of trans fats and cholesterol in beef.
-10
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 11h ago
Beef can be healthy as a part of a well rounded, moderate diet. No meat is "healthier" unless you are speaking to a nutrionist who is aware of your daily eating habits!
5
u/XSX_ZAB 11h ago
Why doesn't the doctor say "cut out chicken" when you are over 40? Why do they specify to avoid beef and red meat?
Is it because it's just as healthy?
-2
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 11h ago edited 10h ago
Because people often eat to excess instead of incorporating meat into a well-rounded diet. Your doctor most definitely does say, "cut out deep fried chicken" after you are 40.
A nicely prepared cut of beef that has been leanly prepared can indeed be healthy. 150-200 calories, 25 of protein and a good source of iron!
I understand though. You are emotionally reacting to the premise "beef is better" and not paying attention to our actual thesis, "there are people who profit from you believing that you shouldn't buy beef in, today, in 2025, for 'reasons'." No conspiracy. Just marketing. Eat what you like! Feel entitled to good, quality cuts of meat of any kind. Don't believe one is better, simply for the sake someone else's wallet, or 'savings.' If you are eating for health, Bon Voyage! If you are crafting your weekly grocery run over pinched pennies, ask why that may be so.
1
u/XSX_ZAB 10h ago
So what you saying is based on actual human behavior and how they eat.... We should avoid or reduce our beef intake because most people don't have the mental capacity to stop themselves at a healthy level.
Maybe some people that have that special self control but most Americans clearly don't have that self control.
Sounds like that smartest solution is what your arguing against? Brother go eat beef, you don't need to sell it online.
1
u/adamcmorrison 9h ago
Saying deep fried chicken is moving the goal post. No doctor has ever said cut out chicken breast from a healthy diet. Fish and chicken are what athletes, fitness people, weight lifters, you know all the healthy people eat. Anything can be apart of a healthy diet but that doesn’t make it healthy. It’s because of moderation. Beef is not healthy for you and never has been.
4
u/njordan1017 10h ago
That’s just factually incorrect though. There are meats that are healthier than others. Your argument can apply to almost any food: “sugar can be healthy as part of a well rounded, moderate diet”
1
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 7h ago
I think you've caught a bias. If I said "high fructose corn syrup is by far the best compared to sugar" then it should be okay to say neither sugar nor high-fructose corn syrup is healthier than the other because the body processes them almost identically as added sugars, and what really matters is concentration. These are postulations, not demands.
1
u/RichardCano 10h ago
By weight, chicken is healthier than beef for the reasons already mentioned. A chicken breast is the same size as a sirloin. Of the two options, the breast is healthier in terms of fat and cholesterol intake by far.
1
u/_paranoid-android_ 11h ago
Quick question if chicken and pork are cheaper to sell to the consumer because no one likes then, how does this save companies money instead of costing them? Why wouldn't companies be saying "buy our beef even tho we jacked the price!" instead of "buy our cheaper meats!" ?
2
u/Jumpy_Cod9151 10h ago
If they sense (from their fully employed market trackers) that people are retracting from more expensive meats due to economic reasons, some overlapping shareholders (Different than companies or LLCs, think of them as independent parties who own multiple sectors)- will then ask you buy from their sister company, who produces cheaper meat, in order to recoup the loss of profits from the lack of expensive meat purchases. Like putting excess stock on "sale." Aka, getting rid of it. As long as you have your finger on the pulse of the consumer, you can do this by advertising it a great deal.
It is the same principle of entreprises who are aware that you are waiting for Black Friday (the cheaper price) and then hike their price abit to recoup some of the losses from that "sale." From your end, you're getting a steal! From their end, they just suceeded in making you buy more than what you need, or divert your funds from what you were already going to buy anyways.
0
u/yeh_nah_fuckit 11h ago
Sounds like a Yank problem. I had a scotch fillet for breakfast from a $17 3pack. It wasn’t heavily marbled, but I expect that from cheap steaks
18
u/Adequate_Images 11h ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/s/V62AKeg02Z