Article pp.123-132 du Vol.27 n°2 (2007)

(1)

FOCUS : JSMTV

Contribution of meat and meat products to nutrient intakes of the French adult population

J.-L. Volatier¹, A. Dufour¹

RÉSUMÉ

La viande (bœuf, agneau et porc) et les produits à base de viande ainsi que la charcuterie font traditionnellement partie des habitudes alimentaires en France, en particulier lors des repas du midi et du soir. D’après l’étude nationale de consommation alimentaire en France INCA1 réalisée en 1999, la consommation moyenne de viande s’élevait à 59.5 g·j^-1 pour la population adulte âgée de 15 ans et plus (n=1474) et la consommation de charcuterie et produits à base de viande était de 38.4 g·j^-1. La consommation moyenne de viande, charcuterie et produits à base de viande était plus élevée pour les hommes (117 g·j^-1) que pour les femmes (82 g·d^-1). La contribution des viandes aux apports nutritionnels journaliers n’est pas très différente dans l’étude nationale de consommation alimentaire INCA1 de celle d’autres étu- des. Pour les adultes, la contribution des viandes, de la charcuterie et des produits à base de viande aux apports nutritionnels est importante pour les protéines (21.9 g·j^-1), les lipides (15.6 g·j^-1), les acides gras mono-insaturés (6.9 g·j^-1), le fer (2.3 mg·j^-1), les vitamines du groupe B et plus particulière- ment la vitamine B12 (1.5 µg.d^-1). La charcuterie et les produits à base de viande contribuent aussi très significativement aux apports en sodium (406.8 mg·d^-1). Il est difficile d’estimer avec précision la quantité de viande utilisée comme ingrédient dans les plats préparés. Davantage de coopéra- tion internationale et de recherche serait utile dans ce domaine.

Mots clés

viande, charcuterie, consommation, contribution aux apports nutritionnels, protéines, lipides, fer, sodium, vitamine B12.

SUMMARY

Meat (beef, lamb, pork) and meat products are part of the French diet especially during lunch and dinner. In the INCA1 French national dietary survey in 1999, the mean meat intake in France was 59.5 g·d^-1 for the adult population

1. French Food Safety Agency, Direction of Risk assessment for Food Safety and Nutrition – Agence Fran- çaise de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments – 27-31, avenue du Général-Leclerc – BP 19 – 94701 Maisons-Alfort Cedex – France.

(2)

aged 15 and over (n=1474) and the mean meat products intake was 38.4 g·d^-1. Mean meat and meat products consumption was higher for men (117 g·d^-1) than for women (82 g·d^-1). The contribution of meat to daily nutrient intakes is not very different in the French national dietary survey INCA in comparison to other studies. For adults, meat and meat products contribution to nutrient intakes is important for proteins (21.9 g·d^-1), lipids (15.6 g·d^-1), mono-unsaturated fatty acids (6.9 g·d^-1), iron (2.3 mg·d^-1), vitamins of B group and especially vitamin B12 (1.5 µg·d^-1). Meat products contribute also very significantly to sodium intake (406.8 mg·d^-1). It is difficult to estimate the exact quantity of meat as an ingredient in ready to eat dishes. More international cooperation and research would be useful in this field.

Keywords

meat, meat products, consumption, contribution to nutrient intakes, proteins, lipids, iron, sodium, vitamin B12.

1 – INTRODUCTION

The surveillance of nutrient intake is in France a major task in the field of the nutritional policy since the end of the 90s. Among the main nutritional endpoints of the National Health and Nutrition Program (Programme National Nutrition Santé) in relation with nutrient intakes, some are concerning more directly meat and meat products (beef, pork, lamb and meat products). The major recommendations concerning the meat and meat products are the following: nutritional endpoint n° 5 “reduction of the contribution of total lipid intake to less than 35%

of total energy intake, with a drop of 25% of the saturated fat consumption (less than 35% of total lipid intake)”; specific endpoint n° 1 “reduction of the individual mean intake of salt to less than 8 grams per day”; specific endpoint n° 2 “reduction of the prevalence of iron-deficiency among the women of childbearing age to less than 3%”; specific endpoint n° 5 “reduction of the prevalence of iron- deficiency among young children between 6 months and 2 years to less than 2%

and to less than 1.5% among the children 2 to 4 years old”.

Nine food based dietary guidelines derive from the nutritional recommendations at the population level. There is a specific guideline for “meat and poultry, seafood and eggs”: the recommended frequency of consumption for these products is “once to twice a day, with a portion size smaller than the garnish and more specifically for the meat and meat products with the choice of the less fatty ones and a variety of types of meats”. It is also recommended to eat seafood twice a week or more. Meat consumption is thus not concerned by a specific dietary guideline but by a broader recommendation for all the foods from animal origin. A recent publication (DUBUISSON et al., 2006) shows that more than three quarters of the French adult population is in accordance with this recommendation of eating once or twice a day “meat, poultry, seafood or eggs”.

Meat consumption is traditional in France and food habits give a specific place to meat consumption among the main meals, lunch and dinner. However, if we define meat and meat products as bovine, ovine and pork meat and derived

(3)

transformed meat products, we see that beef and lamb consumption has declined in the long term. Pork consumption has regularly increased in the last 20 years, a large part of it being transformed products like sausages and ham (FAO, 2006). This conclusion relies only on food balance sheet data from FAO because there is no available information on trends of individual dietary intake in France.

For the moment, it is only possible to give a photography of dietary intake of meat and meat products and their contribution to nutrient intake. For this purpose, we use the last published national dietary survey INCA1 in this article.

2 – MATERIALS AND METHODS

The INCA1 French national dietary survey was launched in 1998-1999 and the results were published by the French Food Safety Agency in 2000 (VOLATIER, 2000). 1985 adults aged 15 and over and 1018 children aged between 3 and 14 participated in the survey. Food intakes were recorded during 7 consecutive days with a diary. Portion sizes were estimated through the SU.VI.MAX book of portion photographs. Food records took place during 12 months in order to consider the seasonality of food consumption. The sample was representative of the French population because of a stratification according to regions and rural/urban areas and quotas according to age, gender, household size and profession. 913 different individual foods were recorded in order to describe the food consumption of the study participants. The food composition was estimated with the Afssa/CIQUAL database (FAVIER et al., 1996).

The combination of dietary intakes and food composition made it possible to estimate individual nutrient intakes and the contribution of food categories to nutrient intakes for all the participants to the study. 44 food groups were used to describe these contributions. These categories were closed to European catego- rization systems like DAFNE (NASKA et al., 2006). Among the adult participants of the survey, only those with energy intake in accordance with their energy expenses were considered in the analysis (n=1474). The survey and the analysis method used are detailed in the general report of the survey (VOLATIER, 2000).

3 – RESULTS

In the French adult population (aged 15 and over), the mean daily consumption of meat (beef, lamb, pork) is 59.5 g·j^-1 and contributes with 125.3 kcal·d^-1 to 5.7% of energy intakes (table 1). If we consider also meat products like sausages, pâté and ham, the mean meat and meat products intake reaches 97.9 g·d^-1 and 229.6 kcal·j^-1 that is 10.4% of mean energy intakes. In this article, we always use the word “meat” for these three meat categories, which are sometimes qualified as “red meat” in other publications. Some ready to eat dishes (79.6 g·d^-1) were not disaggregated into their different ingredients because of the lack of enough precise recipes. Therefore, these meat consumption figures are underestimated.

(4)

Table 1

Contributions of food groups to the mean macro-nutrients intakes of the French adult population (INCA1 study)

Tableau 1

Contributions des groupes d’aliments aux apports en macro-nutriments dans la population adulte française (étude INCA1)

Quantity (in g·d^-1)

Energie (in kcal·d^-1)

Proteins (in g·d^-1)

Carbohydrates (in g·d^-1)

Lipids (in g·d^-1) Bread, rusks

Meat Cheese

Ready to eat dishes Meat products Butter

Alcoholic beverages Pastries

Sugar and sugar products Potatoes

Croissants, brioche Poultry and game Fruit

Pizzas, salted pies Yoghurts, dairy desserts Biscuits

Sauces and seasonings Milk

Sweet desserts Pastas Sodas, colas Fish and fish products Sandwiches and snacks Eggs and eggs products Soups

Margarine

Vegetables (no potatoes) Rice and semolina Breakfast cereals Oils (excl. in sauces) Tea and hot beverages#

Chocolate Nuts and seeds Ice creams Entrées Pulses Stewed fruit Offal

Crustacean and molluscs Energy drinks*

Other cereals Coffee Other fats

Water (bottled or not)

122.6 59.5 39.2 79.6 38.4 13.6 159.9

35.8 27.9 63.2 17.3 36.9 134.2

23.6 75.5 13.9 9.7 119.5

24.5 36.1 99.8 29.5 13.8 18.3 86.4 3.7 122.5

20.8 5.2 2.1 73.3 3.0 3.0 5.9 10.0 10.3 10.7 3.2 4.5 1.2 0.8 200.7

0.1 556.9

326.3 (14.8%) 125.3 (5.7%) 124.5 (5.7%) 108.4 (4.9%) 104.3 (4.7%) 101.2 (4.6%) 101.0 (4.6%) 99.7 (4.5%) 99.5 (4.5%) 78.8 (3.6%) 68.5 (3.1%) 64.5 (2.9%) 61.9 (2.8%) 59.2 (2.7%) 58.4 (2.7%) 58.4 (2.7%) 49.2 (2.2%) 45.3 (2.1%) 45.3 (2.1%) 40.8 (1.9%) 39.9 (1.8%) 39.1 (1.8%) 33.4 (1.5%) 29.8 (1.4%) 27.1 (1.2%) 26.7 (1.2%) 25.1 (1.1%) 23.9 (1.1%) 19.6 (0.9%) 19.2 (0.9%) 15.4 (0.7%) 15.1 (0.7%) 12.8 (0.6%) 10.3 (0.5%) 9.9 (0.4%) 8.6 (0.4%) 7.8 (0.4%) 5.5 (0.2%) 4.8 (0.2%) 3.6 (0.2%) 2.5 (0.1%) 1.8 (0.1%) 0.9 (0.0%) 0.0 (0.0%)

10.1 (10.9%) 15.5 (16.8%) 8.6 (9.3%) 6.7 (7.3%) 6.4 (6.9%) 0.1 (0.1%) 0.1 (0.1%) 1.7 (1.8%) 0.1 (0.1%) 1.2 (1.3%) 1.4 (1.5%) 10.0 (10.8%)

0.3 (0.3%) 2.1 (2.3%) 3.5 (3.8%) 0.8 (0.9%) 0.1 (0.1%) 3.7 (4.0%) 1.0 (1.1%) 1.4 (1.5%) 0.0 (0.0%) 5.6 (6.1%) 1.7 (1.8%) 2.4 (2.6%) 0.9 (1.0%) 0.0 (0.0%) 1.4 (1.5%) 0.5 (0.5%) 0.5 (0.5%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.3 (0.3%) 0.1 (0.1%) 0.3 (0.3%) 0.2 (0.2%) 0.4 (0.4%) 0.8 (0.9%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.7 (0.8%) 0.8 (0.9%) 0.3 (0.3%) 0.2 (0.2%) 0.3 (0.3%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.0 (0.0%)

68.4 (29.4%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.1 (0.0%) 6.9 (3.0%) 0.4 (0.2%) 0.0 (0.0%) 2.3 (1.0%) 12.1 (5.2%) 23.8 (10.2%)

12.9 (5.5%) 8.1 (3.5%) 0.0 (0.0%) 15.2 (6.5%)

4.9 (2.1%) 5.2 (2.2%) 7.8 (3.4%) 0.2 (0.1%) 4.9 (2.1%) 6.0 (2.6%) 7.9 (3.4%) 9.8 (4.2%) 0.6 (0.3%) 4.1 (1.8%) 0.0 (0.0%) 5.5 (2.4%) 0.0 (0.0%) 3.9 (1.7%) 5.5. (2.4%) 3.7 (1.6%) 0.0 (0.0%) 3.0 (1.3%) 1.8 (0.8%) 0.8 (0.3%) 1.5 (0.6%) 0.9 (0.4%) 1.3 (0.6%) 1.9 (0.8%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.1 (0.0%) 0.6 (0.3%) 0.3 (0.1%) 0.2 (0.1%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.0 (0.0%)

1.4 (1.6%) 7.0 (7.8%) 10.0 (11.1%)

6.0 (6.7%) 8.6 (9.5%) 11.2 (12.4%)

0.0 (0.0%) 4.9 (5.4%) 0.4 (0.5%) 2.5 (2.8%) 3.4 (3.8%) 2.7 (3.0%) 0.0 (0.0%) 3.4 (3.8%) 2.6 (2.9%) 2.7 (3.0%) 5.3 (5.9%) 1.2 (1.3%) 1.9 (2.1%) 0.4 (0.5%) 0.0 (0.0%) 1.6 (1.8%) 1.1 (1.2%) 2.2 (2.4%) 0.2 (0.2%) 3.0 (3.3%) 0.4 (0.5%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.3 (0.3%) 2.1 (2.3%) 0.2 (0.2%) 0.8 (0.9%) 0.9 (1.0%) 0.4 (0.5%) 0.5 (0.6%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.3 (0.3%) 0.1 (0.1%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.1 (0.1%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.1 (0.1%) 0.0 (0.0%)

Total 2416.7 2203.1 92.4 232.5 90.2

#including herbal tea, excluding coffee.

*and other dietetic products like meal substitute.

(5)

Mean meat consumption is higher among men (70 g·d^-1) than women (51 g·d^-1) and there is no statistical difference of consumption between age groups, excepting a small reduction of meat intake by the elderly (65 and older).

Meat products intakes are also higher among men (47 g·d^-1) than among women (31 g·d^-1).

Meat consumption takes place mainly during lunch (41 g.d^-1) and less during dinner (18.4 g·d^-1). On the contrary, meat products consumption is more bal- anced between lunch and dinner (17.7 g·d^-1 for lunch and 19.0 g·d^-1for dinner).

If we compare the contribution to the energy intake of meat (without meat products) to the contribution of other animal products, we see that this contribution is higher than the sum of the contributions of seafood and poultry (table 1).

According to its high protein content, the meat category contributes with a protein intake of 15.5 g·j^-1 to 16.8% of total protein intake. If meat products are added, the contribution of meat and meat products to the mean protein intake reaches 21.9 g·j^-1and 23.7% of the daily intake. The contribution to lipids intake (7 g·j^-1) corresponds to 7.8% of the total daily intakes and 17.3% with the meat products.

Considering the different types of fatty acids, meat contributes to 10% of the mean mono-unsaturated fatty acids intake (3.05 g·d^-1), to 5% of the mean poly-unsaturated fatty acids intake (0.46 g·d^-1) and to 7% of the mean saturated fatty acids intake (2.76 g·d^-1). For the meat products, these contributions are respectively 12% of the mono-unsaturated fatty acids intakes (3.83 g·d^-1), 9% of the poly-unsaturated fatty acids intake (0.93 g·d^-1) and 8% of the saturated fatty acids intake (3.18 g·d^-1).

In this study, the mean energy density of meat is 2.1 kcal·g^-1, the mean energy density of meat products is 2.7 kcal·g^-1, for poultry and game it is 1.7 kcal·g^-1 and for fishes 1.3 kcal·g^-1. These mean values are the consequence of both the diversity of the energy densities of the different individual foods in the food groups and their consumption. The energy densities are explained mainly by the lipid content: 11.8% for the meat, 22.4% for the meat products, 7.3% for the poultry and game and 5.4% for the fishes (table 2).

Meat consumption contributes to more than 5% of the mean vitamin intake for most of the vitamins of the B group like niacin or vitamin B3 (16.3% of the total intake for adults), the vitamin B12 (15.3%) and the vitamin B6 (12.1%).

Meat products contribute mainly to the thiamine or vitamin B1 intake (13.7%). In spite of their low consumption, offal is an also important contributor to vitamin B12 intake (18.6%) because of its high concentration in this vitamin (table 3).

Regarding minerals, meat contributes mainly to iron intake (10.5% of the mean daily intake of adults) and to phosphorus intake (10.1%). Meat products contribute mainly to sodium intakes (13.1%) but meat in itself has a low contribution to sodium intake (1.3%). Although it was not possible to estimate precisely enough zinc intakes in the INCA1 study, because of missing values in the food composition table, a first estimate of the contribution of meat to zinc intake shows that this contribution is important (around 17%).

(6)

Table 2

Contributions of meat and other food groups to the mean vitamin intakes of the French adult population: vitamin B group (INCA1 study).

Tableau 2

Contributions des viandes et autres groupes d’aliments aux apports vitaminiques de la population adulte française : vitamines du groupe B (étude INCA1).

Table 3

Contribution of the main contributing food groups to the mineral intake of the French adult population (INCA1 study).

Tableau 3

Contribution des principaux groupes d’aliments contributeurs aux apports en minéraux de la population adulte française (étude INCA1).

Vit. B1 (mg) Vit. B2 (mg) Vit. B3 (mg) Vit. B5 (mg) Vit. B6 (mg) Vit. B12 (µg) Bread, rusks

Milk Yoghurts, dairy desserts Cheese

Eggs and egg products Meat

Poultry and game Offal

Meat products Fishes

Vegetables (excluding potatoes)

Potatoes

0.12 (9.7%) 0.06 (4.8%) 0.03 (2.4%) 0.02 (1.6%) 0.01 (0.8%) 0.14 (11.3%)

0.03 (2.4%) 0.01 (0.8%) 0.17 (13.7%)

0.04 (3.2%) 0.08 (6.5%) 0.06 (4.8%) 0.05 (4.0%) 0.06 (4.8%)

0.07 (4.2%) 0.21(12.7%) 0.15 (9.1%) 0.18 (10.9%)

0.07 (4.2%) 0.15 (9.1%) 0.07 (4.2%) 0.06 (3.6%) 0.09 (5.5%) 0.04 (2.4%) 0.08 (4.8%) 0.02 (1.2%) 0.04 (2.4%) 0.07 (4.2%)

1.39 (7.4%) 0.12 (0.6%) 0.08 (0.4%) 0.26 (1.4%) 0.01 (0.1%) 3.06 (16.3%) 2.66 (14.2%) 0.26 (1.4%) 1.48 (7.9%) 1.14 (6.1%) 0.73 (3.9%) 0.69 (3.7%) 0.47 (2.5%) 1.15 (6.1%)

0.37 (8.3%) 0.45 (10.1%)

0.29 (6.5%) 0.23 (5.2%) 0.23 (5.2%) 0.37 (8.3%) 0.36 (8.1%) 0.13 (2.9%) 0.18 (4.1%) 0.16 (3.6%) 0.28 (6.3%) 0.20 (4.5%) 0.21 (4.7%) 0.15 (3.4%)

0.15 (8.7%) 0.02 (1.2%) 0.04 (2.3%) 0.06 (3.5%) 0.02 (1.2%) 0.21 (12.1%)

0.16 (9.2%) 0.01 (0.6%) 0.09 (5.2%) 0.11 (6.4%) 0.11 (6.4%) 0.13 (7.5%) 0.14 (8.1%) 0.10 (5.8%)

0.0 (0.0%) 0.28 (4.4%) 0.13 (2.0%) 0.76 (11.9%)

0.22 (3.4%) 0.98 (15.3%)

0.60 (9.4%) 1.19 (18.6%)

0.42 (6.6%) 0.89 (13.9%)

0.0 (0.0%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.0 (0.0%) 0.30 (4.7%)

Total 1.24 1.65 18.73 4.44 1.73 6.40

Phosphorus(mg) Potassium (mg) Sodium (mg) Iron (mg) Bread, rusks

Milk

Yoghurts, dairy desserts cheese

Meat

Poultry and game Meat products

Vegetables (excluding potatoes) Potatoes

Fruit Soups

Ready to eat dishes

107.2 (8.2%) 104.1 (8.0%) 77.1 (5.9%) 158.4 (12.1%) 131.2 (10.1%) 71.9 (5.5%) 61.0 (4.7%) 44.1 (3.4%) 28.8 (2.2%) 21.3 (1.6%) 20.6 (1.6%) 78.3 (6.0%)

153.5 (5.1%) 201.5 (6.7%) 131.8 (4.4%) 45.9 (1.5%) 222.4 (7.4%) 100.4 (3.3%) 79.7 (2.7%) 283.1 (9.4%) 265.8 (8.9%) 265.8 (8.9%) 124.2 (4.1%) 162.4 (5.4%)

777.2 (25.1%) 56.4 (1.8%) 38.2 (1.2%) 272.7 (8.8%)

41.6 (1.3%) 31.7 (1.0%) 406.8 (13.1%)

56.8 (1.8%) 34.0 (1.1%) 5.8 (0.2%) 319.9 (10.3%)

265.7 (8.6%)

1.55 (11.8%) 0.12 (0.9%) 0.12 (0.9%) 0.16 (1.2%) 1.38 (10.5%)

0.73 (5.6%) 0.91 (6.9%) 0.95 (7.2%) 0.32 (2.4%) 0.36 (2.7%) 0.48 (3.7%) 1.0 (7.6%)

Total 1304.0 2996.7 3097.2 13.12

(7)

4 – DISCUSSION

All the results presented in this paper are nutrient intakes estimated by the combination of the nation dietary survey INCA1 and a food composition table derived from the CIQUAL database. The food composition table has been updated in order to take into account the composition of foods at the time of the survey. The nutrient intake data presented here are representative of the nutritional situation in France in 1999, which may have changed since this year.

Food consumption may also have changed.

Even if the INCA survey methodology was validated, this survey is based on individual reporting that may be sometimes not very precise because of forget- ting of intakes, misreporting of portion sizes, or even changes in the food habits during the survey.

Another risk of error comes from the fact that, in dietary surveys, it is always considered that the variability of the food composition for an individual food is not taken into account, for instance the variability of the salt content between different raw cured hams according to the producer. Because of the brand loyalty of the consumers, there may be some difference in the composition of the same individual food between consumers.

Finally, the growing trend of consumption of ready to eat dishes containing meat in a small or large proportion increases the difficulty of the estimation of total intake of meat across these products (COSGROVE et al., 2005). In this study, we tried to disaggregate in ingredients as many products with recipes as possible, in order to estimate the consumption of the different ingredients. However, it is sometimes impossible to estimate with a sufficient precision the mean recipes because of the large variability (for instance for the part of the different types of meat in the couscous). Individuals are not always able to report these proportions. It is the reason why a “ready to eat dishes” food category was considered in the analysis. The contribution of meat and meat products to nutrient intakes is probably under-estimated in this study like the contribution of other ingredients of ready to eat dishes like fish, vegetable or starchy foods.

The methodology of the survey doesn’t allow differentiating the consumers according to their frequency of consumption (regular consumers, occasional, non consumers) because the absence of consumption of meat during the week of survey doesn’t mean an absolute non-consumption of meat. Reciprocally, the frequent meat consumption during the week of survey doesn’t mean that the surveyed consumer eats frequently meat during the other weeks of the year.

Research activities are trying to model at the population level long-term food consumption using short-term measurements but these statistical methods suf- fer from lack of validation (HOFFMANN et al., 2002). Vegetarians were not enough numerous in this survey to estimate their nutrient intakes.

Despite of all these methodological considerations, the mean nutrient intakes and the contributions of meat and meat products to these total intakes for the French adult population were similar to the results of other studies.

Regarding the macronutrient intakes, several studies with a national (RIGAUD

et al., 1997) or regional (JOST et al., 1990) representativeness obtained very similar results to those of the INCA1 survey.

(8)

There are few publications concerning the contribution of meat and meat products to total vitamin intakes in national representative surveys. In Ireland (COSGROVE et al., 2005), meat consumption was twice higher than in the INCA1 survey (134 g·d^-1and so a difference of 226%). The contribution of meat to vitamin B1 (15%), B6 (16%) and B12 (29%) intakes were also clearly higher to those estimated for France by the INCA1 survey (respectively +36%, +33% et +89%). This difference may be linked to general differences of food habits in Ireland in comparison to France.

Regarding the mineral, the iron intakes are estimated in the Suvimax study to 12.3 mg·d^-1 among women and 16.7 mg·d^-1 among men (GALAN et al., 1998).

The contribution of meat and fishes to iron intake was estimated to be 25% in the Val de Marne study (HERCBERG et al., 1991). These results are similar to those presented here. Phosphorus intakes were previously estimated in the French population to an order of magnitude between 1500 and 1600 mg·d^-1 with around one third of these intakes provided by meat, fish and eggs (MARTIN, 2000). The result of the INCA1 survey is comparable but in the lower part of the interval and the contribution of meat fish and eggs to this intake is also coherent.

The sodium intake was intensively studied in France in the last five years because of the concerns about the consequences of salt intake for hyperten- sion and cardiovascular diseases. A recent Afssa report showed that the rela- tive contributions of the different food groups to salt intake were more or less the same in the INCA1 and Suvimax surveys (AFSSA, 2002). More precisely, it was also the case for meat products (13.1% of total intakes in the INCA1 study, 13.3% of total intakes for men and 11.6% of total intakes for women in Suvi- max). Meat was not a major contributor to salt intake in both studies.

It is much more difficult to compare the contribution of meat and meat products to the nutrient intake between countries because of methodological differences between national dietary surveys and food composition tables across countries. A recent international review has been achieved by the British Nutri- tion Foundation (WILLIAMSON et al., 2005) for the Meat and Livestock Commis- sion (MLC). Among the surveys studied, the calibration survey of the EPIC European cohort shows that our meat intake estimate is within the interval between the different participating countries involved in EPIC. For red meat, these intervals are between 40 and 121 g d^-1 for men and between 24 and 57 g·d^-1 for women (LINSEISEN et al., 2002). The INCA1 results for meat intake are respectively 70 g·d^-1 for men and 51 g·d^-1for women. The estimate of the EPIC cohort for France (40 g·d^-1to 48 g·d^-1 depending on regions) is not very far from our estimate, even if it couldn’t be considered as representative because the EPIC sample for France is built with women working for the national public service for education.

This international review shows that the contribution of meat to the mean nutrient intake is relatively important for proteins, lipids and some micronutri- ents like zinc, vitamins of B group and vitamin D. All these points were recorded in the INCA1 survey except the contribution of meat to vitamin D intake. More in depth analysis of the different food composition tables used in both studies would be necessary to understand the reason of this difference of results.

(9)

5 – CONCLUSIONS

Meat (beef, lamb, pork) and meat products have an important place in food habits in France as in most European countries. The order of magnitude of meat intake in France is in the middle of the figures obtained in other European countries. The contribution of meat to nutrient intake is not very different in the French national dietary survey INCA in comparison to other studies. Meat contribution to nutrient intakes is important for proteins, lipids and mono-unsaturated fatty acids, iron, zinc, vitamins of B group and especially vitamin B12.

Meat products contribute also significantly to protein and lipid intakes with a higher contribution for mono-unsaturated fatty acids. Meat products contribute also – but less markedly – to vitamins intake of B group, to iron and zinc intakes. They contribute also very significantly to salt intake. The difficulty to consider objectively the meat as an ingredient in ready to eat dishes shows clearly that more research is necessary and useful in this field. A better international and European cooperation would enable to compare with more accuracy the contribution of meat and meat products to the nutrient intakes across countries.

6 – ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the other contributors to the INCA1 survey (G. Calamassi, J. Maffre, and G. Verheyden from Afssa, A.-D. Brousseau-Kowalski and A. Cou- vreur from Crédoc), J. Ireland from Afssa/CIQUAL who brought the food composition data and J.-L. Vendeuvre of CTSCCV for his active contribution to international comparisons and reviewing of the papers. However, possible mis- interpretations would be of the unique responsibility of the authors.

(10)

REFERENCES

AFSSA, 2002. Rapport sel, évaluation et recommandations.

COSGROVE M., FLYNN A., KIELY M., 2005.

Impact of disaggregation of composite foods on estimates on intakes of meat and meat products in Irish adults, Public Health Nutr., May, 8(3), 327-37.

DUBUISSON C., LIORET S., GAUTIER A. et al., 2006. Comparison of two national food surveys (INCA1 1998-99 and Health Nutrition Barometer 2002) with regard to five food recommendations of the Natio- nal Nutrition and Health Program, Rev.

Epidémiol. Santé Publique. Feb., 54(1), 5- 14.

FAO, 2006. Faostat database; http://faostat.fao.org

FAVIER J.C., IRELAND J., TOQUE C. et al., 1996. Répertoire général des aliments, table de composition REGAL (version 1995). Éditions TEC & DOC Lavoisier.

GALAN P., YOON H.C., PREZIOSI P. et al., 1998. Determining factors in the iron sta- tus of adult women in the SU.VI.MAX study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr, 52, 383-388.

HERCBERG S., PREZIOSI P., GALAN P. et al., 1991. Apports nutritionnels d’un échan- tillon représentatif de la population du Val- de-Marne : 3 les apports en minéraux et vitamines. Rev. Epidémiol. Santé Publi- que, 39, 245-261.

HOFFMANN K., BOEING H., DUFOUR A. et al., 2002. Estimating the Distribution of Usual Dietary Intake by short-term measurements, Eur. J. Clin. Nutr., 56, S2, 53-62.

JOST J.P., SIMON C., NUTTENS M.C. et al., 1990. Comparison of dietary patterns between population samples in the three French MONICA nutrition surveys. Rev.

Epidémiol. Santé Publique, 38, 517-23.

MARTIN A., 2001. Apports nutritionnels con- seillés pour la population française, 3^eédition, CNERNA-CNRS, Afssa. Édi- tions TEC & DOC Lavoisier, Paris.

Ministère délégué à la Santé, 2001. Pro- gramme National Nutrition Santé 2001- 2005.

NASKA A., FOUSKAKIS D., OIKONOMOU E., ALMEIDA M.D., BERG M.A., GEDRICH K., MOREIRAS O., NELSON M., TRYGG K., TURRINI A., REYMAUT A.M., VOLATIER J.-L., TRICHOPOULOU A., 2006. Dietary patterns and their socio-demographic determinants in 10 European countries:

data from the DAFNE databank. Eur J Clin Nutr. Feb., 60(2), 181-90.

RIGAUD D., GIACHETTI I., DEHEEGER M. et al., 1997. Enquête Française de consommation alimentaire. I. Énergie et macronu- triments. Cah. Nutr. Diét., 32, 379-389.

VOLATIER J-L., 2000. Enquête individuelle et nationale sur les consommations alimen- taires, enquête INCA. Éditions Tec & Doc Lavoisier, Paris.

WILLIAMSON C.S., FOSTER R.K., STANNER S.A. et al., 2005. Red meat in the diet, Bri- tish Nutrition Foundation, London, Nutri- tion Bulletin, 30, 325-355.