For everybody else, seaweed, legumes, or whatever. You really don't need Western levels of protein consumption, as evidenced by e.g. it being a minuscule portion of the traditional diets of Non-Western nations without peacetime food problems, like, say, Japan.
Plus after they're rich they can overconsume meat like we do. It practically defines being a rich country when your local poor people eat meat regularly.
Statements like "local poor people eat meat regularly." are just flat out ignorant. I've known families that save up for bulk rice. "Seaweed, legumes or whatever" is so unrealistic it is absurd. People with time and money have those luxuries.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1990/09/how-poor-ar...
Search for "Food Consumption of Poor Children", read the following two paragraphs. USDA data shows poor people eat a) more protein than non-poor people (yes, really), b) more meat than average citizens of many rich nations (like Japan or the UK), and c) vastly more meat than average citizens of Mexico/Brazil/etc.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES...
Data from the National School Lunch Program suggests the same thing. Protein deficiency is not statistically a challenge faced by Americans living below the poverty line. You can disagree with Heritage's politics (I certainly do), but it's naive to suggest that they're simply fabricating their underlying data.
Even if we grant that protein deficiency itself is not a huge problem for America's poor, it nevertheless remains that the protein (and food generally) available to our poor is of the lowest quality.
That's too bad, because I have a lot of thoughts about protein quality, and I think you'd probably agree with them. Unfortunately, you're in a place where you seem more inclined to troll threads with politics, so, maybe some other time.
Heritage's data come from a Dept of Ag study. This seems like an excellent example of why we should try to cite original authors instead of intermediaries.
I honestly didn't mean to do anything trollish. And what's with "quality" in scare quotes?
Next time someone who does not share your exact political beliefs (or your orthodoxy in ensuring that his/her tertiary sources have unimpeachable credentials), I suggest you actually read what they're saying and come back with facts. The reality is that in a community of professionals, you're unlikely to find yourself conversing solely with people who agree with your worldview.
The irony is, I probably do agree with your politics, but I find the way you handled this particular wrinkle of the discussion so repellant that I've been driven somewhat apey.
That having been said, I think you misunderstand me. I'm quite eager to learn from people who don't share my beliefs; it's the only reason I spend any time slogging through these comments in the first place. The spirit of my original reply, and what I should have said, is that bringing the Heritage Foundation into the discussion can only serve to muddle things.
We're OK. Sorry to drag this out. It's been an annoying day.
Only if you choose to let it. Here on HN, we usually don't.
You mention in your profile that the quality of discussion here is "slightly better than most places on the web". This is not an accident; it's a result of our strong community standards. Name-calling or ad hominem is generally rewarded with downvotes. Our preference is to look deeper into data and disagree in productive ways [0], not to get upset at the mention of a politically slanted organization.
You've had a rough introduction to our community. I hope you stay a while, learn our standards, and have a productive time here.
I mostly agree with what you said, with the addendum that poor Americans do have the tendency to buy cheap, bulk process foods for the same reason they wouldn't be able to afford "Seaweed, legumes or whatever". I'm not saying that families who need to save money for rice do this, but families with a little more money seem to always have alot of processed food.