For over two decades, the U.S. pork industry has been slowly bleeding consumer attention. In 2001, pork commanded 4.6% of U.S. consumers’ total food expenditures. By 2025, that share shrank to 3.3%.
This isn’t a temporary blip, and it’s not just a “loin” or “bacon” issue. The broader food basket is growing faster than pork, says Glynn Tonsor, an economist at Kansas State University. Consumers are spending more money, but they are choosing to spend it elsewhere.
Pork has been falling behind and that has not changed, yet. But here’s why he strongly believes it can.
The Production Trap
Pork producers are world-class at hitting production goals. Success is measured by performance metrics such as pigs per sow per year, average daily gain and feed conversion.
But Tonsor says there is a painful truth the pork industry must accept: Production efficiency is necessary, but it is not sufficient on its own for profitability.
“For example, if I’m running the breeding unit, working hard and accomplishing today’s goals or next week’s production goals is a necessary component of running the business,” he says. “But it is not sufficient for a profitable business. This is where demand comes in.”
If the industry cleans up animal health and achieves world-record production efficiency without growing consumer demand, we are simply forcing ourselves to give a higher volume away even cheaper, Tonsor explains.
“Working harder may not get rewarded, and we just get more tired,” he says. “It’s time to focus on the revenue side of the industry and not just the production side.”
Break the “Jealousy Trap”
It is easy to look at beef’s historic demand or chicken’s dominance with resentment, Tonsor says. But he believes a zero-sum, jealous mindset is holding the pork industry back.
“I’m from a hog farm in Missouri,” he adds. “My desire to see the pork industry flourish is genuine. But I’m going to beat it up for a moment. I don’t think beef demand’s strength is the reason pork demand is a problem.”
Beef and chicken make up over three-fourths of the meat consumption in the U.S., Tonsor points out. It’s accurate to say consumer demand is stronger for those products than pork right now.
“What is not helpful for the pork industry is jealousy, or being mad about that,” he says. “That zero-sum mentality doesn’t work.”
Trying to capture some of beef’s market share is the wrong approach in Tonsor’s mind.
“Some people think I’m defending beef,” he adds. “That’s not the point at all. I just don’t think it’s healthy to have a jealousy mindset. You won’t get ahead doing it. Let’s just look at beef and chicken and put pork aside. Beef demand’s growth in the last three years has not come at the cost of chicken. Chicken’s also doing better.”
In 2025, the average American ate 29 more pounds of meat (beef, pork and chicken combined) than they did in 2014. Meanwhile, vegan and vegetarian rates have actually been declining since 2021 (per the Meat Demand Monitor that Tonsor leads).
“Americans love meat,” Tonsor says. “There is plenty of room for pork to grow without needing beef or chicken to fail. We need to stop worrying about volume share with a fixed-pie mindset and start focusing on, driving towards economic value.”
The Incentive Crisis
If we need consumers to value pork more, the physical product or consumer perceptions of it must improve, he says. So why aren’t we aggressively improving meat quality (tenderness, marbling, flavor) at the farm level?
“The vast majority of economic signals in the live animal stage of the pork industry today do not reward meat science or eating quality,” Tonsor explains. “Most economic signals would say, ‘We’re going to pay you based on feed conversion, average daily gain, pigs per sow, nothing tied to meat science, quality or specs.’”
Without a clear pricing mechanism (like beef’s USDA grading system) that flows dollars back to the barn for raising a higher-quality eating experience, producers have limited direct financial reason to change genetics or feed for quality.
“Is that a clinical market failure?” he asks. “I’ve made that argument off and on for a dozen years. I’m not here to say quality grades are the solution, but I think it’s silly not to talk about it because the economic incentives for change are limited at best in the live animal segment.”
He believes the economic signals are more likely to happen post-harvest because the person making that investment is closer to the consumer and can make an easier ROI decision. Change may happen quicker by improving convenience, creating better flavor profiles or altering cuts. Further, those decisions have to pay at a product or SKU level as opposed to the whole-animal level making desired ROI outcomes perhaps more likely, Tonsor explains.
Even if these innovations happen post-harvest, they lift the entire tide. When the consumer values the end product more, it ultimately benefits the producer, he says.
“We have to give the consumer a product they are willing to pay a premium for,” Tonsor says. “Let’s stop looking narrowly and unproductively at beef and chicken. It’s time to align our economic signals with what the consumer actually wants to eat. As I often say, let’s grow the economic pie and worry less about the share of yesterday’s pie!”
