Impact of Health, Environmental, and Animal Welfare Messages Discouraging Red Meat Consumption: An Online Randomized Experiment

Environmental-, Climate-, and Health-Related Dietary Motivations Are Associated With Higher Diet Quality in a National Sample of US Adults With Lower Incomes

BACKGROUND

Plant-based diets can have co-benefits for human and planetary health. Associations between environmental, climate, and health concerns and dietary intake in US adults are understudied, particularly in underserved populations.

OBJECTIVE

The study objectives were to assess how dietary choices motivated by the environment, climate, and health vary by sociodemographic characteristics and how they relate to diet quality and intake frequency of different food groups in US adults with lower incomes.

DESIGN

The study design was cross-sectional.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

A web-based survey was fielded in December 2022 to 1,798 US adults with lower incomes (<250% of federal poverty guidelines).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Environmental-, climate-, and health-related dietary motivations and diet quality and dietary food group intake frequency were assessed.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Differences in mean dietary outcomes and dietary motivation ratings by sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated using analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Associations between dietary motivations and diet quality scores and dietary intake frequency were examined using generalized linear models adjusted for sociodemographic covariates.

RESULTS

Younger adults, women, nonbinary people, racial and ethnic minoritized groups, and adults experiencing food insecurity reported higher environmental and climate dietary motivations; older adults, higher-income adults, and food-secure adults reported higher health motivations. Agreeing with environmental- (β = 2.28, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.47), climate- (β = 2.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.40), and health-related (β = 5.27, 95% CI 3.98 to 6.56) dietary motivations was associated with higher diet quality scores compared with those with neutral rankings. Similarly, agreement with environmental-, climate-, and health-related dietary motivations was associated with higher intake frequency of fish, fruits and vegetables, and plant proteins, but not with red and processed meat intake frequency. Of several climate-mitigation behaviors presented, participants perceived meat reduction as least effective (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Environment, climate, and health were positive motivators of several healthy dietary choices in US adults with lower incomes. Such motivators did not translate to lower intake frequency of red and processed meat.

Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

High consumption of red and processed meat contributes to both health and environmental harms. Warning labels and taxes for red meat reduce selection of red meat overall, but little is known about how these potential policies affect purchases of subcategories of red meat (e.g., processed versus unprocessed) or of non-red-meat foods (e.g., cheese, pulses) relevant to health and environmental outcomes. This study examined consumer responses to warning labels and taxes for red meat in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

In October 2021, we recruited 3,518 US adults to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four arms: control (no warning labels or tax), warning labels only (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat), tax only (prices of products containing red meat were increased 30%) or combined warning labels + tax. Participants selected items to hypothetically purchase, which we categorized into food groups based on the presence of animal- and plant-source ingredients (e.g., beef, eggs, pulses), meat processing level (e.g., processed pork versus unprocessed pork), and meat species (e.g., beef versus pork). We assessed the effects of the warning labels and tax on selections from each food group.

RESULTS

Compared to control, all three interventions led participants to select fewer items with processed meat (driven by reductions in processed pork) and (for the tax and warning labels + tax interventions only) fewer items with unprocessed meat (driven by reductions in unprocessed beef). All three interventions also led participants to select more items containing cheese, while only the combined warning labels + tax intervention led participants to select more items containing processed poultry. Except for an increase in selection of pulses in the tax arm, the interventions did not affect selections of fish or seafood (processed or unprocessed), eggs, or plant-based items (pulses, nuts & seeds, tofu, meat mimics, grains & potatoes, vegetables).

CONCLUSIONS

Policies to reduce red meat consumption are also likely to affect consumption of other types of foods that are relevant to both health and environmental outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04716010 on www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov .

N-glycolylneuraminic acid in red meat and processed meat is a health concern: A review on the formation, health risk, and reduction

One of the most consistent epidemiological associations between diet and human disease risk is the impact of consuming red meat and processed meat products. In recent years, the health concerns surrounding red meat and processed meat have gained worldwide attention. The fact that humans have lost the ability to synthesize N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc) makes red meat and processed meat products the most important source of exogenous Neu5Gc for humans. As our research of Neu5Gc has increased, it has been discovered that Neu5Gc in red meat and processed meat is a key factor in many major diseases. Given the objective evidence of the harmful risk caused by Neu5Gc in red meat and processed meat to human health, there is a need for heightened attention in the field of food. This updated review has several Neu5Gc aspects given including biosynthetic pathway of Neu5Gc and its accumulation in the human body, the distribution of Neu5Gc in food, the methods for detecting Neu5Gc, and most importantly, a systematic review of the existing methods for reducing the content of Neu5Gc in red meat and processed meat. It also provides some insights into the current status and future directions in this area.

Mitigation of the U.S. agrifood sector's contribution to human and planetary health: a case study

The relationship of the United States (U.S.) agrifood sector to climate change is bidirectional; cattle production for beef consumption generates methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are potent greenhouse gases (GHGs). These gases contribute to global warming which in turn increase the frequency and strength of adverse catastrophic events, which compromise the food supply. Increased GHGs also affect crop yields and the micronutrient content of crops, which adversely affect the prevalence of food and nutrition insecurity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Because the U.S. is a major contributor to global warming, we have a special responsibility to reduce our contribution to the generation of GHGs. The dilemma is that beef is a highly nutritious and desirable food, with excess consumption in the U.S. and under consumption in other parts of the world, but a desirable source of nutrients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Reductions in fossil fuels have been a major focus of concern, and the agrifood system has been largely ignored. Policy changes to reduce beef consumption have been resisted at the highest levels of government. Furthermore, shifts to more plant-based diets have been contentious. Successful reductions in beef consumption will require individual, institutional, municipal, and state initiatives. Building the political will for change will require a compelling communication campaign that emphasizes the unsustainable contribution of beef consumption to climate change and land and water use.

Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet

Global food systems are a central issue for personal and planetary health in the Anthropocene. One aspect of major concern is the dramatic global spread of ultra-processed convenience foods in the last 75 years, which is linked with the rising human burden of disease and growing sustainability and environmental health challenges. However, there are also calls to radically transform global food systems, from animal to plant-derived protein sources, which may have unintended consequences. Commercial entities have moved toward this "great plant transition" with vigor. Whether motivated by profit or genuine environmental concern, this effort has facilitated the emergence of novel ultra-processed "plant-based" commercial products devoid of nutrients and fiber, and sometimes inclusive of high sugar, industrial fats, and synthetic additives. These and other ingredients combined into "plant-based" foods are often assumed to be healthy and lower in calorie content. However, the available evidence indicates that many of these products can potentially compromise health at all scales-of people, places, and planet. In this viewpoint, we summarize and reflect on the evidence and discussions presented at the Nova Network planetary health meeting on the "Future of Food", which had a particular focus on the encroachment of ultra-processed foods into the global food supply, including the plant-sourced animal protein alternatives (and the collective of ingredients therein) that are finding their way into global fast-food chains. We contend that while there has been much uncritical media attention given to the environmental impact of protein and macronutrient sources-meat vs. novel soy/pea protein burgers, etc.-the impact of the heavy industrial processing on both human and environmental health is significant but often overlooked, including effects on cognition and mental health. This calls for a more nuanced discourse that considers these complexities and refocuses priorities and value systems towards mutualistic solutions, with co-benefits for individuals, local communities, and global ecology.