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

Adapting anti-tobacco messages to ultraprocessed foods: message framing's impact on attitudes toward the food industry

OBJECTIVE

Ultraprocessed food consumption is associated with worse health. Ultraprocessed food companies apply production and advertising tactics used for tobacco products. Anti-tobacco campaigns that have highlighted industry manipulation have reduced youth tobacco use and increased support for tobacco-related policies. This study explored whether similar messaging affected attitudes and beliefs toward the food industry, support for obesity-related policies, and weight stigma.

METHODS

Participants aged 18 to 25 years were randomized to watch presentations emphasizing the following: 1) food industry manipulation and product addictiveness; 2) food industry manipulation and product health harms; 3) individual choices and food addiction; 4) individual choices and health harms; or 5) a control. Participants completed questionnaires regarding attitudes and beliefs toward the food industry, support for obesity-related policies, and weight stigma.

RESULTS

Messages that emphasized food industry manipulation and product addictiveness were associated with increased negative attitudes toward the food industry versus control. Industry-focused messages were associated with increased negative beliefs regarding industry practices versus control. No significant effects were observed on support for obesity-related policies and weight stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

Emphasizing food industry manipulation and product addictiveness appears promising for shifting youth attitudes toward the food industry without increasing weight stigma. Further research is needed to identify messages that shift support for obesity-related policies.

Meaningfully reducing consumption of meat and animal products is an unsolved problem: A meta-analysis

Which interventions produce the largest and most enduring reductions in consumption of meat and animal products (MAP)? We address this question with a theoretical review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that measured MAP consumption at least one day after intervention. We meta-analyze 35 papers comprising 41 studies, 112 interventions, and approximately 87,000 subjects. We find that these papers employ four major strategies to change behavior: choice architecture, persuasion, psychology, and a combination of persuasion and psychology. The pooled effect of all 112 interventions on MAP consumption is quite small (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.07 (95% CI: [0.02, 0.12]), indicating an unsolved problem. Interventions aiming to reduce only consumption of red and processed meat were more effective (SMD = 0.25; 95% CI: [0.11, 0.38]), but it remains unclear whether such interventions also decrease consumption of other forms of MAP. We conclude that while existing approaches do not provide a proven remedy to MAP consumption, designs and measurement strategies have generally been improving over time, and many promising interventions await rigorous evaluation.

Sustainability considerations are not influencing meat consumption in the US

The consumption of animal-source foods, and particularly red meat from ruminants, is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater use, and loss of biodiversity. Reducing red meat consumption has been identified as a key strategy to mitigate climate change; however, little is known about how to effectively intervene to promote its reduction in the United States (US). This study aimed to examine meat (red, unprocessed, and poultry) and seafood consumption patterns, the factors influencing their consumption (including a reduction in their consumption over time), and how these differed based on socioeconomic variables. The study was conducted through an online survey with a representative sample of the US population (n = 1224) in 2021 using KnowledgePanel®. Overall, we found that most participants reported consuming red meat (78%), processed meat (74%), or poultry (79%) 1-4 times per week, with several differences in consumption patterns based on socio-demographic characteristics. A substantial proportion of the population reported reducing their red (70%) and processed meat (64%) consumption over the previous year, which was much higher than those that reported reducing poultry (34%) or seafood (26%). Key factors influencing red meat reduction were health and price, while environmental sustainability and animal welfare were less important, particularly among certain socio-demographic groups. These findings can help provide insight into how best to frame messaging campaigns aimed at shifting red meat consumption in the US to support climate change mitigation. Focusing on the factors that resonate more with consumers is more likely to lead to shifts in consumption patterns.

Gen Z's Willingness to Adopt Plant-Based Diets: Empirical Evidence from Greece, India, and the UK

Comprising the largest population cohort on this planet, Gen Z presents a future-oriented consumer segment driven by climate change and food. This study sought to investigate Gen Z's perceptions toward plant-based foods and diets and explore the relationship that attitude components, meal preparation involvement, personal and lifestyle factors, and perceived barriers in adopting a plant-based diet have with willingness to adopt green-eating practices. Using cross-sectional data from university students in Greece, India, and the UK, various tools were employed to determine the factors influencing youths' consumer behavior toward animal-protein substitutes. PCA indicated the underlying dimensions of students' viewpoints on plant-based foods, whereas hierarchical and k-means clustering provided the cluster structure. An ordered probit model was estimated to delineate Gen Z's willingness to adopt plant-based diets and distinguish among mostly unwilling, somewhat willing, and mostly willing youths. Our findings identified two consumer segments, namely proponents and opponents of plant-based foods and diets, with statistically significant differences in the perceived health benefits of plant-based diets, attachment to animal-based proteins, perceived exclusion of animal-based foods, dissatisfaction with plant-based foods' attributes, and demand for ensuring adequate protein intake. The ordered probit model estimates showed that there is a "homogeneity" in the factors influencing youths' intention to adopt plant-based diets, with attitude components, meal preparation indicators, perceived barriers to eating "green", and personal factors, such as self-assessed knowledge of healthy eating and physical activity, being strongly associated with students' willingness to switch to plant-based diets in all three countries. Mapping potential obstacles and enablers in terms of shifting to more green-eating behaviors, our findings could add information to better understand the factors affecting food choice and youths' transition to a more sustainable lifestyle.

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.