A new study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has found that the environmental harms of meat is the best argument for reducing its consumption among meat-eaters, while animal welfare has the smallest impact.
The study of almost 3,000 participants randomly assigned meat-eaters to view one of four messages. These included a control (a neutral, anti-red-meat message), and three separate messages asking them to reduce meat consumption based on animal welfare reasons, health reasons, and environmental reasons.
“After viewing their assigned message, participants ordered hypothetical meals from two restaurants (one full-service, one quick-service) and rated message reactions, perceptions, and intentions”, states the study’s abstract. “Compared to the control message, exposure to the health or environmental red-meat-reduction messages reduced red meat selection from the full-service restaurant by 6.0 and 8.8 percentage points, respectively, while the animal welfare message did not (reduction of 3.3 percentage points).”
The study states that none of the red-meat-reduction messages affected red meat selection from the quick-service restaurant, while “all three red-meat-reduction messages elicited beneficial effects on key predictors of behavior change including emotions and thinking about harms.”
“Red-meat reduction messages, especially those describing health or environmental harms, hold promise for reducing red meat selection in some types of restaurants”, concludes the study. “Additional interventions may be needed to discourage red meat selection across a wider variety of restaurants, for example by making salient which menu items contain red meat.”
Below is the study’s full abstract.
Abstract
Background: Reducing red meat consumption is a key strategy for curbing diet-related chronic diseases and mitigating environmental harms from livestock farming. Messaging interventions aiming to reduce red meat consumption have focused on communicating the animal welfare, health, or environmental harms of red meat. Despite the popularity of these three approaches, it remains unknown which is most effective, as limited studies have compared them side-by-side.
Objective: To evaluate responses to red-meat-reduction messages describing animal welfare, health, or environmental harms.
Design: Online randomized experiment.
Participants: In August 2021, a convenience sample of US adults was recruited via an online panel to complete a survey (n=2,773 non-vegetarians/vegans included in primary analyses).
Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to view one of four messages: 1) control (neutral, non-red-meat message), or 2) animal welfare, 3) health, or 4) environmental red-meat-reduction messages.
Main outcome measures: After viewing their assigned message, participants ordered hypothetical meals from two restaurants (one full-service, one quick-service) and rated message reactions, perceptions, and intentions.
Statistical analyses performed: Logistic and linear regressions.
Results: Compared to the control message, exposure to the health or environmental red-meat-reduction messages reduced red meat selection from the full-service restaurant by 6.0 and 8.8 percentage points, respectively (ps=.02 and <0.001, respectively), while the animal welfare message did not (reduction of 3.3 percentage points, p=0.20). None of the red-meat-reduction messages affected red meat selection from the quick-service restaurant. All three red-meat-reduction messages elicited beneficial effects on key predictors of behavior change including emotions and thinking about harms.
Conclusions: Red-meat reduction messages, especially those describing health or environmental harms, hold promise for reducing red meat selection in some types of restaurants. Additional interventions may be needed to discourage red meat selection across a wider variety of restaurants, for example by making salient which menu items contain red meat.
