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).”






