Awareness of and reactions to health and environmental harms of red meat among parents in the United States

Abstract

Objective: Evidence of the health and environmental harms of red meat is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful to include in meat reduction messages. This study examined which harms consumers are most aware of and which most discourage them from wanting to eat red meat. Design: Within-subjects randomized experiment. Participants responded to questions about their awareness of, and perceived discouragement in response to, eight health and eight environmental harms of red meat presented in random order. Discouragement was assessed on a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale. Setting: Online survey. Participants: 544 US parents. Results: A minority of participants reported awareness that red meat contributes to health harms (ranging from 8% awareness for prostate cancer to 28% for heart disease) or environmental harms (ranging from 13% for water shortages and deforestation to 22% for climate change). Among specific harms, heart disease elicited the most discouragement (mean=2.82 out of 5), followed by early death (mean=2.79) and plants and animals going extinct (mean=2.75), though most harms elicited similar discouragement (range of means, 2.60 to 2.82). In multivariable analyses, participants who were younger, identified as Black, identified as politically liberal, had higher general perceptions that red meat is bad for health, and had higher usual red meat consumption reported being more discouraged from wanting to eat red meat in response to health and environmental harms (all p<0.05). Conclusions: Messages about a variety of health and environmental harms of red meat could inform consumers and motivate reductions in red meat consumption.

Health- or Environment-Focused Text Messages as a Potential Strategy to Increase Plant-Based Eating among Young Adults: An Exploratory Study

“…The effectiveness of messages promoting the normalcy of reducing meat consumption is supported by our data and others’ findings that normative meat-eating statements lowered self-reported interest in meat-eating and actual orders of a meatless lunch [ 46 ]. Furthermore, our data suggest potential strategies for targeting meat intake among individuals with certain values or beliefs: PBD messages with an ethical focus may resonate with the increasing number of people that consider animal welfare a moral issue [ 62 ], while health messages may be more effective for those that perceive the health severity of animal-based diets, consistent with others’ observations of greater meat discouragement among those that believed meat was bad for health but not among those that believed it was bad for the environment [ 17 ].…”

“…Although plant-based diets bring about many health and sustainability benefits, shifting dietary patterns is complex. Consumers’ attitudes toward and intake of PBD vary widely and are associated with differences in gender, income, age, race/ethnicity, and political leaning [ 17 , 18 ]. Consumers who have a positive attitude toward prosumerism, ethics, health, and naturalness are supportive of a transition to a plant-based diet, while social image and pleasure are barriers to a transition to a plant-based diet [ 19 ].…”

Developing health and environmental warning messages about red meat: An online experiment

“…For environmental warnings, PME was higher among Hispanic/Latinx participants, participants with an annual household income of $100,000 or more, and liberal participants. Warnings about red meat could help inform consumers about the health and environmental impacts of these products [63]. Current awareness of the adverse health impacts likely is low given the lack of public health campaigns focused on red meat's health harms.…”

“…These differences may be because other outcomes, such as cancer and mortality, may be perceived as more damaging to health than type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, these differences could be due to the fact that the general public has overall low awareness about the association between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes [63].…”

Effect of Climate Change Impact Menu Labels on Fast Food Ordering Choices Among US Adults

“… 34 We adapted the discouragement item to ask participants how much they agreed or disagreed (on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree) that “Information on the menu discouraged me from wanting to consume menu items with a high impact on climate change.” The PME measure has been adapted and used in numerous prior studies of menu and food labeling experiments and has been shown to be associated with behavior. 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 …”