Shades and shifts in flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles in a German panel study

Consumers' growing awareness of the adverse effects of high meat consumption has led to increased attention to flexitarian or meat-reduced diets. However, most flexitarians do not significantly reduce their meat consumption and still eat many meat-based meals. This study aims to classify the large and heterogeneous consumer group of flexitarians into different profiles based on attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs about meat reduction. Being aware that consumer profiles can change over time, this study explores the dynamics of the identified profiles using a two-wave panel survey of 430 German consumers. Latent profile analysis revealed distinct flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles, including three stable profiles and one non-stable profile across both waves. The findings indicate that flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles differ significantly in their belief structure about meat reduction and that consumers can switch back and forth to other profiles over time. Practitioners should be aware of changes in the belief structure of flexitarian and meat-oriented consumer profiles when developing meat reduction interventions. Further research is needed to understand the reasons behind these profile shifts.

Meat reduction meets family reality: Negotiating sustainable diets in households with adolescents

Limited research exists on how the transition towards more sustainable eating takes place at the meso-level of family decision-making, or how children and adolescents engage in and possibly influence the process towards more sustainable diets in families. In this paper, we study how public recommendations that encourage reducing the consumption of meat for the benefit of both health and climate are interpreted, negotiated, and acted upon in Danish families with adolescents (aged 15-20) residing at home. We use novel methodological stimuli, including vignettes and a visual sorting task, embedded in qualitative, in-depth interviews to elicit data on parents' and adolescents' everyday meat consumption/reduction behaviours. Findings reveal that a desire to uphold harmony and family cohesion serves as simultaneous drivers and barriers to reducing meat consumption. Further, we identify barriers to change in the gendered work hidden in the tasks of planning the integration of more sustainable, green dishes into the meal repertoires. Implications are drawn for social marketers, marketers, and public policymakers, encouraging these to use insights into family food decision-making processes as a lever to facilitate the needed green transition of diets in family households.

The impact of consumers' preferences for domestic food on dietary sustainability

A sustainable dietary transition requires knowledge of the drivers and barriers of dietary choices. We investigate the role of preferences for domestic food, as well as environmental and health concerns, as drivers for the consumption of red and white meat, fish, ready-made plant-based food products and self-identification as some type of meat reducer (flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan). A survey of 1102 consumers was conducted in Norway with questions about food attitudes, beliefs and preferences regarding health, the environment and domestic food as well as dietary habits and demographics. The results from interval and logistic regression analyses show that stronger preferences for domestic food are associated with higher consumption of red meat and a lower likelihood of eating plant-based food and identifying as a meat reducer. Health concerns are associated with higher consumption of white meat and fish, and environmental concern is associated with lower consumption of white meat and a higher likelihood of eating plant-based food. The results also confirm previous research results that disbelief regarding the negative health and environmental impacts of meat correlate with higher meat consumption and a lower likelihood of eating plant-based food. In addition, we find that people who believe that Norway is a country primarily suited for livestock production have higher consumption of meat and a lower likelihood of eating plant-based food. We conclude that to make certain consumers transition away from meat, it is important to provide domestically produced, plant-based alternatives and to implement policy measures that will generate positive storylines of improved farmer livelihoods.

'It's just pølse': Convenient meat consumption and reduction in Norway

Meat consumption and convenience food are both located at the heart of contemporary, industrialized, unhealthy and unsustainable food systems. In this article, we study the intersections between convenience food and 'meatification' of diets, focusing on the 'pølse'-an umbrella term including both hotdogs and a range of sausages-as the epitome of convenience food in Norway. We explore how the pølse is embedded in Norwegian food practices, and why it is considered convenient in different contexts. In doing so, we seek to explain how pølse eating is co-shaped by socio-material scripting processes that further entrench meat in food practices and complicate meat-reduction efforts. The analysis is based on 52 in-depth household interviews and autophotography in four geographical contexts in Norway, in addition to 22 park interviews and survey data centering on household food and meat practices. We use a theoretical apparatus combining social practice theory, foodscapes and socio-material scripts to analyse the conveniencization of pølse. The articles demonstrates how meat consumption and convenience food become entwined in specific social practices, and how conveniencization intersects with practices of care, notions of class, social expectations and normativity. Moreover, we show that despite the range of plant-based 'pølse' substitutes on offer, meat-eaters remain skeptical to its taste, and substitutes rather seem to offer a way into established social occasions for non-meat eaters than a way out of meat eating.

Relational climate and openness to plant-forward diets among cohabitating couples

Plant-forward diets offer a potential solution to many of the health and ecological crises that we find ourselves facing today. A key barrier to the adoption and maintenance of plant-forward diets is an anticipated lack of support from family members, friends and romantic partners. The present study examined how relational climate (i.e., the cohesion and flexibility of a partnership) contributes to the tension individuals anticipate in their relationship when a member reduces their animal-product consumption, and their own openness to reducing. Four hundred and ninety-six coupled individuals took part in an online survey. Analyses revealed that couples with more flexible leadership styles anticipated less tension should they or their partner adopt a plant-forward diet. However, dimensions of relational climate were largely unrelated to openness to plant-forward diets. Romantic couples who perceived themselves to be matched in terms of dietary habits were less open to reducing their animal-product consumption than unmatched couples. Politically left-leaning couples and females were more open to plant-forward diets. The meat attachments of male partners were reported as a particular barrier to dietary goals, as were practical concerns about meal coordination, finance, and health. Implications for promoting plant-forward dietary transitions are discussed.

Gradual behaviour change towards meat reduction: Development and validation of a novel decisional balance scale

Meat reduction is gaining attention among consumers, marketers, policymakers and scientists. Yet little is known about decision-making processes and behaviour change towards meat reduction. This paper explores the applicability of the decisional balance (DB) framework to the field of meat reduction. A novel DB scale to measure the perceived importance of beliefs about meat reduction at different stages of behaviour change was developed and validated in two studies with German meat eaters. In Study 1 (N = 309), the item inventory was tested using an exploratory factor analysis and then validated in Study 2 (N = 809). The results yielded two higher-order DB factors (pros and cons), which were subdivided into five lower-order factors (perceived benefits of a plant-based diet, downsides of factory farming, health barriers, legitimation barriers and feasibility barriers). The pros and cons were summarised in a DB index. All DB factors and the DB index were tested for internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥.70) and aspects of validity. The typical DB pattern of the pros and cons of behaviour change was confirmed: the cons outweighed the pros for consumers who did not intend to reduce meat consumption, while the pros outweighed the cons for consumers who intended to reduce meat consumption. The new DB scale for meat reduction has proven to be a suitable measure to gain insights into consumers' decision making and could be used to develop targeted meat reduction interventions.

Does promoting plant-based products in Veganuary lead to increased sales, and a reduction in meat sales? A natural experiment in a supermarket setting

OBJECTIVE

To explore changes in plant-based and meat product sales during and after implementation of a multi-component in-store intervention implemented by a major UK food retailer. Secondary objectives included exploring differences by store format and area affluence.

DESIGN

The intervention increased the visibility, accessibility, affordability and availability of a selection of plant-based products. Unit sales of plant-based and meat products during the intervention (January 2021) were compared with pre- (November 2020) and post-intervention (February and March 2021). Non-meat product sales were assessed as a control. Negative binomial mixed models were used to explore sales changes and differences by store format or affluence.

SETTING

The intervention was applied in a real-world supermarket setting during Veganuary.

PARTICIPANTS

Stores that applied the full intervention (n 154) were included for analysis. Weekly sales data for each store were obtained from the retailer.

RESULTS

Average weekly unit sales of plant-based products increased significantly (57 %) during the intervention period (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1·52 (95 % CI1·51, 1·55)). Plant-based product sales decreased post-intervention but remained 15 % higher than pre-intervention (IRR 1·13 (95 % CI 1·12, 1·14)). There was no significant change in meat sales according to time period. The increase in plant-based product sales was greatest at superstores (58 %), especially those located in below average affluence areas (64 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that increasing visibility, accessibility, affordability and availability of plant-based products led to increased sales, with evidence of lasting effects. No significant changes in meat sales were observed. Variation according to store format and area affluence indicates targeted intervention approaches are needed.

Meat consumption and consumer attitudes - A Norwegian perspective

Norway has lower meat consumption than other North European countries. Meat is acknowledged as important for food security in Norway, as Norway's agricultural possibilities are best suited for free-ranging and self-foraging animals. Meat has a strong position in the Norwegian diet, particularly as a centrepiece for special occasions. Good taste, product variety, and affordable price make meat a convenient choice. Norwegian consumers are not worried about animal welfare in local production, nor highly driven by environmental motives for reducing their consumption. Meat analogues have a very small market share, and taste and processing level do not make it a primary replacement for meat reducers. Still, Norwegian consumers' attitudes towards meat have become more diverse in later years. More consumer segments display meat-reducing behaviours citing both health and sustainability reasons. Females are particularly interested in reducing meat consumption, young age and urban lifestyle are other characteristics of meat reducing segments.

The effectiveness of animal welfare-, environmental-, and health-focused video appeals on implicit and explicit wanting of meat and intentions to reduce meat consumption

The production of meat and its consumption are associated with negative consequences for the environment, the animals raised and slaughtered for food, and the health of those who consume animal-based foods. We investigated whether video appeals that addressed these topics affected participants' wanting of meat and intentions to reduce meat relative to a control video. Results indicated only the environmental video led to increased intentions to reduce meat relative to controls. Nevertheless, implicit wanting of meat was lower in all three experimental conditions compared to the control condition. Additionally, moral emotions and agreement with the video's message mediated the relationships between condition and implicit wanting and intentions for the animal welfare and environment conditions. For the health condition, only agreement with the message served as a mediator. These results suggest that although animal welfare-, environmental-, and health-focused video appeals may be effective at shifting immediate desire to consume meat, environmental video appeals may be the most effective for increasing intentions to change future meat intake.

Effectiveness of an Online Programme to Tackle Individual's Meat Intake through SElf-regulation (OPTIMISE): A randomised controlled trial

Purpose

A reduction in meat intake is recommended to meet health and environmental sustainability goals. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an online self-regulation intervention to reduce meat consumption.

Methods

One hundred and fifty one adult meat eaters were randomised 1:1 to a multi-component self-regulation intervention or an information-only control. The study lasted 9 weeks (1-week self-monitoring; 4-week active intervention; and 4-week maintenance phase). The intervention included goal-setting, self-monitoring, action-planning, and health and environmental feedback. Meat intake was estimated through daily questionnaires in weeks 1, 5 and 9. The primary outcome was change in meat consumption from baseline to five weeks. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline to nine weeks and change in red and processed meat intake. We used linear regression models to assess the effectiveness of all the above outcomes.

Results

Across the whole sample, meat intake was 226 g/day at baseline, 118 g/day at five weeks, and 114 g/day at nine weeks. At five weeks, the intervention led to a 40 g/day (95%CI − 11.6,− 67.5, P = 0.006) reduction in meat intake, including a 35 g/day (95%CI − 7.7, − 61.7, P = 0.012) reduction in red and processed meat, relative to control. There were no significant differences in meat reduction after the four-week maintenance phase (− 12 g/day intervention vs control, 95% CI 19.1, − 43.4, P = 0.443). Participants said the intervention was informative and eye-opening.

Conclusion

The intervention was popular among participants and helped achieve initial reductions in meat intake, but the longer-term reductions did not exceed control.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04961216, 14th July 2021, retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00394-022-02828-9.

Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis

OBJECTIVE

Diets high in red and processed meat (RPM) contribute substantially to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and the global burden of chronic disease. High-profile reports have called for significant global RPM reduction, especially in high-income settings. Despite this, policy attention and political priority for the issue are low.

DESIGN

The study used a theoretically guided framing analysis to identify frames used by various interest groups in relation to reducing RPM in online news media articles published in the months around the release of four high-profile reports by authoritative organisations that included a focus on the impacts of high RPM production and/or consumption.

SETTING

Four major RPM producing and consuming countries - USA, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

None.

RESULTS

Hundred and fifty news media articles were included. Articles reported the views of academics, policymakers, industry representatives and the article authors themselves. RPM reduction was remarkably polarising. Industry frequently framed RPM reduction as part of a 'Vegan Agenda' or as advocated by an elite minority. Reducing RPM was also depicted as an infringement on personal choice and traditional values. Many interest groups attempted to discredit the reports by citing a lack of consensus on the evidence, or that only certain forms of farming and processing were harmful. Academics and nutrition experts were more likely to be cited in articles that were aligned with the findings of the reports.

CONCLUSIONS

The polarisation of RPM reduction has led to a binary conflict between pro- and anti-meat reduction actors. This division may diminish the extent to which political leaders will prioritise this in policy agendas. Using nuanced and context-dependent messaging could ensure the narratives around meat are less conflicting and more effective in addressing health and environmental harms associated with RPM.

Sparking Change: Evaluating the effectiveness of a multi-component intervention at encouraging more sustainable food behaviors

Facilitating the adoption of more sustainable food behaviors is key in order to reduce pressure on nature and improve public health. Food businesses that interact directly with consumers are well placed to enable a positive change in food behaviors. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of a 9-week multi-component behavioral intervention implemented by a large UK food retailer. Three food behaviors were explored: meat consumption, food waste and scratch cooking. Evaluation methods comprise of surveys issued pre-intervention, at intervention-end and at delayed follow-up (3 months after intervention end), and focus groups where participants were divided according to life-stage (pre-family, family, retired). Results show the intervention mitigated individual barriers to change and had a positive impact on awareness, intention and behavior which lasted beyond intervention-end. Participants reported reducing their meat consumption and food waste and cooking more frequently from scratch. Findings indicate that the online community, 'ask the expert' videos and product samples were the most impactful intervention components, while recipes and cook-alongs were less effective. This study provides an effective and feasible intervention which could be implemented and scaled by food companies. While behavioral interventions offer a positive opportunity for companies to drive consumer behavior change, structural and cultural changes to the food environment will be needed to facilitate long-term change at scale.

Meet your meat: The effect of imagined intergroup contact on wanting and liking of meat

Increased global meat consumption has negative impacts on animal welfare, the environment, as well as health. The current study is the first to investigate whether imagined intergroup contact with a farmed animal changes wanting and liking of beef and reduces willingness to consume meat. Collegians [N = 100, 67% female] imagined having a positive experience with either a calf (n = 36), kitten (n = 33), or child (n = 31). Following the imagined interaction, they completed the Leeds Food Preference Questionnaire to measure implicit and explicit wanting and explicit liking of beef and other types of meat relative to other food categories. Participants also indicated their willingness to reduce meat consumption. Results revealed that there were no significant differences between groups in explicit wanting or liking of beef or meat, nor in willingness to reduce future meat consumption. Nevertheless, compared to the kitten and child conditions, participants who imagined interacting with a calf experienced lower levels of implicit wanting and relative preference for beef and other meat products. Our findings suggest that imagined intergroup contact may be an effective manipulation to reduce meat consumption as a part of a broader intervention program.

You read what you eat! Selective exposure effects as obstacles for environmental risk communication in the meat consumption debate

The selective exposure effect describes people's tendency to prefer information that confirms rather than challenges existing beliefs. The present research replicates the selective exposure effect in the context of meat reduction as a proposed strategy to combat climate change. Additionally, we tested whether biased information selection can help explain polarization dynamics on the individual and group-level. We recruited a French crowd working sample (n = 351) to take part in an online study. Our research design included a selective exposure paradigm in which people could skip through a set of news headlines and decide for each headline whether to access an associated full text. The headlines either promoted or rejected meat reduction as effective environmental strategy. In accordance with the selective exposure effect, participants systematically preferred information in favor of their dietary habits. On a personal level, selective exposure indirectly accounted for attitudes towards meat reduction. On a social level, selective exposure indirectly accounted for indicators of group polarization. Overall, the findings demonstrate how psychological motives underlying information selection may hamper effective risk communication and could sharpen social divide in the climate change context. We discuss opportunities for future research and practical efforts to improve the efficacy of environmental risk communication.

What's your beef with meat substitutes? Exploring barriers and facilitators for meat substitutes in omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans

The overconsumption of meat has been related to negative health, environmental, and animal welfare effects. As such, many people are now reducing their meat consumption, and for some this includes increasing their consumption of meat substitutes. While research has discussed the barriers towards the adoption of meat substitutes, there is a lack of studies examining the differences between omnivores and veg*ns. The objective of this research is to explore the facilitators, barriers, and negotiations (i.e., tensions) that various dietary groups encounter with meat substitutes. Six focus groups were conducted and our analysis found clear tension between many influences in food choice. These tensions result in the influences (sensory preferences, meat substitutes' classification, health perceptions, and social/culture) being both facilitators and barriers dependent on the dietary group. Yet, there are also key facilitators across all dietary groups such as resources (packaging and labelling), and food context (restaurants, takeaways), as well as barriers such as the "vegan tax" (high price) and lack of trust. A main value negotiation was also exhibited by all dietary groups, balancing familiarity with food/meal freedom and versatility. We provide a reflection on the practical implications for meat substitute companies.

Monitoring a meat-free pledge with smartphones: An experimental study

Pledges are a popular strategy to encourage meat reduction, though experimental studies of their efficacy are lacking. Three-hundred and twenty-five participants from three different countries (UK, Germany, Australia) were randomly assigned to pledge 28 days meat-free or not, and their behavior was tracked via smartphones. Participants answered daily surveys regarding their eating behavior, meat cravings, and shared photos of their meals. Baseline data was collected prior to the pledge, after the 28 days, and one-month post-intervention. Participants assigned to the pledge condition ate less meat across the 28 days, compared to control participants. Meat reductions, observed at outtake, did not endure one-month post-intervention. Overall, German participants ate the least amount of meat, and showed the sharpest decrease in consumption when pledging. Meat cravings tended to increase among pledgers, relative to control participants. Pledgers who reported high starting intentions and conflict about meat tended to eat less meat and reported fewer cravings. All participants reported reduced meat-eating justifications one-month post-intervention. These findings provide experimental evidence that pledges can encourage meat consumers to reduce their intake, though additional mechanisms are needed to sustain commitments.

VR outreach and meat reduction advocacy: The role of presence, empathic concern and speciesism in predicting meat reduction intentions

The industrial farming and slaughtering of animals may be considered one of the most pressing ethical problems of our time, yet consumers remain empathically disconnected from food animals and continue to eat meat. Therefore, animal advocacy groups have started using virtual reality (VR) outreach to promote consumers' concern for food animals and persuade them to eat less meat. In this study, we examined whether a short 360° documentary depicting the life cycle of factory farmed pigs (from their lives on the farm to their death in the slaughterhouse) experienced in a VR format versus in a regular video format increases participants' intentions to eat less meat via an increased feeling of presence and empathic concern. Using a single factor experimental design, we randomly allocated participants (n = 84 after data-cleaning) to answer a questionnaire following one of both conditions (VR versus video documentary, each n = 42). Results confirmed our hypothesized serial mediation model; VR (versus video) had a positive influence on presence and additionally on empathic concern, leading to higher intentions of reduced meat consumption among participants. Yet, VR (versus video) also had a direct, negative effect on empathy when controlling for presence, so no total effect of medium format on intentions to reduce meat could be found. This counter-effect of VR on empathic concern could be explained by an increased level of speciesism among participants exposed to the VR (versus video) documentary, a finding that is consistent with prior literature on speciesism, cognitive dissonance and dissociation, and requires further confirmatory investigation. Limitations and implications for theory and practice of the study are considered.

Prescribing vegetarian or flexitarian diets leads to sustained reduction in meat intake

Many people agree that reducing the consumption of meat has good ends (e.g., for animal welfare, the environment, and human health). However, the question of which advocacy strategies are most effective in enabling wide-spread meat reduction remains open. We explored this by prescribing four different meat reduction diets to omnivorous participants for a seven-day adherence period, and studied their meat consumption over time. The diets included a Vegetarian diet, and three flexitarian diets (Climatarian - limit beef and lamb consumption; One Step for Animals - eliminate chicken consumption; Reducetarian - reduce all meat consumption). Results showed pronounced differences between groups in meat consumption during the adherence period, where the Vegetarian group ate significantly less meat than the flexitarian groups. All groups decreased their meat intake in the weeks following the adherence period compared to baseline, however, there were no significant group differences in the level of decrease over time. Participants also changed their attitudes toward meat and animals from pre-to post-intervention, and decreases in commitment toward and rationalization of meat-eating partially mediated change in meat intake. These findings reveal that the diet assignments had some impact on participants' meat consumption and attitudes even after the prescribed adherence period had ended. However, the sustained decrease in consumption did not vary depending on what meat reduction strategy was originally used.

Young adults' experiences with flexitarianism: The 4Cs

Meat reduction has important implications for public health and the environment. With people more likely to reduce their meat consumption than eliminate it completely, there is increased interest in flexitarian (reduced meat) diets. Young adults in particular are transitioning towards a flexitarian diet, yet there is very little research on this crucial sub-set of the population. In this research, 23 interviews are conducted with young adults aged 18-35 in New Zealand to explore their lived experiences (i.e., motivations, strategies and barriers) towards flexitarianism. The research finds young adults are encouraged to transition towards flexitarianism due to increased control, through a transition away from home which is enabled through cooking strategies, social support and experimentation. Young flexitarians are motivated to reduce meat consumption due to concern about various individual (health, variety, price, reduce social unease) and altruistic (environment and ethics) motivations. Continued meat consumption is mainly driven by a need to compromise at social gatherings, and due to positive associations with variety, nutrients and fullness as well as taste due to cravings. The findings have several implications for social marketing and public health, particularly around supportive social settings, seeing flexitarianism as a 'not all or nothing approach' (one does not have to be a full vegetarian or a meat eater, but can instead be something in between), positive emotions such as pride associated with meat reduction, and that documentaries and social networks are key triggers for meat reduction.

The Dietary Behaviors of Participants in UK-Based Meat Reduction and Vegan Campaigns - A Longitudinal, Mixed-Methods Study

Meat reduction, vegetarianism, and veganism have greatly increased in popularity during the 21st century, particularly in the United Kingdom. Yet, little is known about the process of reducing or abstaining. Through the use of focus groups and a longitudinal, web-based survey delivered over a twelve-month period, this project provides insights into the reported dietary habits and trends of participants in UK-based meat reduction and vegan campaigns (n = 1539). Drawing on Michie, Atkins, and West (2014)'s Behavior Change Wheel to better understand the process of dietary transition, findings reveal key opportunities for policymakers and non-profit organizations to better understand and support the process of dietary change. Reported planned dietary changes suggest a tendency for gradual transitions, with planned and achieved changes generally reflecting proposed reduction and abstention hierarchies. Planned reductions were most likely to include red meat and least likely to include seafood or eggs, while seafood abstention was more common than that of dairy or eggs. Those seeking to abstain from the consumption of some or all animal-derived foods were the most likely to report meeting their anticipated dietary changes, while meat reducers were generally unlikely to indicate that they were achieving planned reductions.

Okay to promote eating less meat, but don't be a cheat - The role of dietary identity, perceived inconsistency and inclusive language of an advocate in legitimizing meat reduction

The legitimacy of meat-rich diets in Western societies is slowly in decline as the benefits of meat reduction for personal health, ecological welfare, and animal welfare are become increasingly clear. This is mirrored by a surge of campaigns, which rely heavily on social media platforms to legitimize meat reduction among their target audience: meat-eaters. Social Identity Theory suggests that the effectiveness of meat reduction advocacy will depend on the dietary identity of advocates and their rhetorical style. To examine this, we used a 2 × 2 between-participants factorial design in which we exposed meat-eaters (N = 186) to a meat reduction campaign image shared by an advocate on Facebook, where the advocate was portrayed as either a meat-eater (ingroup) or a vegetarian (outgroup), who used either inclusive language ("we can eat less meat") or personal language ("you can eat less meat") to promote meat reduction. Results reveal that the meat-eating (versus vegetarian) advocate was more likely perceived as inconsistent when promoting meat reduction. Higher perceptions of inconsistency were significantly associated with a lower perceived legitimacy of the message for both advocate types, especially when the advocate was a vegetarian. We also found that meat-eaters were more tolerant of a perceived inconsistency when advocates used inclusive rather than personal language. Perceptions of favouritism towards the advocate could explain the conditional effects of perceived inconsistency on message legitimacy. Lastly, we could observe that meat-eaters who perceived the message as more legitimate and identified less as meat-eaters were more willing to eat less meat. Practical implications of our findings are considered.

Reducing meat consumption in the USA: a nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours

OBJECTIVE

Excess meat consumption, particularly of red and processed meats, is associated with nutritional and environmental health harms. While only a small portion of the population is vegetarian, surveys suggest many Americans may be reducing their meat consumption. To inform education campaigns, more information is needed about attitudes, perceptions, behaviours and foods eaten in meatless meals.

DESIGN

A web-based survey administered in April 2015 assessed meat reduction behaviours, attitudes, what respondents ate in meatless meals and sociodemographic characteristics.

SETTING

Nationally representative, web-based survey in the USA.

SUBJECTS

US adults (n 1112) selected from GfK Knowledgeworks' 50 000-member online panel. Survey weights were used to assure representativeness.

RESULTS

Two-thirds reported reducing meat consumption in at least one category over three years, with reductions of red and processed meat most frequent. The most common reasons for reduction were cost and health; environment and animal welfare lagged. Non-meat reducers commonly agreed with statements suggesting that meat was healthy and 'belonged' in the diet. Vegetables were most often consumed 'always' in meatless meals, but cheese/dairy was also common. Reported meat reduction was most common among those aged 45-59 years and among those with lower incomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The public and environmental health benefits of reducing meat consumption create a need for campaigns to raise awareness and contribute to motivation for change. These findings provide rich information to guide intervention development, both for the USA and other high-income countries that consume meat in high quantities.