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 randomised 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, 2.60–2.82). 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.
Generated Summary
This study, a within-subjects randomized experiment, investigates the awareness of, and reactions to, health and environmental harms of red meat among parents in the United States. The research utilized an online survey where participants responded to questions regarding their awareness and discouragement levels in response to eight health and eight environmental harms associated with red meat. The study aimed to identify which specific harms are most impactful in meat reduction messages and to understand how demographic characteristics influence these perceptions. The order of presenting health and environmental harms was randomized to mitigate potential biases. The methodology involved a randomized experiment with 544 US parents, examining their awareness of, and perceived discouragement from, various health and environmental harms associated with red meat consumption. The study sought to determine which harms are most effective in encouraging reduced red meat intake and if demographic factors play a role in these perceptions.
Key Findings & Statistics
- 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).
- 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).
- About one-third (33%) of participants were not aware of any of the sixteen harms; 46% were not aware of any of the health harms, and 51% were not aware of any of the environmental harms.
- The specific harms with the highest level of awareness in the sample were heart disease (28% reported awareness), weight gain (27%), climate change (22%) and increased greenhouse gas emissions (21%).
- Participants aged 26-34 years reported awareness of about 0.3 fewer harms of red meat compared with those aged 18-25 years (B=-0.33, P=0.029).
- Participants who identified as female reported being aware of fewer harms than those who identified as male (B = -0.26, P=0.023).
- Participants who identified as Black reported awareness of more harms than those identifying as White (B=0·57, P=0.006).
- Usual red meat consumption was not associated with being aware of more health and environmental harms of red meat (B = 0.04, P = 0.558).
- Health harms elicited slightly more discouragement than environmental harms, but the magnitude of the difference was small (mean discouragement 2.73 v. 2.69 on the 1-5 Likert scale; B = 0.04, P=0.010).
- Heart disease elicited the highest mean discouragement (mean = 2.82 on the 1-5 Likert scale), followed by early death (mean = 2.79), plants and animals going extinct (mean = 2.75), stroke (mean = 2.75) and weight gain (mean = 2.75).
- The only significant differences in discouragement between harms were that early death was more discouraging than prostate cancer (difference in predicted means = 0.20, adjusted P = 0.002), and heart disease was more discouraging than both prostate cancer (difference = 0.23, adjusted P<0.001) and worsening land quality (difference = 0.17, adjusted P=0.024).
- Participants aged 26-34 years (compared with 18–25), identified as female (compared with male) and identified as politically conservative (compared with liberal) reported awareness of fewer harms of red meat.
- Higher education, higher income and higher usual red meat consumption were associated with awareness of more of the environmental harms of red meat.
- Participants who identified as Black reported higher levels of average discouragement compared with White participants (B = 0.56, P=0.019).
- Consumers aged 18-25 years reported higher discouragement in response to environmental harms of red meat compared with those aged 26–34 and 35–44 years.
- Participants who reported higher general perceptions that red meat is bad for health also reported higher average discouragement (B=0.18, P=0.006).
- Participants who reported higher usual red meat consumption reported higher average discouragement (B=0.36, P<0.001).
Other Important Findings
- The study found that health harms elicited slightly more discouragement than environmental harms.
- Higher education, higher income, and higher red meat consumption were associated with increased awareness of environmental harms.
- Messages about a variety of health and environmental harms of red meat could inform consumers and motivate reductions in red meat consumption.
- The specific harms with the highest level of awareness in the sample were heart disease, weight gain, climate change and increased greenhouse gas emissions.
- Participants who identified as Black reported awareness of more harms than those identifying as White.
- Health harms elicited slightly more discouragement than environmental harms, but the magnitude of the difference was small.
- Higher education and income were associated with increased awareness of environmental harms.
- Participants aged 18-25 years reported higher discouragement in response to environmental harms compared with older age groups.
- Those with higher red meat consumption reported higher average discouragement.
- General perceptions that red meat is bad for health were linked to higher average discouragement.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study used a convenience sample of parents, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
- The sample’s age distribution was relatively young.
- The study did not assess whether participants were vegetarian or vegan.
- The study did not assess beliefs about the benefits of red meat for specific health outcomes.
- The study did not assess other potentially important aspects of message design, such as message framing.
- The study did not assess behavioral outcomes, focusing instead on perceived message effectiveness.
Conclusion
The study highlights the potential of using messaging that describes the health and environmental impacts of red meat as a way to inform and encourage consumers to reduce their consumption. The findings suggest that the majority of parents were not yet aware of the harms associated with red meat. The study found that both health and environmental harms elicited similar levels of perceived discouragement, with heart disease, early death, and the extinction of plants and animals being among the most discouraging. This suggests that message developers have many promising topics to address in meat reduction messaging. The associations between participants’ characteristics and their average discouragement ratings should be interpreted with caution, as some demographic groups might respond more strongly to any type of message presented in an online survey. The study’s strengths include the comprehensive set of health and environmental harms tested and the experimental comparison of how much each harm motivated participants to reduce their red meat consumption. The study’s limitations include the use of a convenience sample, a relatively young age distribution, and the lack of information on participants’ vegetarian or vegan status. Further studies are needed to confirm the findings with broader populations and to assess the impact of messages on actual consumption and purchasing behavior. The study suggests that interventions would likely benefit from incorporating a variety of strategies to reduce red meat consumption, including increasing the accessibility, availability, and attractiveness of non-meat options.