essay about meat consumption

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volume 14, 2022, review article, open access, meat consumption and sustainability.

• Martin C. Parlasca 1 , and Matin Qaim 1,2
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; email: [email protected] 2 Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
• Vol. 14:17-41 (Volume publication date October 2022) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340
• First published as a Review in Advance on April 25, 2022
• Copyright © 2022 Martin C. Parlasca and Matin Qaim.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Meat has become a controversial topic in public debates, as it involves multiple sustainability dimensions. Here, we review global meat consumption trends and the various sustainability dimensions involved, including economic, social, environmental, health, and animal welfare issues. Meat has much larger environmental and climate footprints than plant-based foods and can also be associated with negative health effects. Technological options can help to increase the sustainability of meat production, but changes in consumption are required as well. At least in high-income countries, where people consume a lot of meat on average, notable reductions will be important. However, vegetarian lifestyles for all would not necessarily be the best option. Especially in low-income countries, nutritious plant-based foods are not available or affordable year-round. Also, livestock production is an important source of income for many poor households. More research is needed on how to promote technological and behavioral changes while managing sustainability trade-offs.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Adesogan AT , Havelaar AH , McKune SL , Eilittä M , Dahl GE. 2020 . Animal source foods: Sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Glob. Food Secur. 25 : 100325 [Google Scholar]
• Afshin A , Sur PJ , Fay KA , Cornaby L , Ferrara G et al. 2019 . Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393 : 1958– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Alonso ME , González-Montaña JR , Lomillos JM. 2020 . Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10 : 385 [Google Scholar]
• Bai Y , Alemu R , Block SA , Headey D , Masters WA. 2021 . Cost and affordability of nutritious diets at retail prices: evidence from 177 countries. Food Policy 99 : 101983 [Google Scholar]
• Bai Y , Naumova EN , Masters WA. 2020 . Seasonality of diet costs reveals food system performance in East Africa. Sci. Adv. 6 : eabc2162 [Google Scholar]
• Baltenweck I , Enahoro D , Frija A , Tarawali S. 2020 . Why is production of animal source foods important for economic development in Africa and Asia?. Anim. Front. 10 : 22– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Blackstone NT , El-Abbadi NH , McCabe MS , Griffin TS , Nelson ME. 2018 . Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 2 : e344– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Bodirsky BL , Rolinski S , Biewald A , Weindl I , Popp A , Lotze-Campen H. 2015 . Global food demand scenarios for the 21st century. PLOS ONE 10 : e0139201 [Google Scholar]
• Bonnet C , Bouamra-Mechemache Z , Réquillart V , Treich N. 2020 . Viewpoint: regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare. Food Policy 97 : 101847 [Google Scholar]
• Bossio DA , Cook-Patton SC , Ellis PW , Fargione J , Sanderman J et al. 2020 . The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nat. Sustain. 3 : 391– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Busch G , Spiller A. 2018 . Consumer acceptance of livestock farming around the globe. Anim. Front. 8 : 1– 3 [Google Scholar]
• Cain M , Lynch J , Allen MR , Fuglestvedt JS , Frame DJ , Macey AH. 2019 . Improved calculation of warming-equivalent emissions for short-lived climate pollutants. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2 : 29 [Google Scholar]
• Chamanara S , Goldstein B , Newell JP. 2021 . Where's the beef? Costco's meat supply chain and environmental justice in California. J. Clean. Prod. 278 : 123744 [Google Scholar]
• Chang J , Peng S , Ciais P , Saunois M , Dangal SRS et al. 2019 . Revisiting enteric methane emissions from domestic ruminants and their δ 13 C CH4 source signature. Nat. Commun. 10 : 3420 [Google Scholar]
• Chriki S , Hocquette J-F. 2020 . The myth of cultured meat: a review. Front. Nutr . 7 : https://doi.org/10.3389/FNUT.2020.00007 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Chungchunlam SMS , Moughan PJ , Garrick DP , Drewnowski A. 2020 . Animal-sourced foods are required for minimum-cost nutritionally adequate food patterns for the United States. Nat. Food 1 : 376– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Clark B , Stewart GB , Panzone LA , Kyriazakis I , Frewer LJ. 2016 . A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29 : 455– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Clark MA , Domingo NGG , Colgan K , Thakrar SK , Tilman D et al. 2020 . Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370 : 705– 8 [Google Scholar]
• Cole JR , McCoskey S. 2013 . Does global meat consumption follow an environmental Kuznets curve?. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 9 : 26– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Crenna E , Sinkko T , Sala S. 2019 . Biodiversity impacts due to food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 227 : 378– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Crippa M , Solazzo E , Guizzardi D , Monforti-Ferrario F , Tubiello FN , Leip A. 2021 . Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2 : 198– 209 [Google Scholar]
• Cusack DF , Kazanski CE , Hedgpeth A , Chow K , Cordeiro AL et al. 2021 . Reducing climate impacts of beef production: a synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions. Glob. Change Biol. 27 : 1721– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Delgado J , Ansorena D , Van Hecke T , Astiasarán I , De Smet S , Estévez M. 2021 . Meat lipids, NaCl and carnitine: Do they unveil the conundrum of the association between red and processed meat intake and cardiovascular diseases? Invited review. Meat Sci . 171 : 108278 [Google Scholar]
• Desiere S , Hung Y , Verbeke W , D'Haese M. 2018 . Assessing current and future meat and fish consumption in Sub-Sahara Africa: learnings from FAO Food Balance Sheets and LSMS household survey data. Glob. Food Secur. 16 : 116– 26 [Google Scholar]
• De Sy V , Herold M , Achard F , Beuchle R , Clevers JGPW et al. 2015 . Land use patterns and related carbon losses following deforestation in South America. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 : 124004 [Google Scholar]
• Dev. Initiat 2021 . 2021 Global nutrition report Rep. Dev. Initiat. Bristol, UK: [Google Scholar]
• Diaz RJ , Rosenberg R. 2008 . Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321 : 926– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Diepeveen S , Ling T , Suhrcke M , Roland M , Marteau TM 2013 . Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health 13 : 756 [Google Scholar]
• Dobersek U , Wy G , Adkins J , Altmeyer S , Krout K , Lavie CJ , Archer E. 2021 . Meat and mental health: a systematic review of meat abstention and depression, anxiety, and related phenomena. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 61 : 622– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Dolgin E. 2020 . Cell-based meat with a side of science. Nature 588 : S64– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Domingo NGG , Balasubramanian S , Thakrar SK , Clark MA , Adams PJ et al. 2021 . Air quality-related health damages of food. PNAS 118 : e2013637118 [Google Scholar]
• Dong S , Shang Z , Gao J , Boone RB. 2020 . Enhancing sustainability of grassland ecosystems through ecological restoration and grazing management in an era of climate change on Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 287 : 106684 [Google Scholar]
• Edenbrandt AK , Lagerkvist C-J. 2021 . Is food labelling effective in reducing climate impact by encouraging the substitution of protein sources?. Food Policy 101 : 102097 [Google Scholar]
• Eisler MC , Lee MRF , Tarlton JF , Martin GB , Beddington J et al. 2014 . Agriculture: steps to sustainable livestock. Nature 507 : 32– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Enahoro D , Mason-D'Croz D , Mul M , Rich KM , Robinson TP et al. 2019 . Supporting sustainable expansion of livestock production in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: scenario analysis of investment options. Glob. Food Secur. 20 : 114– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Espinosa R , Tago D , Treich N. 2020 . Infectious diseases and meat production. Environ. Resour. Econ. 76 : 1019– 44 [Google Scholar]
• FAO (Food Agric. Organ.) 2021a . Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) Rome: FAO [Google Scholar]
• FAO (Food Agric. Organ.) 2021b . The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World Rome: FAO [Google Scholar]
• Gebreyes WA , Dupouy-Camet J , Newport MJ , Oliveira CJB , Schlesinger LS et al. 2014 . The global one health paradigm: challenges and opportunities for tackling infectious diseases at the human, animal, and environment interface in low-resource settings. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 8 : e3257 [Google Scholar]
• Gerbens-Leenes PW , Mekonnen MM , Hoekstra AY. 2013 . The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: a comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resour. Ind . 1–2 : 25– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Gilbert M , Conchedda G , van Boeckel TP , Cinardi G , Linard C et al. 2015 . Income disparities and the global distribution of intensively farmed chicken and pigs. PLOS ONE 10 : e0133381 [Google Scholar]
• Gilbert W , Thomas LF , Coyne L , Rushton J. 2021 . Review: mitigating the risks posed by intensification in livestock production: the examples of antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses. Animal 15 : 100123 [Google Scholar]
• Giubilini A , Birkl P , Douglas T , Savulescu J , Maslen H. 2017 . Taxing meat: taking responsibility for one's contribution to antibiotic resistance. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 30 : 179– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Godde CM , de Boer IJM , zu Ermgassen E , Herrero M , van Middelaar CE et al. 2020 . Soil carbon sequestration in grazing systems: managing expectations. Clim. Change 161 : 385– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Godde CM , Mason-D'Croz D , Mayberry DE , Thornton PK , Herrero M 2021 . Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply chain; a review of the evidence. Glob. Food Secur. 28 : 100488 [Google Scholar]
• Godfray HCJ , Aveyard P , Garnett T , Hall JW , Key TJ et al. 2018 . Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361 : eaam5324 [Google Scholar]
• Gouel C , Guimbard H. 2019 . Nutrition transition and the structure of global food demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101 : 383– 403 [Google Scholar]
• Grace D , Lindahl J , Wanyoike F , Bett B , Randolph T , Rich KM. 2017 . Poor livestock keepers: ecosystem–poverty–health interactions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 372 : 1725 [Google Scholar]
• Grethe H. 2007 . High animal welfare standards in the EU and international trade—How to prevent potential ‘low animal welfare havens’?. Food Policy 32 : 3 315– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Grethe H. 2017 . The economics of farm animal welfare. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9 : 75– 94 [Google Scholar]
• Guasch-Ferré M , Satija A , Blondin SA , Janiszewski M , Emlen E et al. 2019 . Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of red meat consumption in comparison with various comparison diets on cardiovascular risk factors. Circulation 139 : 1828– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Hartmann C , Siegrist M. 2020 . Our daily meat: justification, moral evaluation and willingness to substitute. Food Qual. Prefer. 80 : 103799 [Google Scholar]
• Hayek MN , Harwatt H , Ripple WJ , Mueller ND. 2021 . The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nat. Sustain. 4 : 21– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Headey D , Hirvonen K , Hoddinott J. 2018 . Animal sourced foods and child stunting. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 100 : 1302– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Henderson BB , Gerber PJ , Hilinski TE , Falcucci A , Ojima DS , Salvatore M , Conant RT 2015 . Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world's grazing lands: modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207 : 91– 100 [Google Scholar]
• Henry RC , Alexander P , Rabin S , Anthoni P , Rounsevell MDA , Arneth A. 2019 . The role of global dietary transitions for safeguarding biodiversity. Glob. Environ. Change 58 : 101956 [Google Scholar]
• Herforth A , Arimond M , Álvarez-Sánchez C , Coates J , Christianson K , Muehlhoff E. 2019 . A global review of food-based dietary guidelines. Adv. Nutr. 10 : 590– 605 [Google Scholar]
• Herforth A , Bai Y , Venkat A , Mahrt K , Ebel A , Masters WA. 2020 . Cost and affordability of healthy diets across and within countries. Background paper for The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World Tech. Study 9 Food Agric. Organ. Rome: [Google Scholar]
• Herrero M , Grace D , Njuki J , Johnson N , Enahoro D et al. 2013 . The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7 : S1 3– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Herrero M , Henderson B , Havlík P , Thornton PK , Conant RT et al. 2016 . Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6 : 452– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Herrero M , Thornton PK , Mason-D'Croz D , Palmer J , Benton TG et al. 2020 . Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat. Food 1 : 266– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Hestermann N , Le Yaouanq Y , Treich N 2020 . An economic model of the meat paradox. Eur. Econ. Rev. 129 : 103569 [Google Scholar]
• Hirvonen K , Bai Y , Headey D , Masters WA. 2020 . Affordability of the EAT-Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 8 : e59– 66 [Google Scholar]
• IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2021 . Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, A Pirani, SL Connors, C Péan, et al Cambridge, UK: IPCC. In press [Google Scholar]
• Jin M , Iannotti LL 2014 . Livestock production, animal source food intake, and young child growth: the role of gender for ensuring nutrition impacts. Soc. Sci. Med. 105 : 16– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Katare B , Wang HH , Lawing J , Hao N , Park T , Wetzstein M. 2020 . Toward optimal meat consumption. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 102 : 662– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Khonje MG , Ecker O , Qaim M. 2020 . Effects of modern food retailers on adult and child diets and nutrition. Nutrients 12 : 1714 [Google Scholar]
• Khonje MG , Ricker-Gilbert J , Muyanga M , Qaim M. 2022 . Farm-level production diversity and child and adolescent nutrition in rural sub-Saharan Africa: a multicountry, longitudinal study. Lancet Planet. Health 6 : e391 – 99 [Google Scholar]
• Lawley C. 2021 . Hog barns and neighboring house prices: anticipation and post-establishment impacts. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 103 : 1099– 1121 [Google Scholar]
• Lazarus O , McDermid S , Jacquet J. 2021 . The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers. Clim. Change 165 : 30 [Google Scholar]
• Leahy E , Lyoans S , Tol RSJ. 2010 . An estimate of the number of vegetarians in the world . Work. Pap. 340 Econ. Soc. Res. Inst. Dublin: [Google Scholar]
• Lean IJ , Golder HM , Grant TMD , Moate PJ. 2021 . A meta-analysis of effects of dietary seaweed on beef and dairy cattle performance and methane yield. PLOS ONE 16 : e0249053 [Google Scholar]
• Leitzmann C. 2014 . Vegetarian nutrition: past, present, future. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 : S1 496S– 502S [Google Scholar]
• Leroy F , Cofnas N. 2020 . Should dietary guidelines recommend low red meat intake?. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 60 : 2763– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Lippi G , Mattiuzzi C , Cervellin G. 2016 . Meat consumption and cancer risk: a critical review of published meta-analyses. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 97 : 1– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Liu S , Proudman J , Mitloehner FM. 2021 . Rethinking methane from animal agriculture. CABI Agric. Biosci. 2 : 22 [Google Scholar]
• Lundmark F , Berg C , Röcklinsberg H. 2018 . Private animal welfare standards: opportunities and risks. Animals 8 : 4 [Google Scholar]
• Lusk J , Norwood FB. 2011 . Animal welfare economics. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 33 : 463– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Lynch H , Johnston C , Wharton C. 2018 . Plant-based diets: considerations for environmental impact, protein quality, and exercise performance. Nutrients 10 : 1841 [Google Scholar]
• Lynch J , Cain M , Pierrehumbert R , Allen M 2020 . Demonstrating GWP * : a means of reporting warming-equivalent emissions that captures the contrasting impacts of short- and long-lived climate pollutants. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 : 044023 [Google Scholar]
• Machmuller MB , Kramer MG , Cyle TK , Hill N , Hancock D , Thompson A. 2015 . Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter. Nat. Commun. 6 : 6995 [Google Scholar]
• Machovina B , Feeley KJ , Ripple WJ. 2015 . Biodiversity conservation: the key is reducing meat consumption. Sci. Total Environ. 536 : 419– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Marshall F , Reid REB , Goldstein S , Storozum M , Wreschnig A et al. 2018 . Ancient herders enriched and restructured African grasslands. Nature 561 : 387– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Matta J , Czernichow S , Kesse-Guyot E , Hoertel N , Limosin F et al. 2018 . Depressive symptoms and vegetarian diets: results from the Constances Cohort. Nutrients 10 : 1695 [Google Scholar]
• Mekonnen MM , Hoekstra AY. 2012 . A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15 : 401– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Melina V , Craig W , Levin S 2016 . Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: vegetarian diets. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 116 : 1970– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Micha R , Michas G , Mozaffarian D. 2012 . Unprocessed red and processed meats and risk of coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes—an updated review of the evidence. Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 14 : 515– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Micha R , Wallace SK , Mozaffarian D. 2010 . Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121 : 2271– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Michalak J , Zhang XC , Jacobi F. 2012 . Vegetarian diet and mental disorders: results from a representative community survey. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 9 : 67 [Google Scholar]
• Middleton J , Reintjes R , Lopes H. 2020 . Meat plants—a new front line in the Covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 370 : m2716 [Google Scholar]
• Moore TC , Fong J , Rosa Hernández AM , Pogreba-Brown K 2021 . CAFOs, novel influenza, and the need for One Health approaches. One Health 13 : 100246 [Google Scholar]
• Moran D. 2021 . Meat market failure. Nat. Food 2 : 67 [Google Scholar]
• Mottet A , de Haan C , Falcucci A , Tempio G , Opio C , Gerber P. 2017 . Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food Secur. 14 : 1– 8 [Google Scholar]
• Mottet A , Tempio G. 2017 . Global poultry production: current state and future outlook and challenges. World's Poultry Sci. J. 73 : 245– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Moughan PJ. 2020 . Holistic properties of foods: a changing paradigm in human nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 100 : 5056– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Muller A , Schader C , Scialabba NEH , Brüggemann J , Isensee A et al. 2017 . Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 8 : 1290 [Google Scholar]
• Naguib MM , Li R , Ling J , Grace D , Nguyen-Viet H , Lindahl JF. 2021 . Live and wet markets: food access versus the risk of disease emergence. Trends Microbiol . 29 : 573– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Nordhagen S , Beal T , Haddad L. 2020 . The role of animal-source foods in healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems Discuss. Pap. 5 Glob. Alliance Improv. Nutr. Geneva: [Google Scholar]
• Normile D. 2008 . Rinderpest. Driven to extinction. Science 319 : 1606– 9 [Google Scholar]
• Pan A , Sun Q , Bernstein AM , Manson JE , Willett WC , Hu FB. 2013 . Changes in red meat consumption and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: three cohorts of US men and women. JAMA Intern. Med. 173 : 1328– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Papier K , Fensom GK , Knuppel A , Appleby PN , Tong TYN et al. 2021 . Meat consumption and risk of 25 common conditions: outcome-wide analyses in 475,000 men and women in the UK Biobank Study. BMC Med 19 : 53 [Google Scholar]
• Pieper M , Michalke A , Gaugler T. 2020 . Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products. Nat. Commun. 11 : 6117 [Google Scholar]
• Pierrehumbert RT , Eshel G. 2015 . Climate impact of beef: an analysis considering multiple time scales and production methods without use of global warming potentials. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 : 85002 [Google Scholar]
• Poore J , Nemecek T. 2018 . Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360 : 987– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Ramos AK , Carvajal-Suarez M , Trinidad N , Quintero S , Molina D , Rowland SA. 2021 .. “ No somos máquinas” (We are not machines): worker perspectives of safety culture in meatpacking plants in the Midwest. Am. J. Ind. Med. 64 : 84– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Reisinger A , Clark H. 2018 . How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming?. Glob. Change Biol. 24 : 1749– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Resare Sahlin K , Röös E , Gordon LJ 2020 .. ‘ Less but better’ meat is a sustainability message in need of clarity. Nat. Food 1 : 520– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Ripple WJ , Smith P , Haberl H , Montzka SA , McAlpine C , Boucher DH. 2014 . Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 4 : 2– 5 [Google Scholar]
• Ritchie H. 2020 . The carbon footprint of foods: Are differences explained by the impacts of methane?. Our World in Data March 10. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane [Google Scholar]
• Ritchie H , Roser M. 2021 . Environmental impacts of food production. Our World in Data June. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food [Google Scholar]
• Robbins JA , von Keyserlingk MAG , Fraser D , Weary DM 2016 . Invited review: farm size and animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 94 : 5439– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Röös E , Bajželj B , Smith P , Patel M , Little D , Garnett T. 2017 . Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Glob. Environ. Change 47 : 1– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Rubio NR , Xiang N , Kaplan DL. 2020 . Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nat. Commun. 11 : 6276 [Google Scholar]
• Rust NA , Ridding L , Ward C , Clark B , Kehoe L et al. 2020 . How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Sci. Total Environ. 718 : 137208 [Google Scholar]
• Säll S. 2018 . Environmental food taxes and inequalities: simulation of a meat tax in Sweden. Food Policy 74 : 147– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Salmon G , Teufel N , Baltenweck I , van Wijk M , Claessens L , Marshall K. 2018 . Trade-offs in livestock development at farm level: different actors with different objectives. Glob. Food Secur. 17 : 103– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Salmon GR , MacLeod M , Claxton JR , Pica Ciamarra U , Robinson T et al. 2020 . Exploring the landscape of livestock ‘facts. ’. Glob. Food Secur. 25 : 100329 [Google Scholar]
• Sanford M , Painter J , Yasseri T , Lorimer J. 2021 . Controversy around climate change reports: a case study of Twitter responses to the 2019 IPCC report on land. Clim. Change 167 : 59 [Google Scholar]
• Schader C , Muller A , Scialabba NE , Hecht J , Isensee A et al. 2015 . Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. J. R. Soc. Interface 12 : 20150891 [Google Scholar]
• Schyns JF , Hoekstra AY , Booij MJ , Hogeboom RJ , Mekonnen MM. 2019 . Limits to the world's green water resources for food, feed, fiber, timber, and bioenergy. PNAS 116 : 4893– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Sneeringer S , Hertz T. 2013 . The effects of large-scale hog production on local labor markets. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 45 : 139– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Spiller A , Nitzko S 2015 . Peak meat: the role of meat in sustainable consumption. Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption L Reisch, J Thøgersen 192– 208 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
• Springmann M , Clark M , Mason-D'Croz D , Wiebe K , Bodirsky BL et al. 2018a . Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562 : 519– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Springmann M , Godfray HCJ , Rayner M , Scarborough P. 2016 . Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. PNAS 113 : 4146– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Springmann M , Mason-D'Croz D , Robinson S , Wiebe K , Godfray HCJ et al. 2018b . Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: a modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PLOS ONE 13 : e0204139 [Google Scholar]
• Steinfeld H , Wassenaar T , Jutzi S. 2006 . Livestock production systems in developing countries: status, drivers, trends. Rev. Sci. Tech. 25 : 505– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Temple D , Manteca X. 2020 . Animal welfare in extensive production systems is still an area of concern. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4 : 545902 [Google Scholar]
• Thompson PB 2017 . The ethics of food animal production. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies L Kalof, PB Thompson 363– 79 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Tong TYN , Appleby PN , Armstrong MEG , Fensom GK , Knuppel A et al. 2020 . Vegetarian and vegan diets and risks of total and site-specific fractures: results from the prospective EPIC-Oxford Study. BMC Med 18 : 353 [Google Scholar]
• Uehleke R , Hüttel S. 2019 . The free-rider deficit in the demand for farm animal welfare-labelled meat. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 46 : 291– 318 [Google Scholar]
• Vainio A. 2019 . How consumers of meat-based and plant-based diets attend to scientific and commercial information sources: eating motives, the need for cognition and ability to evaluate information. Appetite 138 : 72– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Valin H , Sands RD , van der Mensbrugghe D , Nelson GC , Ahammad H et al. 2014 . The future of food demand: understanding differences in global economic models. Agric. Econ. 45 : 51– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Valli C , Rabassa M , Johnston BC , Kuijpers R , Prokop-Dorner A et al. 2019 . Health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption: a mixed-methods systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 171 : 742– 55 [Google Scholar]
• van Boeckel TP , Brower C , Gilbert M , Grenfell BT , Levin SA. 2015 . Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. PNAS 112 : 5649– 54 [Google Scholar]
• van Cleef BAGL , Broens EM , Voss A , Huijsdens XW , Züchner L et al. 2010 . High prevalence of nasal MRSA carriage in slaughterhouse workers in contact with live pigs in The Netherlands. Epidemiol. Infect. 138 : 756– 63 [Google Scholar]
• van der Weele C , Feindt P , van der Jan Goot A , van Mierlo B , van Boekel M. 2019 . Meat alternatives: an integrative comparison. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 88 : 505– 12 [Google Scholar]
• van Vliet S , Bain JR , Muehlbauer MJ , Provenza FD , Kronberg SL et al. 2021 . A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable nutrition facts panels. Sci. Rep. 11 : 13828 [Google Scholar]
• van Zanten HHE , Meerburg BG , Bikker P , Herrero M , de Boer IJM. 2016 . The role of livestock in a sustainable diet: a land-use perspective. Animal 10 : 547– 49 [Google Scholar]
• von Braun J , Afsana K , Fresco LO , Hassan M. 2021 . Food systems: seven priorities to end hunger and protect the planet. Nature 597 : 28– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Vranken L , Avermaete T , Petalios D , Mathijs E. 2014 . Curbing global meat consumption: emerging evidence of a second nutrition transition. Environ. Sci. Policy 39 : 95– 106 [Google Scholar]
• Wang X , Lin X , Ouyang YY , Liu J , Zhao G et al. 2016 . Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: Dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Public Health Nutr . 19 : 893– 905 [Google Scholar]
• Webbink E , Smits J , de Jong E. 2012 . Hidden child labor: determinants of housework and family business work of children in 16 developing countries. World Dev . 40 : 631– 42 [Google Scholar]
• West PC , Gerber JS , Engstrom PM , Mueller ND , Brauman KA et al. 2014 . Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science 345 : 325– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Willett W , Rockström J , Loken B , Springmann M , Lang T et al. 2019 . Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 : 447– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Williams DR , Clark M , Buchanan GM , Ficetola GF , Rondinini C , Tilman D. 2021 . Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nat. Sustain. 4 : 314– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Xu X , Sharma P , Shu S , Lin TS , Ciais P et al. 2021 . Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food 2 : 724– 32 [Google Scholar]
• Yang C , Pan L , Sun C , Xi Y , Wang L , Li D 2016 . Red meat consumption and the risk of stroke: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 25 : 1177– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Yuan ZV , Jiao F , Li YH , Kallenbach RH. 2016 . Anthropogenic disturbances are key to maintaining the biodiversity of grasslands. Sci. Rep. 6 : 22132 [Google Scholar]
• Zaharia S , Ghosh S , Shrestha R , Manohar S , Thorne-Lyman AL et al. 2021 . Sustained intake of animal-sourced foods is associated with less stunting in young children. Nat. Food 2 : 246– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Zhang H , Greenwood DC , Risch HA , Bunce D , Hardie LJ , Cade JE. 2021 . Meat consumption and risk of incident dementia: cohort study of 493,888 UK Biobank participants. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 114 : 175– 84 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, energy efficiency economics and policy, the economics of genetically modified crops, climate econometrics, organic agriculture, food security, and the environment, regression discontinuity in time: considerations for empirical applications, precision farming at the nexus of agricultural production and the environment, oil price shocks: causes and consequences, opportunities and challenges for big data in agricultural and environmental analysis, agriculture for development: toward a new paradigm, the economics of the food system revolution.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Themed Issues
• High-Impact Collection
• Infographics
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Publish with Us?
• About Animal Frontiers
• About the American Society of Animal Science
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, moral deliberation about meat consumption: the value of ethical assessment, arguments against meat consumption, arguments in defense of meat, is cultured meat a viable alternative, conclusions, literature cited.

• < Previous

Is meat eating morally defensible? Contemporary ethical considerations

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Candace Croney, Janice Swanson, Is meat eating morally defensible? Contemporary ethical considerations, Animal Frontiers , Volume 13, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 61–67, https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac097

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Despite growing global demand for protein, the ethical justification for meat consumption is increasingly questioned.

Ensuring human rights to food requires moral deliberation.

The role of meat in addressing growing global needs for food must be considered in the context of food safety, security, quality, access, and affordability. Animal rights, welfare, climate change, and natural resource conservation must also be addressed.

Though natural resource scarcity may limit or eliminate production of meat in future, potential for technological innovation and agroecology approaches to offset animal, environmental, and socio-ethical harms offers a justification for retaining some degree of meat production and consumption 
currently.

Because of the enormous projected growth in the human population, the United Nations has called for significant increases in global food production to meet anticipated demand ( Croney et al., 2018 ; FAO, 2021 ). Consumers are increasingly interested in learning about the food they eat, including where and how it is produced. What form that food should take, however, is increasingly the subject of public debate.

Protein derived from animals has figured prominently in human diets unless constrained by religious or other beliefs. Moreover, demand for animal protein has been demonstrated to increase as people in developing nations begin to experience greater prosperity ( Delgado et al. 2003 ; Croney and Anthony, 2014 ). This dynamic is unsurprising given scientific findings identifying the consumption of meat as a defining factor in the evolutionary development of the human brain ( Burini and Leonard, 2018 and in this issue, Leroy et al., 2023 ) and the role that high quality, easily digestible protein plays in human growth and development ( Klurfeld, 2018 ). Despite these benefits, in developed areas of the world where food security and access are relatively high, the ethical justification for meat consumption is increasingly challenged, resulting in polarized, highly contentious discussions. Frequently cited ethical concerns relate to the rearing and killing of animals for food, animal quality of life in modern large-scale, intensive systems of production, and the related impacts on the environment and human health ( Verbeke and Viaene, 1999 ; Baltzer, 2004 ; Botonaki et al., 2006 ; Croney and Anthony, 2014 ; Croney et al., 2018 ; Godfray, 2018 ).

For those for whom food security and accessibility are assured, these and other ethical dimensions of food production have become more significant. Accordingly, some members of the public in food-secure nations have shifted to “ethical consumerism”, electing to purchase food products they perceive to be less socially and environmentally harmful ( Croney and Anthony, 2014 ), while avoiding those not aligned with their values ( Morgan et al., 2016 ). Evidence of such purchasing shifts was found by McKendree et al. (2014) who reported that 14% of U.S. consumers surveyed had reduced their consumption of pork by 56% on average because of animal welfare concerns. Siegrist and Hartmann (2019) reported that consumers who were more health conscious and those who perceived there to be high environmental impacts of meat were more likely to choose meat substitutes. Further, a 2020 U.S. Gallup poll reported that 23% of Americans had reduced their consumption of meat, with ethical concerns such as those related to environmental and animal welfare impacts influencing their choices ( McCarthy and DeKoster, 2020 ).

Several companies have taken note, resulting in significant investment and effort towards the development of plant-based alternatives to meat, such as Beyond Beef and Impossible Meat products. The proliferation and marketing of these protein sources bolstered the arguments against the necessity of eating meat. Simultaneously, public sentiment relating to meat consumption in western countries appears to be increasingly influenced by social pressure exerted through the high volume of media ( He J. et al., 2020 ), social media, scholars ( Godfray et al., 2018 ), NGOs, and others who advocate for reduced or no meat consumption ( de Boer et al., 2017 ). However, recent reports of the poor performance of alternative meat food offerings, and in some cases removal from menus or dis-investment, strongly hint at issues of consumer acceptance ( Olsen, 2022 ).

Although people in most countries continue to eat meat, the idea that vegetarianism is virtuous and morally responsible is being socially normed. The positioning of meat eating as less virtuous is reflected in studies reporting that those who eat meat appear to be less sensitive to animal and environmental concerns ( Piazza et al., 2015 ). Further, it has been suggested that some meat eaters may adopt thinking that relieves them of any associated cognitive dissonance (discomfort created by behaving in ways that are inconsistent with one’s stated beliefs or values). In other words, people may develop strategies to reconcile having strong social and emotional bonds with animals, and salient knowledge about their sentience and cognitive capacities, while also eating them ( Croney et al., 2004 ; Piazza et al., 2015 ). It is therefore not surprising that especially in the published literature, far fewer individuals and groups attempt to make, or succeed at making, compelling ethical arguments for eating meat. For those who try, their motivation and credibility may be called into question and the visibility of their work (and the related scientific basis for their arguments) may be relatively low. This hints at the current social and ethical challenges of defending meat consumption. Recent advances in biotechnology and cellular biology have added a new wrinkle to the discussion of using animals to produce food, perhaps further weakening the perceived case for continued meat production and consumption.

Given changing consumer preferences and ongoing concerns relating to climate change, environmental pollution, human health, and the eco-preservation of natural resources, including water, the moral case for meat must be revisited. A narrative outline of the scientific arguments for and against meat eating are insufficient to accomplish this goal. This paper therefore examines whether meat eating is ethically defensible using tenets of Campbell’s ethics assessment process ( Campbell and Hare, 1997 ; Croney and Anthony, 2010 ), while considering the need for viable, sustainable sources of protein in developed and developing nations.

Whether or not one should eat meat is inherently an ethical question. While science may help to inform the answers to such questions, science alone is insufficient to address them given their value-laden nature. Expanding the inquiry into whether meat eating, in general, should continue transforms the question into one that has far-reaching socio-ethical implications for a greater number of diverse stakeholders. Under such circumstances, it is essential to ensure that the broadest group of impacts, interests, and values are accounted for and duly considered. Ethical accounting processes, such as that offered by Campbell and Hare ( Campbell and Hare, 1997 ; Croney and Anthony, 2010 ), provide a means by which to incorporate relevant factual information into decision-making about ethical questions. This approach facilitates deliberation rather than debate about the potential courses of action, culminating in an examination of the moral justification for a wider range of options than might otherwise be considered ( Croney and Anthony, 2010 ). Moral deliberation is particularly important when the relevant scientific information available on the topic of interest is lacking to some degree or is ambiguous. In such instances, the values of the decision-makers may become the primary drivers of the solutions proposed. This creates the risk of unjustly disenfranchising many who might be impacted whose priorities and needs might be overlooked. Ethical accounting therefore facilitates both inclusiveness and transparency in decision-making that has significant social impact. Because the ethical justification for meat consumption holds both personal and societal implications, we examine the merits of the arguments using Campbell’s ethics assessment process as outlined by Croney and Anthony (2010) . The process includes: ethical fact finding (review of all relevant scientific or factual information); uncovering of embedded values that may be in conflict; moral imagination (ideation about possible solutions through evaluating the quality of arguments for them and the degree to which each option addresses the social, ethical, scientific, and economic concerns involved); and moral justification and testing of proposed solutions.

As previously stated, the ethical arguments against meat eating have been well detailed on the grounds of animal rights welfare ( Singer, 1975 ; Regan, 1983 ; Francione, 2022 ), environmental impact, and human health ( Gunderson, 2015 ). Given the extensive reviews that argue for plant-based diets based on these concerns, this paper will not offer a retread of the previously published ideas. Readers are encouraged to examine the original publications to fully appreciate their influence on contemporary moral philosophy and public discourse about animal use. However, to facilitate moral deliberation, each of these areas of concern must be included in ethical accounting, requiring at minimum, a brief synopsis of the moral considerations they highlight.

A fundamental question examined within the areas of animal rights, welfare, environmental impact, and justice is whether eating animals does harm. Regan’s (1983) foundational thesis unambiguously concluded that animals meet the conditions for having rights (i.e., they are subjects of lives, they have inherent value and preference autonomy) and therefore they cannot be used as mere means to an end (in this case, food). Depriving animals of their lives is the ultimate harm. Singer’s (1975) seminal work arguing that animals are sentient beings capable of suffering, and that human uses that cause them suffering cannot be justified clearly applies to the rearing and killing of animals for food. The sentience of animals and its relationship to animal welfare is scientifically supported and has been formally recognized by the World Animal Health Organization ( OIE, 2017 ). Further, while numerous studies on the welfare of farmed animals have attempted to evaluate and identify ways to minimize distress, pain, and suffering they may experience from rearing to death, it is currently impossible to entirely avoid such negative states ( Dawkins, 2016 ; CAST, 2018 ). As such, some harm (beyond death) is inevitable.

Likewise, scholars focused on environmental impact have linked meat production with degradation of ecosystem quality, including air, soil, and water quality, and depletion of resources, such as water and land ( De Vries and De Boer, 2010 ; Ernstoff et al., 2019 ). Relatedly, environmental justice, which aims to ensure that environmental hazards and their health effects do not disproportionately impact communities that are already disadvantaged (for instance as a result of minority or lower socio-economic status) have suggested that meat production and consumption indeed causes such harms ( Gunderson, 2015 ). Recently, Chamanara et al. (2021) reported that in a study of a major retailer’s supply chain in California, communities living near feedlots were predominantly lower income Latinx who experienced high levels of air pollution and significant health problems related to poor air quality, such as asthma and heart disease. Similar arguments are advanced by Hull et al., (2023) who suggested that because of the animal, environmental, and human-health impacts of meat eating, the medical profession may be morally obligated to promote plant-based diets.

Values that are embedded within each of these areas of ethical concern include protecting others from harm, benevolence (doing good), justice, and fairness. However, especially in the case of the animal rights and welfare arguments, a single-dimension problem focus emerges that prioritizes the interests of a rather limited set of stakeholders (animals). This is unsurprising given that the related philosophies were advanced specifically to center animals as subjects of moral concern. Nonetheless, in the context of contemporary global decision-making about food choices, the limited scope of primary stakeholder consideration inherent to such philosophies presents a problem for ethical decision-making. Significant ethical concerns are raised when public discussions about abandoning meat production and consumption do not adequately consider the broadest group of stakeholders, including people with lower income status and others who might be directly impacted. Such concerns are exacerbated when proposed alternatives fail to address valid socio-ethical, scientific, or economic concerns about moving to a solely plant-based diet, or when the solutions offered cannot yet be practically and equitably implemented. Moreover, in presenting the antimeat arguments, animal, environmental, and human interests are often framed competitively, though all of these must be balanced to achieve just, accessible, sustainable food systems.

Arguments in support of meat consumption are noticeably scant and are therefore more detailed in this paper. First, the historical and cultural significance of eating meat cannot be overlooked. Meat consumption is closely linked with human co-evolution with animals, and throughout history and across diverse cultures, social gathering has often incorporated the sharing of meat ( Monteiro et al., 2017 ). Some have even argued that the cooperation required to procure meat and the act of sharing it despite its scarcity in early human evolution contributed to the development of human morality ( Mameli, 2013 ; DeBacker and Hudders, 2015 ). However, arguments based on tradition are far less compelling when we consider how knowledge, values, and related beliefs have evolved over time, resulting in reduced social acceptability or abandonment of many other long-held traditions and practices.

Proponents of keeping meat in the diet often point to the historical or anthropological record of meat eating by humans, thus, implying its “naturalness,” and the nutritional benefits associated with meat consumption are often cited in support of it. Though these points are scientifically accurate, alone, they present inadequate moral arguments. First, given the degree to which today’s livestock and poultry have been altered through genetic selection and newer developments in genetic engineering ( Croney et al., 2018 ), “dietary naturalness” arguments for commercially produced meats may be questionable to some. The nutritional value of meat makes for a stronger case ( Klurfeld, 2018 ) as the current generation of plant-based meat alternatives still lack equal nutrient value with meat, such as vitamin B12, zinc, and protein ( Harnack et al., 2021 ). However, if new alternative protein sources derived from cell-based technologies can offer the same or equivalent benefits, this argument may be undermined.

Though the case against meat heavily emphasizes the negative environmental and ecological problems created by meat production, there are important and inadequately examined rationales to support meat consumption in these same domains. For example, proponents of regenerative agriculture ( Rowntree et al., 2020 ) have argued that there are significant global limits to arable land for growing crops for protein purposes. This presents very real challenges for those who reside in geographic regions with little to no arable land, which constrains adoption of a primarily or purely plant-based diet. Few philosophical arguments in favor of eliminating meat from human diets engage this concern or offer practical, affordable solutions for those impacted. Further, in many such regions (and in other parts of the world), there is an availability of grasslands that support grazing ruminants. Through the use of regenerative grazing practices, there are significant eco-benefits derived, including improvements to soil health, promoting greater CO 2 sequestration, reduction of greenhouse gases, restoration of biodiversity, and production of high-quality protein for human consumption (see Spratt et al., 2021 and elsewhere in this issue, Thompson et al., 2023 ).

Relatedly, an argument for meat eating that connects both to ecological and animal welfare considerations is that a diet that includes some consumption of grazing animals may cause less harm relative to total numbers of animals killed than one that is vegan ( Davis, 2003 ). Davis argued that the intensive cropping systems required to produce vegan diets potentially lead to the death of 1.8 billion field-dwelling animals. Because pasture-forage production systems that support grazing animals require less harvesting with equipment such as tractors that kill field animals, Davis speculated that less use of such equipment would cause fewer field animal deaths. Even after considering the number of ruminant animals that might be killed for human consumption in a hybrid plant per ruminant diet, Davis estimated that it would still be fewer (1.42 billion) than those lost due to vegan diets. Consequently, he concluded that based on Regan’s (1983) Least Harm Principle, people may be morally obligated to consume at least some meat to reduce the overall harm done to animals.

Given the vast amount of arable land that would be necessary to support vegan diets for all humans, it could be argued that such a diet is neither practical nor ecologically sustainable, further supporting a partially meat-based diet as ethically defensible. However, to date, few philosophers, and others in favor of vegetarian and vegan diets have seriously engaged this point or Davis’ (2003) arguments. Archer (2011) later attempted a similar argument as Davis based on estimated animal field deaths in Australian cropping systems. However, Archer’s claims were challenged by Fischer and Lamey (2018) , who questioned the basis for his (2011) calculations. They also rejected Davis’ (2003) arguments despite noting that he might have underestimated field animal deaths. They concluded that deriving robust estimates of field deaths is difficult due to the variety of animals affected and suggested this challenge as a plausible reason for the lack of engagement on this topic. Nonetheless, they raised the argument that technological innovation might be able to significantly reduce the deaths of field animals and that such pursuits are critical to ensuring humane food choices. Interestingly, an identical argument can be made for those seeking to support meat consumption while also being mindful of the need to mitigate harm caused to animals. Though one might argue that the morally salient difference is intention to kill, the effect on the animals themselves is ultimately what matters if indeed animal welfare, sentience, and protection from harm are high priorities in deliberations about the morality of meat consumption.

Thompson (2021) states that there has been a failure by philosophers engaged in animal ethics to provide guidance to the animal agriculture community that could facilitate improvements to farm animal welfare. He refers to this failure as the “vanishing ethics of animal husbandry”, and claims that a “structural narcissism” has descended on the philosophers who have dominated discussions about livestock and poultry production. Instead of answering the more difficult questions posed by modern animal husbandry practices, they instead offer “oversimplified and rhetorical overstatements” of the practices used in livestock and poultry production. Thompson sees this abandonment by animal ethicists as a missed opportunity to contribute to practical solutions.

Building on Thompson’s (2021) observations, in philosophical debates about the merits of meat consumption, the effects of shifting primarily to plant-based protein sources on local communities and ecosystems, especially in developing countries, are often inadequately explored. In Bolivia, for instance, where quinoa (and llamas) are major agricultural commodities, Jacobsen (2011) reported that the rapid growth in demand for the plant resulted in intensive cultivation practices in parts of the country that led to land degradation in some areas, loss of grazing areas for llamas, and shifts in Andean farmers’ diets to less nutritious food sources. Here, prioritization of the demands, and values of the affluent may have resulted in unintended negative consequences requiring scientific, technological, and educational interventions even though there were economic benefits for Indigenous people. These outcomes underscore the need for deliberation that is inclusive of all stakeholders and facilitates an envisioning of the consequences of shifting to plant-based diets that meet human protein requirements before attempting to advance such transformational food agendas.

Finally, in contemporary discussions about meat eating, there is often insufficient focus on retaining the broadest array of dietary options given the diversity of needs and ability to access food that currently exists globally. It is important to remember that in many parts of the developed and developing world, undernutrition, and inability to access sufficient protein remain ongoing problems for numerous people, especially women and children. For example, the World Health Organization reported that 149 million children under the age of 5 are stunted due to malnourishment and have a 45% death rate attributed to the same cause ( WHO, 2021 ). Micronutrients including iodine, Vitamin A and iron were singled out as deficiencies of global concern. While there are good reasons for deliberating about our eating habits and those of others, it is easy to forget that in both developed and developing nations, many people do not have the luxury of choosing their diets (elsewhere in this issue, Ederer et al., 2023 ). Access to adequate food is a well-established human right ( United Nations, 1999 ) Therefore, any related moral reasoning exercise should consider whether it is just to deny others access to high quality and digestible protein foods, like meat, which could alleviate poor nutritional status, especially for those who subsist on foods of inadequate quality and low nutritional value. This is not to say that we should overlook or diminish the diverse concerns associated with meat consumption. Rather, we should be careful to avoid moral and cultural imperialism and the stigmatizing of others in discussions about what constitutes “good” food choices. The obligation to meet the needs of the growing global population for food suggests it may be ethically problematic to reduce rather than increase the number of options available to people who want and need high quality protein.

Given the ethical and social responsibility concerns related to traditionally produced meat products, it should come as no surprise that innovation in science and technology has been looked to for solutions. Scientific developments in stem cell harvesting and in vitro technology have resulted in the successful production of laboratory-grown meat ( Post, 2014 ; Post et al. 2020 ). Cultured meat shows promise to attain a biological and nutritional equivalency to traditionally harvested meat that plant-based substitutes have yet to achieve. The scientific advancements and benefits related to cultured meat are outlined elsewhere in this issue (see Wood et al., 2023 ).

However, cultured meat, while perhaps offering a means by which to assuage several ethical challenges, may not be the panacea that some envision. Lab-grown meat production still requires animals as a resource for the harvest of stem cells. The conditions under which animals might be maintained and the procedures to which they might be subjected for cell harvesting warrant as much scrutiny relative to their impacts on animal welfare as does traditional farming ( Croney et al., 2018 ). Thus, some concerns about the welfare of animals reared and killed for meat, may be addressed with cultured meat, but they are not entirely erased. In addition, key stakeholders, such as ranchers, who might be displaced or disenfranchised by a shift to cultured meat, should be thoughtfully considered in moral deliberation about this potential option. Far too often, philosophical arguments dismissively suggest that ranchers should “simply find new jobs”. This level of disregard de-prioritizes ranchers and others directly impacted by conclusions that meat consumption should be readily abandoned. This is inconsistent with the notion that moral deliberation should consider the interests of all stakeholders, while transparently prioritizing values and properly accounting for those who are adversely impacted by the resulting decisions.

In short, though cultured meat is very likely to address many of the ethical problems associated with farming animals for meat, new challenges may emerge that are unlikely to be easily addressed. Further consideration must also be given to consumer acceptability (which cannot be presumed) and the impacts of such technological innovation on developed and developing nations with diverse cultural backgrounds, preferences, values, and resources.

Whether and to what extent meat consumption should continue into the future is open to debate. Consumer perceptions studies conducted in developed nations suggest that moving forward, people will continue to eat meat, though it is likely that the frequency and amount of meat eaten may decline depending on individual demographics, knowledge, and values relating to animals, the environment, and human health. The debate about whether meat consumption is ethically defensible , though, remains. Though the available scientific information is equivocal in some areas, as previously outlined, meat production does entail harm to animals and has significant implications for environmental and human health. However, there is also harm in entirely abandoning meat consumption at this point in time, not just for human health, but for food equity, justice, and economic viability for diverse stakeholders, including many of the most vulnerable in society. A purely plant-based diet is not feasible for all given constraints on arable land, and the economic and environmental costs of importing foods into such regions would introduce or exacerbate food security and access issues. Furthermore, plant-based diets clearly contribute to harming vast numbers of field animals whose lives and interests matter as much as animals raised for agricultural purposes. Whether or not the average person has a personal connection to field animals and related investment in their protection is irrelevant if indeed animal rights and welfare are deemed important enough to be factored into ethical assessment of our dietary choices. To argue otherwise is logically and morally inconsistent.However, to deprioritize human rights to food today (especially considering the urgency of meeting global protein needs) in favor of animal rights and current and future environmental protection is neither defensible nor necessary. Instead, alternatives that better protect animals, people, and the environment from foreseeable, avoidable harms should be explored. We therefore support the ideas of Shannon et al. (2015) who suggest taking the approach of combining “the principles of human rights and the values of public health with an agroecological perspective”.

How might this occur? Meat industry members and stakeholders should deliberately and thoughtfully engage the arguments against meat eating. This must be done not just with rhetoric (although effective communication with the public should always be a priority). Instead,  what should occur is more concerted, collaborative effort and investment in the scientific advances needed to address the outstanding ethical problems associated with meat production and consumption, such as animal welfare. Innovation in alternative production, such as cultured meat and meat-alternatives are imperfect but important steps toward meeting changing societal expectations in more affluent countries. In addition, Shannon et al. (2015) propose several policy strategies covering production, marketing, processing, distribution, access, consumption, and overall food systems that could be evaluated in the context of more current science and practice. While some of their recommendations are likely to be contentious, reasonable requirements for greater oversight in areas such as antimicrobial stewardship, natural resource conservation, and protection of farm workers might be incorporated to reduce harms associated with meat eating. Our collective suggestions would permit retaining meat consumption with modifications (e.g., the amount of meat consumed, and the attributes and type of production). This option, while imperfect, and notably infringing on animal rights, benefits the broadest group of stakeholders. It duly considers their interests and the values of protecting others (including animals and the environment) from a more diverse set of harms, promoting more just, sustainable food systems, and reducing inequities in food access and security. Under these specified conditions, some meat consumption could be morally justified and even regarded as ethically preferable as it not only offers a practical option, it also potentially reduces some forms of harm. This is particularly the case if the harms considered include the inequity of allowing those who are affluent, empowered, and food secure to constrain the dietary options available to those who are socially, politically, and economically disempowered.

Moving forward, we must be open to discussing what food availability and security means in the global context, how climate change will impact our natural resources and the food dynamic, and where the ethical boundaries are drawn with respect to what we eat and the multitude of factors that affect our choices and those of others. “Food shaming” in any form must be avoided in discussions of what we eat given the constraints on food security, quality, access, and affordability faced by many who are often the subjects of and rarely the agents of public discussions and decision-making. To that end, we must also be open to discussing current and future natural resource limitations and pro-actively seek solutions that are scientifically sound and ethically supported. This includes actively engaging or discovering new methods to produce high quality food, including meat and not just foods perceived to hold the “moral high ground”. Finally, we must be pro-actively prepared to face the possibility that life-sustaining natural resource scarcity like water may force choices, both social and political, that may cause a reduction or phase-out of using animals to produce some foods, including meat and water intensive crops.

About the Author(s)

Dr. Candace Croney is director of Purdue University’s Center for Animal Welfare Science and professor of animal behavior and well-being in the departments of Comparative Pathobiology and Animal Sciences. Her animal-focused research, teaching, and outreach efforts include enhancing the welfare of companion and agricultural animals through developing and refining noninvasive metrics of welfare, including animal behavior, cognition, and health, and translating these into standards and guidelines. Her scholarship and outreach on the human dimensions of animal welfare examine public perceptions of animal agriculture and welfare, bioethical considerations relating to animal care and use, and their socio-political and practical implications.

Dr. Janice Swanson is a professor in the Departments of Animal Science and Large Animal Clinical Sciences at Michigan State University. Her area of focus is social responsibility in the food system as it relates to farm animal welfare. Dr. Swanson is a member of the MSU Animal Behavior and Welfare Group which conducts research into problems and issues of farm animal behavior and welfare. Her leadership and outreach efforts include the development of evidence-based food industry and commodity level animal welfare policies, standards and guidelines, public policy, and educational programming for the public and other stakeholders in the food system.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

Archer ,  M . 2011 . Ordering the vegetarian meal? There is more blood on your hands. The Conversation . https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659 (accessed December 7, 2022 ).

Baltzer ,  K . 2004 . Consumers’ willingness to pay for food quality—the case of eggs . Acta Agric. Scand. C Food Econ . 1 : 78 – 90 . doi: 10.1080/16507540410024506

Google Scholar

Botonaki ,  A. , K.   Polymeros , E.   Tsakiridou , and K.   Mattas . 2006 . The role of food quality certification on consumers’ food choices . Br. Food J . 108 : 77 – 90 . doi: 10.1108/00070700610644906

Burini ,  R.C. and W.R.   Leonard . 2018 . The evolutionary roles of nutrition selection and dietary quality in the human brain size and encephalization . Nutrire . 43 : 19 . doi: 10.1186/s41110-018-0078-x

Campbell ,  C.S. , and J.M.   Hare . 1997 . Ethical literacy in gerontology programs . Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ . 17 ( 4 ): 3 – 16 . doi: 10.1300/j021v17n04_02

Chamanara ,  S. , B.   Goldstein , and J.P.   Newell . 2021 . Where’s the beef? Costco’s meat supply chain and environmental justice in California . J. Clean. Product . 278 : 123744 . doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123744

Council for Agricultural, Science and Technology . 2018 . Scientific, ethical and economic aspects of farm animal welfare. In: C.C.   Croney , J.A.   Mench , and W.   Muir , editors. Task Force Report R-143. https://www.cast-science.org/publication/scientific-ethical-and-economic-aspects-of-farm-animal-welfare/ (accessed December 9, 2022 ).

Croney ,  C.C. , and R.   Anthony . 2010 . Engaging science in a climate of values: tools for animal scientists tasked with addressing ethical problems . J. Anim. Sci . 88 (suppl_13 ): E75 – E81 . doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-2353

Croney ,  C. , and R.   Anthony . 2014 . Food animal production, ethics, and quality assurance. In P.B.   Thompson , and D.   Kaplan editors. Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics . New York, NY : Springer ; p.  1 – 10 .

Google Preview

Croney ,  C.C. , B.   Gardener , and S.   Baggott . 2004 . Beyond animal husbandry: the study of farm animal cognition and ensuing ethical issues . Essays Philos . 5 ( 2 ): 391 – 403 . doi: 10.5840/eip20045213

Croney ,  C. , W.   Muir , J.Q.   Ni , N.O.   Widmar , and G.   Varner . 2018 . An overview of engineering approaches to improving agricultural animal welfare . J. Agric. Environ. Ethics . 31 ( 2 ): 143 – 159 . doi: 10.1007/s10806-018-9716-9

Davis ,  S.L . 2003 . The least harm principle may require that humans consume a diet containing large herbivores, not a vegan diet . J. Agric. Environ. Ethics . 16 : 387 – 394 . doi: 10.1023/a:1025638030686

Dawkins ,  M.S . 2016 . Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable? Anim. Prod. Sci . 57 ( 2 ): 201 – 208 . doi: 10.1071/AN15383

De Backer ,  C.J. , and L.   Hudders . 2015 . Meat morals: relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior . Meat Sci . 99 : 68 – 74 . doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.08.011

de Boer ,  J. , H.   Schösler , and H.   Aiking . 2017 . Towards a reduced meat diet: mindset and motivation of young vegetarians, low, medium and high meat-eaters . Appetite . 113 : 387 – 397 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.007

De Vries ,  M. , and I.J.M.   de Boer . 2010 . Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments . Livest. Sci . 128 (1–3 ): 1 – 11 . doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007

Delgado ,  C.L. , N.   Wada , M.W.   Rosegrant , S.   Meijer , and M.   Ahmed . 2003 . Fish to 2020: supply and demand in changing global markets. International Food Policy Research Institute and WorldFish Center. WorldFish Center Technical Report 62. https://www.worldfishcenter.org

Ederer ,  P. , S.   Tarawali , I.   Baltenweck , J.N.   Blignaut , and C.   Moretti . 2023 . Affordability of meat for global consumers and the need to sustain investment capacity for livestock farmers . Anim. Front . 13 ( 2 ).

Ernstoff ,  A. , Q.   Tu , M.   Faist , A.   Del Duce , S.   Mandlebaum , and J.   Dettling . 2019 . Comparing the environmental impacts of meatless and meat-containing meals in the United States . Sustainability . 11 ( 22 ): 6235 . doi: 103390/su11226235

FAO . 2021 . The state of food security and nutrition in the world . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . https://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/2021/en/ (accessed December 7, 2022 ).

Fischer ,  B. , and A.   Lamey . 2018 . Field deaths in plant agriculture . J. Agric. Environ. Ethics . 31 : 409 – 428 . doi: 10.1007/s10806-018-9733-8

Francione ,  G . 2022 . Letters to the Editor. Animal welfare and society - part 1. Viewpoints of a philosopher . Anim. Front . 12 ( 1 ): 43 – 47 . doi: 10.1093/af/vfac006

Godfray ,  H.C.J. , P.   Aveyard , T.   Garnett , J.W.   Hall , T.J.   Key , J.   Lorimer , R.T.   Pierrehumbert , P.   Scarborough , M.   Springmann , and S.   Jebb . 2018 . Meat consumption, health, and the environment . Science . 361 : 6399 . doi: 10.1126/science.aam5324

Gunderson ,  R . 2015 . Meat and inequality. In: J.   Emel , and H.   Neo , editors. Political Ecologies of Meat . London: Routledge, p.  101 – 109 . doi: 10.4324/9781315818283

Harnack ,  L. , Mork ,  S. , Valluri ,  S. , Weber   C. , Schmitz   K. , Stevenson ,  J. , and Pettit ,  J . 2021 . Nutrient composition of a selection of plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the United States . J. Acad. Nutr. Diet . 121 ( 12 ): 2401 – 2408.e12 . doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2021.05.002

He ,  J. , N.M.   Evans , H.   Liu , and S.   Shao . 2020 . A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes . Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf . 19 ( 5 ): 2639 – 2656 . doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12610

Hull ,  S.C. , J.   Charles , and A.L.   Caplan . 2023 . Are we what we eat? The moral imperative of the medical profession to promote plant-based nutrition . Am. J. Cardiol . 188 : 15 – 21 . doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.10.006

Klurfeld ,  D.M . 2018 . What is the role of meat in a healthy diet? Anim. Front . 8 ( 3 ): 5 – 10 . doi: 10.1093/af/vfy009

Jacobsen ,  S.E . 2011 . The situation for quinoa and its production in southern Bolivia: from economic success to environmental disaster . J. Agron. Crop Sci . 197 ( 5 ): 390 – 399 . doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037x.2011.00475.x

Leroy ,  F. , N.   Smith , A.T.   Adesogan , T.   Beal , L.   Iannotti , P.J.   Moughan , and N.   Mann . 2023 . The role of meat in the human diet: evolutionary aspects and nutritional value . Anim. Front . 13 ( 2 ).

Mameli ,  M . 2013 . Meat made us moral: a hypothesis on the nature and evolution of moral judgment . Biol. Philos . 28 ( 6 ): 903 – 931 . doi: 10.1007/s10539-013-9401-3

McCarthy ,  J. , and S.   DeKoster . 2020 . Nearly one in four have cut back on eating meat . Gallup News, Economy . https://news.gallup.com/poll/282779/nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating-meat.aspx (accessed December 9, 2022 ).

McKendree ,  M.G. , C.C.   Croney , and N.O.   Widmar . 2014 . Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare . J. Anim. Sci . 92 ( 7 ): 3161 – 3173 . doi: 10.2527/jas.2014-6874

Monteiro ,  C.A. , T.M.   Pfeiler , M.D.   Patterson , and M.A.   Milburn . 2017 . The carnism inventory: measuring the ideology of eating animals . Appetite . 113 : 51 – 62 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011

Morgan ,  C.J. , C.C.   Croney , and Widmar ,  N.J . 2016 . Exploring relationships between ethical consumption, lifestyle choices, and social responsibility . Adv. Appl. Sociol . 6 : 199 – 216 . doi: 10.4236/aasoci.2016.65017

OIE Global Animal Welfare Strategy . 2017 . Paris, France : World Organisation for Animal Health . http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Welfare/docs/pdf/Others/EN_OIE_AW_Strategy.pdf (accessed December 9, 2022 ).

Olen ,  H . 2022 . Opinion: falling sales suggest plant-based meat maybe all hat, and no cattle . Washington Post , November 7, 2022. 
 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/07/plant-based-meat-declining-sales/ (accessed December 7, 2022 ).

Piazza ,  J. , M.B.   Ruby , S.   Loughnan , M.   Luong , J.   Kulik , H.M.   Watkins , and M.   Seigerman . 2015 . Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns . Appetite . 91 : 114 – 128 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011

Post ,  M.J . 2014 . An alternative animal protein source: cultured beef . Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci . 1328 ( 1 ): 29 – 33 . doi: 10.1111/nyas.12569

Post ,  M.J. , S.   Levenberg , D.L.   Kaplan , N.   Genovese , J.   Fu , C.J.   Bryant , N.   Negowettii , K.   Verzijden , and P.   Moutsatsou . 2020 . Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat . Nat. Food . 1 : 403 – 415 . doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0112-z

Regan ,  T . 1983 . The case for animal rights . Berkeley : University of California Press .

Rowntree ,  J.E. , P.L.   Stanley , I.C.F.   Maciel , M.   Thorbecke , S.G.   Rosenzweig , D.W.   Hancock , A.   Guzman , and M.R.   Raven . 2020 . Ecosystem impacts and productive capacity of multi-species pastured livestock system . Front. Sustain. Food Sys . 4 : 1 – 13 . doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984

Shannon ,  K.L. , B.F.   Kim , S.E.   McKenzie , and R.S.   Lawrence . 2015 . Food system policy, public health, and human rights in the United States . Ann. Rev. Public Health . 36 ( 1 ): 151 – 173 . doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122621

Siegrist ,  M. , and C.   Hartmann . 2019 . Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes . Appetite . 132 : 196 – 202 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.016

Singer ,  P . 1975 . Animal liberation . New York : Random House .

Spratt ,  E. , J.   Jordan , J.   Winsten , P.   Huff , C.   van Schaik , J.   Grimsbo , M.F.   Jewett , J. , Luhman , E.   Meier , and L.   Paine . 2021 . Viewpoint: accelerating regenerative grazing to tackle farm, environmental, and societal challenges in the upper Midwest . J. Soil Water Conserv . 76 ( 1 ): 15a – 23a . doi: 10.2489/jswc.2021.1209A

Thompson ,  P.B . 2021 . The vanishing ethics of husbandry. In: Animals in our midst: the challenges of co-existing with animals in the anthropocene . Cham : Springer ; p.  203 – 221 .

Thompson ,  L. , J.   Rowntree , W.   Windisch , S.M.   Waters , L.   Shalloo , and P.   Manzano . 2023 . Ecosystem management using livestock: embracing diversity and respecting ecological principles . Anim. Front . 13 ( 2 ).

United Nations Committee on Economics, Social, and Cultural Rights . 1999 . General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11 of the Covenant) . G eneva, Switzerland . http://www.refworld.org/docid/4538838c11.htm (accessed December 9, 2022 ).

Verbeke ,  W. , and J.   Viaene . 1999 . Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey . Food Qual. Prefer . 10 ( 6 ): 437 – 445 . doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2

Wood ,  P. , L.   Thorrez , J.F.   Hocquette , and D.   Troy . 2023 “Cellular Agriculture”: current gaps between facts and claims regarding “cell-based meat.” Anim. Front . 13 ( 2 ).

World Health Organization . 2021 . Malnutrition. Factsheet . https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition (accessed November 8, 2022 ).

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2160-6064
• Print ISSN 2160-6056
• Copyright © 2024 American Society of Animal Science
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Meat and Human Health—Current Knowledge and Research Gaps

Nina rica wium geiker.

1 Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark; kd.uk.sxen@ardl (L.O.D.); kd.uk.sxen@bhs (S.B.); kd.ovon@ara (A.A.)

Hanne Christine Bertram

2 Department of Food Science, Aarhus University, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark; [email protected]

Heddie Mejborn

3 National Food Institute, Division of Food Technology, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; kd.utd.doof@jemh

Lars O. Dragsted

Lars kristensen.

4 Danish Meat Research Institute—DMRI Technological Institute, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark; kd.ksigolonket@krl

Jorge R. Carrascal

5 Department of Food Science, University of Copenhagen, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark; kd.uk.doof@ziuregroj

6 IPROCAR, University of Extremadura, E-10004 Caceres, Spain

Susanne Bügel

Arne astrup.

Meat is highly nutritious and contributes with several essential nutrients which are difficult to obtain in the right amounts from other food sources. Industrially processed meat contains preservatives including salts, possibly exerting negative effects on health. During maturation, some processed meat products develop a specific microbiota, forming probiotic metabolites with physiological and biological effects yet unidentified, while the concentration of nutrients also increases. Meat is a source of saturated fatty acids, and current WHO nutrition recommendations advise limiting saturated fat to less than ten percent of total energy consumption. Recent meta-analyses of both observational and randomized controlled trials do not support any effect of saturated fat on cardiovascular disease or diabetes. The current evidence regarding the effect of meat consumption on health is potentially confounded, and there is a need for sufficiently powered high-quality trials assessing the health effects of meat consumption. Future studies should include biomarkers of meat intake, identify metabolic pathways and include detailed study of fermented and other processed meats and their potential of increasing nutrient availability and metabolic effects of compounds.

1. Introduction

Since ancient times, meat has been a cornerstone of the human diet, and still is in many populations. Even though the amount and source of meat ingested differs between countries and cultures, most Western main meals include a meat-containing dish to which vegetable accompaniments are supplementary. Meat contains several vitamins and minerals, as well as all essential amino acids, making it an excellent protein source [ 1 ]. Despite minor differences depending on species and the animal’s diet and age, saturated fatty acids (SFAs) generally constitute almost half the fat in meat, and meat contributes to approximately half of the maximal recommended intake of SFAs [ 2 , 3 ]. The high contribution of SFA has been in the spotlight in recent years, as several large observational studies found positive associations between a high intake of red and processed meat and the risk of cardiovascular diseases, cancer and all-cause mortality, as well as type 2 diabetes [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. As a means of reducing the risk of mortality and disease, dietary guidelines have, during the past 30 years, advocated limiting SFA intake to less than 10% of total dietary energy [ 7 , 8 ]. However, SFAs are found in a large selection of foods, varying in their composition with regard to specific SFAs. Furthermore, these foods also differ in structure and content of other nutrients, causing the foods to exert different physiological effects. The current recommendations to reduce SFA intake fail to take into account the different effects of SFAs from different sources [ 9 , 10 , 11 ].

Risk-of-bias and heterogeneity analyses indicate that the observed link between red and processed meat and an increased risk of disease seen in meta-analyses of observational studies may be due to confounders [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. This highlights, that extrapolation from observational studies should be conducted with caution when evaluating the health effect of meat across populations with major differences in food culture. There is emerging evidence that the specific nutrients in meat may not cause an effect per se, but that the overall composition of the diet and the matrix from the meals are likely to modulate or even cause the observed adverse effects. Several factors, including fiber [ 17 ], calcium [ 18 ], and cooking practices [ 19 ], are likely to be strong effect modulators when investigating meat and disease, and study quality and the inclusion of factors related to the different food cultures surrounding meat intake are likely to play a role as well [ 15 ]. This may also include probiotic metabolites from the fermentation of meat, potentially exerting physiological and biological effects, yet unidentified.

The aim of the present paper is to present and discuss the current knowledge and to identify research gaps when assessing the health effects of meat in the human diet.

2. Meat as a Source of Nutrients

2.1. amino acids.

With meat being compositionally equivalent to human skeletal muscle, it supplies us with amino acids, having an optimal composition for the support of protein synthesis for building and maintaining muscle. Support and maintenance of skeletal muscle mass is of utmost importance for maintaining both physical function and metabolic health. In alignment with this, meat constitutes an important part of the diet for the elderly to prevent age-related declines in muscle strength and frailty (sarcopenia). Thus, an inverse association between the intake of animal protein and the incidence of frailty was observed in a cohort of 1822 older subjects followed for 2–4 years [ 20 ]. In younger and physically active subjects, meat protein intake was recently documented to have direct beneficial effects on body composition and muscle strength [ 21 ]. While protein quality is commonly evaluated based on the content of essential amino acids, the bioavailability and bio-accessibility of amino acids are also decisive for the nutritional value of proteins. Hodgkinson and colleagues found that raw meat has a Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) value of 97, while boiled and pan-roasted meat have similar DIAAS values of 99 and 98, respectively. In roasted and grilled meat, the DIAAS is reduced to 91 and 80, respectively [ 22 ]. A sophisticated isotope-labelling study revealed higher bioavailability of amino acids from well-cooked meat (cooking at 90 °C for 30 min) than raw meat (cooking at 55 °C for 5 min) when ingested by elderly people [ 23 ], illuminating the fact that cooking of meat enables strategic modulation of bioavailability.

While meat is a pivotal source of essential amino acids, it also supplies amino acids, amino-acid-derived metabolites and peptides that have important bioactive properties. Thus, taurine, creatine, hydroxyproline, carnosine, and anserine, which are all mainly obtained from meat, have been proposed to exert important physiological functions [ 24 ]. Amino acids are fermented by the microbiota into metabolites with potentially positive as well as negative impact on health; this fermentation takes place especially when other substrates are unavailable. The composition of diet and meals are therefore important determinants of the gut environment. Diets low in dietary fiber, dairy and other potentially protective factors but high in protein may result in a pro-inflammatory response locally as well as systemically, leading to higher risk of disease. In an intervention study comparing Mediterranean diets with habitual diets high in meat and low in dietary fiber, the stool, urine and blood metabolite profiles were consistent with a decrease in toxic amino acid metabolites when a varied diet with dietary fiber was introduced [ 25 ].

2.2. Vitamins and Minerals

In addition to proteins, meat also supplies us with minerals and vitamins, e.g., the average daily intake among British adults of 189 g contributes with approximately 19, 52, 28 and 38% of iron, zinc, selenium and phosphorus, respectively, according to the reference values of heterogeneous groups [ 2 , 3 , 26 ]. Zinc is difficult to consume in adequate amounts in diets low in animal-based foods. Even though iron is abundant in a variety of foods, its bioavailability is highest when the source is meat. In meat, iron is complexed and present as heme-iron, which has a considerably higher bioavailability than non-heme-iron. Thus, in the small intestine, approximately 23% of heme-iron is absorbed, whereas this is the case for only 2–8% of non-heme iron [ 27 ], and red meat therefore remains the best dietary source of iron [ 28 ]. In addition to the higher availability of heme-iron, meat also contains other, yet unidentified, factors increasing iron absorption from other foods (also known as the ‘meat factor’) [ 29 , 30 ]. In relation to vitamins, meat is an important source of complex B vitamins. In fact, meat, fish and other animal-derived foods (such as dairy) are the only unfermented foods that naturally provide vitamin B 12 [ 3 ], and meat and meat products contribute with approximately 30% of the total UK dietary intake of vitamin B 12 [ 3 ]. Collectively, this highlights the need for contemplating the profound effects that replacing a balanced omnivore diet with a vegan diet may have on mineral and vitamin status.

2.3. Fatty Acids

Generally, as fat in red meat consists of approximately 40% SFAs, 50% monounsaturated fatty acids, 5% trans fatty acids and 4% polyunsaturated fatty acids [ 26 ], meat is considered a major source of saturated fat. Previous observational studies have linked saturated fat with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes; however, studies that are more recent indicate that this was likely confounded by industrial trans-fats in margarines. Attempts to reduce SFA in meat have resulted in several successful approaches to modulate the fatty acid composition of pork and beef through strategic feeding strategies [ 31 ].

In contrast to monogastric animals (e.g., pigs), the fatty acid composition in meat from ruminants (e.g., cattle) reflects the composition of the diet to a lesser extent due fermentation and biohydrogenation in the rumen. Although a more unsaturated fatty acid profile can be obtained in pork and beef through feeding strategies, increasing the proportion of unsaturated fat often has deteriorating effects on meat quality, as it is found to be more prone to oxidation and has a less firm structure [ 31 ], resulting in meat products that are perceived as unacceptable by consumers [ 32 ]. Nevertheless, when addressing fat in meat, an often overlooked fact is that meat originating from ruminants also contains conjugated linoleic acid and unique rumen-derived fatty acids such as branched-chain, vaccenic and rumenic acids, which exert physiological activities and thus have been associated with several positive health effects [ 33 ]. Early studies indicated beneficial effects in animal studies. However, these ruminant fatty acids are trans-fats that could potentially cause adverse effects as well; still, a number of Cochrane-based meta-analyses indicate an overall neutral effect of ruminant fats on health in human intervention studies [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].

2.4. The Nutrient Contribution from Meat

In the Danish National Survey on Diet and Physical Activity 2001–2013, it was shown that meat and meat products (without poultry and fish) contribute significantly to the average Dane’s intake (as % of total intake) of protein (27%), fat (21%), saturated fatty acids (20%), mono-unsaturated fatty acids (26%), vitamin A (40%), vitamin D (16%), thiamine (33%), riboflavin (17%), niacin (27%), vitamin B6 (21%), vitamin B12 (35%), phosphorus (15%), iron (20%), zinc (33%) and selenium (25%) [ 38 ]. The contribution from meat to the dietary nutrient intake is higher in men than in women [ 39 , 40 ]. Thus, meat is an important contributor of several nutrients in a general Danish diet, and if the dietary meat content is reduced, it is important to substitute the meat with various foods that can supply the nutrients usually originating from meat. For example, in a plant-based diet with a low meat content, focus should be on replacing the meat with foods that in particular supply high-quality protein, riboflavin, vitamin B 12 and vitamin D, iron, zinc and selenium [ 41 ].

3. What Is Fresh and Processed Meat?

Despite clear definitions within the European Union Law [ 42 , 43 ], the definition of processed meat is inconsistent and varies internationally and between studies, which makes interpretation and comparison of results difficult. Most cohort studies agree to define processed meat as meat that is salted, cured, smoked or dried. The definition of red meat, however, in some studies includes processed meat or some types of processed meat, e.g., bacon; this makes it difficult to identify if it is meat per se or the processing that exerts the observed health effects. Processed meat is often associated with industrially produced products that are cured and/or smoked. In private households and in the catering industry, frying and grilling are normal processing steps in producing the final ready to eat product. Even though fried meat is not comparable to industrially processed meat, frying can contribute to the content of carcinogenic compounds in meat.

3.1. Industrial Processing of Meat

The industrial production of processed meat products originates from three fundamental technologies for preservation of meat that were discovered in ancient time, i.e., drying, curing, and smoking [ 44 , 45 ]. Evidence indicates that the practice of hanging meat free for ventilation and thereby removing moisture from the surface decreases the water activity and thereby prevents spoilage bacteria from growing on the meat. Curing by rubbing meat with salt dates back more than 5000 years and due to nitrate-containing impurities in the salt, the shelf life of the meat did not only increase because of salt but also through the presence of nitrite generated from the reduction of nitrate. Salt and nitrite diffuse into the interior of the meat and prolong shelf life by lowering water activity and by means of a direct antimicrobial effect of nitrite. By using a wooden fire to dry meat, it might have been discovered that smoking results in an alternative flavor in addition to a longer shelf life. Smoke contains numerous components that inhibit bacterial growth and prevent lipid oxidation, which explains the positive effect on shelf life. These three fundamental preservation technologies (drying, curing, and smoking) combined with heat treatment have, over time, evolved into the different processes that are used today in the meat industry to produce and increase durability in a vast variety of meat products. A newer methodology of meat preservation is by the addition of antioxidants such as ascorbic acid and its salts. The legislation regarding this method is, however, to a higher degree defined by limiting the water activity rather than a health effect [ 43 ].

Nearly all processed meat products are cured, meaning that salt is added and, in most cases, nitrite or nitrate. Basically, cured meat products can be divided into two main groups based on their respective processes [ 46 ]: dry-curing or wet-curing, as illustrated in Figure 1 .

Classification of cured meat products. Adapted from Flores and Toldrá, 1993 [ 46 ] and Toldrá, 2017 [ 47 ].

3.2. Dry Curing

Dry curing involves the use of salt typically in combination with nitrite and/or nitrate, which is rubbed on the surface of entire pieces of meat. The salting process is followed by a drying and ripening period, which runs for several month to years before the product is ready for consumption. Typical products are the Italian Parma and the Spanish Iberico hams. To produce fermented sausages, salt is mixed with minced meat followed by a drying and fermentation period. Spices and bacterial starter cultures are also added to these products to aid in the fermentation process, and especially in the northern part of Europe, the products are also smoked. In the United States, the drying process of fermented sausages is often limited, and the products are cooked [ 47 ].

3.3. Wet Curing

Wet curing of entire pieces, e.g., cooked ham/loin and bacon, typically involves the use of needle injection of brines containing salt, nitrite, ascorbate and often also phosphates. The diffusion of salt is accelerated by physical treatment in a process known as tumbling, optionally smoked and the product is cooked. An exception is bacon, which is dried for a short time, mildly heat treated, and/or smoked [ 47 ]. So-called enhanced meat, where the meat receives added water containing salt and is sold as ‘fresh’ meat, is also within this category, although the consumer performs the cooking process. To produce wet-cured products of minced meat, e.g., cooked sausages, salt and nitrite is mixed with minced meat, added water, spices and ascorbate, filled in casings, and cooked (optionally smoked). Typical products are wieners, mortadella, and frankfurters.

4. Maturation and Fermentation

A significant amount of meat is consumed worldwide after a maturation process, including dry-ageing, dry-curing and dry-fermenting. Whereas these processes were historically designed to preserve meat, nowadays they aim for producing a variety of highly delicious products. The ripening process leads to the hydrolysis of certain components such as proteins and lipids, and the formation and release of low molecular weight compounds, both volatile and non-volatile, which give these products an intense and characteristic flavor [ 48 ]. There is a huge diversity of meat products of these types all around the world, but they share some common points that are of interest for their potential health outcomes: (1) they include a considerable strong dehydration, up to more than 50% weight loss for some products; (2) they imply significant chemical and biochemical transformation of meat components, including protein and lipid hydrolysis, protein and lipid oxidation and Maillard type reactions as most relevant ones; (3) the process for most of them includes the addition of sodium chloride and nitrates and/or nitrites; (4) most of them undergo extensive microbial transformations by different bacteria, mold and yeast species; this microbiota contributes to acidification, formation of nitrosomyoglobin, proteolysis, lipolysis and flavor formation, to mention their main roles.

While all these changes are directed to obtain a shelf-stable flavorful product with a particular chewy but tender texture, as a side effect, their nutritional and health outcomes may also be significantly affected. First of all, as a consequence of dehydration, nutrient density notably increases, so that meat products processed that way have a higher content of some nutrients in which meat is rich, such as proteins, iron, zinc, niacin, pyridoxine or cobalamin. Nevertheless, other compounds, e.g., ubiquinone (coenzyme Q10) with health properties tend to decrease or even disappear during the ripening process [ 49 ].

Secondly, the extensive proteolysis during the maturation, as a result of endogenous and microbial proteases, leads to high levels of free amino acids and peptides with large differences in molecular weight [ 50 ]. In turn, this leads to faster amino acid uptake rates during digestion (additional compared to regular cooking), which has been linked in some cases to higher anabolic potential for protein-rich foods [ 51 ]. On top of that, some of these new generated peptides show bioactive properties, mainly antihypertensive and antioxidative in hypertensive rats [ 52 ]. Human studies have also demonstrated prolonged gastric emptying and increased satiety [ 53 ]. It is well known that during meat protein digestion, peptides with bioactive properties are released. In the case of aged meat products, these proteolytic processes already take place during the ripening, and as a consequence, such peptides are already present in the product before human digestion. The extent of proteolysis, the type of enzymes involved and the raw material strongly influence the type, number and quantity of bioactive peptides generated in these ripened meat products. Thus, it has been shown that 24-month ripened Iberian ham contains higher levels of highly active angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitory activity than dry-cured hams processed for shorter times [ 54 ]. Such bioactive peptides have also been identified in aged beef [ 55 ], aged duck [ 56 ] and dry-fermented sausages [ 57 ]. In fermented products, it has been evidenced that the type of starter culture is related to the type, the amount and activity of these bioactive peptides [ 58 ]. It has been hypothesized that the presence of antihypertensive peptides might counteract the effect of their high salt content on blood pressure; however, studies to document their effects in humans are still missing.

The consumption of hydrolyzed proteins has been linked to other potential positive health outcomes, such as the regulation of bile acid metabolism [ 59 ] and induced satiety [ 60 ]. In fact, meat hydrolysates have been shown to increase the release of cholecystokinin [ 61 ], a gut peptide hormone inducing satiety: this may lead to smaller and less frequent meals and eventually to a lower dietary intake.

Lactic acid bacteria are commonly used as starter cultures for the production of fermented meat products due to their distinct biochemical effects, mainly lactic acid generation, pH drop, flavour generation and bio-protective effects [ 62 ]. In fact, the traditional production of dry-fermented products was based on the fermentation of added sugars by naturally present lactic acid bacteria. Some of the commercial starter strains and also some indigenous isolates from dry sausages have shown probiotic properties. In fact, since these products are not heat-treated, they provide suitable conditions required for the survival of probiotics. Additionally, it seems that the meat product matrix may help probiotics to survive through the gastrointestinal tract [ 63 ]. Moreover, there have been numerous attempts to select and use probiotic bacteria adapted to the harsh conditions of dry-fermented sausages (high salt, low aw, low pH, low sugar content, nitrites, etc.). Naturally occurring bacteria in sausages are mostly strains of lactic acid bacteria with a high degree of hydrophobicity, which usually is linked to probiotic potential. For example, strains of Lactobacillus sakei , L. curvatus , L. plantarum , L. brevis , L. fermentum , L. lactis , L. pentosus , Pediococcus acidilactici or P. pentosaceus , isolated from Scandinavian, Greek, Spanish or other commercial fermented sausages, have been characterized as probiotic [ 64 ]. Other types of added probiotic bacteria have difficulties in surviving in the dry-sausage environment.

On the negative side, the high salt content and the presence of nitrites in this type of meat products have been pointed out as potential causative factors in developing hypertension and colorectal cancer, respectively. It remains to be investigated whether the presence of antihypertensive peptides may counteract their effect on blood pressure in humans. On top of that, the amount of salt in processed meat products has steadily decreased in the UK during the last few decades [ 65 ]. Going further in this direction appears potentially problematic, since lower levels may imply microbiological risks and texture defects, and salt substitutes, e.g., calcium and potassium salts, tend to confer an unpleasant taste [ 65 ]. As far as nitrites are concerned, their role in cured products is crucial in controlling microbial growth (especially that of Clostridium botulinum ), stabilizing color and promoting the formation of a characteristic flavor [ 66 ]. On the other hand, their presence in foods may lead to the formation of carcinogenic N-nitrosamines. While this has been experimentally proven, the levels of such compounds are quite low or even non-detectable in non-heated products, such as dry-cured and dry-fermented sausages. In addition, the common use of high amounts of ascorbic acid in these products strongly limits the formation of these harmful compounds [ 65 ].

5. Fortification of Meat Products

An approach that has been taken to combat potentially harmful effects associated with the ingestion of processed meat is to fortify processed meat products with ingredients that may counteract or neutralize such negative health effects. There is extensive evidence that intake of dietary fibers is associated with beneficial effects on gut health. Using a rat model, it was recently shown that fortification of pork sausages with inulin resulted in significant effects on the metabolites generated in the gastrointestinal tract by the gut microbiome [ 67 ]. Thus, fortification of processed meat with inulin enhanced the formation of acetate, propionate and butyrate, the characteristic short-chain fatty acids that have been identified as pivotal in the beneficial effects associated with dietary fiber consumption [ 68 , 69 ]. In a human intervention study, Perez-Burillo and colleagues [ 70 ] also showed that inclusion of dietary fiber in a fermented meat product (salami) stimulated the formation of butyrate upon ingestion. Furthermore, it has also been shown that including butyrylated starch in the diet enhances short-chain fatty acid content in the gut and attenuates the formation of unwanted O6-methyl-2-deoxyguanosine adducts, which is known as toxic and mutagenic modification, and found to be associated with high red meat intake [ 71 ]. Consequently, current knowledge indicates that fermentable dietary fibers and short-chain fatty acid-containing compounds can counteract the potential harmful effects in the colon associated with intake of processed meat. Unfermentable dietary fiber is less explored, but in animal model studies, they also seem to have considerable potential in cancer prevention [ 72 ].

Intriguingly, cohort studies also point at a high calcium intake having a positive effect on colon health [ 73 , 74 ]. Using a rat model, Thøgersen and colleagues [ 67 ] recently investigated the effect of fortifying processed meat with calcium and inulin in combination or alone. Interestingly, addition of calcium-rich milk minerals significantly reduced both the formation of unwanted N-nitroso compounds in the gastrointestinal tract when compared with ingestion of non-fortified processed meat and stimulated the formation of short-chain fatty acids in the colon [ 67 ]. Consequently, promising results reveal that potential harmful effects associated with meat ingestion in fact can be mitigated through modulation of the meat product matrix and fortification of meat products or strategic design of meals with the inclusion of components such as dietary fiber and calcium that neutralize unintended effects in the gastrointestinal tract associated with meat intake.

6. What Do We Know and Not Know on the Food Matrix

The food matrix can be defined as the nutrient and non-nutrient components of foods and their molecular relationships, i.e., chemical bonds, to each other [ 75 ]. Nutrients are seldom present in a free form, but are incorporated into larger molecules or embedded in granules or specific compartments. This association with other constituents of the food affects the release of the nutrients from the food and thereby both the accessibility and bioavailability of any given nutrient [ 76 , 77 ]. In other words, it is not the total amount of a nutrient ingested that determines the amount absorbed, but the food matrix, interaction between nutrients and host related factors. The food matrix directly affects the digestion and absorption of the nutrients in the gastrointestinal tract.

In the past, the nutritional quality of a food was associated with the total amount of nutrients; however, due to food matrix effects, the amount absorbed actually differs between foods despite having equal contents. Several examples of food matrix effects are known for plant foods; the best-known examples are probably the phytate–mineral interactions, where minerals are tightly bound to phytate and only released upon degradation (fermentation or soaking) of the phytate, and carotenoids, which are released from plant cells by cutting or chopping the vegetables [ 78 ], by being solubilized into lipids in the food matrix and by several other factors [ 79 ]. Another intriguing example is the absorption of carcinogens, including food mutagens from fried meat, onto chlorophyll; this absorption has been shown for aflatoxin B1 to be sufficiently strong to reduce DNA damage in humans [ 80 , 81 ]. This observation also further underlines the importance of ingesting highly proteinaceous foods together with a complex food matrix including fresh greens. In relation to meat, cooking reduces the amount of fat, peptides and vitamins while increasing the concentration of some minerals, e.g., Zn and Fe (particular in beef), while the effect on Ca and Mg is inconclusive [ 82 , 83 ]. In addition to heme-iron being better absorbed than non-heme-iron, and red meat therefore being a superior source of iron [ 28 ], ingestion of supplemental prebiotics increases the absorption of heme-iron from beef [ 84 ], suggesting that, e.g., inulin fortification or fermentation of meats may further increase iron availability and potentially that of other minerals. In all cases, preparation of the food by heating, chopping or fermentation may liberate or release the nutrients and non-nutritive compounds from the food matrix and thereby improve or reduce their bio-accessibility, depending on the meal composition.

Food matrix effects are important, but meal composition, as well as interactions between foods in the meal, also affect bio-accessibility and bioavailability. The ‘meat factor’, whatever it is, is an example [ 29 ]. When consuming meals composed of both vegetables and meat, the meat factor promotes the absorption of non-heme iron from the plant products [ 30 ].

7. Meat and Chronic Disease—How Good Is the Evidence?

Due to limitations in the duration of intervention studies needed to measure chronic disease endpoints, most studies on the effects of meat consumption on health outcomes, such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer, are observational. The number of studies is high and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have therefore been conducted repeatedly by different groups. However, conclusions are divided and the issue therefore controversial.

7.1. Meat and Cancer

In the continuous update project [ 85 ] on colorectal cancer risks, the evidence for an effect of red as well as processed meat intake has been judged as strong, but the overall conclusion was graded in that the evidence for processed meat was classified as sufficient , while that for red meat was classified as probable . This was based on overall limited heterogeneity of the studies included in the analysis, no observed small-study bias, significant dose–response and plausible mechanisms. The grading of the evidence for red meat was decreased from sufficient in 2007 to probable in 2018. This may have been caused by published meta-analyses failing to show a significant overall effect and geographical differences with significant effects observed in Europe but not in the Americas or Asia. These conclusions are corroborated by similar findings in several recent meta-analyses [ 12 , 86 , 87 ]. However, some meta-analyses report similar magnitudes and trends but conclude that the magnitude of the cancer-causing effect is limited and the evidence as weak and likely to be affected by significant heterogeneity and confounders [ 15 , 16 ]. Uncertainty as to the classifications of meat into red and processed meat, interactions with other dietary factors and geographical variations are some of the factors described as potential confounders. While official recommendations in most countries support reductions in red and processed meat intake based on the findings by international organizations, there is obviously some scientific controversy as to the technical judgement of the quality of evidence and the impact of decreased intakes on colorectal cancer risk. Some of this could be resolved by better biomarkers of red and processed meat intake [ 88 , 89 ] as well as biomarkers related to their potential mechanisms of action, which should help in removing potential confounding factors.

7.2. Meat, Cardiovascular and Chronic Disease

Händel and colleagues performed an umbrella review of systematic reviews on associations between processed meat intake and morbidity and mortality of chronic diseases [ 14 ]. The quality of the systematic reviews reporting positive associations between processed meat intake and the risk of various cancers and cancer mortality, type 2 diabetes and CVD, and CVD mortality was moderate, and the overall certainty in the evidence was very low across all individual outcomes, due to a serious risk of bias and imprecision. The results of the generally more biased case–control studies were more likely to suggest a positive association than the results from cohort studies.

In a systematic review and linear dose–response meta-analysis of prospective studies, Schwingshackl and colleagues found a positive association between hypertension and intake of red meat (relative risk 1.14 per 100 g/day; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.28) and of processed meat (relative risk 1.12 per 50 g/day; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26) [ 90 ]. However, the authors conclude that the overall quality of the meta-evidence for the association in the studies included was of low quality.

Lippi and colleagues found no clear association between red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease in a systematic review of prospective cohort and case–control studies due to the large heterogeneity of the criteria used for defining red meat and diagnosing ischaemic heart disease [ 91 ].

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis on associations between red and processed meat intake and risk of heart failure found no association for highest versus lowest red meat intake (relative risk 1.04; 95% CI: 0.96–1.12), but a positive association for processed meat intake (relative risk 1.23 per 50 g/day; 95% CI: 1.07–1.41) [ 92 ]. Unfortunately, the quality of the included studies was not graded. Subgroup analyses showed a significant association between processed meat intake and heart failure among Europeans (relative risk 1.33 per 50 g/day, 95% CI = 1.15–1.54), but not among Americans. No association was found between heart failure risk and red meat intake in either continent [ 92 ].

Neuenschwander and colleagues found a positive association in dose–response studies of processed red meat (hazard ratio 1.44; 95% CI: 1.18–1.76), processed meat (hazard ratio 1.37; 95% CI: 1.22–1.54), and bacon (hazard ratio 2.07; 95% CI: 1.40–3.05) intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in an umbrella review of prospective cohort studies [ 93 ]. No significant association was found for unprocessed red meat (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97–1.28). The methodological quality of the meta-analyses was mostly high, but the quality of evidence was low for unprocessed red meat, moderate for processed red meat and high only for processed meat and bacon.

7.3. Interpretation of Observational Studies

When assessing results in meta-analyses, the data are only as valid as each individual study. Differences in the definition of which products to include in the categories of meat and processed meat (and exclusion of specific meat products [ 94 ]), and differences in serving sizes among countries play an important part in the validity and interpretation of the results. Equally important are the characteristics, medical history and total dietary intake of the participants included in the studies; factors influencing the results but, despite several statistical models, close to impossible to eliminate.

Overall, the observational evidence for the effects of red meat on chronic disease is weak and methodological issues have downgraded the overall judgment, although the direction of the effect for colorectal cancer is quite consistent. The evidence for adverse effects of the heterogeneous group of processed meat is moderate-to-strong for several endpoints with colorectal cancer as the most important effect. Scientific disputes exist regarding the consistency of the evidence for most endpoints. Better insights and tools such as biomarkers to support accurate intake assessments [ 88 , 95 , 96 ], discrimination between different groups of processed meats and assessment of mechanisms in cancer development are likely to resolve some of this controversy. The potential nutritional and mechanistic confounders are discussed in the following section.

8. The Importance of Confounders and Co-Factors

When estimating associations between meat intake and disease risk by comparing groups with high and low meat intake, respectively, it is pivotal to be aware which foods substitute meat in the low-meat diet. High meat intake is not necessarily confounded by an unhealthy diet, e.g., low in fruit, vegetables, whole-grain and dietary fiber intake and high in sugar and alcohol [ 97 ]. However, it was observed in analyses of dietary patterns in adult Danes that the 25% of the population with the highest reported meat intake along with an unhealthy diet (the highest quartile) have a red meat intake that is significantly higher (approximately 20% higher) than the 25% of the population with highest meat content in combination with a healthy diet (144 g/10 MJ compared with 121 g/10 MJ) [ 98 ]. For processed meat, the difference is even higher (32%; 87 g/10 MJ for those with an unhealthy diet compared with 66 g/10 MJ along with the healthy diet). This was also observed in an Irish study where a high intake of processed meat was associated with a low intake of fruit, vegetables, fish and whole grain, indicating a less healthy diet [ 94 ]. Thus, comparing disease risk in groups with high and low meat intake without corrections for dietary quality will inevitably be a comparison of unhealthy and healthy diets if no or inappropriate corrections for dietary quality are made. Moreover, the groups with high meat intake along with an unhealthy diet were shown to have a significantly higher dietary intake of foods which may have the potential to increase disease risk (e.g., fried potatoes, high-fat gravy, fatty spreads and fast foods) when compared with groups with high meat intakes as part of a healthy diet [ 98 ].

Many cohort studies present estimates including both a basic model with corrections for only basic confounders, e.g., age, sex and energy intake, and a more extended correction, e.g., body mass index, smoking habits, social status, and intake of healthy foods such as fruit, vegetables and whole grains. However, it can be questioned whether such correction are sufficient to take into account all differences in dietary quality that accompany high and low dietary meat content. In addition, it can be questioned whether corrections for too many confounders will interfere with the actual effects examined. However, it is not unusual that after extensive corrections for confounders, the associations found in the more basic model are no longer present [ 99 ], indicating that the corrections strongly modulate the estimates.

9. Research Gaps and Recommendations

A summary of recommendations and identified issues relevant for future research is presented in Table 1 .

Summary of recommendations and future research.

Emerging evidence indicates that foods cannot just be viewed as sources of specific nutrients, rather as a totality of several nutrients and other components that exert an effect depending on the composition, processing, meal composition and consumer habits ( Figure 2 ). As an example, the effect of SFA from butter differs from that of similar SFA in fermented dairy products [ 9 , 10 , 100 ]. This is an effect which, to an extent, may be explained by different low density lipoprotein (LDL) particle sizes being affected differently by SFA intake [ 101 , 102 ] or by the differences in content of dairy calcium. Analysis of the total number of LDL particles is commonly used to evaluate CVD risk, but particularly small LDL particles seems to be highly correlated with CVD whereas the larger LDL particles are not. Future studies should include analyses and a presentation of the different LDL particle sizes in order to separate the specific effect. In addition to the effect of SFA intake, the pathophysiological effects of salt and other additives from industrial processing are yet to be identified [ 103 ].

Shifting from saturated fatty acid-based to food-based dietary guidelines for cardiovascular health. CVD, cardiovascular disease; SFA, saturated fatty acid. Used with permission from Astrup et al. 2020 [ 10 ].

When viewing the baseline characteristics of participants in two large cohorts according to quintiles of total red meat consumption, it becomes clear that those with the highest meat consumption also have a lower consumption of fish, vegetables and whole grains [ 4 , 17 ], pointing towards a lower intake of several kinds of dietary fiber among these meat-eaters. Other studies also found those with a higher intake of meat to have a less healthy eating pattern [ 98 ], suggesting that an effect may be due to the absence of dietary fiber or other plant components more than the intake of meat per se, exerting an effect of health parameters. The positive effect of dietary fiber on human health is well established; for example, a change to a more healthy diet is shown to improve the gut microbiome and functionality independently from energy intake [ 25 ]. However, studies with equal meat contents are lacking. A high-quality human intervention study investigating the effect of processed meat with and without appropriate types of dietary fiber in humans could elucidate the effect on risk markers of CVD and microbiota and evaluate whether the absence of dietary fiber negatively influences the metabolic effects after the consumption of processed meat.

Despite the large body of observational studies on meat consumption and health outcomes, confounding factors and different or undefined subgrouping of meat types make it difficult to evaluate to what extent residual confounders might explain the modest increases in risk observed in association with red and processed meat intake. We therefore advocate for the completion of randomized controlled interventions of high quality to assess the effect of pre-defined meat consumption on relevant validated biomarkers among healthy people as well as among those at risk of CVD, type 2 diabetes and cancer (especially colorectal cancer).

In conclusion, meat is a source of high-quality proteins, minerals and vitamins and other compounds, difficult to obtain in sufficient amount from other sources. The current available research is inconclusive and does not support that meat consumption as part of a healthy diet increases the risk of disease. Moreover, considering the potential confounding factors and lack of interventional studies, there is a need for sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of meat consumption on shorter-term risk markers. While several biomarkers exist and have been partially validated according to a currently proposed standard [ 104 ], additional work is needed for their full validation [ 88 , 89 , 95 , 96 ]. Good biomarkers to assess intakes of different meats and of potentially protective dietary components in observational studies is another need to resolve the effect and confounders. In addition, mechanistic studies to therefore identify pathways and identify potential fermentation and processing methods increasing nutrient availability and effect are warranted.

Author Contributions

A.A. arranged a workshop on meat in relation to health, in collaboration with the Danish Agriculture and Food Council. A.A., H.C.B., H.M., L.O.D., L.K. and N.R.W.G. participated in the workshop and S.B. and J.R.C. were invited to join as participating scientists in writing the manuscript. NRWG drafted the manuscript based on summaries on presentations delivered by the participants of the workshop. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The authors have presented the scientific discussion framing this manuscript during the Expert Workshop “Processed meat” held in June 2020 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Danish Agriculture and Food Council funded the workshop and the publication fee. The funders had no role in preparing or reviewing the manuscript prior to submission.

Conflicts of Interest

NRWG reports receiving research funding from Danish Dairy Research Foundation, Arla Food for Health, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, and Danish Pork Levy Fund, and receiving an honorarium from the Danish Agriculture and Food Council for writing the present paper. HCB reports receiving research funding from Danish Dairy Research Foundation, Arla Food Ingredients, and Arla Food for Health, and a personal fee to participate in a workshop at the Danish Agriculture and Food Council. HM reports working on projects, including the workshop associated with the present paper, where the Danish National Food Institute has received grants or financial support from the Levy Fund for Agriculture or the Danish Agriculture and Food Council. LOD reports receiving a personal fee to participate in a workshop at the Danish Agriculture and Food Council. JRC reports working on projects receiving funds from Danish Pork Levy Fund, Danish Meat Research Institute, Danish Innovation Fund, Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology and Ministry of Education and Science. SB has nothing to disclose. LK reports receiving a personal fee to participate in a workshop at the Danish Agriculture and Food Council. AA reports receiving research funding from Danish Dairy Research Foundation, Arla Food for Health, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, and Danish Pork Levy Fund, and a personal fee to participate in a workshop at the Danish Agriculture and Food Council.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• News & Views
• Published: 03 March 2023

Sustainable diets

Long-lasting impact of information on meat consumption

• Paul M. Lohmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4724-9957 1  

Nature Food volume  4 ,  pages 205–206 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

559 Accesses

2 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Low-cost informational interventions promoting the environmental and health benefits of reducing meat consumption can stimulate long-lasting dietary change and build support for systemic meat reduction policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Willett, W. et al. Lancet 393 , 447–492 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bonnet, C., Bouamra-Mechemache, Z., Réquillart, V. & Treich, N. Food Policy 97 , 101847 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Reisch, L. A. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 48 , 665–693 (2021).

Google Scholar  

Ammann, J., Arbenz, A., Mack, G., Nemecek, T. & El Benni, N. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 36 , 338–353 (2023).

Espinosa, R. & Azambuja, R. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4220506 (2022).

Jalil, A. J., Tasoff, J. & Bustamante, A. V. Nat. Food https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00712-1 (2023).

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (IWG, 2021).

Lohmann, P. M., Gsottbauer, E., Doherty, A. & Kontoleon, A. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 114 , 102693 (2022).

Banerjee, S. & John, P. Behav. Public Policy https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.6 (2021).

Park, T. & Barker, J. A Menu for Change: Using Behavioural Science to Promote Sustainable Diets Around the World (Behavioural Insights Ltd, 2020).

Funke, F. et al. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 16 , 219–240 (2022).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

El-Erian Institute of Behavioural Economics and Policy, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Paul M. Lohmann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul M. Lohmann .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lohmann, P.M. Long-lasting impact of information on meat consumption. Nat Food 4 , 205–206 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00721-0

Download citation

Published : 03 March 2023

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00721-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Meat Consumption, Essay Example

Pages: 3

Words: 873

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Part 1:   Ethical Question

Is it always wrong to eat animals?

Part 2: Introduction

The question as to whether it is okay to consume animal flesh is one of the key issues in food ethics. A significant number of people believe it is morally and ethically wrong, while others hold that it is right to eat animal flesh. According to Reid (2013), about three out of one hundred U.S citizens are vegetarians. The number is even steeper in other regions, such as India, where nearly a third of the populace are vegetarians. Individuals chose to abstain from meat consumption, citing various reasons such as animal welfare, environmental effects of meat production, and health risks associated with meat consumption.

Many individuals who object to meat consumption usually cite various practices involved in the production of meat; others relay concerns about the welfare of the animals, environmental concerns, and various cultural and religious reasons. Inversely, proponents of meat consumption cite many scientific, cultural, and religious tenets in support of the practice. In some scenarios, meat consumption proponents oppose a certain way of rearing animals, such as factory farms, or killing them animals with cruelty; consequently, others do not indulge in certain flesh delicacies such as veal or foie gras.

Peter Singer, a renowned animal rights crusader, claims that humans can remain healthy without necessarily consuming meat or other animal products (Reid, 2013). He argues that there are various alternatives to animal meat, and this should help us abstain from causing unnecessary harm to animals. In his critically acclaimed book, Animal Liberation, Singer argues that non-human animals also have feelings, and we should always aspire to treat them as per utilitarian ethics. His works have since been widely developed upon by numerous philosophers, both those who are in agreement and those that disagree, and it also has been widely used by animal rights crusaders in driving their agenda.

Ethical vegetarian issues are now widely accepted in developed countries, this partly due to the growing number of factory farms, and the general access of graphic information about animal abuses and what generally animal flesh consumption translates into for animals, and the environmental effects of animal factory farming. On the other hand, pro meat consumption holds that the increased demand for animal flesh can only be met through a mass-production system, irrespective of animal welfare (Reid, 2013). Meat consumption proponents with less radical views advocate for animal rearing practices that are well managed or consumption of wild animals whose predators are fewer in number to meet the meat demand.

Part 3: Explanation of the Ethical Theory

Virtue ethics is one of the three core approaches in normative ethics; others are deontology and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics mainly focus on the essence and character of the individual involved in acting. The tenet of virtue ethics postulates that we should not judge action rather characters. Living a morally upright life, on this formulation, does not necessarily concern itself with carrying out the right acts, but rather it encourages the development of virtuous propensity and temperament (Thames, 2018). Virtue is a complex terminology, but it is usually drawn up in two key ways. Virtues can either be looked at as characters that are vital for a successful life or as traits that are overall deemed admirable.

When assessing the moral aptness of actions, such as consuming animal meat, virtue ethics, usually conceptualizes the issues as the action is morally right if a morally upright person would also do in the circumstances. Pertinent issues a student of virtue ethics need to ponder is whether consuming animal meat is a virtuous act or unethical act. Reid (2013) suggests that vegetarianism displays virtue. He postulates that consuming animal meat or using animal products in mean and harmful ways, we fail to showcase character traits that are kind, sensitive, compassionate, mature, and respectable members of an ethical society ought to display. Additionally, Ali (2015) appeals to admirable conceptions of virtue: Searching and deriving satisfaction from products that are gotten from cruel acts reduce one’s admirability.

Essentially, virtue ethics seems to be inclined toward vegetarianism, which the deontology and contract theories strictly oppose. Following the teachings of the fathers of virtue ethics, Aristotle and Plato-virtue ethics should also strive towards moral education, not as the inculcation of rules but rather as training of character. Surprisingly, the issue raised at the start of this essay; whether it is wrong to consume animal meat depends on individuals’ moral convictions.

Part 4: Application of Theory

It is hard to properly map out the virtue ethics as to whether it is wrong to consume animal meat. It becomes apparent that compassion is the key virtue at stake. As far as virtue ethics is concerned, it is an essay to relay that though factory farming is a key source of human food, the production process should be remodeled to make it more humane. Animal advocates decry how animals are treated, terming it ‘fundamentally wrong.’ Though we have to produce sufficient food for humanity, this should not be attained at the suffering of another living creature.

Thames B. (2018). How should one live? Lanchina Publishing Services. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/Thames.5057.18.1/sections/ch09sec9.1

Ali, K. (2015). Muslims and Meat-Eating.  Journal Of Religious Ethics ,  43 (2), 268-288. doi: 10.1111/jore.12097

Reid, J. (2013). Should we eat meat?: evolution and consequences of modern carnivory.  Choice Reviews Online ,  51 (05), 51-2657-51-2657. doi: 10.5860/choice.51-2657

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Girl With All the Gifts, Essay Example

Holocaust and the Genocide Against the Tutsi, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Organic Food — Arguments Against The Meat Eating

Arguments Against The Meat Eating

• Categories: Eating Habits Organic Food

About this sample

Words: 984 |

Published: Apr 2, 2020

Words: 984 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Meat essay outline, meat essay example, introduction.

• Definition and characteristics of meat
• Overview of the essay's focus on the disadvantages of eating meat

Impact on Animals and Cruelty

• Cruelty to animals caused by meat consumption
• Harm to the environment due to meat production

Health Consequences of Meat Consumption

• Health risks associated with eating meat
• Comparison between vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets

Environmental Consequences

• Environmental problems caused by meat consumption
• Relationship between meat consumption and issues like global warming and deforestation
• Recap of the negative effects of meat consumption on animals, health, and the environment
• Call for a reduction in meat consumption for the sake of animals and the planet

Works Cited

• Barnard, N. D. (2017). The cheese trap: How breaking a surprising addiction will help you lose weight, gain energy, and get healthy. Grand Central Life & Style.
• Campbell, T. C., & Campbell, T. M. (2006). The China study: The most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted and the startling implications for diet, weight loss, and long-term health. BenBella Books.
• Foer, J. S. (2009). Eating animals. Little, Brown and Company.
• Greger, M. (2015). How not to die: Discover the foods scientifically proven to prevent and reverse disease. Flatiron Books.
• Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. Conari Press.
• Lappe, F. M., & Lappe, A. (2010). Diet for a small planet. Random House.
• McCartney, M. (2017). The China study cookbook: Revised and expanded edition with over 175 whole food, plant-based recipes. BenBella Books.
• Robbins, J. (2001). The food revolution: How your diet can help save your life and our world. Conari Press.
• Singer, P. (2009). The ethics of what we eat: Why our food choices matter. Rodale Books.
• Tuttle, W. T. (2005). The world peace diet: Eating for spiritual health and social harmony. Lantern Books.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 487 words

5 pages / 2168 words

6 pages / 2912 words

1 pages / 594 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Organic Food

Food is one of the most important essential in our life for it brings energy to the body in order to keep it functioning. What we consume everyday determines the level of healthiness in our body. However, without food the body [...]

Rice is one of the most important and widely consumed staple foods in the world. It is a staple food for more than half of the world's population, particularly in Asia, where it is a major part of the diet for billions of [...]

Lima beans, also known as butter beans, are a popular legume that has been a staple in diets around the world for centuries. They are a rich source of protein, fiber, and various essential nutrients, making them a valuable [...]

Over the last two decades, the demand from consumers for organic foods has increased tremendously. In fact, the popularity of organic foods has exploded significantly with consumers, spending a considerably higher amount of [...]

One kind of synthetic antioxidant, which is used widely in food products, is tert-butylhydroquinone (THBQ). It is an aromatic organic compound which is a type of phenol. It is a derivative of hydroquinone, substituted with a [...]

In our everyday life, we consume food, but we don’t know exactly where the food came from or how it was handled before purchased. Organic foods are said to; have fewer pesticides, have richer nutrients, are non- GMO, and [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Health Science: Meat Consumption

Introduction.

This report explores the complex relationship between meat intake and health, focusing on cardiovascular disease and cancer. It provides a broad definition of meat, drawing from the Food Standards Australia New Zealand code and the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating recommendations for Australian adults. The report also presents six peer-reviewed journal articles aligned with the NHMRC evidence pyramid for a nuanced comparison and contrast. The comprehensive data review concludes with a brief but compelling conclusion, synthesizing the extensive literature and providing a complete picture of the complex link between meat diet and health outcomes.

Definition and AGHE Recommendations

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) code provides a comprehensive framework for understanding meat consumption, covering lean meats, eggs, poultry, and fish. The “Australian Guide to Healthy Eating” guidelines also provide a comprehensive definition of meat components. The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating recommends meat consumption for adults to improve health outcomes, with scientific data supporting these recommendations (George et al., 2018, p.465). The AGHE framework categorizes meats based on their high protein, iron, and zinc content, providing a detailed overview of their nutritional value. This categorization promotes responsible meat consumption, allowing people to enjoy the nutritional benefits of meat while maintaining a health-conscious and mindful diet. This tactical segregation within the standards promotes responsible meat consumption.

Moreover, “The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating” framework recognizes the importance of meat servings as qualitative indicators of nutritionally balanced diets. This meticulously designed portion aims to provide volume and a variety of critical nutrients for overall well-being while adhering to AGHE’s dietary requirements. It symbolizes nutritional or dietary harmony, carefully woven into the diet, and emphasizes diversity and moderation. AGHE recognizes the importance of meat in maintaining optimum health and promotes its use as a nutritious supplement without supporting overconsumption (Itsiopoulos et al., 2018, p.8). This balanced view ensures that people may safely extract the nutritional advantages of meats while balancing the health hazards of excessive consumption. Through a holistic viewpoint, AGHE supports meat consumption within a thoughtful and sustainable dietary mindset, balancing health-conscious decisions with enjoying diverse and moderate nutritious intake.

Therefore, the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGHE) recommendations are supported by the “National Health and Medical Research Council” and peer-reviewed nutrition and health journals. The AGHE recommendations are empirically sound due to the NHMRC’s authority and peer-reviewed literature inspection (George et al., 2018, p.465). These trustworthy sources support AGHE’s dietary recommendations and the guidelines’ definition of “meat.” Including evidence from respected institutions such as NHMRC and peer-reviewed publications gives the meat consumption debate scientific rigor and credibility, fostering a discourse rooted in empirical insights and improving AGHE’s understanding of the dietary landscape.

Current Situation

Australian meat consumption is complex due to various nutritional preferences and diets. The Australian Health Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Statistics, shows that most people consume meat regularly, including red, white, fish, and chicken meats. This reflects the diverse dietary choices nationwide. Research studies in the Journal of Public Health and Nutrition and Dietetics Journal highlight socio-cultural and economic aspects impacting these choices(George et al., 2018, p.465). These sources help explain the elements that shape meat intake in Australia, highlighting the diverse food landscapes and the importance of meat in a diverse diet.

The National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey reveals a diverse range of meat consumption choices across demographic groups in Australia. Young people tend to opt for leaner poultry, while older individuals prefer red meat. Urban residents consume more fish than rural residents. These choices are influenced by age, location, and nutrition, highlighting the fluidity of Australia’s diverse cuisine (Johnston, 2019, p.760). Scholarly studies, including those in the Journal of Public Health and Nutrition and Dietetics Journal, also provide insights into the economic and socio-cultural factors affecting meat consumption. This comprehensive analysis of meat consumption in Australia provides a comprehensive picture of current eating patterns.

Weighing up the Evidence

The literature summary table below on is based on six scientifically credible sources published in the last seven years in peer-reviewed journals.

Comparing and Contrasting Evidence

The sources examine the complex link between meat eating and health, focusing on CVD and cancer. For instance, Itsiopoulos et al. (2018) performed the comprehensive randomized clinical study AUSMED Heart study, comparing a “dietitian-led Mediterranean diet” with a standard-care low-fat diet among multiethnic Australians. The research enrolled 1,032 cardiology clinic patients to compare secondary cardiovascular cases at one year across Mediterranean and low-fat diets. The experiment uses the Cardio-Med Questionnaire, cardiovascular risk indicators, 7-day food diaries, and biomarkers to evaluate the Mediterranean diet’s cardiovascular risk-reduction effects. The focus on different communities emphasizes the necessity for culturally and ethnically specific nutritional interventions. However, George et al. (2018) propose a “Mediterranean Diet model” for multiethnic Australia. While anchored in Mediterranean cuisine, this model adapts to Australian tastes and culture. It encourages plant-based eating with moderate amounts of monounsaturated fatty acids, whole grains, fruits, nuts, vegetables, seeds, seafood, red wine, and dairy. This model’s adaptability and authenticity make it suited for multicultural environments, inspiring future clinical studies and public health efforts. This viewpoint recognizes the relevance of cultural variation in dietary treatments and proposes that a diet’s efficacy may be increased when it matches community preferences. These studies suggest a Mediterranean-style diet may reduce cardiovascular and cancer disease. They emphasize that plant-based, nutrient-rich diets reduce cardiovascular risk factors and provide flexibility and cultural adaptation. These studies provide light on the cardiovascular health benefits of certain diets by concentrating on varied populations and tailoring dietary treatments to cultural settings.

Sievert et al. (2021) explore the link between environmental degradation, red and processed meat consumption, and chronic illnesses worldwide like cardiovascular and cancer diseases. They highlight that RPM-rich diets contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, chronic illnesses, and environmental issues. The research emphasizes the need to reduce meat consumption, particularly in high-income countries, to address the issues of cardiovascular and cancer diseases. The study also highlights the political concerns surrounding meat consumption, particularly in lower-income nations (Sievert et al., 2021, p.793). It uses a theoretical framework to analyze meat reduction interests, concepts, and organizations, highlighting power dynamics and institutional challenges in policy execution. However, Sievert et al. (2022) explore the health and environmental risks of increased meat consumption in Australia, focusing on policy and political issues. The study acknowledges the cultural desire for meat, the economic significance of the meat industry, and neoliberalism’s political impact, making national meat consumption policy difficult to implement (Sievert et al., 2022, n.p.). It suggests food supply, environment, and consumer behavior regulations while highlighting political impediments like carnism and industry-government interdependence. The report recommends a food systems-wide strategy for meat reduction, focusing on social, political, economic, and environmental concerns leading to a decrease in diseases like cardiovascular and cancer diseases.

Nestel et al. (2021) provide effective cardiovascular disease preventative recommendations. They recommend more plant-based diets, less saturated fat, less salt, moderate alcohol consumption, and a healthy weight. Quality guidelines meet contemporary requirements, guaranteeing translatability and trustworthiness via AGREE II and GRADE evaluation (Nestel et al., 2021, p.170). Meanwhile, Johnston et al. (2019) criticize red meat consumption recommendations, citing observational study weaknesses. The NutriRECS Consortium addresses these problems with nuanced recommendations based on comprehensive systematic reviews, admitting low-certainty evidence and weak recommendations. According to the authors, standards like the necessity for independent, trustworthy meat consumption should be adhered to reduce cardiovascular and cancer diseases.

The relationship between meat intake and health outcomes is complex and multifaceted. Studies by Sievert et al. highlight the political challenges of reducing red and processed meat consumption, the power dynamics of the meat industry, cultural preferences, and economic interests. The AUSMED Heart Trial explores the benefits and cons of a Mediterranean diet for cardiovascular disease management in multiethnic Australia. Nestel et al. emphasize evidence-based diets, particularly plant-based foods, for cardiovascular health benefits. Johnston et al. advocate for independent, trustworthy recommendations based on comprehensive, systematic research.

George, E.S., Kucianski, T., Mayr, H.L., Moschonis, G., Tierney, A.C. and Itsiopoulos, C., 2018. A Mediterranean diet model in Australia: strategies for translating the traditional Mediterranean diet into a multicultural setting.  Nutrients ,  10 (4), p.465. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/4/465

Itsiopoulos, C., Kucianski, T., Mayr, H.L., van Gaal, W.J., Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A., Vally, H., Kingsley, M., Kouris-Blazos, A., Radcliffe, J., Segal, L. and Brazionis, L., 2018. The Australian Mediterranean Diet Heart Trial (AUSMED Heart Trial): A randomized clinical trial in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in a multiethnic Australian population: Study protocol.  American Heart Journal ,  203 , pp.4-11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870318301601

Johnston, B.C., Zeraatkar, D., Han, M.A., Vernooij, R.W., Valli, C., El Dib, R., Marshall, C., Stover, P.J., Fairweather-Taitt, S., Wójcik, G. and Bhatia, F., 2019. Unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: dietary guideline recommendations from the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium.  Annals of Internal Medicine ,  171 (10), pp.756-764. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M19-1621

Nestel, P.J., Beilin, L.J., Clifton, P.M., Watts, G.F. and Mori, T.A., 2021. Practical guidance for food consumption to prevent cardiovascular disease.  Heart, Lung and Circulation ,  30 (2), pp.163-17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950620304765

Sievert, K., Lawrence, M., Parker, C. and Baker, P., 2021. Understanding the political challenge of red and processed meat reduction for healthy and sustainable food systems: a narrative review of the literature.  International Journal of Health Policy and Management ,  10 (12), p.793. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9309962/

Sievert, K., Chen, V., Voisin, R., Johnson, H., Parker, C., Lawrence, M. and Baker, P., 2022. Meat production and consumption for a healthy and sustainable Australian food system: Policy options and political dimensions.  Sustainable Production and Consumption . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550922002147

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Benchmark – risk management program analysis, case-based clinical reasoning, research locating and appraising, reflection paper on anthropology, technology in optimizing healthy aging among the elderly above 75 years old, data preprocessing and feature engineering on australian weather observations, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Make mine medium-rare: Men really do eat more…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Entertainment
• Multimedia/Video

Uncategorized

Make mine medium-rare: men really do eat more meat than women, study says.

A man eats a chicken wing, Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at a barbecue restaurant in Cincinnati. Psychologists have known for years now that men tend to eat more meat than women, but a study of people around the world now reveals that that’s true across cultures. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel)

Chicken wings sit in a pan before frying, Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at a barbecue restaurant in Cincinnati. Psychologists have known for years now that men tend to eat more meat than women, but a study of people around the world now reveals that that’s true across cultures. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel)

A line cook slices beef brisket, Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at a barbecue restaurant in Cincinnati. Psychologists have known for years now that men tend to eat more meat than women, but a study of people around the world now reveals that that’s true across cultures. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel)

A line cook places chicken wings into a bowl before serving, Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at a barbecue restaurant in Cincinnati. Psychologists have known for years now that men tend to eat more meat than women, but a study of people around the world now reveals that that’s true across cultures. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel)

A cook prepares pork rib tips, Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at a barbecue restaurant in Cincinnati. Psychologists have known for years now that men tend to eat more meat than women, but a study of people around the world now reveals that that’s true across cultures. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel)

A line cook carries a pulled pork sandwich Wednesday, June 12, 2024, at a barbecue restaurant in Cincinnati. Psychologists have known for years now that men tend to eat more meat than women, but a study of people around the world now reveals that that’s true across cultures. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel)

CHICAGO (AP) — Vacationing in Chicago this week from Europe, Jelle den Burger and Nirusa Naguleswaran grabbed a bite at the Dog House Grill: a classic Italian beef sandwich for him, grilled cheese for her.

Both think the way their genders lined up with their food choices was no coincidence. Women, said Naguleswaran, are simply more likely to ditch meat, and to care about how their diet affects the environment and other people.

“I don’t want to put it in the wrong way, that male people feel attacked,” said Naguleswaran, of Netherlands, laughing. She said she used to love eating meat, but giving it up for climate reasons was more important to her. “We just have it in our nature to care about others.”

Now, scientists can say more confidently than ever that gender and meat-eating preferences are linked. A paper out in Scientific Reports this week shows that the difference is nearly universal across cultures — and that it’s even more pronounced in countries that are more developed.

Researchers already knew men in some countries ate more meat than women did. And they knew that people in wealthier countries ate more meat overall. But the latest findings suggest that when men and women have the social and financial freedom to make choices about their diets, they diverge from each other even more, with men eating more meat and women eating less.

That’s important because about 20% of planet-warming global greenhouse gas emissions come from animal-based food products, according to earlier research from the University of Illinois. The researchers behind the new report think their findings could fine-tune efforts to persuade people to eat less meat and dairy.

“Anything that one could do to reduce meat consumption in men would have a greater impact, on average, than among women,” said Christopher Hopwood, a professor of psychology at the University of Zurich and one of the authors of the paper. The work drew on surveys funded by Mercy for Animals, a nonprofit dedicated to ending animal agriculture. Hopwood said he is not affiliated with the organization and is not an advocate.

The researchers asked over 28,000 people in 23 countries on four continents how much of various types of food they ate every day, then calculated the average land animal consumption by gender identity in each country. They used the United Nations Human Development Index, which measures health, education and standard of living, to rank how “developed” each country was, and also looked at the Global Gender Gap Index, a scale of gender equality published by the World Economic Forum.

They found that, with three exceptions — China, India and Indonesia — gender differences in meat consumption were higher in countries with higher development and gender equality scores.

The large number and cultural diversity of people surveyed is “a real strength of this,” said Daniel Rosenfeld, a social psychologist at UCLA who studies eating behavior and moral psychology and was not involved in the study.

The study did not answer the question of why men tend to eat more meat, but scientists have some theories. One is that evolutionarily, women may have been hormonally hardwired to avoid meat that could possibly have been contaminated, affecting pregnancy, whereas men may have sought out meat proteins given their history as hunters in some societies.

But even the idea of men as hunters is intertwined with culture, Rosenfeld said. That’s a good example of another theory, which is that societal norms shape gender identity from an early age and thus how people decide to fill their plates.

Rosenfeld, who said he stopped eating meat about 10 years ago, said his own experience hanging out in college “as a guy hanging out with other guy friends” illustrated the cultural pressure for men to eat meat. “If they’re all eating meats and I decide not to,” he said, “it can disrupt the natural flow of social situations.”

The same cultural factors that shape gender influence how people respond to new information, said Carolyn Semmler, a professor of psychology at the University of Adelaide in Australia who also studies meat eating and social factors like gender. Semmler was not involved in this study. In some of her past work, she’s studied cognitive dissonance around eating meat.

In those cases, she said women presented with information about poor animal welfare in the livestock industry were more likely to say they would reduce their meat consumption. But men tended to go the other direction, she said.

“One participant said to me, ‘I think you guys are trying to get me to eat less meat, so I’m going to eat more,’” she said.

Semmler said meat can be important to masculine identity, noting for example the popular notion of men at the grill. And she said presenting eating less meat as a moral cause can be a sensitive issue. Still, she said, people should be aware of how their food choices affect the planet.

But she and Hopwood acknowledged how difficult it is to change behavior.

“Men are a tough nut to crack,” Hopwood said.

Jose Lopez, another diner at the Dog House Grill, said he thought men should eat less meat but said that in general he has observed otherwise.

“We’re carnivores. Men eat like savages,” he said.

This story was first published on Jun. 13, 2024. It was updated on Jun. 14, 2024 to correct the name of the academic journal in which the study was published to Scientific Reports.

Follow Melina Walling on X: @MelinaWalling.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .

More in Uncategorized

High School Sports | Taunton softball lands 4th straight title

Boston Celtics | Celtics Notebook: Porzingis’ status uncertain for Game 5

Biden rakes in $30M at star-studded gala

New England Patriots | DeMario Douglas among 11 Patriots studs and duds from OTAs, minicamp

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

making it work

Montana Has More Cows Than People. Why Are Locals Eating Beef From Brazil?

Cole Mannix, of Old Salt Co-op, is trying to change local appetites and upend an industry controlled by multibillion-dollar meatpackers.

By Susan Shain

Photographs by Rebecca Stumpf

Susan Shain lives in Helena, Mont. She visited Old Salt’s meat processing facility and restaurants, as well as the Mannix ranch, to report this story.

“Making It Work” is a series is about small-business owners striving to endure hard times.

While many people can conjure up romantic visions of a Montana ranch — vast valleys, cold streams, snow-capped mountains — few understand what happens when the cattle leave those pastures. Most of them, it turns out, don’t stay in Montana.

Even here, in a state with nearly twice as many cows as people, only around 1 percent of the beef purchased by Montana households is raised and processed locally, according to estimates from Highland Economics , a consulting firm. As is true in the rest of the country, many Montanans instead eat beef from as far away as Brazil .

Here’s a common fate of a cow that starts out on Montana grass: It will be bought by one of the four dominant meatpackers — JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill and Marfrig — which process 85 percent of the country’s beef; transported by a company like Sysco or US Foods, distributors with a combined value of over $50 billion; and sold at a Walmart or Costco, which together take in roughly half of America’s food dollars . Any ranchers who want to break out from this system — and, say, sell their beef locally, instead of as anonymous commodities crisscrossing the country — are Davids in a swarm of Goliaths.

“The beef packers have a lot of control,” said Neva Hassanein , a University of Montana professor who studies sustainable food systems. “They tend to influence a tremendous amount throughout the supply chain.” For the nation’s ranchers, whose profits have shrunk over time , she said, “It’s kind of a trap.”

Cole Mannix is trying to escape that trap.

Mr. Mannix, 40, has a tendency to wax philosophical. (He once thought about becoming a Jesuit priest.) Like members of his family have since 1882, he grew up ranching: baling hay, helping to birth calves, guiding cattle into the high country on horseback. He wants to make sure the next generation, the sixth, has the same opportunity.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Health A to Z
• Alternative Medicine
• Blood Disorders
• Bone and Joint
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Child Health
• Coronavirus
• Dental Care
• Digestive System
• Disabilities
• Drug Center
• Ear, Nose, and Throat
• Environmental Health
• Exercise And Fitness
• First Aid and Emergencies
• General Health
• Health Technology
• Hearing Loss
• Hypertension
• Infectious Disease
• LGBTQ Health
• Liver Health
• Men's Health
• Mental Health
• Pain Management
• Public Health
• Pulmonology
• Senior Health
• Sexual Health
• Skin Health
• Women's Health
• News For Medical Professionals
• Our Products
• Consumer News
• Physician's Briefing
• HealthDay TV
• Wellness Library
• HealthDay Living
• Conference Coverage
• Custom Products
• Health Writing
• Health Editing
• Video Production
• Medical Review

As Women Gain More Equality, Men Eat More Meat

Key Takeaways

Men almost universally consume more meat than women

As equality between the sexes improves, men tend to eat even more meat, new research shows

This could be because men begin to have more leeway over their mealtime choices, researchers said

THURSDAY, June 13, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- In countries where gender equality is becoming more of a reality, men's meat consumption tends to rise relative to women's, a new study shows.

The phenomenon was seen mainly in richer countries in North America and Europe, and was not seen at all in large but less affluent China, India and Indonesia.

Why? Researchers believe it's due to men in wealthier, more gender-equal nations having more control over their meal choices -- and choosing meat more often.

The trend is "more likely to be driven by more extensive meat consumption among men in developed countries, in which greater wealth creates more opportunities for men to choose meat, than by lower meat consumption among women," the researchers concluded.

The study was led by Christopher Hopwood, a professor of psychology at the University of Zurich, in Switzerland. It was published June 13 in the journal Scientific Reports .

The researchers started off with one longstanding statistic: Almost everywhere, men tend to eat more meat than women.

But would that carnivore gender gap close once women made gains in equality with respect to men?

To find out, Hopwood's team looked at survey data collected in 2021 from almost 21,000 people from 23 countries in North and South America, Europe and Asia. Participants reported their gender and how frequently they ate meat.

As expected, in most countries (with the exception of China, India and Indonesia), men ate more meat than women. And as average income levels in a country rose, so did the frequency with which both sexes chowed down on meat.

That makes sense, Hopwood's team said, since meat is much more expensive to produce and buy compared to plant-based fare.

But the surprising finding arose in regards to gender equality: The gap in meat consumption between men and women widened as the sexes gained parity, the study found.

The bottom line, according to the researchers, is that men and women in wealthier countries with better gender parity may tend to follow their inclinations to eat more or less meat.

The trend seems to "have more to do with men’s consumption behavior than women’s," Hopwood and colleagues noted.

The study was funded by the nonprofit Mercy for Animals group, which seeks to end animal agriculture. Based on the new findings, Hopwood's team believe that any efforts to lower meat consumption may want to consider gender and gender identity, and "focus on meat reduction among men."

More information

Find out more about the benefits of a plant-based diet at the American Heart Association.

SOURCE: Scientific Reports , news release, June 13, 2024

What This Means For You

Whenever men and women become more equal in society, men tend to eat more meat and women less.

Related Stories

75 Meat Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best meat topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 simple & easy meat essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on meat.

• Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating While meat is a rich source of essential minerals and vitamins, it also results in many adverse effects to the human body.
• Vegetarian or Meat Eaters Contrary to the belief that meat is a great source of proteins, the quality of the protein in meat products is considered to be very poor since there is lack of proper combination of amino […]
• “Quit Meat” Vegetarian Diet: Pros and Cons Although many dieticians think that meat is an essential nutrient, the reality is that it is inappropriate to eat animals because it is unhealthy and unethical.
• Halal Meat’s Specific Regulations The requirements for halal meat production is specified in the Holy Quran in which Muslims are informed of the type of food which is prohibited and are thus instructed to eat only halal food.
• Industrial Meat Business and Environmental Issues According to Goodman, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of our food choices and their impact on animals, the environment, and society. By choosing to consume meat, individuals are complicit in the perpetuation […]
• Meat Delivery: Time Charter vs. Bareboat Charter For example, vessels rented under a time charter are utilized for the transportation of goods as the owner provides the space on the vessel space and crew to the charterer.
• Improving the Meat Supply Chain in Sudan: The Challenges and Solutions As a result, the meat supply chain suffers due to the reliance of the industry on pastoralists and the onslaught of the pandemic.
• Difference Between Grass-Eater and Meat-Eater The noticeable difference between grass-eaters and meat-eaters is in the diet and sometimes in the way of life. For both the meat-eating and grass-eating diets, it is recommended not to overeat.
• Ethical Considerations That Determine People’s Choices in Eating Meat According to Davis and Lin, “beef is a highly consumed meat in the United States, averaging 67 pounds per person per year”. Meats such as beef are among the most popular forms of meat in […]
• The Connection Between Diabetes and Consuming Red Meat In light of reporting the findings of this research, the Times Healthland gave a detailed report on the various aspects of this research.
• Red Meat Linked to Higher Stroke Risks Stroke is known to be caused by the blockage of blood vessels that supply blood to the brain cells. These blockages of the blood vessel are mostly caused by overconsumption of fatty foodstuffs, Red meat […]
• Antibiotics in Meat and Health Effects for People Studies show that the bacteria from the meat and humans are both resistant to tetracycline which proves that antibiotics in meat are the major source of antibiotic resistance in humans.
• Red Meat Consumption as a Health Issue This is similar to the analysis in the scientific peer-reviewed article, which has the view that the increased risk of CVD and cancer mortality in those people who consume processed red meat is higher than […]
• Plant-Based Meat: Controversies However, ideally, it is best to stay away from both processed meat and vegan substitutes, as well as reduce the consumption of animal-based foods.
• The Ethical Issues of Factory-Farmed Meat The author gives several reasons that those people who love factory-farmed meat attempt to use to distinguish the morality of actions of Fred from the practice of purchasing meat produced in factories.
• What’s in the Meat Another difference between President Barack Obama’s direction and those given in the article is that earlier the federal departments responsible for upholding the food safety system of the USA were complexly under-funded and understaffed due […]
• Pork Meat as a Human Nutrition 100 grams of cooked trimmed served lean pork gives the body the following nutrients in the given content; It provides the body with 191 calories of energy which provides energy for all the processes in […]
• The Ethical Concern Over Meat Consumption The question, then, is whether our enjoyment of the way meat tastes is a good enough reason to justify the amount of suffering that the animals are made to undergo.
• Meat and Fast-Food Industry: What Are We Eating? The rise of fast food industry is obvious in contemporary American society: about half of the money used to buy food is spent in fast food restaurants.
• Meat and Poultry Packing Job Safety Due to the increased number of injuries and deaths arising from the poor working conditions, there is need to educate and train the immigrants on the safety and health hazards of working in meat factories.
• Excessive Meat Consumption and Nutritional Solution The additional benefit of the constant use of vegetables and greens in food is scientifically proven; therefore, one of the ways to improve health is to reduce the amount of meat consumed and eat more […]
• Raw Meat Eating and Its Dangers Most people believe that meat is the most delicious animal product and this explains why it is in high demand. People should eat cooked meat to kill the eggs of these worms and ensure their […]
• Wild Turkey Meat in the US: Marketing Project As such, to introduce a new line of production of wild turkeys, one would need to establish the target market in terms of consumption of this product, assess the level of competition, as well as […]
• Meat Consumption and Its Input on Global Warming However, reduction, shift to other sources of protein, and consumption of organically manufactured proteins, are some of the alternatives that environmentalists suggest to save the environment and reduce global warming.
• Exporting Camel Meat From Australia to China Meanwhile, China is also implementing various programs to increase its camel population and grow the market share of camel meat, but that is unlikely to deter market penetration of the Australian camel meat into the […]
• Meat Seller With Dron Delivery: Business Plan This results in a threat to the business due to lower product patronage from consumers that prefer the convenience of having to go to a super market and finding everything that they need there.
• Costco Company Management: Chicken Meat Safety The main benefit of this policy is that it can strengthen the loyalty of existing clients who will see that the company is genuinely concerned about the welfare of clients.
• Buffalo Meat Products Launch The main purpose of the information presented is determine ways, which the current buffalo meat products would be launched in the market, the potential avenues of marketing the new brand products of Buffalo Meat, such […]
• From Angus to Erlenmeyer: Media Coverage of Lab Manufactured Meat The report found that the portrayal of lab manufactured meat in the media spent the balance of coverage on the so-called ‘yuck’ factor, namely, that lab manufactured meat does not come from a real animal, […]
• Environmental Impact From Meat Based Diets The Water Education Foundation estimates that in order to produce a single pound of beef in the state of California, we require about 2,464 gallons of water.
• The Yulin Dog Meat Festival and American Views
• The Value of Branding in the Fresh Meat Industry
• Using Retail Scanner Data to Assess the Demand for Value-Based Ground Meat Products in Canada
• Why Eating Meat Is Morally Impermissible
• The Problem of Poor Diet of Red Meat, Dairy, and Diet Related
• The Negative Effects of Human Meat Consumption to the Environment
• The Sustainability of Meat Production and Consumption
• Vertical Integration Incentives in Meat Product Markets
• Using Benefit and Cost Information to Evaluate a Food Safety Regulation: HACCP for Meat and Poultry
• Vegetarians vs. Meat-Eaters: Which Is better
• Value-Added Meat: Measuring Past Successes and Predicting Future Winners
• The Meat and Livestock Industry in Australia
• The Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Turkey Meat Products
• The Structure of Changing Tastes for Meat and Fish in Great Britain
• The Potential of Goat Meat in the Red Meat Industry
• Traceability in the Canadian Red Meat Sector
• The Short-Run Impact of Beef Imports on U.S. Meat Prices
• Upton Sinclair and the Chicago Meat Packing Industry
• The Link Between Cancer and the Consumption of Meat
• The Reasons Why Employees at Jobbers Meat Packing Don’t Leave the Company
• What Extent Can Processed Meat Lead for Colorectal Cancer?
• Trust, Perceptions, Intentions and Behaviour in Meat Consumption
• The Issue of the Meat Quality
• Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle and the Meat-Packing Industry Today
• What Is Driving the Demand for Goat Meat in Tennessee
• Traceability and Certification in Meat Supply Chains
• The Unsustainable Meat Practices of Society Today
• Who Is Most Responsible for Ensuring the Meat We Eat Is Safe
• U.S. Meat Demand: Household Dynamics and Media Information Impacts
• Volatility Spillover Effects in Greek Consumer Meat Prices
• Vitro Meat And Its Effects on the World’s Population
• The Marketing of Meat Goats in the US: What, Where, and When
• The Price Volatility of Beef and Pig Meat in Romania
• Vegetarianism and Meat Eating in Food Culture
• Understanding Consumers’ Attitude Toward Meat Labels and Meat Consumption Pattern
• The Need to Reduce the Consumption of Meat in Order to Preserve the Environment
• The Risks That Follow the Consumption of Red Meat
• Traceability, Trade and Cool: Lessons From the Eu Meat and Poultry Industry
• The Reasons Why People Should Stop the Consumption of Meat
• The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat
• Using Indecent Languages, and Stop Eating Red Meat
• The Meat Based Diet Differs From the Vegetarian Diet
• The Pros and Cons of Consuming Test Tube Meat
• Why Grass Fed Meat Is Healthier Than Grain Fed
• Vegetarianism Essay Ideas
• Wine Essay Titles
• Beer Research Ideas
• Fast Food Essay Titles
• Hinduism Topics
• Hygiene Essay Topics
• World Hunger Research Topics
• Malnutrition Titles
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 75 Meat Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/meat-essay-topics/

"75 Meat Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/meat-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '75 Meat Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "75 Meat Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/meat-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "75 Meat Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/meat-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "75 Meat Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/meat-essay-topics/.

Band 9: The graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.

The graph depicts the changing consumption patterns of various animal-based protein sources in a European country from 1979 to 2004. While some food items saw significant changes over this period, others remained relatively stable.

The most dramatic shift was the steep decline in lamb and beef consumption. In 1979, lamb was the most heavily consumed item at around 180 grams per person per week. However, this figure dropped sharply to under 100 grams by 2004. A similar trend is observed for beef, which fell from 190 grams per week to approximately 150 grams. This suggests that consumer preferences shifted away from red meat during this time.

In contrast, chicken consumption more than doubled, rising from 80 grams per week in 1979 to over 200 grams by 2004. This indicates that poultry became an increasingly popular protein source, likely due to factors such as cost, health perceptions, and changing dietary habits.

Meanwhile, fish consumption held steady, fluctuating between 50-60 grams per person per week throughout the 25-year period. This consistency implies that seafood maintained a stable presence in the national diet, even as other animal proteins experienced major changes.

Overall, the graph illustrates a notable transition in food consumption, with chicken rising in prominence while lamb and beef declined. These shifts may reflect evolving economic, nutritional and cultural factors influencing dietary choices in the European country over this time.

Check Your Answer On This Topic?

Generate a band-9 sample answer, overall band score, task response, coherence & cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical range & accuracy, answers on the same topic:, the graph below shows the consumption of fish and different kinds of meat in a european country between 1979 and 2004. summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant..

The graph depicts the changing patterns of food consumption in a European country from 1979 to 2004. It shows the weekly per capita consumption of several animal-based protein sources, including fish, lamb, beef, and chicken. One of the most noticeable trends is the steady decline in lamb and beef consumption. In 1979, lamb was the […]

The line graph depicts the consumption of fish and different types of meat in European countries from 1979 to 2004. Between 1979 and 1984, chicken consumption increased slightly from just under 150 grams to over 150 grams, while both lamb and beef declined. Beef experienced a significant drop from nearly 225 grams to over 150 […]

The provided line graph illustrates the consumption trends of fish and various types of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004, measured in grams per person per week. The graph reveals distinct patterns in meat consumption, with chicken experiencing a significant increase, while beef and lamb exhibited notable declines. Chicken consumption displayed a […]

The provided line graph illustrates the per capita consumption of fish and various types of meat in a European country between 1979 and 2004. The graph reveals distinct trends in the consumption of different meats over the period. Chicken consumption experienced a significant increase, while beef consumption exhibited a steady decline. Lamb consumption initially decreased […]

Other Topics:

The line graph below shows changes in the amount of coffee exported from three countries between 2002 and 2012.

The line graph illustrates the change in coffee exports from three South American countries over the period between 2002 and 2012, with the data shown in kilograms. Overall, it can be seen that, despite some fluctuations, the levels of exports rose in all three countries over the period as a whole. Brazil and Costa Rica […]

The line graph illustrates changes in the levels of coffee exports in three South American countries from 2002 to 2012 and is measured in millions of kilograms. Overall, it can be seen that, despite some fluctuations, over the period as a whole the levels of exports rose in all three countries. Brazil and Costa Rica […]

The graph below gives information on the numbers of participants at one social club in Melbourne, Australia for the period 2000 to 2020.

The line graph shows how many people took part in various activities at social center in Melbourne, Australia from 2000 to 2020. Overall, the number of table tennis and musical performances attenders saw a rising trend, while the opposite was seen in amateur dramatics. In addition, the number of people participating in film club and […]

Write a report with this question: The graphs show the changes in the UK industry steel between 1970 and 2000. (đơn vị là people và tonnes) (Đề thi ngày 16/05/2020)

The first chart illustrates the number of laborers who worked in the UK steel industry from 1970 to 2000. Besides, the second figure indicates the changes in the value of the UK steel industry based on 3 categories: household demand, domestic manufacture, and import between 1970 and 2000. Generally, It can be noticeable that the […]

The graph below shows food consumption in Australia between 1950 and 2010. Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

The line graphs shows data on food consumption in Australia, measured by kilograms per person per year. It represents a timeline from 1950 to 2010, with five food categories: Vegetables, Fruit, Meat, Bread, and, Seafood. Vegetables and Fruit are shown to experience a significant increase from 1990-2010. With Vegetables consistently dominating consumption compared to the […]

The graph below shows the number of shops that closed and the number of the new shops that opened in one country between 2011 and 2018.

The line graph illustrates how many stores ceased trading and opened in a particular nation from 2011 to 2018. Overall, the number of closures and openings experienced a downward trend during the period with significant fluctuations resulting in the lead changing several times. Commencing with the initial four years, in 2011 openings were higher than […]

Plans & Pricing

Men eat more meat than women; gap widens in countries with gender equality

In countries where gender equality is becoming more of a reality, men's meat consumption tends to rise relative to women's, a new study shows.

The phenomenon was seen mainly in richer countries in North America and Europe, and was not seen at all in large but less affluent China, India and Indonesia. Advertisement

Why? Researchers believe it's due to men in wealthier, more gender-equal nations having more control over their meal choices -- and choosing meat more often.

• Guidelines outline nutrition requirements for those on Ozempic, Wegovy, Zepbound
• Planetary Health Diet linked to lower risk of early death
• Study: Mediterranean diet may cuts odds of early death for women

The study was led by Christopher Hopwood, a professor of psychology at the University of Zurich, in Switzerland. It was published Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports .

The researchers started off with one longstanding statistic: Almost everywhere, men tend to eat more meat than women.

But would that carnivore gender gap close once women made gains in equality with respect to men?

To find out, Hopwood's team looked at survey data collected in 2021 from almost 21,000 people from 23 countries in North and South America, Europe and Asia. Participants reported their gender and how frequently they ate meat. Advertisement

As expected, in most countries (with the exception of China, India and Indonesia), men ate more meat than women. And as average income levels in a country rose, so did the frequency with which both sexes chowed down on meat.

That makes sense, Hopwood's team said, since meat is much more expensive to produce and buy compared to plant-based fare.

But the surprising finding arose in regards to gender equality: The gap in meat consumption between men and women widened as the sexes gained parity, the study found.

The bottom line, according to the researchers, is that men and women in wealthier countries with better gender parity may tend to follow their inclinations to eat more or less meat.

The trend seems to "have more to do with men's consumption behavior than women's," Hopwood and colleagues noted.

The study was funded by the nonprofit Mercy for Animals group, which seeks to end animal agriculture. Based on the new findings, Hopwood's team believe that any efforts to lower meat consumption may want to consider gender and gender identity, and "focus on meat reduction among men."

More information

Find out more about the benefits of a plant-based diet at the American Heart Association. Advertisement

Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Latest Headlines

Trending Stories

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Reducing meat and/or dairy consumption in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effects on protein intake, anthropometric values, and body composition

Affiliations.

• 1 Centre for International Health, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
• 2 Centre for Nutrition, Mohn Nutrition Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
• 3 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
• 4 Centre for the Study of Sciences and Humanities, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
• 5 Department of Medical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
• PMID: 37236631
• PMCID: PMC10859689
• DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuad055

Context: Consumers are increasingly encouraged to reduce meat and dairy consumption. However, few meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of reducing meat and/or dairy on (absolute) protein intake, anthropometric values, and body composition are available.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of reducing meat and/or dairy consumption on (absolute) protein intake, anthropometric values, and body composition in adults aged ≥ 45 years.

Data sources: The MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were searched up to November 24, 2021.

Data extraction: Randomized controlled trials reporting protein intake, anthropometric values, and body composition were included.

Data analysis: Data were pooled using random-effects models and expressed as the mean difference (MD) with 95%CI. Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified using Cochran's Q and I2 statistics. In total, 19 RCTs with a median duration of 12 weeks (range, 4-24 weeks) and a total enrollment of 1475 participants were included. Participants who consumed meat- and/or dairy-reduced diets had a significantly lower protein intake than those who consumed control diets (9 RCTs; MD, -14 g/d; 95%CI, -20 to -8; I2 = 81%). Reducing meat and/or dairy consumption had no significant effect on body weight (14 RCTs; MD, -1.2 kg; 95%CI, -3 to 0.7; I2 = 12%), body mass index (13 RCTs; MD, -0.3 kg/m2; 95%CI, -1 to 0.4; I2 = 34%), waist circumference (9 RCTs; MD, -0.5 cm; 95%CI, -2.1 to 1.1; I2 = 26%), amount of body fat (8 RCTs; MD, -1.0 kg; 95%CI, -3.0 to 1.0; I2 = 48%), or lean body mass (9 RCTs; MD, -0.4 kg; 95%CI, -1.5 to 0.7; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion: Reduction of meat and/or dairy appears to reduce protein intake. There is no evidence of a significant impact on anthropometric values or body composition. More long-term intervention studies with defined amounts of meat and dairy are needed to investigate the long-term effects on nutrient intakes and health outcomes.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020207325.

Keywords: aging; meat and dairy-reduced diet; meat-free diets; nutrients; protein; sustainability.

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Life Sciences Institute.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas. Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
• Dietary Patterns and Growth, Size, Body Composition, and/or Risk of Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Boushey C, Ard J, Bazzano L, Heymsfield S, Mayer-Davis E, Sabaté J, Snetselaar L, Van Horn L, Schneeman B, English LK, Bates M, Callahan E, Butera G, Terry N, Obbagy J. Boushey C, et al. Alexandria (VA): USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review; 2020 Jul. Alexandria (VA): USDA Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review; 2020 Jul. PMID: 35129906 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• Effects of total fat intake on body fatness in adults. Hooper L, Abdelhamid AS, Jimoh OF, Bunn D, Skeaff CM. Hooper L, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 1;6(6):CD013636. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013636. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32476140 Free PMC article.
• Dairy Intake Enhances Body Weight and Composition Changes during Energy Restriction in 18-50-Year-Old Adults-A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Stonehouse W, Wycherley T, Luscombe-Marsh N, Taylor P, Brinkworth G, Riley M. Stonehouse W, et al. Nutrients. 2016 Jul 1;8(7):394. doi: 10.3390/nu8070394. Nutrients. 2016. PMID: 27376321 Free PMC article.
• Effect of dairy consumption on weight and body composition in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Abargouei AS, Janghorbani M, Salehi-Marzijarani M, Esmaillzadeh A. Abargouei AS, et al. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012 Dec;36(12):1485-93. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2011.269. Epub 2012 Jan 17. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012. PMID: 22249225 Review.
• Differences in Ratio of Carbon Stable Isotopes among Barley Grain Milling Fractions with Various Concentrations of Beta-Glucans. Levanič T, Cigić B, Germ M, Polišenská I, Vaculová K, Pravst I, Kocjan Ačko D, Kreft I. Levanič T, et al. Molecules. 2023 Jul 29;28(15):5738. doi: 10.3390/molecules28155738. Molecules. 2023. PMID: 37570708 Free PMC article.
• Marinova D, Bogueva D.. Planetary health and reduction in meat consumption. Sustain Earth. 2019;2:1–12.
• Bianchi F, Stewart C, Astbury NM, et al.Replacing meat with alternative plant-based products (RE-MAP): a randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent behavioral intervention to reduce meat consumption. Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;115:1357–1366. - PMC - PubMed
• Westhoek H, Lesschen JP, Rood T, et al.Food choices, health and environment: effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. Global Environ Change. 2014;26:196–205.
• Westhoek H, Rood G, van den Berg M, et al.The protein puzzle: The consumption and production of meat, dairy and fish in the European Union. Eur J Nutr Food Safety. 2011;123–144.
• Roer A-G, Johansen A, Bakken AK, et al.Environmental impacts of combined milk and meat production in Norway according to a life cycle assessment with expanded system boundaries. Livestock Sci. 2013;155:384–396.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Grants and funding

• University of Bergen's Global Challenges

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• PubMed Central
• Silverchair Information Systems

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• DOI: 10.1007/s10460-024-10592-1
• Corpus ID: 270463731

Between “better than” and “as good as”: mobilizing social representations of alternative proteins to transform meat and dairy consumption practices

• Claudia Laviolette , Laurence Godin
• Published in Agriculture and Human Values 12 June 2024
• Agricultural and Food Sciences, Sociology

One Citation

Cultivating change in food consumption practices: the reception of the social representation of alternative proteins by consumers.

• Highly Influenced

25 References

Food and social media: a research stream analysis, use of social networks in the context of the dietitian’s practice in brazil and changes during the covid-19 pandemic: exploratory study, impossible solutions: competing values in marketing alternative proteins for sustainable food systems, promoting ‘pro’, ‘low’, and ‘no’ meat consumption in switzerland: the role of emotions in practices, the effects of plant-based diets on the body and the brain: a systematic review, maintaining meat: cultural repertoires and the meat paradox in a diverse sociocultural context, social change in a material world, framing the future of food: the contested promises of alternative proteins, cultured meat and cowless milk: on making markets for animal-free food, i do it, but don't tell anyone personal values, personal and social norms: can social media play a role in changing pro-environmental behaviours, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers