People's Values and Preferences about Meat Consumption in View of the Potential Environmental Impacts of Meat: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.
consumer behaviour
environmental concerns
food preferences
meat consumption
mixed methods
systematic review
values and preferences
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 12 2022
24 12 2022
Historique:
received:
08
11
2022
revised:
14
12
2022
accepted:
15
12
2022
entrez:
8
1
2023
pubmed:
9
1
2023
medline:
11
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health is not the only aspect people consider when choosing to consume meat; environmental concerns about the impact of meat (production and distribution) can influence people's meat choices. We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review, searched six databases from inception to June 2020, and synthesised our findings into narrative forms. We integrated the evidence from quantitative and qualitative data sets into joint displays and assessed the confidence in the evidence for each review finding following the GRADE-CERQual approach. Of the 23,531 initial records, we included 70 studies: 56 quantitative, 12 qualitative, and 2 mixed-methods studies. We identified four main themes: (1) reasons for eating meat; (2) reasons for avoiding meat; (3) willingness to change meat consumption; and (4) willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. The overall confidence was low for the reasons for eating and/or buying meat, for avoiding meat, and for willingness to change meat consumption, and was moderate for willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. Regardless of people's general beliefs about meat and its impact on the environment, most people may be unwilling to change their meat consumption. Future research should address the current limitations of the research evidence to assess whether people are willing to make a change when properly informed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Health is not the only aspect people consider when choosing to consume meat; environmental concerns about the impact of meat (production and distribution) can influence people's meat choices.
METHODS
We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review, searched six databases from inception to June 2020, and synthesised our findings into narrative forms. We integrated the evidence from quantitative and qualitative data sets into joint displays and assessed the confidence in the evidence for each review finding following the GRADE-CERQual approach.
RESULTS
Of the 23,531 initial records, we included 70 studies: 56 quantitative, 12 qualitative, and 2 mixed-methods studies. We identified four main themes: (1) reasons for eating meat; (2) reasons for avoiding meat; (3) willingness to change meat consumption; and (4) willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat. The overall confidence was low for the reasons for eating and/or buying meat, for avoiding meat, and for willingness to change meat consumption, and was moderate for willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly meat.
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of people's general beliefs about meat and its impact on the environment, most people may be unwilling to change their meat consumption. Future research should address the current limitations of the research evidence to assess whether people are willing to make a change when properly informed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36612609
pii: ijerph20010286
doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010286
pmc: PMC9819158
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
BCJ received a 2019 start-up grant from Texas A&M AgriLife Research to fund investigator-initiated research related to saturated and polyunsaturated fats. The grant was from Texas A&M AgriLife institutional funds from interest and investment earnings, not a sponsoring organisation, industry, or company. The rest of the authors conducted this study independently without involvement of a funder. No further competing interests are disclosed. The authors declare that no funding grants were involved in supporting this work. The authors are all part of the NutriRECS working group and have previously published a series of systematic reviews, along with guidelines on red and processed meat consumption.
Références
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jul;21(10):1835-1844
pubmed: 29576031
Appetite. 2019 Jan 1;132:196-202
pubmed: 30322657
Appetite. 2017 Jan 1;108:117-131
pubmed: 27686818
Appetite. 2014 Mar;74:12-9
pubmed: 24291300
Nutrients. 2010 May;2(5):523-31
pubmed: 22254039
Appetite. 2016 Jan 1;96:487-493
pubmed: 26476397
Appetite. 2011 Dec;57(3):674-82
pubmed: 21896294
Am J Clin Nutr. 2019 Jan 1;109(1):225-243
pubmed: 30657846
Public Health Nutr. 2003 Aug;6(5):505-11
pubmed: 12943567
Coll Antropol. 2013 Dec;37(4):1111-20
pubmed: 24611322
Meat Sci. 2003 Nov;65(3):1071-83
pubmed: 22063690
Ecol Food Nutr. 2014;53(6):639-57
pubmed: 25357269
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 2;15(4):e0230609
pubmed: 32240198
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022 Mar;76(3):350-359
pubmed: 34282294
Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 Jul;59:89-104
pubmed: 27222454
Implement Sci. 2017 Mar 21;12(1):39
pubmed: 28327198
Appetite. 2019 Nov 1;142:104345
pubmed: 31276709
Appetite. 2013 Aug;67:119-24
pubmed: 23583444
Appetite. 2016 Mar 1;98:19-27
pubmed: 26673412
Appetite. 2004 Aug;43(1):19-28
pubmed: 15262014
Appetite. 2015 Aug;91:375-84
pubmed: 25913683
Appetite. 2012 Jun;58(3):1030-6
pubmed: 22387715
Appetite. 2019 Jul 1;138:115-126
pubmed: 30917940
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 24;110(52):20882-7
pubmed: 21576477
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Meat Sci. 2018 Mar;137:123-129
pubmed: 29175765
Appetite. 2022 Jan 1;168:105786
pubmed: 34728249
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:94-104
pubmed: 29452223
Appetite. 2001 Dec;37(3):175-84
pubmed: 11895318
Appetite. 2013 Jun;65:139-44
pubmed: 23416470
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Nov 19;171(10):756-764
pubmed: 31569235
Appetite. 2008 Mar-May;50(2-3):207-14
pubmed: 17604876
J Adv Nurs. 2020 Feb;76(2):676-686
pubmed: 31713252
Appetite. 2016 Jun 1;101:37-45
pubmed: 26873454
Appetite. 2008 Mar-May;50(2-3):422-9
pubmed: 17980457
Appetite. 2013 Mar;62:7-16
pubmed: 23195711
Appetite. 2013 Dec;71:340-8
pubmed: 24045211
Animals (Basel). 2010 Dec 09;1(1):7-26
pubmed: 26486211
Health Educ Behav. 2005 Dec;32(6):795-808
pubmed: 16267149
Meat Sci. 2012 Sep;92(1):71-7
pubmed: 22560481
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 11;14(7):e0219607
pubmed: 31295301
Res Sch. 2006 Spring;13(1):29
pubmed: 20098638
Appetite. 2001 Aug;37(1):15-26
pubmed: 11562154
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Apr 05;16(7):
pubmed: 30959755
Food Res Int. 2022 Aug;158:111476
pubmed: 35840197
Appetite. 2018 Aug 1;127:230-241
pubmed: 29751024
Public Health Nutr. 2015 Sep;18(13):2446-56
pubmed: 25766000
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):10
pubmed: 29384082
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Dec;104:62-72
pubmed: 30171900
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Nov 19;171(10):742-755
pubmed: 31569219
Nutrients. 2015 Oct;7(10):8712-5
pubmed: 26665419
Appetite. 2018 Feb 1;121:29-40
pubmed: 29102532
Appetite. 2017 Jul 1;114:299-305
pubmed: 28392424
BMC Public Health. 2017 Nov 10;17(1):876
pubmed: 29126385
Appetite. 2015 Jun;89:152-9
pubmed: 25681291
Health Serv Res. 2013 Dec;48(6 Pt 2):2134-56
pubmed: 24279835
Public Health Nutr. 2019 Sep;22(13):2448-2459
pubmed: 31159899
Nutrients. 2020 Jan 01;12(1):
pubmed: 31906308
J Am Diet Assoc. 2007 Jan;107(1):72-8
pubmed: 17197274
Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 23;6(1):61
pubmed: 28335799
Ann Fam Med. 2015 Nov;13(6):554-61
pubmed: 26553895