Universal Truths about Reducing Meat Consumption?

IF 7.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Tatjana Kwasny, Sarah Marth, Karin Dobernig, Petra Riefler
{"title":"Universal Truths about Reducing Meat Consumption?","authors":"Tatjana Kwasny, Sarah Marth, Karin Dobernig, Petra Riefler","doi":"10.1007/s40572-025-00498-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Current high levels of meat production and consumption are linked to severe health and environmental issues around the world. One remedy to this situation is a shift towards more plant-based diets. Several factors influence consumers’ meat intake including personal, socio-cultural, and economic factors as well as characteristics of the food environment. An increasing number of intervention studies are addressing these factors to support the necessary diet shift. However, the relative impact of factors on diets as well as the effectiveness of interventions might differ across geographic settings. This literature review describes (i) how far extant intervention studies on meat consumption reduction take the regional context into account, and (ii) whether current findings allow to distill universal factors that effectively reduce meat consumption across regions and countries. RECENT FINDINGS: This review identifies three key findings: First, existing evidence is largely limited to Europe and North America, while rapidly developing regions such as Africa and Asia are neglected despite rising meat consumption. Second, knowledge-related interventions appear to be more effective when framed around health rather than environmental issues of meat consumption. However, cross-country evidence on which specific issues matter most (e.g. cancer, cardiovascular disease etc.) is lacking. Moreover, social norm interventions seem to be effective in reducing meat consumption across countries, but research comparing effective designs and reference groups across countries is missing. Third, most interventions adopt standardized approaches with limited regional adaptation, except social norm interventions, which often tailor messages to the regional context. Due to a lack of cross-national studies, empirical evidence for universal factors spanning different regions or countries is scant. Also, whether the relevance of personal, socio-cultural or external factors varies in different regional contexts remains largely unclear. Thus, future research should emphasize the regional context and test adapted interventions in cross-country studies. </p>","PeriodicalId":10775,"journal":{"name":"Current Environmental Health Reports","volume":"12 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12446401/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Environmental Health Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-025-00498-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Current high levels of meat production and consumption are linked to severe health and environmental issues around the world. One remedy to this situation is a shift towards more plant-based diets. Several factors influence consumers’ meat intake including personal, socio-cultural, and economic factors as well as characteristics of the food environment. An increasing number of intervention studies are addressing these factors to support the necessary diet shift. However, the relative impact of factors on diets as well as the effectiveness of interventions might differ across geographic settings. This literature review describes (i) how far extant intervention studies on meat consumption reduction take the regional context into account, and (ii) whether current findings allow to distill universal factors that effectively reduce meat consumption across regions and countries. RECENT FINDINGS: This review identifies three key findings: First, existing evidence is largely limited to Europe and North America, while rapidly developing regions such as Africa and Asia are neglected despite rising meat consumption. Second, knowledge-related interventions appear to be more effective when framed around health rather than environmental issues of meat consumption. However, cross-country evidence on which specific issues matter most (e.g. cancer, cardiovascular disease etc.) is lacking. Moreover, social norm interventions seem to be effective in reducing meat consumption across countries, but research comparing effective designs and reference groups across countries is missing. Third, most interventions adopt standardized approaches with limited regional adaptation, except social norm interventions, which often tailor messages to the regional context. Due to a lack of cross-national studies, empirical evidence for universal factors spanning different regions or countries is scant. Also, whether the relevance of personal, socio-cultural or external factors varies in different regional contexts remains largely unclear. Thus, future research should emphasize the regional context and test adapted interventions in cross-country studies.

关于减少肉类消费的普遍真理?
综述的目的:目前高水平的肉类生产和消费与世界各地严重的健康和环境问题有关。解决这种情况的一种方法是转向更多的植物性饮食。有几个因素影响消费者的肉类摄入量,包括个人、社会文化和经济因素以及食品环境的特点。越来越多的干预研究正在解决这些因素,以支持必要的饮食转变。然而,饮食因素的相对影响以及干预措施的有效性可能因地理环境而异。这篇文献综述描述了(i)现有的减少肉类消费的干预研究在多大程度上考虑了区域背景,以及(ii)当前的研究结果是否允许提炼出有效减少不同地区和国家肉类消费的普遍因素。最新发现:本综述确定了三个主要发现:首先,现有证据主要局限于欧洲和北美,而非洲和亚洲等快速发展的地区尽管肉类消费不断增加,但却被忽视了。其次,与知识相关的干预措施在围绕健康而不是肉类消费的环境问题进行时似乎更有效。然而,缺乏关于哪些具体问题最重要(例如癌症、心血管疾病等)的跨国证据。此外,社会规范干预似乎在减少各国的肉类消费方面是有效的,但缺乏比较各国有效设计和参考群体的研究。第三,大多数干预措施采用标准化方法,区域适应性有限,但社会规范干预措施往往根据区域背景定制信息。由于缺乏跨国研究,对跨地区或国家的普遍因素的经验证据不足。此外,个人、社会文化或外部因素的相关性是否在不同的区域背景下有所不同,在很大程度上仍不清楚。因此,未来的研究应强调区域背景,并在跨国研究中测试适应的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
1.30%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: Current Environmental Health Reports provides up-to-date expert reviews in environmental health. The goal is to evaluate and synthesize original research in all disciplines relevant for environmental health sciences, including basic research, clinical research, epidemiology, and environmental policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书