Cited by 22Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyClimate Change Policy and Economics

Environmental co-benefits of health policies to reduce meat consumption: A narrative review

Open access
Bonnet, Céline, Coinon, Marine·2024·Health Policy

Abstract

Global meat consumption has risen steadily in recent decades, with heterogeneous growth rates across regions. While meat plays a critical role in providing essential nutrients for human health, excessive consumption of meat, particularly red and processed meat, has also been associated with a higher risk of certain chronic diseases. This has led public authorities, including the World Health Organization, to call for a reduction in meat consumption. How governments can effectively reduce the health costs of meat consumption remains a challenge as implementing effective policy instruments is complex. This paper examines health-related policy instruments and potential economic mechanisms that could reduce meat consumption. Health-related taxation could be the most effective instrument. Other policy instruments, such as informational and behavioral instruments, along with regulations, could discourage meat consumption depending on the policy design. We also provide evidence on the link between meat consumption and the environment, including climate, biodiversity, water use, and pollution. Promoting healthy behaviors by reducing meat consumption can then have environmental co-benefits and promote broader sustainable development goals. We also discuss the policy-related challenges that need to be addressed to meet environmental co-benefits.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105017

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 2021, Global methane assessment: benefits and costs of mitigating methane emissions
  2. Vizuete, 2017, Press coverage of the WHO report on meat consumption and cancer: sources and frames, Zer: Revista de estudios de comunicación= Komunikazio ikasketen aldizkaria, 22, 13

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Bonnet, C., & Coinon, M.
Affiliations
Université Toulouse-I-Capitole (FR)
Corresponding author
Bonnet, Céline
Venue
Health Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-05
Volume
143
Pages
105017
ISSN
0168-8510 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391848837
Cited by
22
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Policy (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR-17-EURE-0010)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
meat consumption, environmental co-benefits, meat taxation, policy instruments, behavioral interventions, food regulation, climate change, biodiversity loss, water consumption, pollution, Sustainable Development Goals, chronic disease, red and processed meat
MeSH terms
Sustainable Development, Health Policy, Humans, Meat, Taxes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review