Cited by 179Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactNutritional Studies and DietConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: Impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability

Open access
Clonan, Angie, Wilson, Paul, Swift, Judy A, Leibovici, Didier G, Holdsworth, Michelle·2015·Public Health Nutrition

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Higher intakes of red and processed meat are associated with poorer health outcomes and negative environmental impacts. Drawing upon a population survey the present paper investigates meat consumption behaviours, exploring perceived impacts for human health, animal welfare and the environment. DESIGN: Structured self-completion postal survey relating to red and processed meat, capturing data on attitudes, sustainable meat purchasing behaviour, red and processed meat intake, plus sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. SETTING: Urban and rural districts of Nottinghamshire, East Midlands, UK, drawn from the electoral register. SUBJECTS: UK adults (n 842) aged 18-91 years, 497 females and 345 males, representing a 35·6 % response rate from 2500 randomly selected residents. RESULTS: Women were significantly more likely (P60 years) were more likely to hold positive attitudes towards animal welfare (P<0·01). Less than a fifth (18·4 %) of the sample agreed that the impact of climate change could be reduced by consuming less meat, dairy products and eggs. Positive attitudes towards animal welfare were associated with consuming less meat and a greater frequency of 'higher welfare' meat purchases. CONCLUSIONS: Human health and animal welfare are more common motivations to avoid red and processed meat than environmental sustainability. Policy makers, nutritionists and health professionals need to increase the public's awareness of the environmental impact of eating red and processed meat. A first step could be to ensure that dietary guidelines integrate the nutritional, animal welfare and environmental components of sustainable diets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1368980015000567

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A more powerful reason for change of habits in meat consumption is concern about safety and health.

    “On the other hand, a more powerful reason for the change of habits in meat consumption is the concern about safety and health (Clonan, Wilson, Swift, Leibovici, & Holdsworth, 2015).”

    From Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry (2018) · cites this paper as Clonan et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Clonan A (2011) Understanding consumer attitudes to sustainable food. PhD Thesis, Universtity of Nottingham.
  2. Jackson T (2004) Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Beha- vioural Change. A Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network. Guildford: University of Surrey.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clonan, A., Wilson, P., Swift, J. A., Leibovici, D. G., & Holdsworth, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Paul
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Published
2015-03-13
Volume
18
Issue
13
Pages
2446-2456
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
OpenAlex
W2143238819
Cited by
179
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Nottingham
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
red meat consumption, processed meat consumption, sustainable diets, environmental sustainability, climate change, human health, gender differences, dietary guidelines, public awareness
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Animal Welfare, Conservation of Natural Resources, Consumer Behavior, Dairy Products, Eggs, England, Female, Food Preferences, Food Supply, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Meat, Meat Products, Nutrition Surveys, Patient Compliance, Sex Characteristics, Nutrition Policy, Climate Change, Environmental Policy

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