Halal and healthy: A qualitative study of British Muslim perspectives on meat consumption and plant-based diets.

Moving towards more plant-based diets is a win-win for both human and planetary health. However, for successful adoption, such diets must be realistic and convenient. This study explored the factors influencing food choices among young women in Scotland and examined how they interpret and use plant-based and convenience food in their daily lives. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 women aged 18-24 and generated six themes using reflexive thematic analysis within a critical realist framework. We found meat consumption to be socially and culturally embedded, reinforced by family, peers, and social media (Theme 1). Participants expressed a sense of safety with familiar meat-based dishes and fear towards unfamiliar plant-based dishes (Theme 2). 'Plant-based' was widely perceived as meat alternatives only, which were rejected across health, taste, cost, and identity considerations. Although cost was the biggest driver of food choice, meat was perceived as a necessary expense, further justified by health motivations (Theme 3). Environmental concerns were less important, with participants demonstrating limited awareness about the environmental impact of food (Theme 4). Convenience was important, though ready meals were rejected in favour of batch cooking and quick-prep meals (Theme 5). Meat reduction was perceived as an all-or-nothing identity shift, with negative vegan stereotypes deterring even small reductions in intake (Theme 6). These findings highlight the need to reposition plant-based foods as affordable, convenient, healthy, and familiar, likely requiring wider food system changes. Further, health benefits of increased plant-based wholefoods and reduced meat consumption should be emphasised in government and industry messaging.

BackgroundThe increasing presence of meat and other ASFs in the diets of sub-Saharan African (SSA) populations have consequences for human and planetary health in the subregion. Dietary modifications that favour...

Reducing meat consumption has been identified as an effective strategy for protecting human and planetary health. Policies and programs to reduce meat consumption have produced inconsistent results given the complexities of human behavior and food consumption. In this study, we used a systems approach to develop an agent-based model (ABM), explored key factors and mechanisms influencing meat consumption, and tested potential scenarios to reduce meat consumption. The ABM simulated food consumed at dinner, focusing on changes in meat consumption. For each simulated day, dinner decisions were driven based on individual characteristics, food environments, food preferences, and system-level driving factors. We selected Baltimore City, Maryland as a case study, to simulate virtual agents with independent decision-making abilities. Scenarios tested included the implementation of a non-meat marketing campaign, an increase in meat prices, an increase in the availability of non-meat options, and a combination of marketing and increased availability. Scenarios were also assessed by population sub-groups and geographic variability. The model simulated 596,377 adults (≥ 18 years) in Baltimore City (2019 ACS) and was parameterized using NHANES 2007–2018 (Cycles 2007–2008 to 2017–2018; N = 45,375 unique respondents) dinner recalls. The baseline scenario with no interventions showed that, on average, an agent’s dinner had a percent breakdown by weight as follows: 17.0% meat options, 79.8% non-meat options, and 3.1% fish. The largest reduction in meat consumption (12% decrease from baseline) was seen in the scenario where an increase in non-meat marketing and availability of non-meat options occurred. All scenarios showed the largest change in meat consumption among non-Hispanic White and Asian populations. Reduced meat consumption among Black individuals and individuals with a household income of $25k-$55k was relatively low across all scenarios. In each scenario, we observed significant variability in average meat consumption by zip code, with individuals living in higher income areas showing higher reductions in meat consumption. Overall, combination interventions can have synergistic effects and were shown to be more beneficial than each intervention alone in reducing meat consumption. Continued systems work on meat consumption models will allow researchers and practitioners to better understand the potential strengths and weaknesses of programs and policies across different populations and environments.

BackgroundWith an annual meat consumption of 110 kg per capita, Australia is one of the top countries in the world according to this indicator. High meat consumption however is associated with adverse impacts on the planet’s ecological systems and also has potential undesirable impacts on human health due mainly to cancer risk. Despite scientific evidence about the negative connection between the consumption of animal-based products and planetary health, people continue to adhere to meat-rich diets. Based on a 2018 survey of residents in Sydney, Australia, this paper explores meat consumption and its influence on planetary health by investigating issues related to frequency, reasons, impacts and planned dietary changes.ResultsThe survey reveals lack of general awareness about the negative implications to human wellbeing and the health of the natural environment of high meat consumption. Only 10% of the Sydney residents report to be currently adhering to a predominantly plant-based diet. A large fraction of the respondents (42%) see meat as a healthy and nutritious choice contrary to recent dietary guidelines. Meat is further associated with strength (19% of the respondents) as well as culture and family traditions (18%). Only 29% of the participants are aware of livestock’s negative impacts on planetary health and even within this group, a large fraction (88%) continues to consume meat. Although there are signs of dietary changes towards more plant-based options, their extent is not big enough to significantly transform the current trends and prevent further negative impacts from people’s preference for meat.ConclusionsAn argument is put forward for social marketing interventions to influence people’s dietary behaviour. In addition to building awareness about the negative consequences on planetary health from high consumption of animal-based foods, popularising the achievements of vegan athletes can help dispel existing myths about the link between meat and strength. A new dietary culture which endorses plant-based foods is required for the Anthropocene to arrest existential threats related to climate change, the use of land and other resources, and help shift Australians’ preferences away from high meat consumption. This will contribute to better nutrition, food security and achievement of global sustainable development goals.

Reducing meat consumption: The influence of life course transitions, barriers and enablers, and effective strategies according to young Dutch adults

The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption

BackgroundEncouraging the shift towards more plant-based diets in new generations is one of the major current challenges to preserve population and planetary health. Personal pledges to reduce meat consumption could motivate behaviour change, but have received limited scientific testing. We examined the effect of a “Eat Less Meat” one-month challenge on immediate and long-term meat consumption of university students.MethodsIn January 2023, 366 university students (21 ± 3.2 years old) consented to participate in the “Eat Less Meat” one-month challenge and were randomized to the intervention group (n = 187, challenge in February 2023) or the wait list control group (n = 179, challenge in June 2023). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. Participants chose between three meat reduction objectives: consuming meat 0, 3, or 6 times a week. They received a meat-free recipe book and followed an Instagram account where motivational information was posted daily during one month. All the participants completed a food frequency questionnaire in January (T0, before), February (T1, during), and May 2023 (T2, three months after the challenge) and data on meat consumption were analysed using linear mixed models.ResultsThe participants in the “Eat less meat” one-month challenge reduced their meat consumption by -67 g/day (95% CI [-82; -53]) during the challenge and by -50 g/day (95% CI [-68; -31]) three months later. The decrease was greater than in the control group by -34 g/day (95% CI [-55; -14]) during the challenge, but there was no significant difference between intervention and control group at three months follow-up.ConclusionsThe “Eat Less Meat” one-month challenge may be a promising strategy to drive short-term reductions in meat consumption and further work to improve longer-term effectiveness is now warranted.Trial registrationThe trial was pre-registered prior to data collection at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05752786).Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-025-01831-7.

Background: Religiosity is known to have a socio-cultural influence on food choice. However, to date, research exploring the influence of Islam on food selection has almost exclusively focused on fasting during Ramadan and has not explored the influences of Islam on everyday food choices among Muslim people. Aim: This qualitative study explored the influence of Islamic religiosity on everyday food choices among Muslim people. Methods: Thirty-two adult participants residing in the United Kingdom (n = 16 faith leaders and n = 16 lay Muslim people) were recruited from three Sunni mosques, and data was collected using semi-structured interviews. The data was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and a constant comparison method was applied to draw out similarities and differences between faith leaders and lay Muslim people. Results: The results revealed that Islamic religiosity had an influence over food choice with two main overarching themes 1) Demonstrating religious obedience through food choices and, 2) Spheres of influence on food choice; and five sub-themes 1a) Trusting in familiar food providers, 1b) Verification of halal authenticity, 1c) Seeking purity within food, 2a) The Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him) as a role model for food choice and, 2b) Islamic jurisprudence. Conclusion: These findings provide important insights into the influence of Islam on food choice and could be used support the design of faith-informed dietary interventions among Muslim people. Further research is required to examine the role of faith-informed dietary intervention in the Muslim community.

A whirlwind of developments have unfolded in the UK since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has subsequently instigated an intensely animated debate among British Muslim religious leaders about the contentious and sensitive topic of mosque closure, producing a rich and sophisticated spectrum of responses. These responses emerged within the dramatic global background of an imminent closure of Islam’s most cherished mosque to international pilgrims, namely the sacred precinct in Mekkah. The stakes were, therefore, high for British Muslim religious leaders considering mosque closure, facing the stark dilemma of compromising the sacrosanct status of the mosque and congregational worship in Islam or putting the lives of British Muslims in their hundreds of thousands at risk. This paper seeks to analyze the role of religious authority within the British Muslim community through the lens of the responses of the community’s religious leaders to the COVID-19 closure of mosques. It builds upon a Special Issue published by this journal on leadership, authority and representation in British Muslim communities. The issue of COVID-19 mosque closure in the UK presented an excellent case study for this paper’s analysis, manifesting as it does the dynamic way in which religious authority in the British Muslim community continues to evolve. This paper thus seeks to use this case-study to further enrich the literature on this topic.

Background In the UK, reduced meat consumption is needed to protect planetary health and reduce noncommunicable disease. An analysis of the UK's National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) found from 2008-2019, daily meat consumption per capita decreased from 103.7g to 86.3g (∼1.7% per annum). This trend is not fast enough to meet reduction targets, such as the National Food Strategy's goal of a 30% reduction by 2030. Objectives This study aimed to examine behaviours driving the reduction in meat consumption. Specifically, we investigated two key strategies: reduced consumption frequency and smaller portion sizes. Design: Using NDNS rolling programme (2008/09-2018/19) data, we evaluated changes in: 1) the number of meat-eating days, 2) the number of meat-containing meal occasions, and 3) the portion size of meat per meat-containing meal occasion using Poisson and linear regression models. Meat consumption was based on disaggregated data from 4-day food diaries. Using decomposition analysis, we estimated the proportion of responsibility for each consumption behaviour relative to the overall decrease in consumption. Results The mean number of meat-eating days decreased from 3.3 to 3.0 days (P < 0.001), the mean number of daily meat-containing meal occasions decreased from 1.2 to 1.1 occasions (P = 0.01), and the mean portion size of meat decreased from 85.8g to 76.1g (P < 0.001). Portion size contributed most to the reductions in meat consumption (57%), followed by meat-eating days (37%), and meat-containing meal occasions (6%). Conclusions Our findings suggest the decrease in UK meat consumption can be largely attributed to smaller portion sizes of meat. Understanding the nuances of meat consumption behaviours (i.e., “meat-free days” vs. “meat-free meals” vs. “low-meat meals”) could help tailor behaviour change interventions by showing the need for a focus on promoting low-meat meals to accelerate reductions in meat consumption toward population and environmental health goals. Key messages • The decrease in UK meat consumption is largely being driven by reductions in portion size of meat at meal occasions. • Understanding nuances of meat consumption behaviours can help tailor behaviour change interventions by showing the need for a focus on promoting low-meat meals to accelerate reduced meat consumption.

BackgroundAs high meat consumption is detrimental to both individual health and the climate, many international organizations recommend a reduction in meat consumption among populations. This scoping review aims to synthesize the evidence on individuals' perspectives on reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change. The three research questions focus on (1) the individuals' awareness of the link between meat consumption and climate change, (2) individuals' willingness to reduce their meat consumption to mitigate climate change, and (3) individuals who have already reduced their meat consumption for this purpose.MethodsThis scoping review follows the extended PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. A systematic search was conducted in five databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, Greenfile and PsynDex/CurrentContent/Agris via Livivo). Only peer-reviewed original studies, published since 2015, in English, German, Danish or Dutch were included. Two researchers performed all screening procedures. Data from included studies were summarized in a narrative and descriptive synthesis of evidence, separately for quantitative and qualitative studies.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. The majority of studies were published since 2019, had a quantitative study design, and were conducted in Europe. Awareness of the link between meat consumption and climate change is low in most studies, and many people underestimate the climate change mitigation potential of meat consumption. Women and people with lower current meat consumption are more willing to reduce their meat consumption. Health and animal welfare are often the main reasons for reducing meat consumption, with climate change being a secondary motivation for most. However, studies varied in the questionnaires used, and many had small sample sizes, limiting comparability and generalizability.ConclusionsFurther research using nationwide samples and standardized, validated instruments would improve insight into individuals’ perspectives on reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change and is crucial to understanding of how to effectively promote a more plant-based diet. As media and political attention to climate change mitigation is increasing, it will be valuable to monitor changes in individual awareness, willingness and motivation to reduce meat consumption across populations worldwide.Trial registrationThis scoping review has been registered at Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MWB85) and the review protocol has been published in BMJ Open.

Meat-rich diets have a negative impact on animal welfare, consumer health, and the environment. In recent years, research has begun to explore which approaches are most effective at reducing consumption. A question that has been the subject of extensive debate is whether appeals are more effective when they ask people to reduce vs. eliminate meat from their diets. On the one hand, the negative externalities resulting from meat consumption are reduced more if a person fully abstains from eating meat. On the other, stronger requests likely lead to lower compliance rates. Thus, to identify which appeal leads to the overall greatest reduction in meat consumption, one has to balance, (a) how many individuals comply with the request and, (b) by how much individuals reduce their consumption if they comply. In two studies, with participants from the US, UK, Australia, and the Netherlands (N = 705), we explored participants’ reported meat consumption and willingness to comply with different week-long meat reduction appeals (10–100%) to identify which would lead to the greatest overall reduction in intended meat consumption. As expected, larger requests lead to lower reported willingness to comply. Mid-range requests (40–70%) were more effective than small requests (10%) or elimination requests (100%). Although we find some differences across countries, mid-range requests were most effective in each sample. Our findings provide first insights into how to calibrate appeals to achieve the greatest reduction in overall meat consumption.

High red meat and processed meat consumption may be associated with some human health problems (such as type 2 diabetes, weight gain, and higher overall mortality), environmental problems (such as climate change, water pollution and biodiversity loss), and ethical concerns. Reducing red and processed meat consumption and shifting towards (more) plant-based diets are proposed to benefit public and environmental health, as well as create a more equitable food system for humans and farm animals. Given the high average meat consumption in Europe compared with other regions of the world, and the lack of research on meat reduction specifically, this literature review aims to clarify how health perceptions and meat consumption in Europe are interconnected. Two research questions were formulated: (1) What are consumers' perceptions about the healthiness of meat; (2) Is health concern a (potential) motive for people to change their meat consumption? The results clearly show that health plays an important role in meat perception and reducing meat consumption by European consumers. Health influences consumer perception, but these perceptions are ambiguous and depend on the type of meat, the consumer's current dietary pattern and demographics (most notably gender and age). In brief, health is an important motive for reducing meat consumption, and often (one of) the main reason(s). However, health is also an important motive for consumers to continue eating meat, which translates, for example, in replacing one type of meat with another. It is therefore a delicate balance to strike when using health to influence meat consumption as part of possible policy interventions. Overall, it emerged that consumers almost always report several reasons for adopting a meat-reducing diet. Given that little or no research has been carried out in Southern and Eastern Europe, future research in these regions can potentially offer new insights.

Where we work determines what we eat: A qualitative exploration of the multi-dimensional influences on meat consumption when home and office working during the Covid 19 lockdown in London, UK

This study aimed to describe meat consumption rationalisation and relationships with meat consumption patterns and food choice motivations in New Zealand adolescents. This was a cross-sectional study of adolescents from high schools across New Zealand. Demographics, dietary habits, and motivations and attitudes towards food were assessed by online questionnaire and anthropometric measurements taken by researchers. The 4Ns questionnaire assessed meat consumption rationalisation with four subscales: 'Nice', 'Normal', 'Necessary' and 'Natural'. Nineteen secondary schools from eight regions in New Zealand, with some purposive sampling of adolescent vegetarians in Otago, New Zealand. Questionnaires were completed by 385 non-vegetarian and vegetarian (self-identified) adolescents. A majority of non-vegetarian adolescents agreed that consuming meat was 'nice' (65 %), but fewer agreed that meat consumption was 'necessary' (51 %). Males agreed more strongly than females with all 4N subscales. High meat consumers were more likely to agree than to disagree that meat consumption was nice, normal, necessary and natural, and vegetarians tended to disagree with all rationalisations. Adolescent non-vegetarians whose food choice was motivated more by convenience, sensory appeal, price and familiarity tended to agree more with all 4N subscales, whereas adolescents motivated by animal welfare and environmental concerns were less likely to agree. To promote a reduction in meat consumption in adolescents, approaches will need to overcome beliefs that meat consumption is nice, normal, necessary and natural.