ArticlePublic health nutrition2022
Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Review
- How Does the Australian Media Report on the Health and Environmental Impacts of Meat Consumption and Production? A Media Analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
- The Potential of Plant-Based Lifestyle Interventions to Reduce the Burden of Disease in a Multi-Crisis Era.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2026Article
- Health and environmental goals and behaviors: parallel and facilitating effects.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Sustainability Views and Intentions to Reduce Beef Consumption: An International Web-Based Survey.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Who's responsible? A media framing analysis of climate change and meat reduction in Aotearoa New Zealand.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Ruminant livestock and climate change: critical discourse moments in mainstream and farming sector news media.Agriculture and human values · 2025Article
- The use of food processing terminology in Australian news media: a content analysis.Public health nutrition · 2024Article
- Article
- Consumer attitudes and behaviors toward more sustainable diets: a scoping review.Nutrition reviews · 2023Article
- Promoting plant-based eating in meat-centric meal contexts: a field study.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- Acceptance of meat reduction policies in Switzerland.iScience · 2023Article
- Mitigation of the U.S. agrifood sector's contribution to human and planetary health: a case study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- What do Consumers Read About Meat? An Analysis of Media Representations of the Meat-environment Relationship Found in Popular Online News Sites in the UK.Environmental communication · 2023Article
- Factors and framing effects in support for net zero policies in the United Kingdom.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- An Exploratory Study of the Purchase and Consumption of Beef: Geographical and Cultural Differences between Spain and Brazil.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDiets high in red and processed meat (RPM) contribute substantially to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and the global burden of chronic disease. High-profile reports have called for significant global RPM reduction, especially in high-income settings. Despite this, policy attention and political priority for the issue are low.
designThe study used a theoretically guided framing analysis to identify frames used by various interest groups in relation to reducing RPM in online news media articles published in the months around the release of four high-profile reports by authoritative organisations that included a focus on the impacts of high RPM production and/or consumption.
settingFour major RPM producing and consuming countries - USA, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
participantsNone.
resultsHundred and fifty news media articles were included. Articles reported the views of academics, policymakers, industry representatives and the article authors themselves. RPM reduction was remarkably polarising. Industry frequently framed RPM reduction as part of a 'Vegan Agenda' or as advocated by an elite minority. Reducing RPM was also depicted as an infringement on personal choice and traditional values. Many interest groups attempted to discredit the reports by citing a lack of consensus on the evidence, or that only certain forms of farming and processing were harmful. Academics and nutrition experts were more likely to be cited in articles that were aligned with the findings of the reports.
conclusionsThe polarisation of RPM reduction has led to a binary conflict between pro- and anti-meat reduction actors. This division may diminish the extent to which political leaders will prioritise this in policy agendas. Using nuanced and context-dependent messaging could ensure the narratives around meat are less conflicting and more effective in addressing health and environmental harms associated with RPM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.