Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34627474›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Planetary health2021

Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1-11 (2008-09 to 2018-19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme.

Cristina Stewart, Carmen Piernas, Brian Cook, Susan A Jebb

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Planetary health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
21.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 182 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Plant-based analogues to meat and dairy for sustainable food systems.The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cristina StewartNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: cristina.stewart@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Carmen PiernasNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Brian CookNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome Trust 205212/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh meat consumption, particularly red meat and processed meat, negatively affects our health, while meat production is one of the largest contributors to global warming and environmental degradation. The aim of our study was to explore trends in meat consumption within the UK and the associated changes in environmental impact. We also aimed to identify any differences in intake associated with gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and year of birth.

methodsOur study aimed to describe consumption of red, white, and processed meat within the UK, using data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme (2008-09 to 2018-19), and the associated changes in environmental impact. Meat consumption was based on disaggregated meat data, from 4 day food diaries that excluded all non-meat components of composite dishes. For each year surveyed, trends for meat intake were reported as mean grams per capita per day and linear-regression models were used to test for trends. We used multivariable linear-regression models to examine differences among consumers, as a percentage of food energy, by gender, ethnicity, equivalised household income, and year of birth.

findingsFrom 2008 to 2019, average meat consumption per capita per day decreased from 103·7 g (SE 2·3) to 86·3 g (2·9) per day (p

interpretationDespite the overall reduction in meat intake, reaching meat-consumption targets that align with sustainable diets will require a substantial acceleration of this trend.

fundingThe Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health programme (Livestock, Environment, and People).

Indexed as

DietMeatHealth PromotionHumansMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34627474
PMCPMC8515514
OpenAlexW3202276140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.