ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2025
Universal Truths about Reducing Meat Consumption?
Review in Current environmental health reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Food literacy interventions to improve sustainability in multicultural diets: a scoping review.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewCurrent high levels of meat production and consumption are linked to severe health and environmental issues around the world. One remedy to this situation is a shift towards more plant-based diets. Several factors influence consumers’ meat intake including personal, socio-cultural, and economic factors as well as characteristics of the food environment. An increasing number of intervention studies are addressing these factors to support the necessary diet shift. However, the relative impact of factors on diets as well as the effectiveness of interventions might differ across geographic settings. This literature review describes (i) how far extant intervention studies on meat consumption reduction take the regional context into account, and (ii) whether current findings allow to distill universal factors that effectively reduce meat consumption across regions and countries. RECENT
findingsThis review identifies three key findings: First, existing evidence is largely limited to Europe and North America, while rapidly developing regions such as Africa and Asia are neglected despite rising meat consumption. Second, knowledge-related interventions appear to be more effective when framed around health rather than environmental issues of meat consumption. However, cross-country evidence on which specific issues matter most (e.g. cancer, cardiovascular disease etc.) is lacking. Moreover, social norm interventions seem to be effective in reducing meat consumption across countries, but research comparing effective designs and reference groups across countries is missing. Third, most interventions adopt standardized approaches with limited regional adaptation, except social norm interventions, which often tailor messages to the regional context. Due to a lack of cross-national studies, empirical evidence for universal factors spanning different regions or countries is scant. Also, whether the relevance of personal, socio-cultural or external factors varies in different regional contexts remains largely unclear. Thus, future research should emphasize the regional context and test adapted interventions in cross-country studies.
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.