ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2026
How Does the Australian Media Report on the Health and Environmental Impacts of Meat Consumption and Production? A Media Analysis.
Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2026. 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
issue addressedAustralia is a high meat-producing and consuming country, yet little Australia-specific research has examined how news media frame meat's health and environmental impacts and related solutions.
methodsWe analysed 147 Australian print and online news articles published between 15 May 2020 and 15 May 2025 across 12 major outlets. Articles were coded for topic, headline and body framing, calls to action and cited sources, then examined using content analysis and descriptive and inferential statistics.
resultsCoverage focused mainly on environmental impacts (98/147), especially greenhouse gas emissions, while health-only coverage was less common (33/147). Most articles included a call to action, most often focused on industry action (56) or technological solutions (53), whereas policy change and individual choice were rare (14 each). Industry representatives were the most common sources (91/147) and their inclusion predicted more favourable framing, more technological and industry-led responses and lower odds of dietary-change calls. Framing also varied by outlet, with The Australian and Daily Telegraph more favourable towards meat and the Sydney Morning Herald more unfavourable.
conclusionsAustralian news coverage tended to privilege incremental, supply-side responses over broader dietary and policy approaches recommended in public health and sustainable food systems research. SO WHAT?: Australian news coverage may normalise industry-friendly and technology-led responses to meat-related harms while marginalising dietary and policy solutions, narrowing public and policy understanding of what effective health promotion requires. Strategic media engagement may help health promoters increase the visibility of evidence-based, structural solutions and support a more balanced public debate about meat-related harms. Greater government focus on meat-related harms could help advance public health objectives and policy action.
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.