Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T17:59:19.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The cognitive contexts of beliefs about the healthiness of meat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Emma Lea*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia
Anthony Worsley
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Email emma_lea@hotmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

The overall aim of this study was to examine a variety of belief and demographic factors that are associated with the perception that meat is intrinsically unhealthy.

Design:

State-wide survey (written questionnaire) that included questions on meat and nutrition beliefs, perceived barriers and benefits of vegetarian diets, personal values, number of vegetarian friends and family members, and use and trust of health/nutrition/food information sources.

Setting:

South Australia.

Subjects:

Six hundred and one randomly selected South Australians and 106 non-randomly selected vegetarians and semi-vegetarians.

Results:

For all respondents considered as a group, the most important predictors of the belief that meat is intrinsically unhealthy were the perceived benefits of vegetarian diets (all positive predictors). These included: (1) the perceived links between vegetarianism, peace and increased contentment; (2) animal welfare and environmental benefits; and (3) health benefits. There were differences between different dietary groups however. For non-vegetarians, social concerns about vegetarianism (positive) were most important, followed by health and non-health benefits (positive) of vegetarianism. Red meat appreciation was the strongest (positive) predictor for vegetarians, with health benefits of vegetarianism (positive) and education (negative predictor) also important.

Conclusions:

The implications of the findings for health and other issues are discussed. Judgements about the healthiness of meat are likely to be related to moral and environmental beliefs and, for non-vegetarians, to social concerns about vegetarianism, in addition to health beliefs. These need to be considered if any attempts are made to influence meat consumption.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 2002

References

1Sanders, TAB. The nutritional adequacy of plant-based diets. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1999; 58: 265–9.Google Scholar
2National Health and Medical Research Council. Dietary Guidelines for Australians. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992.Google Scholar
3US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010 – Conference Edition. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.Google Scholar
4World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research, 1997.Google Scholar
5American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1997; 97(11): 1317–21.Google Scholar
6Bingham, SA. High-meat diets and cancer risk. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1999; 58: 243–8.Google Scholar
7Key, TJ, Davey, GK, Appleby, PN. Health benefits of a vegetarian diet. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1999; 58: 271–5.Google Scholar
8Key, TJ, Fraser, GE, Thorogood, M, Appleby, PN, Beral, V, et al. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999; 70(Suppl.): 516S–24S.Google Scholar
9Appleby, PN, Thorogood, M, Mann, JI, Key, TJA. The Oxford Vegetarian Study: an overview. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999; 70(Suppl.): 525S–31S.Google Scholar
10Mann, JI. Optimizing the plant-based diet. Asia Pacific J. Clin. Nutr. 2000; 9(Suppl. 1): 60S–4S.Google Scholar
11Dwyer, JT. Nutritional consequences of vegetarianism. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1991; 11: 6191.Google Scholar
12Alexander, D, Ball, MJ, Mann, J. Nutrient intake and haematological status of vegetarians and age–sex matched omnivores. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994; 48: 538–46.Google Scholar
13Dwyer, JT. Health aspects of vegetarian diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1988; 48: 712–38.Google Scholar
14Fieldhouse, P. Food and Nutrition: Customs and Culture. London: Croom Helm, 1986.Google Scholar
15Lewis, S. An opinion on the global impact of meat consumption. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994; 59(Suppl.): 1099S–102S.Google Scholar
16Pimentel, D, Houser, J, Preiss, E, White, O. Water resources: agriculture, the environment, and society. BioScience 1997; 47(2), 97106.Google Scholar
17Spedding, CRW, Lewis, B, Assmann, G. The effect of dietary changes on agriculture. In Lewis, B, Assmann, G, eds. The Social and Economic Contexts of Coronary Prevention. London: Current Medical Literature, 1990.Google Scholar
18Sapp, SG. Impact of nutritional knowledge within an expanded rational expectations model of beef consumption. J. Nutr. Educ. 1991; 23(5): 214–22.Google Scholar
19Lea, E, Worsley, A. Influences on meat consumption in Australia. Appetite 2001; 36(2): 127–36.Google Scholar
20Richardson, NJ, Shepherd, R, Elliman, NA. Current attitudes and future influences on meat consumption in the UK. Appetite 1993; 21: 4151.Google Scholar
21Worsley, A, Skrzypiec, G. Do attitudes predict red meat consumption among young people? Ecol. Food Nutr. 1998; 37: 163–95.Google Scholar
22Cox, DN, Anderson, AS, Lean, MEJ, Mela, DJ. UK consumer attitudes, beliefs and barriers to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. Public Health Nutr. 1998; 1(1): 61–8.Google Scholar
23Lappalainen, R, Saba, A, Holm, L, Mykkanen, H, Gibney, MJ. Difficulties in trying to eat healthier: descriptive analysis of perceived barriers for healthy eating. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997; 51(Suppl. 2): 36S40S.Google Scholar
24Rosenstock, IM. Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Educ. Monographs 1974; 2(4): 328–35.Google Scholar
25Wolinsky, FD. The Sociology of Health: Principles, Professions and Issues. Boston, MA: Little/Brown, 1980.Google Scholar
26McIntosh, WA, Kubena, KS, Jiang, H, Usery, CP, Karnei, K. An application of the Health Belief Model to reductions in fat and cholesterol intake. J. Wellness Perspectives 1996; 12(2): 98107.Google Scholar
27Dillman, DA. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Washington, DC: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
28Fiddes, N. Meat: A Natural Symbol. London: Routledge, 1991.Google Scholar
29Freeland-Graves, J, Greninger, SA, Graves, GR, Young, RK. Health practices, attitudes, and beliefs of vegetarians and nonvegetarians. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1986; 86(7): 913–8.Google Scholar
30McIntosh, WA, Fletcher, RD, Kubena, KS, Landmann, WA. Factors associated with sources of influence/information in reducing red meat by elderly subjects. Appetite 1995; 24: 219–30.Google Scholar
31Schwartz, SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992; 25: 165.Google Scholar
32Worsley, A, Baghurst, K, Skrzypiec, G. Meat Consumption and Young People. CSIRO Final Report to the Meat Research Corporation. Adelaide: CSIRO, 1995.Google Scholar
33Kearney, M, Gibney, MJ, Martinez, JA, de Almeida, MDV, Friebe, D, et al. Perceived need to alter eating habits among representative samples of adults from all member states of the European Union. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997; 51(Suppl. 2): 30S–5S.Google Scholar
34Worsley, A, Scott, V. Consumers' concerns about food and health in Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pacific J. Clin. Nutr. 2000; 9(1): 2432.Google Scholar
35Australian Bureau of Statistics. Basic Community Profile software. 1996 Census of Population and Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996.Google Scholar
36Worsley, A, Skrzypiec, G. Teenager's social attitudes and red meat consumption. Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Miscellaneous Series 36. Wellington: Royal Society of New Zealand, 1996.Google Scholar
37 Vegetarian Society UK. Summary of RealEat polls 1984–1999 [Online]. Available at http://www.vegsoc.org/info/realeat.html. 2001.Google Scholar
38Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Nutrition Survey Selected Highlights Australia 1995. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1997.Google Scholar
39 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australia Now – A Statistical Profile: Health [Online] Available at http://www.abs.gov.au/. 2000.Google Scholar
40Holm, L, Møhl, M. The role of meat in everyday food culture: an analysis of an interview study in Copenhagen. Appetite 2000; 34: 277–83.Google Scholar
41Frey, D. Recent research on selective exposure to information. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986; 19: 4180.Google Scholar
42Heider, F. Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychol. Rev. 1944; 51: 358–74.Google Scholar
43Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
44Parmenter, K, Waller, J, Wardle, J. Demographic variation in nutrition knowledge in England. Health Educ. Res. 2000; 15(2): 163–74.Google Scholar
45Variyam, JN, Blaylock, J, Smallwood, DM. Modelling nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and diet–disease awareness: the case of dietary fibre. Stat. Med. 1996; 15(1): 2335.Google Scholar