# Review: European consumers' attitudes towards the benefits of reducing meat consumption – the role of diverse and interconnected drivers

C van der Sluis, Jean-François Hocquette, Sghaier Chriki

► To cite this version:

C van der Sluis, Jean-François Hocquette, Sghaier Chriki. Review: European consumers' attitudes towards the benefits of reducing meat consumption – the role of diverse and interconnected drivers. Animal, 2025, 20 (1), pp.101718. 10.1016/j.animal.2025.101718. hal-05404214

HAL Id: hal-05404214

https://isara.hal.science/hal-05404214v1

Submitted on 8 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Review: European consumers' attitudes towards the benefits of reducing meat consumption – the role of diverse and interconnected drivers

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

C. van der Sluis<sup>a,b</sup>, J-F. Hocquette<sup>c</sup>, S. Chriki<sup>a,c,*</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Article history:**

Received 22 December 2023

Revised 31 October 2025

Accepted 3 November 2025

Available online 12 November 2025

**Keywords:**

Consumer attitudes

Flexitarianism

Food choice

Health perception

Meat reduction

## ABSTRACT

High red meat and processed meat consumption may be associated with some human health problems (such as type 2 diabetes, weight gain, and higher overall mortality), environmental problems (such as climate change, water pollution and biodiversity loss), and ethical concerns. Reducing red and processed meat consumption and shifting towards (more) plant-based diets are proposed to benefit public and environmental health, as well as create a more equitable food system for humans and farm animals. Given the high average meat consumption in Europe compared with other regions of the world, and the lack of research on meat reduction specifically, this literature review aims to clarify how health perceptions and meat consumption in Europe are interconnected. Two research questions were formulated: (1) What are consumers' perceptions about the healthiness of meat; (2) Is health concern a (potential) motive for people to change their meat consumption? The results clearly show that health plays an important role in meat perception and reducing meat consumption by European consumers. Health influences consumer perception, but these perceptions are ambiguous and depend on the type of meat, the consumer's current dietary pattern and demographics (most notably gender and age). In brief, health is an important motive for reducing meat consumption, and often (one of) the main reason(s). However, health is also an important motive for consumers to continue eating meat, which translates, for example, in replacing one type of meat with another. It is therefore a delicate balance to strike when using health to influence meat consumption as part of possible policy interventions. Overall, it emerged that consumers almost always report several reasons for adopting a meat-reducing diet. Given that little or no research has been carried out in Southern and Eastern Europe, future research in these regions can potentially offer new insights.

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The animal Consortium. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ([http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)).

## Implications

Health concerns do play a major role in the perception of meat and are therefore among the key drivers of meat consumption patterns. However, while some consumer groups perceive meat as unhealthy, for others, it is the opposite since the healthiness of meat is a reason to eat it. Consequently, following a specific dietary pattern is often associated with the belief that this pattern is good for human health. In fact, many factors affect health perception of meat, with female, highly educated, urban and young consumers being more inclined to reduce their meat consumption for a variety of reasons, including health concerns.

## Introduction

Meat is a nutrient-rich food with a rich sociocultural and culinary tradition (Ederer and Leroy, 2023). It is an important source of protein, essential amino acids, long-chain fatty acids, vitamin B complexes, and highly bioavailable iron (Caradus et al., 2024; Ruxton and Gordon, 2024; Leroy et al., 2023). However, meat production and consumption are currently the subject of much debate, particularly in high-income countries. This is largely due to concerns about the potential impact on human health, the environment and climate change, as well as animal welfare (WHO, 2023; Fonseca and Sanchez-Sabate, 2022).

Unlike white meat (Damigou et al., 2022; Giromini and Givens, 2022; Etemadi et al., 2017), excessive red and/or processed meat consumption may be associated with type 2 diabetes, weight gain, cardiovascular disease, stroke, prostate cancer, colorectum

<footnote><sup>a</sup>ISARA, 23 rue Jean Baldassini, CEDEX 07, 69364 Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Kirkeveien 12, 1433 Ås, Norway</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>INRAE, Université Clermont Auvergne, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, Theix, 63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: schriki@isara.fr (S. Chriki).</footnote>
<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Overview of the literature used in this research, sorted by country studied. One research study studied consumers from both Germany and Switzerland, making a total of 19.

<table><caption>**Table 2**</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>Number of studies</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Norway</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>The Netherlands</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>UK, Ireland, Scotland</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Europe-wide</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

Overview of the literature used in this research, sorted by method. Many studies used a mixed approach and are therefore included multiple times.

<table><thead><tr><td>Method</td><td>Number of studies</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Survey</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Interviews</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Focus group interview</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Literature Review</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary data</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>In-store field experiment</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

as part of the research itself) and one study used an in-store field experiment, but both studies combined this method with others.

## Results and discussion

### Ambiguity in the perceived 'healthiness' of meat

The most striking finding is that, overall, health plays an important role in consumers' meat consumption behaviour, and that consumer perceptions are largely ambiguous. Health is not only an important reason to reduce meat consumption, but it is also an important reason for continuing to eat meat (Font-i-Furnols and Guerrero, 2022). Consumers consider meat as vital to their health due to essential nutrients such as protein, iron, minerals and vitamins (Hagmann et al., 2019). However, the type of meat is important. According to about two-thirds of Irish consumers in the study of Henchion et al. (2022), "beef is the best source of animal protein you can buy", whereas about one third of consumers in the same study believe that beef harms human health (Henchion et al., 2022). Likewise, other studies found that some consumers believe red meat is unhealthy but meat in general is necessary for good health (Henchion et al., 2022; Ueland et al., 2022), of which the latter statement is linked to the tradition that "a proper meal has to include meat" (Macdiarmid et al., 2016). As with red meat, processed meat such as sausages (pølse in the Norwegian study of Hansen and Wethal (2023)) is seen as unhealthy and therefore not as a suitable foodstuff (Hansen and Wethal, 2023). However, their vegetarian counterpart (plant-based sausages) are seen as even unhealthier due to the degree of processing (Hansen and Wethal, 2023). As a result, consumers demand higher quality sausages with a higher meat content to improve their healthiness, instead of opting for meat reduction (Hansen and Wethal, 2023).

Ambiguity in health also exists for vegan or vegetarian food. On the one hand, plant-based food is perceived as "low-fat" and "rich in vitamins", while on the other hand, consumers see vegan food as "unhealthy" or "rich in fat" (Kilian and Hamm, 2021). In a study on Belgian consumers by Mullee et al. (2017), 21.8% of the respon-

dents believed that meat consumption is unhealthy, whereas 23.5% of participants believed that frequently eating vegetarian food is unhealthy. As already stated above in the example of pølse (Hansen and Wethal, 2023), consumers are particularly suspicious of meat substitutes (Aureli et al., 2023) due to their high level of processing. However, Font-i-Furnols and Guerrero (2022), Mullee et al. (2017), Aureli et al. (2023) and Verain et al. (2022) all concluded that health was (one of) the most important reasons for reducing meat consumption, and other studies mentioned health as at least one of the reasons for reducing meat consumption (Dagevos and Voordouw, 2013).

### Replacing one type of meat with another type

As explained in the previous section, consumers distinguish between different types of meat in terms of health. Red meat in particular is perceived as unhealthy (Hansen and Wethal, 2023). As a result, consumers are replacing their consumption of red meat with other types of meat. For example, Aureli et al. (2023) reported that participants have replaced red meat with chicken, Hansen and Wethal (2023) described a shift in sausage composition from pork to turkey and chicken meat, and Henchion et al. (2022) reported that Irish consumers have replaced red meat with white meats too. According to Sundet et al. (2023), consumers improved the healthiness of meat-based meals either by "substituting meat with fish, legumes, or vegetables", or by "reducing the amount of meat within a well-known recipe".

### Perception of the healthiness of meat in relation to dietary pattern

Some of the ambiguity around consumer perception of meat can be explained by participants' current diets. As pointed out by Mullee et al. (2017), "following a specific dietary pattern was linked with a more positive attitude towards that dietary pattern". In this Belgian study, half of the omnivores disagreed with the statement that meat consumption is unhealthy, while over 17% of the semi-vegetarians and half of the vegetarians agreed with it. Similarly, over 90% of vegetarians agreed that vegetarianism is healthy, compared with 68% of semi-vegetarians and 40% of omnivores (Mullee et al., 2017). Kilian and Hamm (2021), who divided consumers into groups of vegetarians, vegans, flexitarians, former vegetarians, and omnivores, obtained a similar result: the higher the meat consumption, the lower the proportion of consumers who perceived vegan products as healthy. Similarly, the higher the meat consumption, the greater the proportion of the group that perceived vegan products as unhealthy (Kilian and Hamm, 2021). Both Strässner and Hartmann (2023) and Verain et al. (2022) reported comparable trends, which Strässner and Hartmann (2023) summarise as follows: "the cons outweighed the pros for consumers who did not intend to reduce meat consumption, while the cons outweighed the cons for consumers who intended to reduce meat consumption".

De Boer et al. (2017) established a link between health perception to behaviour and asked consumers why they ate (or didn't eat) meat. For meat consumption, one of the reasons was "it's healthier to eat meat frequently", and for non-meat consumption, one of the reasons was "it's healthier, not frequently eating meat". Participants were divided into native Dutch and Chinese Dutch, as well as into four diet categories (self-declared vegetarians, low meat-eaters, medium meat-eaters, and high meat-eaters). Table 3 shows an overview of the percentages per consumer group and question to illustrate the apparent trends. Here, we see that actual behaviour can reverse the stated trend: Dutch people who eat little meat had the highest percentage of consumers stating "frequently eating meat is healthier" as a reason for consumption, followed by medium and the high meat-eaters (Table 3) (De Boer et al., 2017).
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Overview of percentages in different dietary groups for reasons for (not) eating meat.</caption><thead><tr><th>Cultural group and statement</th><th>SDV</th><th>LME</th><th>MME</th><th>HME</th><th>Adherence to the general trend¹</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Native Dutch:</strong> It's healthier <strong>not</strong> to eat meat frequently</td><td>33%</td><td>38%</td><td>34%</td><td>20%</td><td>Follows general trend except for vegetarians</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Chinese Dutch:</strong> It's healthier <strong>not</strong> to eat meat frequently</td><td>16%</td><td>40%</td><td>25%</td><td>13%</td><td>Follows trend except for vegetarians</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Native Dutch:</strong> It's healthier to eat meat frequently</td><td>x</td><td>53%</td><td>40%</td><td>26%</td><td>Opposite trend: the higher the meat consumption, the lower the percentage considers eating meat to be a healthy motivation for meat consumption.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Chinese Dutch:</strong> It's healthier to eat meat frequently</td><td>x</td><td>11%</td><td>15%</td><td>20%</td><td>Follows trend</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: SDVs = Self-declared vegetarians, LMEs = Low meat-eaters, MMEs = Medium meat-eaters, and HMEs = High meat-eaters. Information is extracted from De Boer et al. (2017).

¹ The general trend is that the more meat a person consumes, the more this person considers meat consumption to be healthy, and the less meat one consumes, the less healthy this person considers meat consumption to be. When a group of consumers is said to be “following the trend,” this is the trend we are referring to.

In the group of Chinese Dutch consumers, however, the trend was the same as in the studies of Mullee et al. (2017) and Kilian and Hamm (2021), where higher meat consumption was linked to a greater belief in the healthiness of frequent meat consumption. Similarly, both the native Dutch and Chinese Dutch consumers followed the trend when the question was reversed: the highest percentage of low meat-eaters mentioned “its healthier to not frequently eat meat” as a reason for not consuming meat, followed by medium and high meat-eaters (De Boer et al., 2017). Once again, there was an exception, this time in the form of vegetarians. In both the native Dutch and Chinese Dutch consumer groups, the self-declared vegetarians scored lower than the low and medium meat-eaters when it comes to ‘healthiness of not frequently eating meat’ as a reason for no meat consumption (De Boer et al., 2017), which is linked to their high score for ‘animal welfare’ and ‘not liking meat’ as reasons for their diet style. Hagmann et al. (2019), on the other hand, found no significant difference between dietary patterns (vegetarians/vegans, pescatarians, and low-meat consumers) with regard to motives for no/low meat consumption.

### *Differences in perception according to gender*

Other predictors for health perception of meat and meat reduction are gender, age, and education. For example, in Mullee et al.'s (2017) study on Belgian consumers, “women were more likely to hold beliefs than men that ... meat consumption is unhealthy”, and they were more positive towards a vegetarian diet in general. Similarly, Austgulen et al. (2018) reported that men were more likely to belong to clusters that consider meat important. Among Italian consumers, most men claimed that meat was an essential part of ‘a proper meal’, while some women stated that a proper meal did not necessarily contain meat (Aureli et al., 2023).

Several studies have showed that, in addition to a more positive perception, women are also more likely to practice meat reduction. In the study of Verain et al. (2022), 87% of the conscious flexitarian group were women; in the study of De Boer et al. (2017), women made up the majority of the group of self-declared vegetarians (about 70%), low meat-eaters (58% for native Dutch and 72% for Chinese Dutch) and medium meat-eaters (58% for native Dutch and 67% for Chinese Dutch), while around 70% of the high meat-eaters were men. According to Ueland et al. (2022), “females still display more meat avoidance than males”. Dagevos and Voordouw (2013) divided the flexitarians in their study into three different groups using cluster analysis: conscious flexitarians, unconscious flexitarians, and extravert flexitarians. Of the conscious flexitarians (those making active decisions about meat reduction), 70% were women. In contrast, for the unconscious flexitarians (those scoring low on ethical and health considerations of meat consumption), the number of men and women was equal. One study proved to be an exception. Among Scottish consumers, “the general responses to reducing meat consumption did not

appear to differ between men and women” (Macdiarmid et al., 2016, p. 492).

### *Differences in perception according to other demographics*

As with gender differences, younger consumers would be more likely to reduce their meat consumption than older consumers (Dagevos and Voordouw, 2013). However, Ueland et al. (2022) reported that older consumers are more likely to substitute meat with fish, whereas younger consumers would not replace this meat. In addition, Dagevos and Voordouw (2013, p. 65) suggested that the reason behind meat reduction differs for younger consumers since they might be “more attracted to meat reduction as something special (prestige) than as a moral act (principle)”. In addition, younger people may be more attracted by non-meat processed foods due to ease of consumption with minimal cooking/preparation. Aureli et al. (2023) mentioned education as another predictor of support for meat reduction but provided no specification. Dagevos and Voordouw (2013) added that their ‘conscious flexitarian’ cluster was “characterised by a high level of education” making this group mainly educated women. The study by Ueland et al. (2022) was the only one to mention an ‘urban lifestyle’ as a characteristic of meat-reducing consumers. The European Union-wide (EU) study conducted by De Boer and Aiking (2022) found no significant relationship between the components of dietary thinking and either gender, age, or level of education.

Gender, age, education level and geography as predictors of meat consumption are in line with existing research profiling meat reducers and vegetarians as in the case of young educated women (living in cities) (Teixeira et al., 2024; Malek and Ungerer, 2021; Wozniak et al., 2020). However, the studies used for this research could have focused more on predictors, as the demographics of the sample were regularly mentioned, while not used to further explain the findings. Especially the role of education and urban vs rural lifestyles, and to a lesser degree, the role of age could have been highlighted more prominently. In addition, other demographics such as income and religion were not indicated as predictors in the studies reviewed, while they have shown to be influential in other studies (Liu et al., 2023; Malek and Ungerer, 2021).

Another important factor may be the country of residence. For example, a comparative study between Brazil, China, France, Cameroon, and South Africa found differences in the criteria for purchasing food products. On average across all surveyed countries, the main criteria for purchasing food were sensory quality (67%), price (56%), food safety (47%), origin/traceability (45%), ethics (42%), nutritional value (35%) and environmental impact (33%). However, significant national variations exist, with sensory quality being the top criterion in Brazil, food safety in China, origin/traceability in France, and price in Cameroon and South Africa (Liu et al., 2023). It is therefore likely that when only meat purchasing is studied, similar differences can be observed between countries in motives for reducing or consuming meat.
## Variety within the general 'health' motivation

Overall, it is important to note that there is a wide variety of reasons why people reduce their meat consumption and that consumers often have multiple reasons at the same time (Sundet et al., 2023; Font-i-Furnols and Guerrero, 2022; Verain et al., 2022; Hagmann et al., 2019; Mylan, 2018; Mullee et al., 2017; Macdiarmid et al., 2016; Dagevos and Voordouw, 2013). Even if meat consumption reduction is motivated by “health” reasons, several studies have mentioned various “secondary reasons”. One potential secondary reason is that of isolated events, such as food scares and health scares. The 2013 United Kingdom (UK) horsemeat scandal, mentioned by Macdiarmid et al. (2016), is an example of a food scare: beef products sold in major UK supermarket chains were found to contain up to 100% horsemeat and traces of pork. However, an independent report blamed food fraud for the contamination with horsemeat as well as overly long and insufficiently audited food supply chain networks in the UK (Elliott, 2013).

A health scare is a personal medical event or diagnosis (for example, a heart attack or a diabetes diagnosis). Health scares can impact the meat consumption of the affected persons themselves as well as their family members (Mylan, 2018). Additionally, reducing meat consumption can be more of a general strategy for consumers because they believe it will help them to “improve overall health or ‘get fit’” (Mylan, 2018).

Another recurring secondary health-related reason for reducing meat consumption is the intention to lose or control weight. Verain et al. (2022) found a weight control motive in all of their five categories of consumers (compulsive meat eaters, meat lovers, unconscious flexitarians, potential flexitarians, and conscious flexitarians), as Mullee et al. (2017) found motivation to lose weight among omnivores and semi-vegetarians. However, in this sample, a higher percentage of omnivores than vegetarians considered weight loss as a motivation to consider following a more vegetarian diet. Similarly, Hagmann et al. (2019) found that “stronger weight-loss motivation was associated with higher meat consumption” (p. 2 454). Notably, Hagmann et al. (2019) found that women are particularly motivated by weight loss, which is echoed by De Backer and Hudders (2014).

## Consumer motivations for meat reduction other than health

In addition to health concerns, environmental reasons are frequently cited as a motive for reducing meat consumption (Font-i-Furnols, 2023; Sundet et al., 2023; De Boer and Aiking, 2022; Verain et al., 2022; Kilian and Hamm, 2021; Austgulen et al., 2018; De Boer et al., 2017; Macdiarmid et al., 2016). However, consumers often indicate that health reasons are a more important motive for reducing their meat consumption (Aureli et al., 2023, 2023; Mylan, 2018; Mullee et al., 2017; Macdiarmid et al., 2016). However, this can still depend on the dietary pattern of the consumer, or the 'type' of flexitarian (Dagevos and Voordouw, 2013; Mullee et al., 2017; Hagmann et al., 2019; Verain et al., 2022). Furthermore, the two concepts of concerns for health and environmental issues can be linked to each other in consumer perception. Like the study of Aureli et al. (2023) found in a sample of Italian consumers, “more than 80% of respondents associate the concept of “sustainable foods” ... with low environmental impact, ... and healthy foods”, which corresponds to the initial definition of a “sustainable diet” by the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Not all studies found a notable difference between environmental motivation and health motivation. In the study of Austgulen et al. (2018), consumers were encouraged to purchase more vegetables by providing information on either health or environmental motives and there was no significant difference in their impact, suggesting that both motivations are equally powerful.

Several papers cite animal welfare – or ‘ethical concerns’ – as another reason to reduce meat consumption for at least some consumers (Font-i-Furnols, 2023; Sundet et al., 2023; Ueland et al., 2022; Verain et al., 2022; Kilian and Hamm, 2021; De Backer and Hudders, 2014). Particularly for vegetarians and vegans, animal welfare is one of their main motivations (Kilian and Hamm, 2021). It also works the other way, where animal welfare is more likely to be a motivation for vegetarians and vegans than for meat-reducers (De Backer and Hudders, 2014).

In addition to this, meat-reduction motives also include the discovery of new tastes (Mullee et al., 2017), taste preferences (De Backer and Hudders, 2014), the pleasure of varying meals (De Boer et al., 2017) and financial reasons (De Boer et al., 2017). In general, most consumers have a combination of different motives for (considering) reducing their meat consumption, depending on their demographics and their current dietary habits (Mylan, 2018; Hagmann et al., 2019; Verain et al., 2022; Sundet et al., 2023). This is consistent with other review findings that a variety of different motives work best in intervention measures to encourage meat reduction (Grundy et al., 2022). However, health has always been found to be the main reason, or one of the main reasons to reduce meat consumption in the reviewed studies. For vegetarians who may be motivated by environmental or animal welfare concerns, health perception tends to play a lesser role.

## Limitations of this study

This research has several obvious limitations. First, the literature search prioritised relevance over temporal recency, leading to the inclusion of studies published over a decade (2013–2023). While this allowed for the identification of foundational work on consumer behaviour, it may underrepresent the most recent intensification and specific nuances of the public debate on meat reduction, particularly the growing prominence of environmental arguments post-2019.

Second, a big limitation lies in the lack of diversity of the countries studied since most of the research found in this literature review has focused on northern Europe, while southern and eastern Europe are significantly underrepresented. Due to a lack of information, it is impossible to make bold statements about varieties between different regions of Europe. However, the paper by De Boer and Aiking (2022), using data from all 27 EU Member States, highlighted a regional divide: fewer people in Eastern and Southern Europe consider meat reduction as part of a healthy and sustainable diet compared to those in the Northwest. Despite these geographic disparities, our review operates on the premise that the methodological rigour of the included studies provides a reliable basis for comparison across countries. Consequently, we posit that the overrepresentation or underrepresentation of specific countries is more likely linked to the research interests of local scientific communities rather than methodological biases, and is therefore unlikely to fundamentally alter the overall conclusions drawn from the body of literature.

Third, this study aimed to focus on meat reduction specifically and not vegetarianism and veganism. However, much of the research about meat reduction has compared this dietary pattern to vegetarianism and/or veganism on one hand and to 'typical' meat consumption on the other hand. As a result, it is difficult to fully focus on meat reduction independent of these other dietary patterns. Fourth, there is a lack of consistency in the methodologies of the reviewed papers in their analysis of consumer motivations for meat reduction.
## Conclusion

In conclusion, health is an important reason for people to reduce meat consumption, and often (one of) the main reason(s) for consumers to continue consuming meat, making it a delicate balance to strike when using health to influence meat consumption for potential policy interventions. Perceptions of meat healthiness vary widely, and these perceptions are influenced by the specific type of meat in question, current dietary patterns, and demographics such as age, gender, and education as well as potentially the country of residence.

Future research on Eastern and Southern Europe, as well as into meat reduction in particular, can offer new perspectives. Additionally, future studies would benefit from using a validated questionnaire across different countries and demographics to increase comparability and consistency. In such a questionnaire, it would be important to focus simultaneously on multiple motives for meat reduction rather than just health as a reason. Given that most studies have shown that consumers rarely have a single motive, focusing on a combination of motives may offer the most promising prospects for future policy interventions aimed at influencing overall meat consumption.

## Supplementary material

Supplementary Material for this article (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2025.101718) can be found at the foot of the online page, in the Appendix section.

## Ethics approval

Not applicable.

## Data and model availability statement

None of the data were deposited in an official repository. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data or models were created or analysed in this study. Materials supporting this work are the published sources cited in the manuscript. Information can be made available from the authors upon request.

## Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work the author(s) did not use any AI and AI-assisted technologies.

## Author ORCIDs

Carmen van der Sluis: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6021-4950.

Prof. Sghaier Chriki: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6118-7089.

Dr. Jean-François Hocquette: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2409-3881.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

C. van der Sluis: Writing - review & editing, Writing - original draft, Validation, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualisation. J-F. Hocquette: Writing - review & editing, Visualisation, Validation. S. Chriki: Writing - review & editing, Validation, Conceptualisation, Supervision.

## Declaration of interest

None.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Anthony Roume and Marie Benoit (professors at ISARA) for their initial contribution at the beginning of this study.

## Financial support statement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sector.

## References

Aleksandrowicz, L., Green, R., Joy, E.J.M., Smith, P., Haines, A., 2016. The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS One 11, e0165797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165797.

Aureli, V., Nardi, A., Palmieri, N., Peluso, D., Di Veroli, J.N., Scognamiglio, U., Rossi, L., 2023. Sustainability perception of Italian consumers: is it possible to replace meat, and what is the best alternative? Nutrients 15, 3861. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15183861.

Austgulen, M., Skuland, S., Schjøll, A., Alfnes, F., 2018. Consumer readiness to reduce meat consumption for the purpose of environmental sustainability: insights from Norway. Sustainability 10, 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093058.

Bernstein, A.M., Pan, A., Rexrode, K.M., Stampfer, M., Hu, F.B., Mozaffarian, D., Willett, W.C., 2012. Dietary protein sources and the risk of stroke in men and women. Stroke 43, 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.633404.

Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K.Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F.E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Mattock, H., Straif, K., 2015. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology 16, 1599-1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1.

Cameron, S., Wilks, M., Jaeger, B., 2023. Reduce by how much? Calibrating meat reduction appeals to maximize their effectiveness. Psychology of Human-Animal Intergroup Relations 2, e9511.

Caradus, J.R., Chapman, D.F., Rowarth, J.S., 2024. Improving human diets and welfare through using herbivore-based foods: 1. Human and animal perspectives. Animals 14, 1077. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14071077.

Clark, M.A., Springmann, M., Hill, J., Tilman, D., 2019. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 23357-23362. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906908116.

Dagevos, H., Voordouw, J., 2013. Sustainability and meat consumption: is reduction realistic? Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy 9, 60-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908115.

Damigou, E., Kosti, R.I., Panagiotakos, D.B., 2022. White meat consumption and cardiometabolic risk factors: a review of recent prospective cohort studies. Nutrients 14, 5213. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14245213.

De Backer, C.J.S., Hudders, L., 2014. From meatless Mondays to meatless Sundays: motivations for meat reduction among vegetarians and semi-vegetarians who mildly or significantly reduce their meat intake. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 53, 639-657. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2014.896797.

De Boer, J., Aiking, H., 2022. Do EU consumers think about meat reduction when considering to eat a healthy, sustainable diet and to have a role in food system change? Appetite 170, 105880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105880.

De Boer, J., Schösler, H., Aiking, H., 2017. Towards a reduced meat diet: mindset and motivation of young vegetarians, low, medium and high meat-eaters. Appetite 113, 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.007.

De Šmet, S., Van Hecke, T., 2024. Meat products in human nutrition and health - about hazards and risks. Meat Science 218, 109628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2024.109628.

Ederer, P., Leroy, F., 2023. The societal role of meat-what the science says. Animal Frontiers 13, 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac098.

Elliott, C., 2013. Elliott review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks - interim report. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Retrieved on 31 August 2024 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/elliott-review-into-the-integrity-and-assurance-of-food-supply-networks-interim-report.

Etemadi, A., Sinha, R., Ward, M.H., Graubard, B.I., Inoue-Choi, M., Dawsey, S.M., Abnet, C.C., 2017. Mortality from different causes associated with meat, heme iron, nitrates, and nitrites in the NIH-AARP diet and health study: population based cohort study. BMJ 357, j1957. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1957.

Fonseca, R.P., Sanchez-Sabate, R., 2022. Consumers' attitudes towards animal suffering: a systematic review on awareness, willingness and dietary change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, 16372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316372.

Font-i-Furnols, M., 2023. Meat consumption, sustainability and alternatives: an overview of motives and barriers. Foods 12, 2144. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112144.

Font-i-Furnols, M., Guerrero, L., 2022. Spanish perspective on meat consumption and consumer attitudes. Meat Science 191, 108874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108874.
Giromini, C., Givens, D.I., 2022. Benefits and risks associated with meat consumption during key life processes and in relation to the risk of chronic diseases. Foods 11, 2063. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142063.

Grundy, E.A.C., Slattery, P., Saeri, A.K., Watkins, K., Houlden, T., Farr, N., Askin, H., Lee, J., Mintoft-Jones, A., Cyna, S., Dziegielewski, A., Gelber, R., Rowe, A., Mathur, M.B., Timmons, S., Zhao, K., Wilks, M., Peacock, J.R., Harris, J., Rosenfeld, D.L., Bryant, C., Moss, D., Zorker, M., 2022. Interventions that influence animal-product consumption: a meta-review. Future Foods 5, 100111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100111.

Hagmann, D., Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C., 2019. Meat avoidance: motives, alternative proteins and diet quality in a sample of Swiss consumers. Public Health Nutrition 22, 2448-2459. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019001277.

Hansen, A., Syse, K.L. (Eds.), 2021. Changing Meat Cultures: Food Practices, Global Capitalism, and the Consumption of Animals. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD, USA, pp. 1-15.

Hansen, A., Wethal, U., 2023. 'It's just pølse': convenient meat consumption and reduction in Norway. Appetite 188, 106611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106611.

Henchion, M., Moloney, A.P., Hyland, J., Zimmermann, J., McCarthy, S., 2021. Review: Trends for meat, milk and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global production of proteins. Animal 15, 100287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100287.

Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Zimmermann, J., Troy, D.J., 2022. International comparisons, domestic influences and where to next? The case of Irish meat consumption. Meat Science 193, 108921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108921.

Kilian, D., Hamm, U., 2021. Perceptions of vegan food among organic food consumers following different diets. Sustainability 13, 9794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179794.

Kwasny, T., Dobernig, K., Riefler, P., 2022. Towards reduced meat consumption: a systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001-2019. Appetite 168, 105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739.

Leroy, F., Cofnas, N., 2020. Should dietary guidelines recommend low red meat intake? Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 60, 2763-2772. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1657063.

Leroy, F., Smith, N.W., Adesogan, A.T., Beal, T., Iannotti, L., Moughan, P.J., Mann, N., 2023. The role of meat in the human diet: evolutionary aspects and nutritional value. Animal Frontiers 13, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac093.

Lescinsky, H., Afshin, A., Ashbaugh, C., Bisignano, C., Brauer, M., Ferrara, G., Hay, S.I., He, J., Iannucci, V., Marczak, L.B., McLaughlin, S.A., Mullany, E.C., Parent, M.C., Serfes, A.L., Sorensen, R.J.D., Aravkin, A.Y., Zheng, P., Murray, C.J.L., 2022. Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a burden of proof study. Nature Medicine 28, 2075-2082. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01968-z.

Li, C., Bishop, T.R.P., Imamura, F., Sharp, S.J., Pearce, M., Brage, S., Ong, K.K., Ahsan, H., Bes-Rastrollo, M., Beulens, J.W.J., den Braver, N., Byberg, L., Canhada, S., Chen, Z., Chung, H.-F., Cortés-Valencia, A., Djousse, L., Drouin-Chartier, J.-P., Du, H., Du, S., Duncan, B.B., Gaziano, J.M., Gordon-Larsen, P., Goto, A., Haghighatdoost, F., Härkänen, T., Hashemian, M., Hu, F.B., Ittermann, T., Järvinen, R., Kakkoura, M.G., Neelakantan, N., Knekt, P., Lajous, M., Li, Y., Magliano, D.J., Malekzadeh, R., Marchand, L.L., Marques-Vidal, P., Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A., Maskarinec, G., Mishra, G.D., Mohammadifard, N., O'Donoghue, G., O'Gorman, D., Popkin, B., Poustchi, H., Sarrafzadegan, N., Sawada, N., Schmidt, M.I., Shaw, J.E., Soedamahmuth, S., Stern, D., Tong, L., van Dam, R.M., Völzke, H., Willett, W.C., Wolk, A., Yu, C., Forouhi, N.G., Wareham, N.J., 2024. Meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes: an individual-participant federated meta-analysis of 1.97 million adults with 100 000 incident cases from 31 cohorts in 20 countries. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 12, 619-630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587 (24)00179-7.

Liu, J., Chriki, S., Kombolo, M., Santinello, M., Pflanzer, S.B., Hocquette, É., Ellies-Oury, M.-P., Hocquette, J.-F., 2023. Consumer perception of the challenges facing livestock production and meat consumption. Meat Science 200, 109144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109144.

Macdiarmid, J.I., Douglas, F., Campbell, J., 2016. Eating like there's no tomorrow: public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 96, 487-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.011.

Malek, L., Umberger, W.J., 2021. Distinguishing meat reducers from unrestricted omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: a comprehensive comparison of Australian consumers. Food Quality and Preference 88, 104081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104081.

Mood, A., Brooke, P., 2019a. Estimated numbers of individuals in annual global capture tonnage (FAO) of fish species (2007-2016). Retrieved on 26 November 2023 from: http://fishcount.org.uk/studydatascreens/2016/numbers-of-wild-fish-A0-2016.php.

Mood, A., Brooke, P., 2019b. Estimated numbers of individuals in global aquaculture production (FAO) of decapod species (2017). Retrieved on 26 November 2023

from: http://fishcount.org.uk/studydatascreens2/2017/numbers-of-farmed-decapods-A0-2017.php?sort2/full.

Mood, A., Lara, E., Boyland, N.K., Brooke, P., 2023. Estimating global numbers of farmed fishes killed for food annually from 1990 to 2019. Animal Welfare 32, e12.

Moosburger, R., Wagner, J., Heldt, K., Richter, A., Manz, K., Mensink, G.B.M., Loss, J., 2023. Perspectives of individuals on reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open 13, e071122. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071122.

Mullee, A., Vermeire, L., Vanaelst, B., Mullie, P., Deriemaeker, P., Leenaert, T., De Henauw, S., Dunne, A., Gunter, M.J., Clarys, P., Huybrechts, I., 2017. Vegetarianism and meat consumption: a comparison of attitudes and beliefs between vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, and omnivorous subjects in Belgium. Appetite 114, 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.052.

Mylan, J., 2018. Sustainable consumption in everyday life: a qualitative study of UK consumer experiences of meat reduction. Sustainability 10, 2307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072307.

Orlich, M.J., Singh, P.N., Sabaté, J., Jaceldo-Siegel, K., Fan, J., Knutsen, S., Beeson, W.L., Fraser, G.E., 2013. Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in adventist health study 2. JAMA Internal Medicine 173, 1230. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6473.

Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A.M., Schulze, M.B., Manson, J.E., Willett, W.C., Hu, F.B., 2011. Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 94, 1088-1096. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.018978.

Ritchie, H., 2020. Sector by sector: Where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from? Our world in data. Retrieved on 30 October 2023 from: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector.

Rouhani, M.H., Salehi-Abargouei, A., Surkan, P.J., Azadbakht, L., 2014. Is there a relationship between red or processed meat intake and obesity? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Obesity Reviews 15, 740-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12172.

Ruxton, C.H.S., Gordon, S., 2024. Animal board invited review: the contribution of red meat to adult nutrition and health beyond protein. Animal 18, 101103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101103.

Sanchez-Sabate, R., Sabaté, J., 2019. Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071220.

Sanchez-Sabate, Badilla-Briones, Sabaté, 2019. Understanding attitudes towards reducing meat consumption for environmental reasons. A qualitative synthesis review. Sustainability 11, 6295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226295.

Stanton, A.V., 2024. Unacceptable use of substandard metrics in policy decisions which mandate large reductions in animal-source foods. npj Science of Food 8, 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00249-y.

Strüssner, A.-M., Hartmann, C., 2023. Gradual behaviour change towards meat reduction: development and validation of a novel decisional balance scale. Appetite 186, 106537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106537.

Sundet, Ø., Hansen, A., Wethal, U., 2023. Performing meat reduction across scripted social sites: exploring the experiences and challenges of meat reducers in Norway. Consumption and Society 2, 238-257. https://doi.org/10.1332/ZGZV3476.

Teixeira, C.D., Marchioni, D.M., Motta, V.W. de L., Chaves, V.M., Gomes, S.M., Jacob, M.C.M., 2024. Flexitarianists in Brazil: who are they, what do they eat, and why? Appetite 192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107093.

Ueland, Ø., Rodbotten, R., Varela, P., 2022. Meat consumption and consumer attitudes - a Norwegian perspective. Meat Science 192, 108920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108920.

Verain, M.C.D., Dagevos, H., Jaspers, P., 2022. Flexitarianism in the Netherlands in the 2010 decade: shifts, consumer segments and motives. Food Quality and Preference 96, 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104445.

WHO, 2023. Red and processed meat in the context of health and the environment: many shades of red and green. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L.J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J.A., De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L., Afshin, A., Chaudhary, A., Herrero, M., Agustina, R., Branca, F., Lartey, A., Fan, S., Crona, B., Fox, E., Bignet, V., Troell, M., Lindahl, T., Singh, S., Cornell, S.E., Srinath Reddy, K., Narain, S., Nishtar, S., Murray, C.J.L., 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393, 447-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.

Wozniak, H., Larpin, C., De Mestral, C., Guessous, I., Reny, J.-L., Stringhini, S., 2020. Vegetarian, pescatarian and flexitarian diets: sociodemographic determinants and association with cardiovascular risk factors in a Swiss urban population. British Journal of Nutrition 124, 844-852. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114520001762.