Public Health Nutrition Editorial Highlight: Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis.

The pressure is on to address two major crises affecting the future of human existence, including the increasing prevalence of diet-related chronic disease – the leading contributor to the global burden of disease – and the compromising of our ecosystems and climate as a result of human activity. How we address this in the food system has been under debate – especially with the proposals put forward for reducing meat consumption. What has become increasingly clear is that responding to the ‘meat reduction’ issue is not only a technical challenge, but also a deeply political one.

What’s the problem with red and processed meat, anyway?

Meat, including red meat, is a bioavailable source of a variety of minerals and other nutrients, including iron and vitamin B12, and has played a role in healthy diets for millennia. However, consuming high levels of red and processed meat is associated with risk for cancers such as colorectal and bowel cancers. Producing red and processed meat contributes up to 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally and requires extensive natural resources including water and land. As a result, authoritative bodies like the International Panel for Climate Change and the World Health Organization have called for reduced production and consumption of meat, particularly red meat, in landmark reports. However, these reports have sparked controversy in public discourse.

What did we look at?

We conducted a framing analysis of online news media reporting on the release of four high-profile reports that stated a reduction in red and/or processed meat consumption and production was needed to achieve healthy and sustainable food systems. We focused on the reports in four major meat producing and consuming countries – the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand. We wanted to know how the reports were received, and whether they were deemed credible. We also looked at what solutions were put forward for meat reduction, what were the perceived risks and benefits, and importantly, how different actors framed each other in the context of the problems identified.

What did we find?

We found that the concept of meat reduction was a divisive one. Looking at 150 news media articles, a variety of viewpoints were captured across them, including from public health advocates, the meat industry, policymakers, as well as the media itself. Meat reduction was perceived in polarising and sometimes extreme ways – from being a mechanism to lower carbon emissions to being part of a wider conspiracy to control diet. The stakeholders and frames used in the articles were often emotive and opposing, drawing on value-driven narratives in contrast to technical evidence. Harms associated with red and processed meat production and consumption, and the proposed solutions to these, were placed in black-and-white interpretations with often dire consequences being presented to readers. Meat industry actors were more likely to challenge the credibility and legitimacy of the reports, citing “unclear science” and positioning meat reduction proponents as advocates for the vegan movement.

What does this mean?

Messaging around public health and environmental preventative actions can often lose nuance in online media. Reducing red and processed meat consumption and production does not require universal adoption of veganism, nor does it mean government control of diets. Whilst red and processed meat can fit into a healthy and sustainable diet, the current levels of production and population consumption are too high to remain within planetary boundaries. The findings of this study show that polarised frames of RPM reduction have led to a binary conflict between pro-and anti-meat reduction actors. This division may diminish the extent to which political leaders will prioritise this in policy agendas and poses a challenge for public health messaging to ensure messages are both 1) nuanced and context dependent; and 2) consistent. The role of media itself as a persuasive actor is increasingly important in prioritising particular frames over others.

Access the full article here: Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis.

Click here to view all Editorial Highlights from Public Health Nutrition.