Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-ckh7h Total loading time: 0.289 Render date: 2022-07-05T06:45:32.890Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

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

HTML view is 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Bingham, SA. High-meat diets and cancer risk. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1999; 58: 243–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Key, TJ, Davey, GK, Appleby, PN. Health benefits of a vegetarian diet. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1999; 58: 271–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Appleby, PN, Thorogood, M, Mann, JI, Key, TJA. The Oxford Vegetarian Study: an overview. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999; 70(Suppl.): 525S–31S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Mann, JI. Optimizing the plant-based diet. Asia Pacific J. Clin. Nutr. 2000; 9(Suppl. 1): 60S–4S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Dwyer, JT. Nutritional consequences of vegetarianism. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1991; 11: 6191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
13Dwyer, JT. Health aspects of vegetarian diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1988; 48: 712–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Pimentel, D, Houser, J, Preiss, E, White, O. Water resources: agriculture, the environment, and society. BioScience 1997; 47(2), 97106.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Lea, E, Worsley, A. Influences on meat consumption in Australia. Appetite 2001; 36(2): 127–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Richardson, NJ, Shepherd, R, Elliman, NA. Current attitudes and future influences on meat consumption in the UK. Appetite 1993; 21: 4151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Worsley, A, Skrzypiec, G. Do attitudes predict red meat consumption among young people? Ecol. Food Nutr. 1998; 37: 163–95.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
24Rosenstock, IM. Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Educ. Monographs 1974; 2(4): 328–35.CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
34Worsley, A, Scott, V. Consumers' concerns about food and health in Australia and New Zealand. Asia Pacific J. Clin. Nutr. 2000; 9(1): 2432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Frey, D. Recent research on selective exposure to information. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986; 19: 4180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Heider, F. Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychol. Rev. 1944; 51: 358–74.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Variyam, JN, Blaylock, J, Smallwood, DM. Modelling nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and diet–disease awareness: the case of dietary fibre. Stat. Med. 1996; 15(1): 2335.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
You have Access
41
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The cognitive contexts of beliefs about the healthiness of meat
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The cognitive contexts of beliefs about the healthiness of meat
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The cognitive contexts of beliefs about the healthiness of meat
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *