Summary
150 news articles from four countries (USA, UK, Australia, and New Zealand) were analyzed after the release of four high profile reports calling for RPM (red and processed meat) reduction from a health and sustainability perspective. Frames surrounding RPM reduction were highly polarizing with more than half of articles considered pro-meat, 53 were pro-reduction, thirty-two were neutral, and two were focused on discrediting the EAT Foundation, which produced one of the reports. Pro-reduction articles tended to focus on individual lifestyle choice as a solution to RPM reduction, while pro-meat articles focused on perceived health risks associated with RPM reduction as well as restrictions on individual choice. Many articles focused on the complexity of issues surrounding RPM reduction, which the authors believed may lead to uncertainty over how to deal with the issue by the general public and by governments. They recommend that these issues should be framed with more context and specific solutions. A strength listed by the authors is the study’s focus on RPM narratives in the media, which has the potential to influence policy making. A limitation noted by authors is that the four countries of focus have very high rates of RPM consumption and production and so these results may not be generalizable to other countries and cultures.
Abstract
Objective: Diets high in red and processed meat (RPM) contribute substantially to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and the global burden of chronic disease. High-profile reports have called for significant global RPM reduction, especially in high-income settings. Despite this, policy attention and political priority for the issue are low.
Design: The study used a theoretically guided framing analysis to identify frames used by various interest groups in relation to reducing RPM in online news media articles published in the months around the release of four high-profile reports by authoritative organisations that included a focus on the impacts of high RPM production and/or consumption.
Setting: Four major RPM producing and consuming countries – USA, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
Participants: None.
Results: Hundred and fifty news media articles were included. Articles reported the views of academics, policymakers, industry representatives and the article authors themselves. RPM reduction was remarkably polarising. Industry frequently framed RPM reduction as part of a ‘Vegan Agenda’ or as advocated by an elite minority. Reducing RPM was also depicted as an infringement on personal choice and traditional values. Many interest groups attempted to discredit the reports by citing a lack of consensus on the evidence, or that only certain forms of farming and processing were harmful. Academics and nutrition experts were more likely to be cited in articles that were aligned with the findings of the reports.
Conclusions: The polarisation of RPM reduction has 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. Using nuanced and context-dependent messaging could ensure the narratives around meat are less conflicting and more effective in addressing health and environmental harms associated with RPM.