ArticleBMC nutrition2025
Perspectives of individuals on reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change - a scoping review.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Education and Meat Consumption and Reduction: The Mediating Role of Climate Literacy.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs high meat consumption is detrimental to both individual health and the climate, many international organizations recommend a reduction in meat consumption among populations. This scoping review aims to synthesize the evidence on individuals' perspectives on reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change. The three research questions focus on (1) the individuals' awareness of the link between meat consumption and climate change, (2) individuals' willingness to reduce their meat consumption to mitigate climate change, and (3) individuals who have already reduced their meat consumption for this purpose.
methodsThis scoping review follows the extended PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. A systematic search was conducted in five databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, Greenfile and PsynDex/CurrentContent/Agris via Livivo). Only peer-reviewed original studies, published since 2015, in English, German, Danish or Dutch were included. Two researchers performed all screening procedures. Data from included studies were summarized in a narrative and descriptive synthesis of evidence, separately for quantitative and qualitative studies.
resultsA total of 93 studies were included. The majority of studies were published since 2019, had a quantitative study design, and were conducted in Europe. Awareness of the link between meat consumption and climate change is low in most studies, and many people underestimate the climate change mitigation potential of meat consumption. Women and people with lower current meat consumption are more willing to reduce their meat consumption. Health and animal welfare are often the main reasons for reducing meat consumption, with climate change being a secondary motivation for most. However, studies varied in the questionnaires used, and many had small sample sizes, limiting comparability and generalizability.
conclusionsFurther research using nationwide samples and standardized, validated instruments would improve insight into individuals' perspectives on reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change and is crucial to understanding of how to effectively promote a more plant-based diet. As media and political attention to climate change mitigation is increasing, it will be valuable to monitor changes in individual awareness, willingness and motivation to reduce meat consumption across populations worldwide.
trial registrationThis scoping review has been registered at Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MWB85 ) and the review protocol has been published in BMJ Open.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.