TY - JOUR
T1 - Replacing meat with alternative plant-based products (RE-MAP)
T2 - a randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent behavioral intervention to reduce meat consumption
AU - Bianchi, Filippo
AU - Stewart, Cristina
AU - Astbury, Nerys M.
AU - Cook, Brian
AU - Aveyard, Paul
AU - Jebb, Susan A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health program [Livestock, Environment, and People (LEAP), award number 205212/Z/16/Z]. FB's time on this project was funded by the Medical Research Council, Green Templeton College, and the NIHR School for Primary Care Research. NMA, PA and SAJ are supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. PA and SAJ are also supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration and are NIHR senior investigators
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.
PY - 2022/5/1
Y1 - 2022/5/1
N2 - Background: Reducing meat consumption could protect the environment and human health. Objectives: We tested the impact of a behavioral intervention to reduce meat consumption. Methods: Adult volunteers who regularly consumed meat were recruited from the general public and randomized 1:1 to an intervention or control condition. The intervention comprised free meat substitutes for 4 weeks, information about the benefits of eating less meat, success stories, and recipes. The control group received no intervention or advice on dietary change. The primary outcome was daily meat consumption after 4 weeks, assessed by a 7-day food diary, and repeated after 8 weeks as a secondary outcome. Other secondary and exploratory outcomes included the consumption of meat substitutes, cardiovascular risk factors, psychosocial variables related to meat consumption, and the nutritional composition of the diet. We also estimated the intervention's environmental impact. We evaluated the intervention using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Results: Between June 2018 and October 2019, 115 participants were randomized. The baseline meat consumption values were 134 g/d in the control group and 130 g/d in the intervention group. Relative to the control condition, the intervention reduced meat consumption at 4 weeks by 63 g/d (95% CI: 44-82; P < 0.0001; n = 114) and at 8 weeks by 39 g/d (95% CI: 16-62; P = 0.0009; n = 113), adjusting for sex and baseline consumption. The intervention significantly increased the consumption of meat substitutes without changing the intakes of other principal food groups. The intervention increased intentions, positive attitudes, perceived control, and subjective norms of eating a low-meat diet and using meat substitutes, and decreased attachment to meat. At 8 weeks, 55% of intervention recipients identified as meat eaters, compared to 89% of participants in the control group. Conclusions: A behavioral program involving free meat substitutes can reduce meat intake and change psychosocial constructs consistent with a sustained reduction in meat intake.
AB - Background: Reducing meat consumption could protect the environment and human health. Objectives: We tested the impact of a behavioral intervention to reduce meat consumption. Methods: Adult volunteers who regularly consumed meat were recruited from the general public and randomized 1:1 to an intervention or control condition. The intervention comprised free meat substitutes for 4 weeks, information about the benefits of eating less meat, success stories, and recipes. The control group received no intervention or advice on dietary change. The primary outcome was daily meat consumption after 4 weeks, assessed by a 7-day food diary, and repeated after 8 weeks as a secondary outcome. Other secondary and exploratory outcomes included the consumption of meat substitutes, cardiovascular risk factors, psychosocial variables related to meat consumption, and the nutritional composition of the diet. We also estimated the intervention's environmental impact. We evaluated the intervention using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Results: Between June 2018 and October 2019, 115 participants were randomized. The baseline meat consumption values were 134 g/d in the control group and 130 g/d in the intervention group. Relative to the control condition, the intervention reduced meat consumption at 4 weeks by 63 g/d (95% CI: 44-82; P < 0.0001; n = 114) and at 8 weeks by 39 g/d (95% CI: 16-62; P = 0.0009; n = 113), adjusting for sex and baseline consumption. The intervention significantly increased the consumption of meat substitutes without changing the intakes of other principal food groups. The intervention increased intentions, positive attitudes, perceived control, and subjective norms of eating a low-meat diet and using meat substitutes, and decreased attachment to meat. At 8 weeks, 55% of intervention recipients identified as meat eaters, compared to 89% of participants in the control group. Conclusions: A behavioral program involving free meat substitutes can reduce meat intake and change psychosocial constructs consistent with a sustained reduction in meat intake.
KW - consumer acceptance
KW - consumer attitudes
KW - food choice motives
KW - food neophobia
KW - meat
KW - meat substitutes
KW - sustainability
KW - vegetarian
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129997889&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ajcn/nqab414
DO - 10.1093/ajcn/nqab414
M3 - Article
C2 - 34958364
AN - SCOPUS:85129997889
VL - 115
SP - 1357
EP - 1366
JO - The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN)
JF - The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN)
SN - 0002-9165
IS - 5
ER -