7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Meat consumers and non-meat consumers in Germany: a characterisation based on results of the German National Nutrition Survey II

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Meat consumption in high-income countries is increasingly discussed due to its impact on environment and health as well as ethical considerations. The present paper aims to provide information on meat consumption behaviour, sociodemographic factors related to meat consumption and its associations with health and nutritional behaviour, based on the German National Nutrition Survey II. For 12 915 participants aged 18–80 years, food consumption was assessed by two 24-h recalls and further data by interviews. Participants were distinguished in non-meat consumers and meat consumers; meat consumers were further differentiated as low and high meat consumers (<86 g/d and ≥86 g/d). Group differences were analysed using binary logistic and linear regression models. More non-meat consumers were found among women, young and more educated persons. They showed equal or more preferable health characteristics, had a similar energy intake but ate more plant-based foods compared with meat consumers. More high meat consumers were found among men, young and middle-aged and lower-educated persons. Compared with low meat consumers, they showed equal or less preferable health characteristics, had a higher energy intake and ate more potatoes and sauces/spices and less of most other food groups in relation to their energy intake. To conclude, sociodemographic groups differ in their meat consumption and differences in meat consumption go together with differences in health behaviour and other food consumption.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture.

          The industrial agriculture system consumes fossil fuel, water, and topsoil at unsustainable rates. It contributes to numerous forms of environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, soil depletion, diminishing biodiversity, and fish die-offs. Meat production contributes disproportionately to these problems, in part because feeding grain to livestock to produce meat--instead of feeding it directly to humans--involves a large energy loss, making animal agriculture more resource intensive than other forms of food production. The proliferation of factory-style animal agriculture creates environmental and public health concerns, including pollution from the high concentration of animal wastes and the extensive use of antibiotics, which may compromise their effectiveness in medical use. At the consumption end, animal fat is implicated in many of the chronic degenerative diseases that afflict industrial and newly industrializing societies, particularly cardiovascular disease and some cancers. In terms of human health, both affluent and poor countries could benefit from policies that more equitably distribute high-protein foods. The pesticides used heavily in industrial agriculture are associated with elevated cancer risks for workers and consumers and are coming under greater scrutiny for their links to endocrine disruption and reproductive dysfunction. In this article we outline the environmental and human health problems associated with current food production practices and discuss how these systems could be made more sustainable.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns

            Recent theorizing suggests that the 4Ns - that is, the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice - are common rationalizations people use to defend their choice of eating meat. However, such theorizing has yet to be subjected to empirical testing. Six studies were conducted on the 4Ns. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the 4N classification captures the vast majority (83%-91%) of justifications people naturally offer in defense of eating meat. In Study 2, individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tended also to objectify (dementalize) animals and included fewer animals in their circle of moral concern, and this was true independent of social dominance orientation. Subsequent studies (Studies 3-5) showed that individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tend not to be motivated by ethical concerns when making food choices, are less involved in animal-welfare advocacy, less driven to restrict animal products from their diet, less proud of their animal-product decisions, tend to endorse Speciesist attitudes, tend to consume meat and animal products more frequently, and are highly committed to eating meat. Furthermore, omnivores who strongly endorsed the 4Ns tended to experience less guilt about their animal-product decisions, highlighting the guilt-alleviating function of the 4Ns.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Eating green. Consumers' willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors.

              Food consumption is associated with various environmental impacts, and consumers' food choices therefore represent important environmental decisions. In a large-scale survey, we examined consumers' beliefs about ecological food consumption and their willingness to adopt such behaviors. Additionally, we investigated in more detail how different motives and food-related attitudes influenced consumers' willingness to reduce meat consumption and to buy seasonal fruits and vegetables. We found consumers believed avoiding excessive packaging had the strongest impact on the environment, whereas they rated purchasing organic food and reducing meat consumption as least environmentally beneficial. Similarly, respondents appeared to be most unwilling to reduce meat consumption and purchase organic food. Taste and environmental motives influenced consumers' willingness to eat seasonal fruits and vegetables, whereas preparedness to reduce meat consumption was influenced by health and ethical motives. Women and respondents who preferred natural foods were more willing to adopt ecological food consumption patterns.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Nutr Sci
                J Nutr Sci
                JNS
                Journal of Nutritional Science
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                2048-6790
                2019
                07 June 2019
                : 8
                : e21
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Nutritional Behaviour, Max Rubner-Institut, Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food, Karlsruhe , Haid-und-Neu-Strasse 9, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ] Corresponding author: Thorsten Heuer, fax +49 721 6625 552, email thorsten.heuer@ 123456mri.bund.de
                Article
                S204867901900017X 00017
                10.1017/jns.2019.17
                6558667
                31217969
                4bdfebe1-2b9d-4c82-b98c-ee4027d7c1cb
                © The Author(s) 2019

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 July 2018
                : 05 May 2019
                : 09 May 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 9, References: 38, Pages: 13
                Categories
                Research Article

                meat consumption,vegetarian diet,health,food consumption,german national nutrition survey ii,nvs ii, german national nutrition survey ii

                Comments

                Comment on this article