Search

Reducing meat consumption is central to many of the scientific debates on healthy, sustainable diets because of the high environmental impact of meat production. Missing from these debates are the public perspectives about eating less meat and consideration of cultural and social values associated with meat. The aim of this study was to explore public awareness of the environmental impact of food and their willingness to reduce meat consumption. Twelve focus groups and four individual interviews were conducted with adults from a range of socio-economic groups living in both rural and urban settings in Scotland. Public understanding of the link between food, environment and climate change was explored, with a focus on meat and attitudes towards reducing meat consumption. Data were transcribed and analysed thematically. Three dominant themes emerged: a lack of awareness of the association between meat consumption and climate change, perceptions of personal meat consumption playing a minimal role in the global context of climate change, and resistance to the idea of reducing personal meat consumption. People associated eating meat with pleasure, and described social, personal and cultural values around eating meat. Some people felt they did not need to eat less meat because they had already reduced their consumption or that they only ate small quantities. Scepticism of scientific evidence linking meat and climate change was common. Changing non-food related behaviours was viewed as more acceptable and a greater priority for climate change mitigation. The study highlights the role meat plays in the diet for many people, beyond nutritional needs. If healthy, sustainable dietary habits are to be achieved, cultural, social and personal values around eating meat must be integrated into the development of future dietary recommendations.

Summary Background Increasing obesity related health conditions have a substantial burden on population health and healthcare spending. Obesity may have a sex-specific impact on disease development, men and women may respond differently to interventions, and there may be sex-specific differences to the cost-effectiveness of interventions to address obesity. There is no clear indication of cost-effective treatments for men. Methods This systematic review summarises the literature reporting the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical weight-management interventions for men. Studies were quality assessed against a checklist for appraising decision modelling studies. Results Although none of the included studies explicitly set out to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment for men, seven studies reported results for subgroups of men. Interventions were grouped into lifestyle interventions (five studies) and Orlistat (two studies). The retrieved studies showed promising evidence of cost-effectiveness, especially when interventions were targeted at high-risk groups, such as those with impaired glucose tolerance. There appears to be some sex-specific elements to cost-effectiveness, however, there were no clear trends or indications of what may be contributing to this. Conclusion The economic evidence was highly uncertain, and limited by variable methodological quality of the included studies. It was therefore not possible to draw strong conclusions on cost-effectiveness. Future studies are required to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of interventions specifically targeted towards weight loss for men.