Rebalancing meat and legume consumption: change-inducing food choice motives and associated individual characteristics in non-vegetarian adults

Anouk Reuzé, Caroline Méjean, Myriam Carrère, Lucie Sirieix, Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo, Sandrine Péneau, Mathilde Touvier, Serge Hercberg, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Benjamin Allès, Anouk Reuzé, Caroline Méjean, Myriam Carrère, Lucie Sirieix, Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo, Sandrine Péneau, Mathilde Touvier, Serge Hercberg, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Benjamin Allès

Abstract

Background: A shift toward more plant-based foods in diets is required to improve health and to reduce environmental impact. Little is known about food choice motives and associated characteristics of those individuals who have actually reduced their consumption of animal-based foods. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to identify change-inducing motives related to meat and legume consumptions among non-vegetarians. The association between change-inducing motives and individual characteristics was also studied.

Methods: This study included 25,393 non-vegetarian participants in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort (77.4% women, mean age 55.4 ± 13.9 y.). The motives related to the declared change in meat and legume consumptions (e.g., taste, environment, social pressure) were assessed by an online questionnaire in 2018. For each motive, respondents could be classified into three groups: no motive; motive, not change-inducing; change-inducing motive. Associations between change-inducing motives and individual characteristics were evaluated using multivariable polytomic logistic regressions. Characteristics of participants who rebalanced their meat and legume consumptions were also compared to those who reduced their meat but did not increase their legume consumption.

Results: Motives most strongly declared as having induced a change in meat or legume consumptions were health and nutrition (respectively 90.7 and 81.0% declared these motives as change-inducing for the meat reduction), physical environment (82.0% for meat reduction only) and taste preferences (77.7% for legume increase only). Other motives related to social influences, meat avoidance and meat dislike were reported by fewer individuals, but were declared as having induced changes in food consumption. Most motives that induced a meat reduction and a legume increase were more likely to be associated with specific individual characteristics, for example being a woman or highly educated for health motives.

Conclusions: Besides the motives reported as important, some motives less frequently felt important were declared as having induced changes in meat or legume consumptions. Change-inducing motives were reported by specific subpopulations. Public campaigns on health and sustainability could usefully develop new tools to reach populations less willing to change.

Trial registrations: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03335644).

Keywords: Epidemiology; Food behavior change; Food motives; Social marketing; Sustainability.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual scheme of food choice motives inducing a change in food consumption Individual sociodemographic, anthropometric, and lifestyle characteristics were associated with change in food behavior. These characteristics were also associated with motives that led to a change in behavior. However, we assumed that only change-inducing motives would induce this change in food consumptions. Dotted lines correspond to what had already been investigated in previous studies on the sociodemographic determinants of food behavior, such as those related to the consumption of animal products [16]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flowchart of the study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of the frequency of participants who declared the motive as having induced a meat reduction, according to the frequency of participants who declared the motive as important. Meat reduction sample. NutriNet-Santé study, 2018 (n = 22,567)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Association between individual characteristics and change-inducing motives for meat reduction (vs. “no motive”) / (motives ordered according to the frequency of individuals in the group “change-inducing motive”, multinomial logistic regression). For some figures, a logarithmic scale is used for easier reading of the results. All the models were also adjusted on BMI, size of the urban residence unit and declared latest weight-loss diet
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Association between individual characteristics and change-inducing motives for meat reduction (vs. “no motive”) / (motives ordered according to the frequency of individuals in the group “change-inducing motive”, multinomial logistic regression). For some figures, a logarithmic scale is used for easier reading of the results. All the models were also adjusted on BMI, size of the urban residence unit and declared latest weight-loss diet
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Comparison of the frequency of participants who declared the motive as having induced a legume increase, according to the frequency of participants who declared the motive as important. Legume increase sample. NutriNet-Santé study, 2018 (n = 16,446)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Association between individual characteristics and change-inducing motives for legume increase (vs. “no motive”) / (motives ordered according to the frequency of individuals in the group “change-inducing motive”, multinomial logistic regression)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Association between individual characteristics and change-inducing motives for legume increase (vs. “no motive”) / (motives ordered according to the frequency of individuals in the group “change-inducing motive”, multinomial logistic regression)

References

    1. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447–492. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.
    1. Harwatt H, Sabaté J, Eshel G, Soret S, Ripple W. Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Clim Chang. 2017;143(1):261–270. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-1969-1.
    1. Rawal V, Navarro DK. Pulses : nutritional benefits and consumption patterns. Rome: FAO; 2019. p. 190.
    1. Steptoe A, Wardle J. Motivational factors as mediators of socioeconomic variations in dietary intake patterns. Psychol Health. 1999;14(3):391–402. doi: 10.1080/08870449908407336.
    1. Lacroix K, Gifford R. Reducing meat consumption: identifying group-specific inhibitors using latent profile analysis. Appetite. 2019;138:233–241. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.002.
    1. Tobler C, Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite. 2011;57(3):674–682. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010.
    1. Neff RA, Edwards D, Palmer A, Ramsing R, Righter A, Wolfson J. Reducing meat consumption in the USA: a nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(10):1835–1844. doi: 10.1017/S1368980017004190.
    1. Lentz G, Connelly S, Mirosa M, Jowett T. Gauging attitudes and behaviours: meat consumption and potential reduction. Appetite. 2018;127:230–241. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.015.
    1. Vainio A, Niva M, Jallinoja P, Latvala T. From beef to beans: eating motives and the replacement of animal proteins with plant proteins among Finnish consumers. Appetite. 2016;106:92–100. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.03.002.
    1. Lea EJ, Crawford D, Worsley A. Consumers’ readiness to eat a plant-based diet. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006;60(3):342–351. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602320.
    1. Graça J. Towards an integrated approach to food behaviour: meat consumption and substitution, from context to consumers. Psychol Commun Health. 2016;5(2):152–169. doi: 10.5964/pch.v5i2.169.
    1. de Gavelle E, Davidenko O, Fouillet H, Delarue J, Darcel N, Huneau JF, et al. Self-declared attitudes and beliefs regarding protein sources are a good prediction of the degree of transition to a low-meat diet in France. Appetite. 2019;142:104345. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104345.
    1. Weibel C, Ohnmacht T, Schaffner D, Kossmann K. Reducing individual meat consumption: an integrated phase model approach. Food Qual Prefer. 2019;73:8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.011.
    1. Lemken D, Spiller A, Schulze-Ehlers B. More room for legume – consumer acceptance of meat substitution with classic, processed and meat-resembling legume products. Appetite. 2019;143:104412. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104412.
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models, and frameworks. In: Albers B, Shlonsky A, Mildon R, editors. Implementation science 30. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 53–79.
    1. Méjean C, Si Hassen W, Lecossais C, Allès B, Péneau S, Hercberg S, et al. Socio-economic indicators are independently associated with intake of animal foods in French adults. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(17):3146–3157. doi: 10.1017/S1368980016001610.
    1. Hercberg S, Castetbon K, Czernichow S, Malon A, Mejean C, Kesse E, et al. The Nutrinet-Santé study: a web-based prospective study on the relationship between nutrition and health and determinants of dietary patterns and nutritional status. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):242. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-242.
    1. Sautron V, Péneau S, Camilleri GM, Muller L, Ruffieux B, Hercberg S, et al. Validity of a questionnaire measuring motives for choosing foods including sustainable concerns. Appetite. 2015;87:90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.205.
    1. Péneau S, Fassier P, Allès B, Kesse-Guyot E, Hercberg S, Méjean C. Dilemma between health and environmental motives when purchasing animal food products: sociodemographic and nutritional characteristics of consumers. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1) Available from: cited 24 May 2019.
    1. Allès B, Péneau S, Kesse-Guyot E, Baudry J, Hercberg S, Méjean C. Food choice motives including sustainability during purchasing are associated with a healthy dietary pattern in French adults. Nutr J. 2017;16(1) Available from: cited 16 May 2019.
    1. International Social Marketing Association. iSMA. Available from: . [cited 16 May 2022]
    1. de Boer J, Hoogland CT, Boersema JJ. Towards more sustainable food choices: value priorities and motivational orientations. Food Qual Prefer. 2007;18(7):985–996. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.002.
    1. Lassale C, Péneau S, Touvier M, Julia C, Galan P, Hercberg S, et al. Validity of web-based self-reported weight and height: results of the Nutrinet-Santé study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e152. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2575.
    1. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000 p. 9. WHO Technical Report Series. Report No.: 894.
    1. Latvala T, Niva M, Mäkelä J, Pouta E, Heikkilä J, Kotro J, et al. Diversifying meat consumption patterns: consumers’ self-reported past behaviour and intentions for change. Meat Sci. 2012;92(1):71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.014.
    1. De Backer CJS, Hudders L. From meatless Mondays to meatless Sundays: motivations for meat reduction among vegetarians and semi-vegetarians who mildly or significantly reduce their meat intake. Ecol Food Nutr. 2014;53(6):639–657. doi: 10.1080/03670244.2014.896797.
    1. Schösler H, de Boer J, Boersema JJ. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite. 2012;58(1):39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.009.
    1. Vainio A. How consumers of meat-based and plant-based diets attend to scientific and commercial information sources: eating motives, the need for cognition and ability to evaluate information. Appetite. 2019;138:72–79. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.017.
    1. HCSP. Avis relatif aux objectifs de santé publique quantifiés pour la politique nutritionnelle de santé publique (PNNS) 2018–2022. Paris: Haut Conseil de la santé publique (HCSP); 2018. Available from: .
    1. Melendrez-Ruiz J, Chambaron S, Buatois Q, Monnery-Patris S, Arvisenet G. A central place for meat, but what about pulses? Studying French consumers’ representations of main dish structure, using an indirect approach. Food Res Int. 2019;123:790–800. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.06.004.
    1. Fabrique à menus | Manger Bouger. 2013. Available from: cited 17 May 2021
    1. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite. 1995;25(3):267–284. doi: 10.1006/appe.1995.0061.
    1. Roininen K, Tuorila H, Zandstra EH, de Graaf C, Vehkalahti K, Stubenitsky K, et al. Differences in health and taste attitudes and reported behaviour among Finnish, Dutch and British consumers: a cross-national validation of the health and taste attitude scales (HTAS) Appetite. 2001;37(1):33–45. doi: 10.1006/appe.2001.0414.
    1. Grunert KG, Wills J, Celemín LF, Lähteenmäki L, Scholderer J, Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann S. Socio-demographic and attitudinal determinants of nutrition knowledge of food shoppers in six European countries. Food Qual Prefer. 2012;26(2):166–177. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.04.007.
    1. Dallongeville J, Marécaux N, Cottel D, Bingham A, Amouyel P. Association between nutrition knowledge and nutritional intake in middle-aged men from northern France. Public Health Nutr. 2001;4(1):27–33. doi: 10.1079/PHN200052.
    1. Hendrie GA, Coveney J, Cox D. Exploring nutrition knowledge and the demographic variation in knowledge levels in an Australian community sample. Public Health Nutr. 2008;11(12):1365–1371. doi: 10.1017/S1368980008003042.
    1. Lê J, Dallongeville J, Wagner A, Arveiler D, Haas B, Cottel D, et al. Attitudes toward healthy eating: a mediator of the educational level–diet relationship. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013;67(8):808–814. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.110.
    1. Colombet Z, Allès B, Si Hassen W, Lampuré A, Kesse-Guyot E, Péneau S, et al. Individual characteristics associated with changes in the contribution of plant foods to dietary intake in a French prospective cohort. Eur J Nutr. 2018;58:1991–2002. doi: 10.1007/s00394-018-1752-8.
    1. Clonan A, Wilson P, Swift JA, Leibovici DG, Holdsworth M. Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(13):2446–2456. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015000567.
    1. Renner B, Sproesser G, Strohbach S, Schupp HT. Why we eat what we eat. The eating motivation survey (TEMS) Appetite. 2012;59(1):117–128. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.004.
    1. Lee L, Simpson I. Are we eating less meat? A British Social Attitudes report: NatCen; 2016. p. 33. Available from:
    1. Loi EGAlim . Code rural et de la pêche maritime, LOI n° 2018–938. 2018.
    1. Sanchez-Sabate R, Sabaté J. Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(7):1220. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071220.
    1. Bénard M, Baudry J, Méjean C, Lairon D, Giudici KV, Etilé F, et al. Association between time perspective and organic food consumption in a large sample of adults. Nutr J. 2018;17(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s12937-017-0311-0.
    1. Garcia Valinas MAG, Muñiz Pérez MA, Cordero Ferrera JM. The role of schools in providing environmental knowledge in science. In: Investigaciones de Economía de la Educación volume 5: Asociación de Economía de la Educación; 2010. p. 87–100. Available from: cited 11 Mar 2021.
    1. Gifford R, Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol. 2014;49(3):141–157.
    1. Pampel FC. The varied influence of SES on environmental concern. Soc Sci Q. 2014;95(1):57–75. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12045.
    1. Melendrez-Ruiz J, Buatois Q, Chambaron S, Monnery-Patris S, Arvisenet G. French consumers know the benefits of pulses, but do not choose them: an exploratory study combining indirect and direct approaches. Appetite. 2019;141:104311. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.06.003.
    1. Jallinoja P, Niva M, Latvala T. Future of sustainable eating? Examining the potential for expanding bean eating in a meat-eating culture. Futures. 2016;1(83):4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.03.006.
    1. IPSOS Reid. Factors influencing pulse consumption in Canada: Government of Alberta; 2010. Available from:
    1. Nestle M, Wing R, Birch L, DiSogra L, Drewnowski A, Middleton S, et al. Behavioral and social influences on food choice. Nutr Rev. 1998;56(5):50–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1998.tb01732.x.
    1. Ventura AK, Worobey J. Early influences on the development of food preferences. Curr Biol. 2013;23(9):R401–R408. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.037.
    1. Dumic A, Miskulin I, Matic Licanin M, Mujkic A, Cacic Kenjeric D, Miskulin M. Nutrition Counselling practices among general practitioners in Croatia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(12):1499. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14121499.
    1. Fassier P, Chhim AS, Andreeva VA, Hercberg S, Latino-Martel P, Pouchieu C, et al. Seeking health- and nutrition-related information on the internet in a large population of French adults: results of the NutriNet-Santé study. Br J Nutr. 2016;115(11):2039–2046. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516001355.
    1. Seçkin G. Health Information on the Web and Consumers’ Perspectives on Health Professionals’ Responses to Information Exchange. Med 2 0. 2014;3(2):e4. doi: 10.2196/med20.3213.
    1. Lawrence MA, Baker PI. Ultra-processed food and adverse health outcomes. BMJ. 2019;365:l2289. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l2289.
    1. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi