Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Providing information

Providing information about the environmental consequences of eating meat

Three reviews¹ ² ³ cited 11 unique studies. A statistically significant majority of results were in favour of the intervention (10/11; 91%; 95% CI [62.3%, 98.4%]; p = .012).

​

Providing information about the health consequences of eating meat

Five reviews¹ ² ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ cited 10 unique studies. Majority of results were in favour of the intervention (8/10; 80%; 95% CI [49%, 94.3%]; p = .11).

​

Providing information about the animal welfare consequences of eating meat

Two reviews¹ ² cited 2 unique studies. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (2/2; 91%; 95% CI [34.2%, 100%]; p = .5).

​

Providing information about multiple reasons to reduce animal-product consumption (e.g., health and environmental arguments)

Five reviews¹ ² ⁴ ⁷ ⁸ cited 16 unique studies. Results were mixed, with over half being in favour of the intervention (11/16; 68.75%; 95% CI [44.4%, 85.8%]; p = .21).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Implicitly emphasising animal welfare

Reminding consumers of the animal origins of meat through displaying meat with the head attached

Three reviews¹ ⁵ ¹⁰ cited 3 unique studies. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (3/3; 100%; 95% CI [43.9%, 100%]; p = .25).

​

Showing cute/live animals in meat advertisements or next to meat recipes

Two reviews¹ ⁵ cited 3 unique studies. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (3/3; 100%; 95% CI [43.9%, 100%]; p = .25).

​

Reminding consumers of the animal origins of meat through images of cows heading to slaughter

Three reviews¹ ² ⁵ cited 1 unique study. Results were in favour of the intervention (1/1; 100%; 95% CI [20.7%, 100%]; p = 1).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Goal-setting and self-monitoring

Text message reminders to monitor red or processed meat consumption

Six reviews¹ ² ⁴ ⁵ ⁷ ⁸ cited 2 unique studies. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (2/2; 100%; 95% CI [34.2%, 100%]; p = .5).

​

Creating implementation intentions (e.g., intentions to consume meat-free meals in specific circumstances, imagining barriers and solutions)

Five reviews¹ ² ⁴ ⁷ ⁸ cited 2 unique studies. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (2/2; 100%; 95% CI [34.2%, 100%]; p = .5).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Social consequences

of eating meat

Norms (Emphasising how the amount of people following plant-based diets is growing/ Conveying positive representations of plant-based diets through popular TV shows)

Five reviews¹ ⁵ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ cited 4 unique studies. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (4/4; 100%; 95% CI [51%, 100%]; p = .125).

​

Telling people about negative social consequences of eating meat (e.g., popularity, poorer social image)

Three reviews¹ ² ¹¹ cited 1 unique study. Results were in favour of the intervention (1/1; 100%; 95% CI [20.7%, 100%]; p = 1).

​

Telling people who reject social dominance that those who are more socially dominant eat more meat

Two reviews¹ ² cited 1 unique study. Results were not in favour of the intervention (0/1; 100%; 95% CI [0%, 79.3%]; p = 1).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Default plant-based meals

Offer plant-based meals and menus as the default option at restaurants

Five reviews¹ ³ ⁴ ⁸ ¹² cited 1 unique study. Results were in favour of the intervention (1/1; 100%; 95% CI [20.7%, 100%]; p = 1).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Providing meat alternatives

Providing people with meat alternatives to try (e.g., mycoprotein products)

One review¹⁰ cited 3 unique studies. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (3/3; 100%; 95% CI [43.9%, 100%]; p = .25).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Description of meat / meat alternatives

Labelling meat options as "meat" instead of "standard" or "normal" in cafeterias

Referring to "beef" and "pork" dishes as "cow" and "pig"

Two reviews¹ ¹⁰ cited 2 unique studies. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (2/2; 100%; 95% CI [34.2%, 100%]; p = .5).

​

Changing name of meat-free meals to more appealing alternatives�Highlighting a plant-based meal as the "Chef's recommendation"

One review¹⁰ cited 3 unique studies. Majority of results were not in favour of the intervention (1/3; 100%; 95% CI [6.1%, 79.2%]; p = 1).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Economic interventions

Providing financial incentives for healthy food/drink purchases�Changing prices of different meat serving portions from decreasing price per unit with increasing portion size to stable price per unit across portion sizes

Two reviews⁷ ¹⁰ cited two unique studies. Results were consistently not in favour of the intervention (0/2; 100%; 95% CI [0%, 65.8%]; p = .5).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Personalised messaging

 Tailoring messaging based on the receivers state of change, animal-product intake levels, or personality

Two reviews¹ ² cited 10 unique studies. Results were mixed, with just over half of studies being in favour of the intervention (6/11; 60%; 95% CI [31.3%, 83.2%]; p = .75).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Individual lifestyle counselling

One review² cited 8 unique studies. Majority of results were in favour of the intervention (6/8; 75%; 95% CI [40.9%, 92.9%]; p = .29).

Intervention

Sub-category (if applicable)

Review findings

Reducing meat portion sizes

 Supermarkets offering the option of smaller meat portion sizes�Restaurants reducing meat portion sizes but maintaining dish volume by increasing vegetable servings

Three reviews⁴ ⁷ ¹⁰ cited 4 unique studies conducted in lab and field (restaurant, stores) settings. Results were consistently in favour of the intervention (4/4; 100%; 95% CI [51%, 100%]; p = .125).