Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, USA.
The Humane League Labs, USA.
Appetite. 2021 Sep 1;164:105277. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105277. Epub 2021 May 11.
Reducing meat consumption may improve human health, curb environmental damage, and limit the large-scale suffering of animals raised in factory farms. Most attention to reducing consumption has focused on restructuring environments where foods are chosen or on making health or environmental appeals. However, psychological theory suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare concerns might operate on distinct, potent pathways. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions. We searched eight academic databases and extensively searched grey literature. We meta-analyzed 100 studies assessing interventions designed to reduce meat consumption or purchase by mentioning or portraying farm animals, that measured behavioral or self-reported outcomes related to meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions, and that had a control condition. The interventions consistently reduced meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions at least in the short term with meaningfully large effects (meta-analytic mean risk ratio [RR] = 1.22; 95% CI: [1.13, 1.33]). We estimated that a large majority of population effect sizes (71%; 95% CI: [59%, 80%]) were stronger than RR = 1.1 and that few were in the unintended direction. Via meta-regression, we identified some specific characteristics of studies and interventions that were associated with effect size. Risk-of-bias assessments identified both methodological strengths and limitations of this literature; however, results did not differ meaningfully in sensitivity analyses retaining only studies at the lowest risk of bias. Evidence of publication bias was not apparent. In conclusion, animal welfare interventions preliminarily appear effective in these typically short-term studies of primarily self-reported outcomes. Future research should use direct behavioral outcomes that minimize the potential for social desirability bias and are measured over long-term follow-up.
减少肉类消费可能有益于人类健康、遏制环境破坏并限制工厂化农场中大量动物所遭受的痛苦。大多数减少消费的注意力都集中在重构选择食物的环境或发出健康或环境方面的呼吁上。然而,心理学理论表明,呼吁动物福利关注的干预措施可能通过不同的、有效的途径发挥作用。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估这些干预措施的有效性。我们在八个学术数据库中进行了检索,并广泛搜索了灰色文献。我们对 100 项研究进行了荟萃分析,这些研究旨在通过提及或描绘农场动物来减少肉类消费或购买,这些研究测量了与肉类消费、购买或相关意图相关的行为或自我报告的结果,并设有对照条件。这些干预措施在短期内始终如一地减少了肉类消费、购买或相关意图,且效果具有明显的统计学意义(荟萃分析平均风险比 [RR] = 1.22;95%置信区间:[1.13, 1.33])。我们估计,大多数人群效应大小(71%;95%置信区间:[59%, 80%])强于 RR = 1.1,并且很少有效果方向相反。通过元回归,我们确定了一些研究和干预措施的具体特征与效应大小有关。偏倚风险评估确定了该文献的方法学优势和局限性;然而,在保留低偏倚风险研究的敏感性分析中,结果并没有明显的差异。没有明显的发表偏倚证据。总之,动物福利干预措施在这些主要以自我报告结果为基础的短期研究中初步显示出有效性。未来的研究应该使用直接的行为结果,这些结果最大限度地减少了社会期望偏差的可能性,并在长期随访中进行测量。