Does concern about climate change influence meat choices? New U.S. survey suggests it does

By Priyanjana Pramanik, MSc.Reviewed by Susha Cheriyedath, M.Sc.Feb 9 2026

New national data suggest environmental concern may influence dietary identity, offering insight into how climate priorities intersect with food choices in the United States.

Study: Not eating red meat is associated with reporting the environment and climate change as a top concern: evidence from a national U.S. survey. Image Credit: Ryzhkov Photography / Shutterstock

In a recent study published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, researchers examined how many American adults self-report not eating red meat based on self-identification, and explored links between this dietary choice and socio-demographic factors, as well as reporting the environment and climate change as a top national concern.

Approximately 12% of U.S. adults reported not eating red meat based on self-identification rather than detailed dietary intake. This pattern was more pronounced among older adults, women, those with a college education, and those with Democratic or Independent political affiliation rather than Republican voting patterns. People who reported climate change and environmental issues as a top national concern were significantly less likely to eat red meat.

Red Meat Consumption, Climate Change, and Public Perceptions

Meat production, particularly red meat, is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions and plays a substantial role in climate change. International climate reports emphasize the urgency of reducing emissions by 2030, and dietary shifts, especially reducing red meat consumption, have been identified as an effective individual-level strategy to mitigate environmental impact, although this study did not directly measure environmental outcomes.

In high-income countries such as the United States, red meat intake far exceeds levels recommended for both human health and environmental sustainability. Evidence from international studies shows that vegan and reduced-meat diets substantially lower water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use, even without the complete elimination of meat.

Despite growing concern about climate change, lowering meat consumption is often perceived as less relevant or less effective than other environmentally friendly behaviors. Prior research suggests that health motivations, rather than environmental concerns, are more commonly the driving factor behind decisions to avoid red meat, particularly in the United States. However, most existing studies rely on non-representative samples.

National Survey Design and Measures of Dietary Identity

Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of data from a probability-based, nationally representative internet panel of U.S. adults aged 18 and older. Participants were identified using address-based sampling, and 7,577 respondents completed relevant measures. After applying poststratification weights, the analytic sample included 7,375 participants. Weights were aligned to match U.S. population benchmarks for gender, age, race or ethnicity, geographic region, and education.

Participants reported whether they identified as someone who consumes red meat, reflecting a self-identity measure rather than a quantified dietary intake assessment. This classification distinguished respondents who reported not eating red meat from those who reported eating it. Participants also selected their two most important national concerns from a predefined list, including health or healthcare and environment or climate change. Socio-demographic variables included gender, age, education, race or ethnicity, income, political affiliation, and region of residence.

Analyses included weighted descriptive statistics and logistic regression models to assess demographic correlates of red meat avoidance and to examine whether identifying climate change and the environment as a top concern predicted not consuming red meat after adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors.

Socio-Demographic and Political Patterns in Red Meat Avoidance

The analyses estimated that approximately 12% of U.S. adults self-reported not consuming red meat based on identity classification rather than direct dietary measurement.

Avoidance of red meat varied systematically across socio-demographic groups. Individuals who were female, aged 65 or older, college-educated, lower-income, or identifying as non-Hispanic Black, Asian, or Hispanic were more likely to report not consuming red meat than their counterparts.

Political affiliation and geography were also relevant. Democrats and Independents were more likely than Republicans to report not eating red meat, as were residents of the West and Northeast regions of the United States.

Environmental Concern as a Key Predictor of Dietary Identity

Reporting climate change and the environment as a top national concern was strongly associated with not consuming red meat. Logistic regression models showed that this relationship remained significant after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and whether respondents identified health or healthcare as a major concern.

The association between environmental concern and red meat avoidance was stronger than that observed for health-related concern based on non-overlapping odds ratios, although the analyses were not designed for direct causal comparison. Political affiliation emerged as the strongest predictor of identifying climate change and the environment as a top national concern. Interaction analyses showed few moderating effects, although the association between environmental concern and avoidance of red meat was weaker among some non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants.

Implications, Strengths, and Study Limitations

This study provides nationally representative evidence that Americans who prioritize environmental and climate concerns are more likely to report not eating red meat based on self-identification rather than measured intake. Although only a minority of U.S. adults report not eating red meat, this estimate is consistent with prior research on the prevalence of vegetarian and pescatarian identification.

Key strengths include the large, representative sample and the integration of political affiliation and regional residence. However, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference, and environmental concern was measured in a broad, national sense rather than as a specific dietary motivation. In addition, red meat avoidance was assessed through self-identification, without a clear definition of red meat or a measure of consumption frequency, which may obscure partial reductions in intake.

Despite these limitations, the findings suggest increasing alignment between environmental concern and dietary behavior in the United States. Greater awareness of the environmental impacts of red meat consumption may support efforts to reduce meat intake and associated greenhouse gas emissions, although the study did not directly assess behavioral change or environmental outcomes.