Evidence of the health and environmental harms of red meat is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful to include in meat reduction messages. This study examined which harms consumers are most aware of and which most discourage them from wanting to eat red meat.

Within-subjects randomised experiment. Participants responded to questions about their awareness of, and perceived discouragement in response to, eight health and eight environmental harms of red meat presented in random order. Discouragement was assessed on a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale.

Online survey.

544 US parents.

A minority of participants reported awareness that red meat contributes to health harms (ranging from 8 % awareness for prostate cancer to 28 % for heart disease) or environmental harms (ranging from 13 % for water shortages and deforestation to 22 % for climate change). Among specific harms, heart disease elicited the most discouragement (mean = 2·82 out of 5), followed by early death (mean = 2·79) and plants and animals going extinct (mean = 2·75), though most harms elicited similar discouragement (range of means, 2·60–2·82). In multivariable analyses, participants who were younger, identified as Black, identified as politically liberal, had higher general perceptions that red meat is bad for health and had higher usual red meat consumption reported being more discouraged from wanting to eat red meat in response to health and environmental harms (all P < 0·05).

Messages about a variety of health and environmental harms of red meat could inform consumers and motivate reductions in red meat consumption.

To explore why there is a lack of acceptance among Western Australian (WA) adults of the Go for 2&5®fruit and vegetable social marketing message to consume at least five servings of vegetables per day.

A series of focus group discussions comprised of homogeneous groups varied by sex and age, until saturation of themes was achieved, followed by thematic analysis.

Part of qualitative research for the Go for 2&5® fruit and vegetable social marketing campaign in WA (2009 population: 2·2 million).

WA adults stratified by sex and age groups (18–29 and 30–55 years) drawn from the second and third quartiles of socio-economic disadvantage.

Familiarity with the Go for 2&5® message was excellent. Understanding of what constitutes ‘two servings of fruit’ was excellent and regarded by participants as highly achievable. Understanding of what constitutes ‘five servings of vegetables’ was suboptimal with widespread overestimation contributing to the belief that it is unrealistic. Participants did not know how the 2&5 recommendation was formulated and believed that daily consumption of two servings of fruit and five of vegetables would confer no greater health benefit than one of fruit and three of vegetables. Participants assumed that the 2&5 recommendation was ‘aspirational’ in the sense that it was purposely exaggerated to simply encourage greater overall consumption.

A convincing case needs to be presented to WA adults as to why they should consume five servings of vegetables per day. Continuing efforts to educate incorporating what constitutes a serving will assist perceptions that the recommendation is realistic.