In addition to the harm it does to animals, the potential negative effects of meat-eating on both human health and the environment are well-documented. Yet even people who express interest in eating less meat may fail to follow through with their intention. Studies suggest self-monitoring helps empower people to eat less meat, possibly by keeping them more aware of their eating habits and holding themselves accountable. The purpose of this study was to see how effective an online self-regulated intervention (called “OPTIMISE”) was at helping meat eaters consume less meat.

The authors tested OPTIMISE (“Online Programme to Tackle Individual Meat Intake through Self-regulation”) with 151 U.K.-based adult meat eaters over nine weeks. Participants registered with the OPTIMISE website and were sorted randomly into two groups. The control group was asked to eat less meat without being given specific guidance beyond checking in and reporting their progress at weeks five and nine. At the end of the study, the control group was asked to list strategies they had found on their own to reduce meat consumption. 

The other group used the OPTIMISE program, which provided 26 strategies to help reduce meat consumption. Participants received information about the health and environmental impacts of their current meat consumption and were given a list of strategies to reduce meat consumption. During weeks two through five, they chose specific goals, made daily plans, and then were asked the following morning if they had succeeded in meeting those goals. Over weeks six through nine, they were told to continue as they were, now without prompts or check-ins from the program.

The first follow-up check-in happened at week five. At this check-in, participants in the OPTIMISE program were reducing meat at a greater rate than people in the control group. By the end of the nine-week study, OPTIMISE users ate 52% less meat, while the control group ate 47% less meat. Statistical analysis showed that there was no major difference in meat reduction rates between the two groups.

These findings can be seen as both good and bad news. The bad news is that the OPTIMISE program didn’t provide a strong(er) solution to ending meat consumption. The good news is that the study showed that people interested in eating less meat may be able to significantly reduce their meat consumption through self-monitoring, even without the need for a program.

Of the 26 actions suggested by OPTIMISE, the most popular among its users were making one meal vegetarian, halving their usual meat portion and doubling vegetables, setting a maximum number of animal products, and eating no red meat or processed meat. When the control group self-reported strategies that they had undertaken on their own, the top five strategies they reported choosing were trying a meat alternative, trying new vegetarian recipes, having meat-free meals, reducing the proportion of meat, and having a meat-free day. There were also strategies reported by the control group which had not been included in OPTIMISE’s list of 26, such as meal prepping or subscribing to recipe delivery services. 

The top three most commonly cited barriers were lack of support from others, feeling that it was inconvenient or that they did not have the time, and trying to avoid food waste by eating leftover animal products. Interestingly, “wanting meat/temptation” was only the sixth-most cited obstacle by OPTIMISE users, with fewer than 20 participants self-reporting that as an issue. This suggests that helping people involve household members in meat reduction efforts and teaching easy, time-effective recipes may help overcome these barriers. Overall, by addressing common obstacles and utilizing the tactics identified in this study, advocates can encourage self-regulation as one potential approach to better support individuals in their journey toward eating less meat.