Search

This study explores the ways in which social networks might shape accounts about food practices. Drawing on insights from the work of Christakis and Fowler () whose claims about the linkages between obesity and social networks have been the subject of vigorous debate in the sociological literature, we present qualitative data from a study of women's’ accounts of social networks and food practices, conducted in Nottingham, England. We tentatively suggest that whilst social networks in their broadest sense, might shape what was perceived to be normal and acceptable in relation to food practices (and provide everyday discursive resources which normalise practice), the relationship between the two is more complex than the linear relationship proposed by Christakis and Fowler. Here, we introduce the idea of assumed shared food narratives (ASFNs), which, we propose, sheds light on motive talk about food practices, and which also provide practical and discursive resources to actors seeking to protect and defend against ‘untoward’ behaviour, in the context of public health messages around food and eating. We suggest that understanding ASFNs and the ways in which they are embedded in social networks represents a novel way of understanding food and eating practices from a sociological perspective.

Background: Although it is increasingly acknowledged that social networks are important to our understanding ofoverweight and obesity, there is limited understanding about the processes by which such networks shapetheir progression. This paper reports the findings of a scoping review of the literature that sought to identify the key processes through which social networks are understood to influence the development of overweight and obesity. Methods: A scoping review was conducted. Forty five papers were included in the final review, the findings of which were synthesised to provide an overview of the main processes through which networks have been understood to influence the development of overweight and obesity. Results: Included papers addressed a wide range of research questions framed around six types of networks: a paired network (one’s spouse or intimate partner); friends and family (including work colleagues and people within social clubs); ephemeral networks in shared public spaces (such as fellow shoppers in a supermarket or diners in a restaurant); people living within the same geographical region; peers (including co-workers, fellow students, fellow participants in a weight loss programme); and cultural groups (often related to ethnicity). As individuals are embedded in many of these different types of social networks at any one time, the pathways of influence from social networks to the development of patterns of overweight and obesity are likely to be complex and interrelated. Included papers addressed a diverse set of issues: body weight trends over time; body size norms or preferences; weight loss and management; physical activity patterns; and dietary patterns. Discussion: Three inter-related processes were identified: social contagion (whereby the network in which people are embedded influences their weight or weight influencing behaviours), social capital (whereby sense of belonging and social support influence weight or weight influencing behavio

Objective: Higher intakes of red and processed meat are associated with poorer health outcomes and negative environmental impacts. Drawing upon a population survey the present paper investigates meat consumption behaviours, exploring perceived impacts for human health, animal welfare and the environment. Design: Structured self-completion postal survey relating to red and processed meat, capturing data on attitudes, sustainable meat purchasing behaviour, red and processed meat intake, plus sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Setting: Urban and rural districts of Nottinghamshire, East Midlands, UK, drawn from the electoral register. Subjects: UK adults (n 842) aged 18–91 years, 497 females and 345 males, representing a 35·6 % response rate from 2500 randomly selected residents. Results: Women were significantly more likely (P <0·01) to consume≤1 portion of meat/d compared with men. Females and older respondents (>60 years) were more likely to hold positive attitudes towards animal welfare (P<0·01). Less than a fifth (18·4 %) of the sample agreed that the impact of climate change could be reduced by consuming less meat, dairy products and eggs. Positive attitudes towards animal welfare were associated with consuming less meat and a greater frequency of ‘higher welfare’ meat purchases. Conclusions: Human health and animal welfare are more common motivations to avoid red and processed meat than environmental sustainability. Policy makers, nutritionists and health professionals need to increase the public’s awareness of the environmental impact of eating red and processed meat. A first step could be to ensure that dietary guidelines integrate the nutritional, animal welfare and environmental components of sustainable diets.

Objective: Higher intakes of red and processed meat are associated with poorer health outcomes and negative environmental impacts. Drawing upon a population survey the present paper investigates meat consumption behaviours, exploring perceived impacts for human health, animal welfare and the environment. Design: Structured self-completion postal survey relating to red and processed meat, capturing data on attitudes, sustainable meat purchasing behaviour, red and processed meat intake, plus sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Setting: Urban and rural districts of Nottinghamshire, East Midlands, UK, drawn from the electoral register. Subjects: UK adults (n 842) aged 18–91 years, 497 females and 345 males, representing a 35·6 % response rate from 2500 randomly selected residents. Results: Women were significantly more likely (P <0·01) to consume≤1 portion of meat/d compared with men. Females and older respondents (>60 years) were more likely to hold positive attitudes towards animal welfare (P<0·01). Less than a fifth (18·4 %) of the sample agreed that the impact of climate change could be reduced by consuming less meat, dairy products and eggs. Positive attitudes towards animal welfare were associated with consuming less meat and a greater frequency of ‘higher welfare’ meat purchases. Conclusions: Human health and animal welfare are more common motivations to avoid red and processed meat than environmental sustainability. Policy makers, nutritionists and health professionals need to increase the public’s awareness of the environmental impact of eating red and processed meat. A first step could be to ensure that dietary guidelines integrate the nutritional, animal welfare and environmental components of sustainable diets.

Objective: Higher intakes of red and processed meat are associated with poorer health outcomes and negative environmental impacts. Drawing upon a population survey the present paper investigates meat consumption behaviours, exploring perceived impacts for human health, animal welfare and the environment. Design: Structured self-completion postal survey relating to red and processed meat, capturing data on attitudes, sustainable meat purchasing behaviour, red and processed meat intake, plus sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Setting: Urban and rural districts of Nottinghamshire, East Midlands, UK, drawn from the electoral register. Subjects: UK adults (n 842) aged 18–91 years, 497 females and 345 males, representing a 35·6 % response rate from 2500 randomly selected residents. Results: Women were significantly more likely (P <0·01) to consume≤1 portion of meat/d compared with men. Females and older respondents (>60 years) were more likely to hold positive attitudes towards animal welfare (P<0·01). Less than a fifth (18·4 %) of the sample agreed that the impact of climate change could be reduced by consuming less meat, dairy products and eggs. Positive attitudes towards animal welfare were associated with consuming less meat and a greater frequency of ‘higher welfare’ meat purchases. Conclusions: Human health and animal welfare are more common motivations to avoid red and processed meat than environmental sustainability. Policy makers, nutritionists and health professionals need to increase the public’s awareness of the environmental impact of eating red and processed meat. A first step could be to ensure that dietary guidelines integrate the nutritional, animal welfare and environmental components of sustainable diets.

Objective: Higher intakes of red and processed meat are associated with poorer health outcomes and negative environmental impacts. Drawing upon a population survey the present paper investigates meat consumption behaviours, exploring perceived impacts for human health, animal welfare and the environment. Design: Structured self-completion postal survey relating to red and processed meat, capturing data on attitudes, sustainable meat purchasing behaviour, red and processed meat intake, plus sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Setting: Urban and rural districts of Nottinghamshire, East Midlands, UK, drawn from the electoral register. Subjects: UK adults (n 842) aged 18–91 years, 497 females and 345 males, representing a 35·6 % response rate from 2500 randomly selected residents. Results: Women were significantly more likely (P <0·01) to consume≤1 portion of meat/d compared with men. Females and older respondents (>60 years) were more likely to hold positive attitudes towards animal welfare (P<0·01). Less than a fifth (18·4 %) of the sample agreed that the impact of climate change could be reduced by consuming less meat, dairy products and eggs. Positive attitudes towards animal welfare were associated with consuming less meat and a greater frequency of ‘higher welfare’ meat purchases. Conclusions: Human health and animal welfare are more common motivations to avoid red and processed meat than environmental sustainability. Policy makers, nutritionists and health professionals need to increase the public’s awareness of the environmental impact of eating red and processed meat. A first step could be to ensure that dietary guidelines integrate the nutritional, animal welfare and environmental components of sustainable diets.

Objective: Higher intakes of red and processed meat are associated with poorer health outcomes and negative environmental impacts. Drawing upon a population survey the present paper investigates meat consumption behaviours, exploring perceived impacts for human health, animal welfare and the environment. Design: Structured self-completion postal survey relating to red and processed meat, capturing data on attitudes, sustainable meat purchasing behaviour, red and processed meat intake, plus sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Setting: Urban and rural districts of Nottinghamshire, East Midlands, UK, drawn from the electoral register. Subjects: UK adults (n 842) aged 18–91 years, 497 females and 345 males, representing a 35·6 % response rate from 2500 randomly selected residents. Results: Women were significantly more likely (P <0·01) to consume≤1 portion of meat/d compared with men. Females and older respondents (>60 years) were more likely to hold positive attitudes towards animal welfare (P<0·01). Less than a fifth (18·4 %) of the sample agreed that the impact of climate change could be reduced by consuming less meat, dairy products and eggs. Positive attitudes towards animal welfare were associated with consuming less meat and a greater frequency of ‘higher welfare’ meat purchases. Conclusions: Human health and animal welfare are more common motivations to avoid red and processed meat than environmental sustainability. Policy makers, nutritionists and health professionals need to increase the public’s awareness of the environmental impact of eating red and processed meat. A first step could be to ensure that dietary guidelines integrate the nutritional, animal welfare and environmental components of sustainable diets.

Objective: Higher intakes of red and processed meat are associated with poorer health outcomes and negative environmental impacts. Drawing upon a population survey the present paper investigates meat consumption behaviours, exploring perceived impacts for human health, animal welfare and the environment. Design: Structured self-completion postal survey relating to red and processed meat, capturing data on attitudes, sustainable meat purchasing behaviour, red and processed meat intake, plus sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Setting: Urban and rural districts of Nottinghamshire, East Midlands, UK, drawn from the electoral register. Subjects: UK adults (n 842) aged 18–91 years, 497 females and 345 males, representing a 35·6 % response rate from 2500 randomly selected residents. Results: Women were significantly more likely (P <0·01) to consume≤1 portion of meat/d compared with men. Females and older respondents (>60 years) were more likely to hold positive attitudes towards animal welfare (P<0·01). Less than a fifth (18·4 %) of the sample agreed that the impact of climate change could be reduced by consuming less meat, dairy products and eggs. Positive attitudes towards animal welfare were associated with consuming less meat and a greater frequency of ‘higher welfare’ meat purchases. Conclusions: Human health and animal welfare are more common motivations to avoid red and processed meat than environmental sustainability. Policy makers, nutritionists and health professionals need to increase the public’s awareness of the environmental impact of eating red and processed meat. A first step could be to ensure that dietary guidelines integrate the nutritional, animal welfare and environmental components of sustainable diets.