Nordic Nutrition Recommendations recommend reducing red and processed meat and increasing fish consumption, but the impact of this replacement on mortality is understudied. This study investigated the replacement of red and processed meat with fish in relation to mortality. Of 83 304 women in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (NOWAC) study, 9420 died during a median of 21·0 years of follow-up. The hazard ratios (HR) for mortality were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression with analyses stratified on red and processed meat intake due to non-linearity. Higher processed meat (> 30 g/d), red and processed meat (> 50 g/d), and fatty fish consumption were associated with higher mortality, while red meat and lean fish consumption were neutral or beneficial. Among women with higher processed meat intake (> 30 g/d), replacing 20 g/d with lean fish was associated with lower all-cause (HR 0·92, 95 % CI 0·89, 0·96), cancer (HR 0·92, 95 % CI 0·88, 0·97) and CVD mortality (HR 0·82, 95 % CI 0·74, 0·90), while replacing with fatty fish was associated with lower CVD mortality (HR 0·87, 95 % CI 0·77, 0·97), but not with all-cause or cancer mortality. Replacing processed meat with fish among women with lower processed meat intake (≤ 30 g/d) or replacing red meat with fish was not associated with mortality. Replacing processed meat with lean or fatty fish may lower the risk of premature deaths in Norwegian women, but only in women with high intake of processed meat. These findings suggest that interventions to reduce processed meat intake should target high consumers.

The transition towards more plant-based diets may pose risks for bone health such as low vitamin D and Ca intakes. Findings for the contribution of animal and plant proteins and their amino acids (AA) to bone health are contradictory. This 6-week clinical trial aimed to investigate whether partial replacement of red and processed meat (RPM) with non-soya legumes affects AA intakes and bone turnover and mineral metabolism in 102 healthy 20–65-year-old men. Participants were randomly assigned to diet groups controlled for RPM and legume intake (designed total protein intake (TPI) 18 E%): the meat group consumed 760 g RPM per week (25 % TPI) and the legume group consumed non-soya legume-based products (20 % TPI) and 200 g RPM per week, the upper limit of the Planetary Health Diet (5 % TPI). No differences in bone (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase; tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b) or mineral metabolism (25-hydroxyvitamin D; parathyroid hormone; fibroblast growth factor 23; phosphate and Ca) markers or Ca and vitamin D intakes were observed between the groups (P > 0·05). Methionine and histidine intakes were higher in the meat group (P ≤ 0·042), whereas the legume group had higher intakes of arginine, asparagine and phenylalanine (P ≤ 0·013). Mean essential AA intakes in both groups met the requirements. Increasing the proportion of non-soya legumes by reducing the amount of RPM in the diet for 6 weeks did not compromise bone turnover and provided on average adequate amounts of AA in healthy men, indicating that this ecologically sustainable dietary change is safe and relatively easy to implement.

Nutrition messages are a central part of policy making as well as communication via product information, advertising, healthcare advice and lifestyle campaigns. However, with amplified information (and misinformation) from a growing number of sources, inconsistent and conflicting food landscapes, and limited engagement from the public, nutrition messaging tensions have become more accentuated than previously. In this review, we focus on the challenges facing those wishing to effect dietary change through communication; and identify opportunities and future research questions. Beginning with a new working definition and taxonomy for the term ‘nutrition message’, we consider the evolution of public health nutrition messages from the past century and discuss which types of messages may be more effective. We then turn to the challenges of implementation and highlight specific barriers to recipients' understanding and change. While the evidence has many gaps and there is a need for systematic evaluation of nutrition messages, research indicates that recipients are more likely to act on fewer messages that provide clear benefits and which resonate with their perceived health needs, and which are relatively straightforward to implement. Effectiveness may be improved through consideration of how nutrition messages can be designed to complement key non-health drivers of food choice (taste, cost) and societal/cultural norms. Consistency can be achieved by aligning the wider food and messaging environment to desired public health actions; that is by ensuring that retail settings provide and signpost healthier choices, and that mass media nutrition messages work with, not against, public health advice.

From health and sustainability perspectives, reduction in the consumption of animal-based foods, especially red meat, is a key strategy. The present study examined the prevalence, sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, food consumption and food choice motives of vegetarians and consumers of low and high amounts of red and processed meat (RPM) among Finnish adults. We applied the data from three national health studies: FINRISK 2007 (n 4874), FINRISK 2012 (n 4812) and FinHealth 2017 (n 4442). Participants addressed their food consumption with a FFQ and answered other questionnaires about sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, as well as food choice motives. The prevalence of vegetarianism increased from 0·7 % in 2012 to 1·8 % in 2017, and median daily RPM consumption decreased from 128 g in 2007 to 119 g in 2012 and to 96 g in 2017. Vegetarians and members of the low-RPM group were more often women, younger and more highly educated than the high-RPM group, both in 2007 and 2017. Still, the importance of sex for the probability of a vegetarian diet decreased, while its importance for high-RPM consumption increased. Vegetarians consumed more fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds than either the low- or high-RPM groups. The high-RPM group had the lowest scores in several aspects of healthy and sustainable diet, healthy food choice motives and healthy lifestyle. Vegetarians and groups differing in their RPM consumption levels might benefit from differing interventions and nutrition information taking into account their other dietary habits, food choice motives and lifestyle factors.

Increased attention has been paid to circadian patterns and how predisposition to metabolic disorders can be affected by meal timing. Currently, it is not clear which role can be attributed to the foods selected at meals. On a cross-sectional sub-cohort study (815 adults) within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study, we investigated whether the same foods (vegetables, fruits, refined grains, whole grains, red and processed meats) eaten at different meals (breakfast, lunch or dinner) show different associations with biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk. Meal-specific usual intakes were calculated from multiple 24-h dietary recalls. Multivariable-adjusted linear regression models showed that intake of vegetables at breakfast was associated with lower LDL-cholesterol (−0·37 mmol/l per 50 g; 95 % CI −0·61, −0·12) and vegetables at dinner was associated with higher HDL-cholesterol (0·05 mmol/l per 50 g; 95 % CI 0, 0·10). Fruit intake at breakfast was associated with lower glycated Hb (HbA1c) (−0·06 % per 50 g; 95 % CI −0·10, −0·01) and fruits at dinner with lower C-reactive protein (CRP) (−0·21 mg/l per 50 g; 95 % CI −0·42, −0·01). Red and processed meat intake at breakfast was associated with higher HbA1c (0·25 % per 50 g; 95 % CI 0·05, 0·46) and CRP (0·76 mg/l per 50 g; 95 % CI 0·15, 1·36). Our results suggest that by preferring fruits and vegetables and avoiding red and processed meats at specific meals (i.e. breakfast and dinner), cardiometabolic profiles and ultimately chronic disease risk could be improved. Lunch seemed to be a less important meal in terms of food–biomarker associations.

Social and health care provision have led to substantial increases in life expectancy. In the UK this has become higher than 80 years with an even greater proportional increase in those aged 85 years and over. The different life stages give rise to important nutritional challenges and recent reductions in milk consumption have led to sub-optimal intakes of calcium by teenage females in particular when bone growth is at its maximum and of iodine during pregnancy needed to ensure that supply/production of thyroid hormones to the foetus is adequate. Many young and pre-menopausal women have considerably sub-optimal intakes of iron which are likely to be associated with reduced consumption of red meat. A clear concern is the low intakes of calcium especially as a high proportion of the population is of sub-optimal vitamin D status. This may already have had serious consequences in terms of bone development which may not be apparent until later life, particularly in post-menopausal women. This review aims to examine the role of dairy foods and red meat at key life stages in terms of their ability to reduce or increase chronic disease risk. It is clear that milk and dairy foods are key sources of important nutrients such as calcium and iodine and the concentration of some key nutrients, notably iodine can be influenced by the method of primary milk production, in particular, the iodine intake of the dairy cow. Recent meta-analyses show no evidence of increased risk of cardiovascular diseases from high consumption of milk and dairy foods but increasing evidence of a reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with fermented dairy foods, yoghurt in particular. The recently updated reports from the World Cancer Research Fund International/American Institute for Cancer Research on the associations between dairy foods, red meat and processed meat and various cancers provide further confidence that total dairy products and milk, are associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer and high intakes of milk/dairy are not associated with increased risk of breast cancer. Earlier evidence of a significant increase in the risk of colorectal cancer from consumption of red and particularly processed meat has been reinforced by the inclusion of more recent studies. It is essential that nutrition and health-related functionality of foods are included in evaluations of sustainable food production.

Red and processed meat (RPM) intake varies widely globally. In some high-income countries (HIC) the last decade has witnessed an overall decline or stabilisation in the consumption of RPM, in contrast to emerging economies where its consumption continues to increase with rising income and rapid urbanisation. The production and consumption of RPM have become major concerns regarding the environmental impacts of livestock in particular, but also because of associations between high RPM consumption and diet-related non-communicable disease. Therefore, it is important to identify socioeconomic and demographic drivers of the consumption of RPM. This paper explores how consumption of RPM differs with age, gender, socioeconomic status and in different global contexts. There are some key socioeconomic and demographic patterns in RPM consumption. Men tend to consume RPM more often and in higher quantities, and there is evidence of a social gradient in HIC, with lower socioeconomic groups consuming RPM more often and in larger quantities. Patterns for consumption with age are less clear cut. It is apparent that consumers in HIC are still consuming high levels of RPM, although the downward shifts in some socioeconomic and demographic groups is encouraging and suggests that strategies could be developed to engage those consumers identified as high RPM consumers. In low- and middle-income countries, RPM consumption is rising, especially in China and Brazil, and in urban areas. Ways of encouraging populations to maintain their traditional healthy eating patterns need to be found in low- and middle-income countries, which will have health, environmental and economic co-benefits.