Background. In addition to social and environmental determinants, people’s values and preferences determine daily food choices. This study evaluated adults’ values and preferences regarding unprocessed red meat (URM) and processed meat (PM) and their willingness to change their consumption in the face of possible undesirable health consequences. Methods. A cross-sectional mixed-methods study including a quantitative assessment through an online survey, a qualitative inquiry through semi-structured interviews, and a follow-up assessment through a telephone survey. We performed descriptive statistics, logistic regressions, and thematic analysis. Results. Of 304 participants, over 75% were unwilling to stop their consumption of either URM or PM, and of those unwilling to stop, over 80% were also unwilling to reduce. Men were less likely to stop meat intake than women (odds ratios < 0.4). From the semi-structured interviews, we identified three main themes: the social and/or family context of meat consumption, health- and non-health-related concerns about meat, and uncertainty of the evidence. At three months, 63% of participants reported no changes in meat intake. Conclusions. When informed about the cancer incidence and mortality risks of meat consumption, most respondents would not reduce their intake. Public health and clinical nutrition guidelines should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with population values and preferences.

Introduction: Over the last decade, the possible impact of meat intake on overall cancer incidence and mortality has received considerable attention, and authorities have recommended decreasing consumption; however, the benefits of reducing meat consumption are small and uncertain. As such, individual decisions to reduce consumption are value- and preference-sensitive. Consequently, we undertook a pilot cross-sectional study to explore people’s values and preferences towards meat consumption in the face of cancer risk. Methods and analysis: The mixed-method pilot study included a quantitative questionnaire followed by qualitative evaluation to explore the dietary habits of 32 meat eaters, their reasons for eating meat, and willingness to change their meat consumption when faced with a potential risk reduction of cancer over a lifetime based on a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. We recruited a convenience sample of participants from two Canadian provinces: Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. This project was approved by the Research Ethics Board for Health Sciences research at Dalhousie University, Canada. Results: The average weekly consumption of red meat was 3.4 servings and the average weekly consumption of processed meat was 3 servings. The determinants that influenced meat intake were similar for both red and processed meat. Taste, cost, and family preferences were the three most commonly cited factors impacting red meat intake. Taste, cost, and (lack of) cooking time were the three most commonly cited factors impacting processed meat intake. None of the participants were willing to eliminate red or processed meat from their diet. About half of participants were willing to potentially reduce their meat consumption, with one third definitely willing to reduce their consumption. Strengths and limitations: This study is the first that we are aware of to share data with participants on the association of red meat and processed meat consumption and the risk of cancer mortality and cancer incidence, including the certainty of evidence for the risk reduction. The limitations of this study include its small sample size and its limited geographic sampling. Conclusions: When presented explicit information about the small uncertain cancer risk associated with red and processed meat consumption, study participants were unwilling to eliminate meat, while about one-third were willing to reduce their meat intake.