Abstract
ABSTRACT
Issue Addressed
Australia is a high meat‐producing and consuming country, yet little Australia‐specific research has examined how news media frame meat's health and environmental impacts and related solutions.
Methods
We analysed 147 Australian print and online news articles published between 15 May 2020 and 15 May 2025 across 12 major outlets. Articles were coded for topic, headline and body framing, calls to action and cited sources, then examined using content analysis and descriptive and inferential statistics.
Results
Coverage focused mainly on environmental impacts (98/147), especially greenhouse gas emissions, while health‐only coverage was less common (33/147). Most articles included a call to action, most often focused on industry action (56) or technological solutions (53), whereas policy change and individual choice were rare (14 each). Industry representatives were the most common sources (91/147) and their inclusion predicted more favourable framing, more technological and industry‐led responses and lower odds of dietary‐change calls. Framing also varied by outlet, with
The Australian
and
Daily Telegraph
more favourable towards meat and the
Sydney Morning Herald
more unfavourable.
Conclusions
Australian news coverage tended to privilege incremental, supply‐side responses over broader dietary and policy approaches recommended in public health and sustainable food systems research.
So What?
Australian news coverage may normalise industry‐friendly and technology‐led responses to meat‐related harms while marginalising dietary and policy solutions, narrowing public and policy understanding of what effective health promotion requires. Strategic media engagement may help health promoters increase the visibility of evidence‐based, structural solutions and support a more balanced public debate about meat‐related harms. Greater government focus on meat‐related harms could help advance public health objectives and policy action.