Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-CHK-106 standard review
Meat eaters reported slightly less anxiety than people who avoid meat
Meat and mental health: A meta-analysis of meat consumption, depression, and anxiety.
Overview
Dobersek U et al.. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2023 · PMID 34612096 · DOI 10.1080/10408398.2021.1974336
Pooling 20 studies, meat eaters had slightly lower anxiety and depression than meat avoiders.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Do meat consumers and meat abstainers differ in depression and anxiety?
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of 20 primary studies comparing meat consumers and abstainers
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
171,802 participants (157,778 meat consumers; 13,259 abstainers)
- What was actually found?
Meat consumption associated with lower depression (Hedges g = 0.216; 0.14-0.30) and lower anxiety (g = 0.17; 0.03-0.31) vs abstention. Study quality explained 58% and 76% of heterogeneity; more rigorous studies showed more consistent results.
- How large was the observed effect?
Meat consumption associated with lower depression (Hedges g = 0.216; 0.14-0.30) and lower anxiety (g = 0.17; 0.03-0.31) vs abstention. Study quality explained 58% and 76% of heterogeneity; more rigorous studies showed more consistent results.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
No sign that eating meat makes people anxious; the link is weak and not causal.
- What are the study's limitations?
Mostly cross-sectional; Not poultry-specific; Possible reverse causation (people with mental illness may change diet)
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Very indirect evidence against the claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Mostly Western populations.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot say that meat protects mental health.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Dobersek U et al.
- Journal
- Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr
- Year
- 2023
- Identifier
- PMID 34612096 DOI 10.1080/10408398.2021.1974336
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Do meat consumers and meat abstainers differ in depression and anxiety?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Meta-analysis – Meta-analysis of 20 primary studies comparing meat consumers and abstainers
- Population
Adults in 20 studies
- Country
multinational
- Period
search June 2020
- Sample size
171,802 participants (157,778 meat consumers; 13,259 abstainers)
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
as described in the abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Meat consumption
- Comparator
Meat abstention
- Endpoints
Depression, anxiety
- Statistical methods
as reported in the abstract
5. Actual results
- Results
Meat consumption associated with lower depression (Hedges g = 0.216; 0.14-0.30) and lower anxiety (g = 0.17; 0.03-0.31) vs abstention. Study quality explained 58% and 76% of heterogeneity; more rigorous studies showed more consistent results.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Meat consumption was associated with better mental health; causal and temporal inferences are precluded.
6. Strengths
- Large pooled sample
- Heterogeneity explored
7. Weaknesses
- Mostly cross-sectional
- Not poultry-specific
- Possible reverse causation (people with mental illness may change diet)
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Abstract only; funding not stated.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Converted to approximate ORs (stats/C-CHK-02_meat_mental.py): anxiety about 1.36, depression about 1.48 for abstainers vs consumers; small and observational.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Indirect: if meat (incl. chicken) caused panic or anxiety, meat eaters would be expected to have more anxiety; the opposite was observed.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
13. Overall methodological judgement
Pooling 20 studies, meat eaters had slightly lower anxiety and depression than meat avoiders.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | very indirect |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |