Meat & Mental Health
- Study type:
- Systematic review of observational studies
- Topic:
- Meat abstention, depression and anxiety
- Added:
- 2025-12-07
- Status:
- published
Strength of evidence
Very low – purely observational correlations; strong confounding is likely.
Source
Dobersek U, et al. Meat and mental health: a systematic review of meat abstention and depression, anxiety, and related phenomena. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2021;61(4):622–635.
Open original studyThis systematic review combined data from observational studies comparing the mental health of meat eaters and people who avoid meat. Across studies, individuals who abstained from meat more often reported higher rates of depression, anxiety and related issues than meat eaters. However, because the data are observational and heavily confounded, the review cannot prove that avoiding meat causes poorer mental health – it only shows a consistent association.
Key findings
- Included cross‑sectional and cohort studies from various countries.
- Across many datasets, meat abstainers had higher prevalence or risk of depression, anxiety or self‑harm.
- Meat consumption was often associated with better mental‑health scores.
- Confounding factors (health consciousness, pre‑existing illness, diet composition) are difficult to fully separate.
- The review concludes that the epidemiological literature does not support claims that meat avoidance improves mental health.
Background
- As plant‑based diets gain popularity, some claims suggest that avoiding meat is better for mental health. Dobersek and colleagues asked: What do observational studies actually show about the relationship between meat consumption, meat abstention and mental‑health outcomes like depression and anxiety?
Methods
- Systematic review of cross‑sectional surveys, cohort studies, some case–control data. Exposure: level of meat consumption or meat abstention (vegetarian, vegan). Outcomes: self‑reported or clinically assessed depression, anxiety, stress, suicide or self‑harm in some studies.
Results
- Across studies: Meat abstainers more often reported depression and anxiety than meat eaters, several datasets suggested higher risk of mood disorders in meat‑avoiding groups. Reverse patterns (better mental health in abstainers) were rare or weak.
Interpretation
- From a WorthDay standpoint, S19 is a consistent observational signal that meat abstention goes along with worse mental health on average, but far from a causal proof. Reasons: People with existing mental‑health issues may be more likely to change diet in various ways, including abstaining from meat. Meat abstainers may differ in many lifestyle factors (sleep, sunlight, social environment) that are not controlled. Therefore, S19 is rated 🔴 very low for causal claims.
Limitations
- Purely observational data; cannot fix direction of causality.
- Self‑reported diet and mental health, prone to bias.
- Heterogeneous classifications of "meat eater" vs "abstainer".
- Underlying diets (processed food vs whole foods) are not always distinguished.
- Cultural and socio‑economic confounders may influence both diet and mental health.
WorthDay perspective
- S19 supports a cautious warning against simplistic claims like "quitting meat is good for your mood": The data suggest the opposite correlation.
- WorthDay can use S19 together with S18 to say: "In children, meat improves growth and cognition in a trial. In adults, avoiding meat correlates with more mental‑health issues in observational data. This does not prove meat is a cure, but it clearly undermines claims that meat causes depression by default."
- Users considering heavy meat restriction can be invited to monitor their own mood, energy and stability carefully, approach drastic diet changes as experiments, not ideology.
Permalink: https://www.worth-day.com/science-compass/s0019-meat-mental-health
Related studies
Science meets practice