Table 4.

Environmental perceptions and dietary motivations as predictors of red meat intake for undergraduate students completing written and online health behavior surveys at universities in California (CA) (n=721) and Michigan (MI) (n=566)

Survey Question	University in CA				University in MI
	n	FRa	95% CI	P-value	n	FRa	95% CI	P-value
“I try to make food and beverage choices that are good for the environment”b	721	0.90	(0.84, 0.96)	0.001	566	0.75	(0.69, 0.81)	<0.001
“I try to make food and beverage choices that reduce my impact on climate change”b	721	0.90	(0.84, 0.96)	0.001	566	0.78	(0.72, 0.85)	<0.001
“I try to make food and beverage choices that are good for my health”c	721	0.93	(0.87, 1.00)	0.06	566	0.97	(0.88, 2.13)	0.6
Eating less meat is an effective way to combat climate changed	669	0.87	(0.79, 0.95)	0.003	544	0.80	(0.72, 0.89)	<0.001

^aFR: Frequency ratio. 100(1-FR) = % lower frequency of red meat consumption for each point on scale

^bQuestion as worded in survey with a response scale of 1–7, 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Model adjusted for age, gender, race and ethnicity, food security, parental income, Pell grant status, and health attitudes

^cQuestion as worded in survey with a response scale of 1–7, 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Model adjusted for age, gender, race and ethnicity, food security, parental income, Pell grant status, and environmental attitudes

^dStatement paraphrased from survey. Students were asked to “indicate whether [eat less meat] is an effective way of combatting climate change” with a response scale of 1–4, 1= not effective at all to 4=highly effective. Adjusted for age, gender, race and ethnicity, food security, parental income, Pell grant status, and health attitudes