Dietary patterns characterised by high intake of red and processed meat are associated with detrimental health and environmental outcomes. To better understand how Americans consume red and processed meat, this study examined the food groups that are the greatest contributors to red and processed meat intake in US diets.

Cross-sectional analysis of total red and processed meat, unprocessed red meat and processed meat using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2015–2016 and 2017–2018). Items containing red or processed meat were classified into thirteen mutually exclusive food groups. For highly consumed food groups (≥10 % of meat intake), contribution to meat intake was further assessed by source, sex, income and education.

Nationally representative sample of the US population.

Teens (aged 12–19 years) and adults (aged ≥20 years) who reported meat consumption (n 8178).

Meat mixed dishes (18·6 % (95 % CI 16·2, 20·9)), burgers (17·3 % (95 % CI 15·3, 19·3)) and beef excluding ground (17·0 % (95 % CI 13·8, 20·1)) were the top contributors to unprocessed red meat intake. For processed meat, four food groups made up about four-fifths of total intake: cold cuts and cured meats (37·7 % (95 % CI 34·6, 40·8)), sausages and frankfurters (20·3 % (95 % CI 18·6, 22·0)), bacon (14·0 % (95 % CI 12·3, 15·6)) and pizza (10·1 % (95 % CI 8·7, 11·5)). Fast-food restaurants were the top source for burgers and pizza, whereas stores were the top source for all other highly consumed food groups. Few differences were seen in patterns of intake by sociodemographic characteristics.

No single food group accounts for a majority of meat intake in the USA. Many behaviour change opportunities for healthier, more sustainable substitutions exist.

To explore the perceptions of soldiers participating in a US Army Office of The Surgeon General’s worksite health promotion programme (WHPP) on the local food environment within their campus-style workplace.

Focus groups were conducted to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the WHPP implementation. Further exploration of focus group data through thematic analysis focused on perceived contributions of the military campus-style food environment to soldiers’ nutrition behaviours.

Three US Army installations located in the continental USA.

Active duty soldiers (n 366) participating in one of the fifty-eight focus groups.

Soldiers shared a common belief of self-discipline and personal responsibility as the foothold to nutrition behaviour change. Soldiers described aspects of the military campus-style food environment as factors impeding achievement of optimal nutrition. Collectively, soldiers perceived the proximity and density of fast-food restaurants, lack of healthy alternatives on the installation and the cost of healthy food as inhibitors to choosing healthy foods. Overwhelmingly, soldiers also perceived time constraints as a factor contributing to unhealthy food choices.

Although nutrition behaviour is individually driven, soldiers perceived the military campus-style food environment inhibits healthy decision making. Nutrition programming in military WHPP must integrate food environment changes to improve soldiers’ nutrition behaviour outcomes. Applicable to the military, food choice behaviour studies suggest environmental changes must be appealing to young adults. Considerations for environmental changes should include an increased portion size for healthy options, broadened use of soldiers’ daily food allowances on local produce and increased availability of grab-and-go options.

Which neighbourhood factors most consistently impact on depression and anxiety remains unclear. This study examines whether objectively obtained socioeconomic, physical and social aspects of the neighbourhood in which persons live are associated with the presence and severity of depressive and anxiety disorders.

Cross-sectional data are from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety including participants (n = 2980) with and without depressive and anxiety disorders in the past year (based on DSM-based psychiatric interviews). We also determined symptom severity of depression (Inventory of Depression Symptomatology), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory) and fear (Fear Questionnaire). Neighbourhood characteristics comprised socioeconomic factors (socioeconomic status, home value, number of social security beneficiaries and percentage of immigrants), physical factors (air pollution, traffic noise and availability of green space and water) and social factors (social cohesion and safety). Multilevel regression analyses were performed with the municipality as the second level while adjusting for individual sociodemographic variables and household income.

Not urbanization grade, but rather neighbourhood socioecononomic factors (low socioeconomic status, more social security beneficiaries and more immigrants), physical factors (high levels of traffic noise) and social factors (lower social cohesion and less safety) were associated with the presence of depressive and anxiety disorders. Most of these neighbourhood characteristics were also associated with increased depressive and anxiety symptoms severity.

These findings suggest that it is not population density in the neighbourhood, but rather the quality of socioeconomic, physical and social neighbourhood characteristics that is associated with the presence and severity of affective disorders.