Abstract
Meat consumption is a major contributor to global warming. Given the worldwide growing demand of meat, and the severe impact of meat production on the planet, reducing animal protein consumption is a matter of food security and public health. Changing consumer food behavior is a challenge. Taste preferences, culinary traditions and social norms factor into food choices. Since behavioral change cannot occur without the subject’s positive attitude based on reasons and motivations, a total of 34 papers on consumer attitudes and behavior towards meat consumption in relation to environmental concerns were examined. The results show that consumers aware of the meat impact on the planet, willing to stop or significantly reduce meat consumption for environmental reasons, and who have already changed their meat intake for ecological concerns are a small minority. However, environmental motives are already appealing significant proportions of Westerners to adopt certain meat curtailment strategies. Those who limit meat intake for environmental reasons are typically female, young, simply meat-reducer (not vegan/vegetarian), ecology-oriented, and would more likely live in Europe and Asia than in the U.S.
Generated Summary
This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, examines consumer attitudes towards meat consumption in relation to environmental sustainability. It explores three main stages of behavioral change: awareness (precontemplation), willingness (contemplation and preparation), and change (action, maintenance, and termination). The review addresses three research questions: (1) Are people aware of the environmental impact of meat production and consumption? (2) Are people willing to stop or reduce meat consumption based on environmental concerns? and (3) Have ecological/environmental concerns motivated people to alter their meat consumption? The study analyzed 34 articles, including quantitative studies and government reports, focusing on consumer awareness, willingness, and changes in meat consumption related to environmental concerns. The review’s goal is to inform potential public health interventions aimed at reducing meat intake, given the significant contribution of meat consumption to global warming and environmental degradation. The review focuses on the role of environmental reasons in influencing consumer behavior regarding meat consumption. This is crucial because taste preferences, culinary traditions, and social norms strongly influence food choices. The review examines existing research to understand how environmental concerns can prompt individuals to reduce or avoid meat consumption.
Key Findings & Statistics
- Consumer awareness of the meat environmental toll has been studied in Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United States using different methods. The percentages of aware participants ranged from 23% to 35% across studies [20-22].
- One study in which subjects received prior information, the percentage jumped to 58% [23].
- Another study required respondents to list concrete impacts of meat production on the planet: only 24% named “pollution” and 20% “erosion of natural resources” [24].
- Consumer estimation of meat production and consumption toll on the environment was studied in Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Only two studies specifically queried participants on meat production. Less than half (38%) agreed that changing animal husbandry can counter climate change [20].
- Percentages of participants agreeing with meat reduction as a way to help the environment varied between 18% to 29% across studies [27-29].
- Percentages of subjects that considered it an effective way to alleviate climate change varied from 5% to 64%.
- The EUR [35] reported that about 50% of Europeans would be willing to replace most of the meat they eat with vegetables, and 80% of them would be willing to eat less meat but of certified origin.
- When no prior information on the meat environmental toll was given, participants from Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.S. willing to stop or reduce meat consumption because of environmental reasons ranged from 12.8% to 25.5% [22,25,33].
- Reducing meat intake was usually the least chosen option to curb climate change [26,30].
- In the U.S. those who indicated environmental concerns were few (>3.2%) [39,40] in recent surveys with a general population of vegans/vegetarians.
- Among specific population groups environmental vegan/vegetarians were significant minorities: 14% in the case of marathon runners [41], and 32.1% in the case of women physicians surveyed two decades ago [42].
Other Important Findings
- Consumers aware of the meat impact on the planet, willing to stop or significantly reduce meat consumption for environmental reasons, and who have already changed their meat intake for ecological concerns are a small minority.
- Environmental motives are already appealing significant proportions of Westerners to adopt certain meat curtailment strategies.
- Those who limit meat intake for environmental reasons are typically female, young, simply meat-reducer (not vegan/vegetarian), ecology-oriented, and would more likely live in Europe and Asia than in the U.S.
- Women are more conscious about the negative impact meat has on the environment [22,25], and thus, they perceive a higher effectiveness in reducing meat consumption to alleviate climate change than men [26,30-33].
- Reducing meat consumption was usually considered the least or second least effective when compared to other options [26,30,31].
- Not all studies report on covariate effects. From those which do, the gender variable is the most frequent one.
- Belief in the negative impact of meat on the planet associated positively with willingness to change meat consumption in three studies [26,30,33].
- One study also revealed a positive association between consciousness, understood as cognitive and affective awareness of the environmental toll of meat, with willingness to reduce meat consumption [22].
- The main findings show that those who have already adopted a meatless diet or have already reduced its consumption are: (1) a small minority among samples from the general population, and a significantly bigger one among certain population groups; and (2) female, most likely young, partial meat limiters and reside in Europe.
- The studies reviewed referred to people who follow a low or no-animal product diet in two different ways: (1) vegans and vegetarians; and (2) “meat avoiders”, “animal product limiters”, and similar expressions.
- Deciding to become a vegetarian is a much more complex process than simply opting for reducing or avoiding meat consumption, or even adopting a plant-based diet.
- The reduction of meat production and consumption would alleviate the anthropogenic impact on the environment [1].
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The geographical limitation (the fact that the majority of studies were conducted in only a small number of countries of northern Europe and North America) is the most noticeable.
- The large survey carried out by the European Commission showed big differences in willingness between northern and southern European countries [35,38].
- The majority of the studies reviewed used convenience samples. Random samples are better in order to generalize results to the general populations.
- Another limitation is that we have found only one longitudinal study.
- Longitudinal studies could be of interest to identify the evolution of the influence environmental reasons may have on subjects throughout their lives.
- Cultural aspects may not have been sufficiently taken into account.
- Future research could incorporate covariates such as gastronomic and hedonistic dimensions of meat intake and people’s cooking skills when examining willingness and change.
- Since eating is a socially regulated behavior [64], such an important dietary change as altering meat consumption may be favored or impeded by, for instance, family and/or significant communities such as churches, vegetarian associations.
Conclusion
The review highlights a lack of widespread willingness to reduce meat consumption among the general population in Western countries, despite growing awareness of the environmental impact of meat production. Even among vegans and vegetarians, ecological concerns often serve as a secondary justification for their dietary choices rather than the primary motivation. However, the evidence indicates that environmental motives are gaining traction among Western meat-eaters, leading them to adopt strategies like meat-free days. This trend is more pronounced among women and certain cultural groups. Given the dynamic nature of dietary habits and the increasing attention to sustainable food systems, it’s plausible that ecological concerns could become a key driver for at least minor reductions in meat consumption among a significant portion of the Western population, particularly those not primarily motivated by health or animal welfare. A small reduction in meat intake across a large segment of Westerners could significantly reduce the environmental impact of animal agriculture. Therefore, mass media, public health educators, nutritionists, policymakers, and the food industry should consider environmental factors to promote healthy and sustainable diets. Key takeaways include: environmental concerns are not a major motive for reducing meat intake for the general Western population; information on the environmental toll of meat production could be a promising strategy to increase awareness and willingness, but social desirability and study design variations may influence results; and, the studies reviewed have limitations that should be addressed in future research. The reduction of meat production and consumption would alleviate the anthropogenic impact on the environment [1]. Individual choices for diets low in meat and high in vegetables are urgently needed according to the latest scientific evidence [7]. While the environmental reasons are not as strong as other motivations, this study indicates that the focus on environmental motivations can be effective.