Abstract
Our growing demand for meat and dairy food products is unsustainable. It is hard to imagine that this global issue can be solved solely by more efficient technologies. Lowering our meat consumption seems inescapable. Yet, the question is whether modern consumers can be considered as reliable allies to achieve this shift in meat consumption pattern. Is there not a yawning gap between our responsible intentions as citizens and our hedonic desires as consumers? We will argue that consumers can and should be considered as partners that must be involved in realizing new ways of protein consumption that contribute to a more sustainable world. In particular the large food consumer group of flexitarians offer promising opportunities for transforming our meat consumption patterns. We propose a pragmatic approach that explicitly goes beyond the standard suggestion of persuasion strategies and suggests different routes of change, coined sustainability by stealth, moderate involvement, and cultural change respectively. The recognition of more routes of change to a more plant-based diet implies that the ethical debate on meat should not only associate consumer change with rational persuasion strategies and food citizens that instantiate “strong” sustainable consumption. Such a focus narrows the debate on sustainable protein consumption and easily results in disappointment about consumers’ participation. A more wide-ranging concept of ethical consumption can leave the negative verdict behind that consumers are mainly an obstacle for sustainability and lead to a more optimistic view on modern consumers as allies and agents of change.
Generated Summary
This journal article, “Reducing Meat Consumption in Today’s Consumer Society: Questioning the Citizen-Consumer Gap,” by Erik de Bakker and Hans Dagevos, explores the complexities of reducing meat consumption within contemporary consumer society. The study challenges the common pessimistic view of consumers as obstacles to sustainability, arguing instead that they can be allies and agents of change. The research adopts a pragmatic approach, considering various routes of change, including sustainability by stealth, moderate involvement, and cultural change. The authors analyze the ethical dimensions of meat consumption and propose that a more nuanced understanding of consumer behavior is crucial for successful interventions. The study examines the development of meat consumption patterns in the Netherlands, and suggests strategies to reduce meat consumption by leveraging the interests and motivations of consumers. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of recognizing the role of human agency in weak sustainable consumption and the need for a multifaceted approach that acknowledges the different routes of change.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The authors note that to meet the predicted demand of animal proteins in 2050, the production of meat and dairy will have to double, according to the FAO.
- The authors cite that the environmental impact of livestock must be halved to prevent the current level of ecological damage from being exceeded (Steinfeld et al. 2006: iii).
- The amount of meat consumption per capita has more than doubled in the Netherlands in the last 50 years.
- At the end of the 1950s, the annual consumption per capita was about 20 kilos, while it has risen to more than 43 kilos today.
- The amount of animal proteins consumed by Dutch consumers is more than twice as large compared to the average consumption per capita on a global level (PBL 2010: 35).
- The study indicates that more than a quarter of the Dutch consumer population (26.5%) are “meat lovers.”
- Approximately 70% of the sample of 800 consumers are so-called “meat reducers.”
Other Important Findings
- The authors argue that the production and consumption of meat and dairy products are unsustainable.
- They suggest that lowering meat consumption seems inescapable and that modern consumers can be considered as reliable allies to achieve a shift in meat consumption patterns.
- The authors highlight a potential gap between responsible intentions as citizens and hedonic desires as consumers.
- The article suggests that consumers should be considered partners in realizing new ways of protein consumption that contribute to a more sustainable world.
- The large food consumer group of flexitarians offers promising opportunities for transforming meat consumption patterns.
- The authors propose a pragmatic approach that goes beyond standard persuasion strategies and suggests different routes of change.
- The recognition of multiple routes of change to a more plant-based diet implies that the ethical debate on meat should not only associate consumer change with rational persuasion strategies.
- The message is clear: a “technological” fix will not suffice, we also need a “behavioral” or “cultural” fix.
- The study suggests that consumers’ interest and intensity in lowering their meat consumption vary.
- Consumers as main drivers of cutting their meat consumption may follow different routes of change.
- The distinguished sociologist Zygmunt Bauman does not put much trust in modern consumers.
- The authors note that ethical arguments for criticizing the consumption of meat can be briefly summarized as follows: From the perspective of global fairness, it can be argued that people in the richer countries are mainly responsible for the ecological distortion of our earth.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The article does not provide an empirical study but rather offers theoretical reflections and a literature review, so empirical data limitations are not applicable.
- The study’s focus is primarily on the context of consumer behavior and meat consumption in the Netherlands, and the findings and conclusions may not be directly transferable to other regions or cultures.
- The study acknowledges that consumers are diverse and heterogeneous, which complicates the development of universal strategies for reducing meat consumption.
- The authors recognize the difficulty in changing consumer behavior and the influence of market forces and cultural norms.
- The study’s theoretical approach means that specific, measurable outcomes or quantitative data on the effectiveness of different strategies are not provided.
- The article does not explore the potential for unintended consequences or negative impacts of the proposed interventions.
Conclusion
The authors conclude that there is no reason for defeatist pessimism when the target is on exploring alliances with consumers that contribute to the realization of more sustainable food systems. The study emphasizes that the gap between the citizen and consumer should be questioned and that their interconnection must be acknowledged. The various consumer activities can contribute to reducing meat consumption and, consequently, supporting more sustainable food consumption practices. The authors suggest that consumers can participate in multiple ways in several routes of change and that the large food consumer group of meat reducers or flexitarians offer promising opportunities for transforming meat consumption towards lower levels. The concept of the reflexive consumer can help to acknowledge the role of human agency in weak sustainable consumption. The reflexive consumer may be regarded as the counterpart of the political or ethical consumer. The authors suggest that ethical debates should not be restricted to rational persuasion strategies, nor to an alliance with “strong” sustainable consumers. The study emphasizes that a broad perspective on consumers and their potential as agents of sustainable change is crucial and that the idea of ethical consumption should be wide-ranging and not limit itself to rational awareness and highly esteemed morals and motives. The world of consumers is not as black or white as Bauman suggests. It is ruled as much by passive and routine behavior as by critical capacities and consumer concerns. Consumers are not captive victims of economic forces, and consumption is, in a moral sense, neither good nor bad. Consumers are allies that can be trusted with the challenge of realizing less meat-based diets that will contribute to a more sustainable world of food. This study provides a crucial understanding of the different ways consumer behavior can influence the food system and highlights the need for diverse and inclusive strategies to achieve meaningful and sustainable change.