Abstract
Beef production is a major driver of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions globally, and multiple studies recommend reducing beef production and consumption. Although there have been significant efforts from the biodiversity conservation sector toward reducing beef-production impacts, there has been comparatively much less engagement in reducing beef consumption. As a first step to address this gap and identify leverage points, we conducted a policy Delphi expert elicitation. We asked 16 multidisciplinary experts from research and practitioner backgrounds to propose interventions for reducing beef consumption in the United States. Experts generated and critiqued 20 interventions, creating a qualitative dataset that was thematically analyzed to allow the interventions to be prioritized. Effective, feasible interventions included changing perceived social norms, targeting food providers, and increasing the availability and quality of beef alternatives. This work introduces a conservation research agenda for reducing beef consumption and explores a structured process for prioritizing behavioral interventions.
Generated Summary
This research article details a policy Delphi expert elicitation study aimed at identifying and prioritizing interventions to reduce beef consumption and its environmental impacts, particularly biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. The study employs a structured, multi-round approach to gather insights from 16 multidisciplinary experts from research and practice backgrounds. The Delphi method, adapted for this study, involved two main rounds of online surveys and discussions using a specialized platform, designed to gather and refine expert opinions on potential interventions. The focus of the study was the United States, a major beef-producing and consuming nation, to identify effective and feasible strategies for reducing beef consumption. The study aimed to go beyond the limitations of the knowledge-deficit model for creating behavior change. The study’s objective was not to identify a single intervention but rather to stimulate interdisciplinary thinking and establish a research agenda for effective approaches to reduce beef consumption. The study acknowledges that changing consumer behavior is an essential part of biodiversity conservation efforts.
Key Findings & Statistics
- Experts identified 90 interventions to reduce beef consumption.
- 41 (45.6%) of the interventions were unique.
- Experts nominated 25 interventions as effective and feasible in the short to medium term.
- 20 unique interventions formed the basis for the Round 2 elicitation.
- Experts agreed on 4 interventions they felt were likely to be effective in reducing beef consumption and feasible within a 10-year time frame: “Manipulate perceived dynamic norms” (Intervention 6); “Further development of beef alternatives” (Intervention 11); “Beef-free meals in student, work, and prison canteens” (Intervention 12); and “Advocate for greater proportion of beef-alternative purchases by large-scale distributors of meals” (Intervention 13).
- The study involved 16 multidisciplinary experts.
- The interventions targeted different leverage points within the beef supply chain.
- The per capita rate of beef consumption in the United States is fairly stable.
Other Important Findings
- The study revealed a diverse range of interventions needed to tackle beef consumption.
- Structural interventions, like influencing major food suppliers, could have a large effect in reducing beef consumption.
- The development of beef alternatives drew criticism that it might reinforce a view that meat consumption is appropriate.
- Flexitarianism interventions are unlikely to be satisfactory for those focused on the ethical implications of animal consumption.
- Dynamic norm-messaging targeting changes in beef consumption would likely be effective.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s focus was on the United States, and the generalizability of the interventions to other contexts is uncertain.
- The study may have overlooked some interventions.
- Experts may have favored interventions with more detailed descriptions.
- The study’s outputs do not provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness and feasibility of the interventions.
- The study acknowledges the difficulty of comparing interventions due to their differences in specificity and scale.
Conclusion
The policy Delphi expert elicitation provided insights into potential interventions to address key factors driving beef consumption in the United States. The study emphasizes that structural interventions, such as influencing the practices of major food suppliers, could have a large effect in reducing beef consumption. It highlights the need to consider political and economic factors, and it recommends caution regarding perceptions that individual choices are constrained. The research underlines that there is a need to raise public awareness of the link between beef consumption and environmental issues. The study generated a list of potential interventions, and highlighted the importance of multi-faceted approaches. The development of beef alternatives, the need for structural changes within the food environment, and influencing consumer behavior are critical, and require future research. The study recommends caution, by avoiding perceptions that individual choices are constrained, and potentially countering misinformation about plant-based diets or the meat industry. The study suggests that the conservation sector must engage with this problem, despite the challenges, to effectively reduce biodiversity loss. In conclusion, the study revealed a diverse range of interventions required for tackling beef consumption. The study has revealed a number of potential solutions for reducing it to levels that may deliver meaningful benefits for biodiversity.