Abstract
Livestock production has an enormous impact on climate change emissions, resource use, habitat loss, and the availability of staples for consumers in developing countries. Despite this, macromarketers have paid little attention to environmentally sustainable diets. Although researchers in health studies have identified the need to mainstream plant-based diets, they downplay the sociocultural meanings associated with meat and vegetable consumption. We propose the challenge of change in eating habits reflects a classic agency-structure tension and draw on Kurt Lewin’s force-field theory to examine five forces for/against the mainstreaming of sustainable diets (human health, environmental sustainability, morality, identity, and institutional factors). Policy solutions are identified with particular attention paid to expanding the size of the health vegetarian segment.
Generated Summary
This journal article examines the potential of mainstreaming plant-based diets in developed economies to address environmental concerns and promote sustainable living. The study employs a macromarketing perspective, integrating insights from nutrition, health, sustainability, and consumer behavior. It adopts a qualitative approach, drawing on existing literature and research to identify enablers and barriers to the adoption of plant-based diets. The research frames the analysis using Kurt Lewin’s force-field theory, which explores the forces that either encourage or impede the shift towards sustainable eating habits. The central aim of the article is to bring diet into the macromarketing fold, emphasizing the importance of understanding consumer practices within socio-cultural structures. It focuses on the key role of “health vegetarians” in driving this change, as they are seen as more receptive to plant-based diets due to self-interest in health and well-being. The study reviews the enablers and barriers to the mainstream adoption of plant-based diets, focusing on developed economies, and identifies strategies for promoting change in consumer dietary practices, particularly reducing animal-based protein consumption.
Key Findings & Statistics
- Food consumption accounts for 20-30% of Western greenhouse gases.
- Livestock production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, and possibly up to 50% when all factors are considered.
- A 25% reduction in meat consumption could meet United Nations greenhouse gas targets.
- The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) identifies “food” as important in their Footprint Challenge (weighting it at 27 percent).
- The ratio for all-cause mortality for vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 0.80.
- Chronic diseases account for the majority of premature deaths and disability in developed economies (up to 70 percent in the U.S. alone).
- The incidence of chronic diseases can be reduced by 30-40 percent with proper diet and exercise.
- Meat production accounts for between 18 and 50 percent of climate change emissions.
- Meat production requires ten times more water than plant crops.
- The U.S. estimates livestock consumes half of the country’s potable water each year.
- A study found that the ratio for all-cause mortality for vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 0.80, after adjusting for smoking, social class, and body mass index.
- The production of meat for consumption has a number of direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment (Salonen and Helne 2012). As mentioned above, meat production directly accounts for between 18 and 50 percent of climate change emissions as well as producing substantial amounts of untreated waste (often at rates higher than can be absorbed through manure use), the pollution of ground water, land degradation, deforestation, loss of wildlife habitat, and insecticide use (and run off) to control animal based diseases or diseases resulting from intensive farming practices (Saxena 2011; Stuart 2006).
- The estimates for meat production is the most resource-intensive of all food production.
- Animal-based products require as much as ten times more water than plant crops (Stuart 2009).
- Meat consumption has also been linked with notions of power (and even violence (Gaard 2002), strength and virility (Tobbler, Visschers, and Siegrist 2011, p.680) especially in the West where the highest status cuts of meat are typically muscle tissue (Stuart 2009).
- Eating meat is part of omnivorous consumers’ meal practices. Simply identifying the virtues of a plant-based diet is not enough to shift behavior (Lea, Crawford, and Worsley 2006b), partly because our practices are embedded in a range of assumptions including those listed above (Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012; Warde 2005).
- Plant-based crops are cheaper to produce and have a clear advantage over meat at the retail level even allowing for the extra processing associated with the narrow range of commodities (corn, soy, peanuts, and wheat) they examined.
- Obtaining a kcal of energy from the cheapest meat product (broilers) is 5 times more costly than obtaining a kcal from the most expensive plant-based product (peanuts). A similar result is true for protein. Obtaining a gram of protein from the cheapest meat (broilers) is 3.26 times more costly than obtaining a gram of protein from the most expensive plant-based product (peanuts).
Other Important Findings
- Livestock production has significant impacts on climate change emissions, resource use, habitat loss, and the availability of staples, yet macromarketers have paid little attention to environmentally sustainable diets.
- The article suggests that policy solutions should focus on expanding the size of the health vegetarian segment.
- The production of meat and animal-based protein has significant direct and indirect impacts on climate change emissions and other environmental concerns.
- The United Nations (in 2006) estimated that livestock production is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
- Some ecologists identify reducing animal-based protein consumption as the most important sustainability issue.
- Countries with a high standard of living have higher levels of animal-based protein consumption.
- The article aims to make diet a macromarketing concern, emphasizing its implications for sustainability, marketing, and development, as well as the role of rational and socio-cultural structures in consumer choices.
- The adoption of plant-based diets is influenced by forces such as human health, environmental sustainability, morality, identity, and institutional factors.
- Plant-based diets offer health benefits and are supported by nutritional science and national governments.
- Consumers often associate meat with protein, a view reinforced by marketers and the medical profession.
- The production of meat has a number of direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment.
- Moral arguments for plant-based diets include stewardship, poverty and development, and animal rights and welfare.
- Consumption practices, including meat consumption, reflect a range of identity issues like class, race, gender, and culture.
- The text identifies institutional factors, such as government policies supporting meat industries, as barriers to sustainable diets.
- The analysis proposes that the basis for understanding how to mainstream plant-based diets, and how the enablers and barriers to the change intersect and influence the adoption of plant-based diets and sustainable diets.
- The study focuses on developed economies, where meat consumption is a choice, and where reductions in meat consumption can have the greatest environmental impact.
- The article identifies that the shift to plant-based diets represents a change from one socio-technical system to another.
- The World Watch Institute suggests a shift to plant-based diets represents the only pragmatic solution to reducing anthropogenic climate change emissions.
- The article points out that consumers face contradictory information, a lack of awareness, or embedded assumptions that work hinder change.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The research primarily focuses on developed (or Western) economies, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other regions with different socio-economic contexts.
- The article acknowledges the complexity of factors influencing dietary choices, including cultural and social contexts.
- The review of literature is fragmented, and may not capture all perspectives on plant-based diets.
- The use of Lewin’s force-field analysis, while providing a useful framework, may oversimplify the complex interplay of forces affecting dietary change.
- The study acknowledges that the term “vegetarian” is subjective, and the diversity within vegetarian and vegan diets.
Conclusion
The study highlights the critical role of macromarketing in promoting sustainable eating habits, particularly the adoption of plant-based diets. It emphasizes that this change involves addressing not only the nutritional aspects but also the socio-cultural meanings associated with food. The article underscores the need for a comprehensive approach that considers various factors, including health, environmental sustainability, morality, identity, and institutional influences. The authors emphasize that promoting health vegetarianism can create a positive role model for others in changing dietary habits. The authors highlight the importance of reframing the message to focus on the benefits of plant-based diets, instead of the negative aspects of meat consumption. The research stresses that effective marketing campaigns should be designed to integrate health concerns with the broader context of well-being and global responsibility, in addition to personal health, environmental sustainability, ethical considerations, and social practices, all of which affect consumers’ food choices. Furthermore, it is essential to address and overcome the barriers imposed by institutional factors, such as industry influence and traditional practices. The research concludes with the acknowledgment of the importance of ongoing research to refine marketing strategies and improve the adoption of sustainable diets.