Eating like there's no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet

The Ecology of Meat

BackgroundThe increasing presence of meat and other ASFs in the diets of sub-Saharan African (SSA) populations have consequences for human and planetary health in the subregion. Dietary modifications that favour...

Community connectedness and sustainable eating.

BackgroundAs high meat consumption is detrimental to both individual health and the climate, many international organizations recommend a reduction in meat consumption among populations. This scoping review aims to synthesize the evidence on individuals' perspectives on reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change. The three research questions focus on (1) the individuals' awareness of the link between meat consumption and climate change, (2) individuals' willingness to reduce their meat consumption to mitigate climate change, and (3) individuals who have already reduced their meat consumption for this purpose.MethodsThis scoping review follows the extended PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. A systematic search was conducted in five databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, Greenfile and PsynDex/CurrentContent/Agris via Livivo). Only peer-reviewed original studies, published since 2015, in English, German, Danish or Dutch were included. Two researchers performed all screening procedures. Data from included studies were summarized in a narrative and descriptive synthesis of evidence, separately for quantitative and qualitative studies.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. The majority of studies were published since 2019, had a quantitative study design, and were conducted in Europe. Awareness of the link between meat consumption and climate change is low in most studies, and many people underestimate the climate change mitigation potential of meat consumption. Women and people with lower current meat consumption are more willing to reduce their meat consumption. Health and animal welfare are often the main reasons for reducing meat consumption, with climate change being a secondary motivation for most. However, studies varied in the questionnaires used, and many had small sample sizes, limiting comparability and generalizability.ConclusionsFurther research using nationwide samples and standardized, validated instruments would improve insight into individuals’ perspectives on reducing meat consumption to mitigate climate change and is crucial to understanding of how to effectively promote a more plant-based diet. As media and political attention to climate change mitigation is increasing, it will be valuable to monitor changes in individual awareness, willingness and motivation to reduce meat consumption across populations worldwide.Trial registrationThis scoping review has been registered at Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MWB85) and the review protocol has been published in BMJ Open.

From the President and <scp>IFST</scp> News

The current research aimed to address the inconsistent findings regarding cultural differences in attitudes toward older adults by differentiating the effects of personal and cultural values. In Study 1, we used data from the sixth wave of the World Values Survey to examine attitudes toward older adults across cultures, and how different personal values (i.e., communal vs. agentic) and cultural values (i.e., individualism) predicted these attitudes. The results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed that after controlling for potential covariates, personal communal values positively correlated with positive attitudes toward older adults; however, cultural individualistic values did not. To further examine the causal effects of personal values (vs. cultural values), we conducted an experimental study and confirmed that priming personal values rather than cultural values had significant effects on ageism attitudes. The present studies help to reconcile conflicting results on cultural differences in attitudes toward older adults.

The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption

“We don’t tell people what to do”: An examination of the factors influencing NGO decisions to campaign for reduced meat consumption in light of climate change

Photo by Darth Liu on Unsplash INTRODUCTION Human consumption of meat sits at the intersection of culture and health and has profound bioethical implications. Here, we discuss how meat is interwoven with human history and traditions. We review the varied negative impacts of widespread modern meat consumption on health and the environment. Finally, we address the role that the principle of justice plays in allocating this resource. We argue that reducing meat consumption has health and environmental benefits. I. Historical Background Throughout history, some cultures have integrated meat into their traditions, from hunting rituals to religious celebrations to summer barbecues. While intimately connected to the human experience, meat consumption is not without consequences, ranging from increased incidence of chronic illness to environmental degradation. The mass production of meat began in the late 17th century as the rise of globalization led to widespread trade of goods, including meat products. While the sale and distribution of meat grew rapidly throughout the 18th century, it was not until 1818 that Elisha Mills opened the first mass-production plant to process pork. The advances made during the Industrial Revolution led to substantial technological improvements and greater efficiencies in meat processing and packing. During the 19th century, meat-packing plants flooded the United States, and eventually, meat became a staple grocery item for many Americans. While consumers enjoyed plentiful access to meat, skeptics such as Upton Sinclair detailed the horrors of the meat-packing industry and the associated health threats to the consumer. This new awareness resulted in the institution of federal regulations and a new era of quality control. Although meat safety has improved over the years, both human health and the environment remain profoundly affected by the externalities associated with meat consumption.[1] While mass production of meat is a relatively new phenomenon, regular yet limited meat consumption was an essential component of human evolution. Historians characterize the diets of hunter-gatherer tribes as varied and highly nutritious foods, including meat, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and whole grains. Anthropologists studying extant tribes have noticed significantly lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, among other chronic illnesses when compared to populations with Western diets. In contrast, as agriculture has expanded and flourished, people have become increasingly dependent on the food and cattle produced by farmers. They were less inclined to eat the highly nutritious and varied meals their ancestors did. This shift in diet has led to periodontal disease, novel infections and parasites from cattle, iron deficiencies, and other health challenges. As communities adopt Western diets, rates of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes rise.[2] II. A Global Health Crisis A global human health crisis has resulted from excessive meat consumption and its health impacts. Recent research has found that the ten-year mortality risk for meat consumers increased by over a third and by almost 50 percent for those who consumed excessive quantities of red meat. Other analyses demonstrated the relationship between meat consumption and colorectal cancer. Oncologists have noticed an increased incidence of colorectal cancer and a shift in the age demographic most impacted by it. In one study, consumption of more than two ounces per day of processed meat correlated with an 18 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer.[3] These adverse impacts on human health highlight the systemic complications that arise from meat consumption and the human cost. III. Environmental Degradation In addition to impacting human health, these dietary changes have contributed to environmental degradation. Humans conducted animal farming at a staggering scale: in 1961, the world had a standing population of 4.4 billion chickens, a number that increased to 37 billion chickens in 2020. Livestock far outnumbers humans, with a standing population of roughly 46 billion today.[4] Deriving immense quantities of protein from animal sources consumes similarly large amounts of resources. In doing so, rearing animals for meat encroaches upon several planetary boundaries, defined as “boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely,” and includes limits on global freshwater use, land-system change, and climate change.[5] Producing just 1,000 calories of beef consumes an estimated 1,600 liters of water, requires the occupation of an estimated 147 square meters of land for an entire year, and releases 10 kilograms of CO2 equivalent.[6] Additionally, beef production consumes land that farmers could use to produce other protein sources, such as vegetables and grains. Such strains on planetary boundaries and excessive use of environmental resources to produce protein is not sustainable, especially as the global population continues to expand. The United States has one of the highest rates of meat consumption, with the average American consuming over 250 pounds of meat per year.[7] If the global population consumed meat at this rate, there would be a devastating impact on both global health and planetary boundaries. Protein sources should be viewed as a health resource, as proper protein intake is vital to human health. If over-consuming communities such as the US decreased their intake of meat, the health of both over-consumers and those with limited access to dietary protein and meat would greatly benefit.[8] IV. Ethical Analysis Since food is a limited resource, ethicists and physicians should approach conversations regarding meat through the lens of justice. The principle of distributive justice demands that “the benefits and burdens” of meat be “fair, equitable, and appropriate.”[9] Currently, marginalized communities bear the environmental burdens of meat-heavy diets, while not always having access to the benefits. Encroachments upon planetary boundaries caused by meat production and poor health outcomes due to excessive consumption disproportionately impact the most disadvantaged communities. If we, as ethicists, are to encourage equitable distribution of resources around the world, we must also limit the distribution of harm. Though we do not always abide by or apply utilitarian perspectives, in crisis we often adopt a harm reducing principle and work to maximize good and pleasure. When balancing the benefits and burdens of meat consumption, it is vital that we choose a path forward that produces the greatest good or pleasure for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, an advocate for animal rights and vegan diets, argues that decreasing meat consumption is “a means toward reducing both human and animal suffering, and leaving a more habitable planet for future generations.”[10] By drastically decreasing the number of cattle, fish, and birds killed and consumed every year, we limit greenhouse gas emissions and create a more sustainable environment—a benefit not only for ourselves, but also for subsequent generations. As we limit human intake of meat and improve the environment, we decrease the acute and chronic disease burden among the population. It is essential to approach discussions regarding meat consumption with an appreciation of both the benefits and burdens to create equitable and health-conscious meat policy that maximizes benefits for the greatest number of people. CONCLUSION Meat consumption is causing a crisis in human health and hurting the environment. While meat is often attached to cultural celebrations and daily traditions, decreasing meat consumption and directing land use to more efficient, healthy food production would help both human health and the environment. Excessive consumption of animal protein negatively impacts public health both directly and indirectly through climate change, environmental degradation, and pollution. Current innovations, such as cultured agriculture and plant-based meats, provide promising alternatives, yet these novel technologies face numerous hurdles in widespread global implementation. An ethical and holistic approach to medicine demands that we advocate for the health of humanity through a balanced and climate-conscious approach to diet. - [1] Lisa, Andrew. History of America's Meat-Processing Industry. 18 Aug. 2020, https://stacker.com/stories/4402/history-americas-meat-processing-industry. [2] Gibbons, Ann, and Matthieu Paley. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/. [3] Battaglia Richi E, Baumer B, Conrad B, Darioli R, Schmid A, Keller U. Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2015;85(1-2):70-8. doi: 10.1024/0300-9831/a000224. PMID: 26780279. [4] Chure, Griffin, et al. “Anthroponumbers.org: A Quantitative Database of Human Impacts on Planet Earth.” 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.04.483053. [5] Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a [6] Chure, Griffin, et al. “Anthroponumbers.org: A Quantitative Database of Human Impacts on Planet Earth.” 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.04.483053. [7] Kuck, G. and G. Schnitkey. "An Overview of Meat Consumption in the United States." farmdoc daily (11):76, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, May 12, 2021. [8] Watts, Nick, et al. “The 2020 Report of The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change: Responding to Converging Crises.” The Lancet, vol. 397, no. 10269, 2021, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32290-x. [9] Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2009. [10] Singer, Peter. Ethics in the Real World. Princeton Univ

Background Meat production has negative impacts on climate change which could, along with other factors such as health and animal welfare, motivate individuals to eat less meat. So far, willingness to reduce meat consumption and motives to do so are not sufficiently understood. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review, based on the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Methods The research questions were: What is the evidence regarding (1) the awareness about the link between meat consumption and climate change, (2) the willingness of individuals to reduce meat consumption to mitigate climate change and (3) individuals having reduced meat consumption for the reason of climate protection? We systematically searched multiple databases and included studies from 2015 onwards. Results Of 62 identified studies, 50 have been analysed so far. Research in this field increased steadily in the last years, with most studies being cross-sectional and conducted in Europe. Results indicate that the negative influence of meat consumption on climate change is relatively unknown or often being underestimated, yet awareness increased over the last decade. Among persons who think meat reduction is an effective strategy to mitigate climate change, the willingness to reduce consumption is more frequent. Regarding individuals who have reduced meat consumption, climate protection as a motive seems to be gaining importance over time. The results are preliminary. Conclusions The climate change mitigation potential of meat reduction should be better communicated, e.g. in health promotion campaigns, to further raise awareness, strengthen willingness to reduce meat consumption and initiate behaviour change. Longitudinal studies are necessary to accompany the whole process, from awareness and intentions to behavioural change. Key messages • The scoping review shows to what extent climate protection aspects influence individual willingness to reduce meat consumption. • Also, research gaps in this field are being identified.

Livestock production has significant environmental impacts, requiring sustainable dietary shifts with reduced meat consumption. The concept of “less but better” has gained attention as a pragmatic approach to dietary and production changes, advocating for reduced meat consumption while focusing on sustainably produced, high-quality products. We focus on the interplay between “less” and “better” and critically evaluate the approach in the context of consuming natural pasture-raised beef in Finland. Our study focuses on consumers at the forefront of dietary change within western, upper-income contexts, who, with high educational and financial resources, may play a leading role in shifting to more sustainable diets. Based on 21 interviews with buyers of natural pasture-raised beef in Southern Finland, we investigate the meanings assigned to such premium-priced meat, understandings of the role of meat in sustainable diets, and reflections on the dietary changes in meat consumption when purchasing natural pasture-raised beef. Although meat was unanimously considered part of a sustainable diet, most interviewees recognized the global necessity of reducing meat consumption. The interviewees focused on health, naturalness, origin, and swapping beef for other meats as key factors in sustainable diets. The interpretation of “better” was primarily dominated by animal welfare concerns. However, when purchasing beef, taste emerged as the principal consideration. The relationship between “better” and “less” was ambiguous: the concept of “better” can lead to less consumption or provide a moral justification for maintaining the status quo or even increasing consumption of meat. Our results thus highlight the complexities of the “less but better” meat approach in transitioning to sustainable diets.

THE recent debate article by Steven McCulloch (VR, 17/24 January 2026, vol 198, p 95) was very well balanced, and much needed in view of the recent pronouncements from RCVS council that the veterinary profession should not support a reduction in meat consumption. Do they want to make us look like Luddites? It must be abundantly clear that with the human population having increased by over 800 per cent in the last 125 years, it is simply not sustainable for meat to be consumed at the same rate, even if all animals used for food are reared in dire conditions in intensive farms. However, they would like to perpetuate the myth that all farm animals are reared humanely, have a good life, and a stress- and pain-free death. We all know this to be untrue and begs the question whether council members are more concerned about the livelihood of farm vets than climate change, animal welfare and the environment. Veganism is increasingly popular, and this will undoubtedly continue, so a 50 per cent reduction in meat consumption is a very modest target. A vegan veterinary association exists to promote the elimination of animal exploitation.

Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences

PurposeThis study investigates the relationship between human values and saving behavior, focusing on both personal and cultural values.Design/methodology/approachThe research utilizes data from the seventh wave of the World Values Survey (2017–2020) covering 67,278 respondents across 48 countries and the Hofstede Insights (2024). The study employs principal component analysis to validate the measurement of personal values and multilevel logit regression to explore the associations between personal (individual level) and cultural (country level) values and saving behavior.FindingsThe findings, grounded in the functional theory of values, indicate that individuals with personal values oriented toward individual goals and survival needs are more likely to save money, whereas those with values centered on social orientation and thriving needs are less inclined to save. On a cultural level, individualistic societies tend to save more, while countries with high levels of uncertainty avoidance are associated with lower saving behavior.Practical implicationsThis study provides further evidence that human values are important components of household savings behavior. Policymakers and stakeholders interested in fostering saving behavior should be aware of the role played by personal and cultural values when designing impactful policies and interventions. This process might involve encouraging survival traits and reducing economic uncertainty.Originality/valueThis study provides a comprehensive analysis of how personal and cultural values shape saving behavior across different societies. It contributes to the literature by highlighting the interplay between individual and societal factors in financial decision-making.

Current meat consumption levels impact environment and health, highlighting a need to reduce meat consumption and increase that of plant‐based alternative proteins. There appears to be a lack of awareness amongst consumers as to how meat consumption affects health and climate change, which is likely to undermine intention to change. Of those who intend to change, many do not translate that intention to reduce meat consumption into behaviour change. Consumers appear open to the notion of reducing meat consumption but lack the knowledge, motivation or capability to make such changes. For many, meat eating is a traditional social practice, re‐enforced by economics, ecological, technological and institutional factors, including media and marketing. Many food choices are not logical reasoned actions but subconscious, automatic, rapid decisions, relying on heuristic processing and heavily influenced by contextual cues. Promising targets for changing individual consumption patterns could focus on closing the awareness‐intention and intention‐behaviour gaps. Modifying contextual determinants of food choice, highlighting personally relevant internal motivators related to individual requirements, and aligning such messages with positive re‐enforcement about animal welfare and environment would close the awareness‐intention gap. A framework of reference for a healthy, sustainable diet, improvements in the range, sensory attributes, convenience and ease of use of meat substitutes, reduction in the meat portion components of ready meals (by substitution with other foods), reformulation of processed products to include a greater proportion of non‐meat proteins, economic incentives and emphasis on the benefits to environment and animal welfare could reduce the intention‐behaviour gap. Better alignment of environmental and health messages would concentrate public health messages and effort to create a market environment that facilitates sustainable food choices to produce moderate population level wide‐scale changes in plant protein consumption, with significant impact on health and environmental outcomes.