Is it Really Easier to Imagine the end of the World than the end of Industrial Meat?

Abstract

The food system is a major contributor to climate change, with livestock production accounting for a large percentage. Reducing the consumption of meat and dairy products can significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. FAO's landmark study found that 18 percent of GHG emissions in 2005 arose from livestock production – more than the global transportation sector. Despite the fact that livestock product consumption is increasing at a global level, the scientific findings about livestock producers’ contribution to climate change presents a tremendous opportunity to fundamentally dismantle an industry that is found significantly problematic in terms of public health, animal cruelty, worker compensation and safety, and environment. Movements to reduce meat consumption, like the “Meatless Monday” campaign, are increasingly popular and focus on institutional shifts. Not only are universities, hospitals, restaurants, and other institutions re-examining their meat and dairy consumption levels, they are also evaluating and changing their sourcing of such products, emphasizing local small farms over well establishing industrial supply chains. Nevertheless, these efforts often illicit serious backlash from consumers who claim their consumer rights and sovereignty are being jeopardized by institutional decisions to reduce meat consumption. We contend that consumer sovereignty is already something of an illusion because consumption is always already a collective endeavor. We base this argument on three points: (i) that meat eating is best understood not as an individual action alone, but as mediated through an historical and cultural politics; (ii) that our food choices at the institutional level are already highly constricted, especially as they relate to the political and economic clout of the meat and dairy industries; and (iii) that consumption choice is not based on knowledge or desire alone but is always a collective action dependent on choice-sets and information made available through a variety of institutional actors. We make the case for reducing meat consumption through institutional (as opposed to individual) campaigns and make some suggestions as to how these changes might best be implemented given the current backlash based on consumer “sovereignty”.