What’s really at ‘steak’? Understanding the global politics of red and processed meat reduction: A framing analysis of stakeholder interviews

Abstract

Multiple reports from international organisations and expert groups call for reductions in production and consumption of red and processed meat (RPM) to attenuate associated health and environmental harms. Policymakers have given limited attention to the issue and public discourse on the topic is contentious. The framing of RPM as a policy issue by influential actors may be contributing to inertia and confusion. We investigate the political challenge of RPM reduction by analyzing how relevant actors interpret and portray the issue. Thirty-two participants from academia, civil society, intergovernmental organisations, and industry were interviewed. We find that food systems stakeholders do see value in continued RPM production and consumption in the food system, but that the current status-quo is untenable. RPM reduction was perceived as a polarising concept. Participants cited a lack of nuance in public discourse, with framings on harms and benefits of RPM being over-simplified and lacking context. Some participants noted that intensive RPM production and high consumption levels reflected corporatized/globalised supply chains, and power relations were the most critical factor to address the harms of RPM. Participants also viewed the preference for technology-driven responses (i.e., novel proteins) as reinforcing corporate power in the food system. This study shows that despite polarised public discourse, more convergence on the issue across food systems stakeholders exists. Furthermore, powerful actors such as the meat and 'novel protein' industries are perceived to be a driving influence in maintaining the market-driven status-quo and are a likely obstacle in achieving healthy and sustainable consumption of RPM.