Reducing Meat Consumption in the UK: Obstacles and Opportunities

In this specially written article, Dr Charlotte Kukowski a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab and the Conservation Science Group (Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge) considers the obstacles and opportunities for reducing meat consumption in the UK.

We are eating more meat than the planet can support. Contemporary diets in wealthy countries, such as the UK, involve levels of meat consumption that exceed our planet's capacity. Despite livestock farming being responsible for about a third of total food-related greenhouse gas emissions, it provides less than one-fifth of total calories. In addition to providing inefficient food calories, livestock farming monopolises agricultural land, which could otherwise be devoted to the more efficient production of food calories or other land uses, such as woodlands, that would sequester carbon and promote human wellbeing. In addition to its negative impact on emissions and land use, meat production is the principal driver of biodiversity loss due to habitat destruction (Machovina et al., 2015).

It’s what we eat, not where it comes from. Given that diets are responsible for a substantial share of greenhouse gas emissions, it is perhaps unsurprising that going vegan or vegetarian is one of the most impactful actions an individual can take to help slow down climate change (Ivanova et al., 2020). While prominent narratives tend to focus on eating locally produced foods and reducing plastic packaging, the carbon impact of our diets comes largely from what we eat rather than where our food comes from or how it’s packaged. In a scoping analysis of thousands of food items, Poore and Nemecek (2018) found that animal products were almost always more environmentally impactful than their vegetarian alternatives. This was true for greenhouse gas emissions as well as for other environmental impacts, such as land use, eutrophication (excess nutrients in bodies of water), and biodiversity loss. Ruminant meats (such as beef and mutton) have especially large environmental footprints. For example, a small steak causes about 5kg of carbon emissions (equivalent to approximately half an hour of driving), while an equivalent portion of a vegetarian meat-replacement is responsible for less than 0.5kg of carbon. While emissions from different food types vary depending on farming practices, geography, and other factors, the core message remains the same: The lowest-impact animal products tend to emit far more than the highest-impact plant-based foods. Transportation (“food miles”) and packaging, on the other hand, account for a very small proportion of food’s environmental impact. Therefore, shifting from a high-impact food product (e.g., beef) to a low-impact food product (e.g., lentils) is much more beneficial for the climate than shifting within the same kind of food product (e.g., from one type of beef to another). For example, someone in the UK who is currently consuming a high-meat diet could reduce their food-related emissions by one-third by adopting a low-meat diet and by almost one-half by going vegetarian (Scarborough et al., 2014).

Cutting down on meat consumption has health, animal welfare, and environmental benefits. The benefits of reducing meat consumption extend beyond environmental concerns, including improvements in health outcomes, pollution reduction, and enhanced animal welfare. Indeed, analyses have found that shifting toward plant-based diets that are in line with health guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6–10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29–70% compared with current trajectories (Springmann et al., 2016). Animal agriculture can additionally contribute to air and water pollution, as well as minimise the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria resulting from antibiotic use in livestock farming. By embracing a reduced-meat or plant-based diet, individuals can contribute to more sustainable and ethical food practices, as well as safer health and environmental conditions.

How can we change behaviour? In order to reduce the carbon footprint associated with their diets, individuals can choose predominantly plant-based food options when possible, e.g., by consulting food labels, choosing vegetarian or vegan meal options at cafeterias and restaurants, and replacing animal product purchases with legumes or plant-based meat alternatives. However, evidence indicates that many individuals are unaware of the highly unequal carbon footprints of individual food items (Camilleri et al., 2019), and even for those who are motivated to change their diets, it can be difficult to translate good intentions into behaviour change (Sheeran & Webb, 2016). Moreover, inequalities in income and access to plant-based products can make it more difficult for disadvantaged individuals to invest time, effort, and financial resources into more sustainable diets.

The University of Cambridge’s Student Union recently voted to support a transition to entirely vegan menus across university catering services (The Guardian, 2023). If implemented, such a shift to exclusively plant-based options could decrease the environmental impacts of diets for hundreds or thousands of individuals who frequent the university’s catering services. Indeed, organisations and governments can play a central role in making low-carbon food choices accessible to all (Garnett & Balmford, 2022). Evidence shows that vegetarian meals are purchased more frequently when they make up a greater proportion of available cafeteria meals (Garnett et al., 2019) and that placing plant-based options first, with a sufficient distance from meat options, increases the proportion of vegetarian menus sold (Garnett et al., 2020).

On a larger scale, local and national governments can enact policies to regulate food choice and product composition as numerous obstacles can impede solely self-regulated behaviour change. For instance, economic constraints, lack of awareness or access to alternative food options can deter individuals from switching to a plant-based diet. Governments, with their capacity to enact comprehensive legislation and systemic reforms, can assist in eliminating these obstacles and create an environment conducive to making sustainable dietary choices more accessible and appealing.

Rethinking the food system will entail formulating and implementing a broad policy framework involving economic, educational, and regulatory measures. These could encompass subsidies for plant-based foods, informational campaigns to raise awareness of the environmental impact of meat consumption, and regulatory measures such as the mandating of vegetarian options in food outlets. Additionally, behaviour-based policies, like the redesigning of food environments to make plant-based choices more convenient, attractive, and normal, can have significant effects on shaping dietary patterns. For instance, policymakers can implement minimum thresholds for the availability of plant-based options in cafeterias and restaurants, subsidise plant-based meat alternatives and revoke subsidies for meat and dairy products, pass a red meat tax, or limit advertising for meat-based products. Evidence suggests that advertising bans can be highly effective in altering food purchases, with a recent study finding a 6% reduction in household calorie consumption associated with a sugary foods advertising restriction on the London underground (Yau et al., 2021). Similar successes may be seen for restrictions on meat product advertising, as planned in the Dutch city of Haarlem.

Reducing meat consumption in the UK and other high-income countries requires concerted efforts at various levels. A combination of individual behaviour change, organisational initiatives, and government policies can pave the way towards a more sustainable dietary future. Achieving this goal will necessitate the careful crafting of policies to ensure they address the diverse needs and concerns of various groups while promoting equitable and effective solutions. There remains considerable potential for research to inform these efforts, and ongoing work in this area is critical to our collective ability to mitigate the environmental impacts of our diets and remain within safe planetary boundaries.

Click here for a link to Dr Kukowski's presentation for our Coffee Break Seminar series.

References

Camilleri, A. R., Larrick, R. P., Hossain, S., & Patino-Echeverri, D. (2019). Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nature Climate Change, 9(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0354-z

CAST (2021). Survey infographics: UK Public perceptions of climate change and lifestyle changes. Cardiff University.

Garnett, E. E., & Balmford, A. (2022). The vital role of organizations in protecting climate and nature. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 319–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01260-z

Garnett, E. E., Balmford, A., Sandbrook, C., Pilling, M. A., & Marteau, T. M. (2019). Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(42), 20923–20929. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907207116

Garnett, E. E., Marteau, T. M., Sandbrook, C., Pilling, M. A., & Balmford, A. (2020). Order of meals at the counter and distance between options affect student cafeteria vegetarian sales. Nature Food, 1(8), 485–488. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0132-8

Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399), eaam5324. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324

Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M., & Creutzig, F. (2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589

Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of the Total Environment, 536, 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022

Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D. M., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., & Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change, 125(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1

Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention-behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518.

Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4146–4151. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113

Yau, A., Berger, N., Law, C., Cornelsen, L., Greener, R., Adams, J., Boyland, E. J., Burgoine, T., de Vocht, F., Egan, M., Er, V., Lake, A. A., Lock, K., Mytton, O., Petticrew, M., Thompson, C., White, M., & Cummins, S. (2021). Changes in household food and drink purchases following restrictions on the advertisement of high fat, salt, and sugar products across the Transport for London network: A controlled interrupted time series analysis. The Lancet, 398, S15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02558-7