Using environmental imperatives to reduce meat consumption: perspectives from New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Sustainable food consumption is an important issue globally, that will intensify if current projections of population growth, urbanisation and the growing ‘middle-classes’ in developing countries continues. Reducing meat consumption is one approach that can help with food sustainability and security, while helping to address the problematic environmental outcomes associated with agricultural production – assuming that a reduction in meat consumption will at some point be reflected in production practices. Currently, sensory perception, health, convenience and price are more immediately influential than environmental concerns in determining meat consumption practices. Moreover, consumer culture under neoliberalism and the context of New Zealand as an agricultural nation are significant underpinning factors in lifestyle practices including food choice. In this paper, I share the perspectives of New Zealanders on meat (and meat-like) consumption and production practices in order to find out (a) what factors are prominent influences in meat consumption and (b) how these factors might be utilised to reduce meat consumption by applying them to meat-less/reduced foods. I argue that these environmental factors need to be promoted alongside known influential determinants of purchase decisions in order to make the idea of reduced-meat consumption a more attractive option for consumers.

KEYWORDS:

• Meat
• consumption
• environment
• New Zealand
• food sustainability

Introduction

Food security and sustainability are high on the global agenda as matters requiring urgent attention. Increasing pressures are being felt on food systems due to climatic change, population growth, consumer practices, high levels of food waste and inefficient resource use (Gerbens-Leenes & Nonhebel 2002; York and Gossard 2004; Godfray et al. 2010; Popp et al. 2010; Buttriss 2011; Odegard and van der Voet 2014). Research looking at how food sustainability can be achieved in the future frequently addresses animal-derived food products given their resource-intensive production.

Looking for ways to reduce meat consumption (or ‘flexitarianism’ – a mode of eating whereby meat consumption is purposely reduced but not eliminated) is an area of research that has been receiving much attention. This is particularly apt in wealthy nations where consumption levels are on average much higher than in developing countries (de Boer et al. 2006, 2014; Schösler et al. 2012; Vinnari and Tapio 2012; Tucker 2013; Vanhonacker et al. 2013; Röös et al. 2014). New Zealand has particularly high levels of meat consumption per capita; OECD (2016) data from 2014 show that consumption levels (excluding fish and seafood) are just over 72 kg per year (down from just over 80 kg over a three-year period), which is three and a half to four and half times the total protein needs for women and men (Men in the 19–70-year-old age bracket require around 64 grams of protein a day and women 46 grams [NZ Nutrition Foundation 2013]). The production of agricultural goods is also pivotal to the economy, with meat and related product exports reaching NZD 6.8 billion in the year ended June 2015 (NZTE 2017).

Environmental implications from this production sector in New Zealand are, however, taking their toll. Agriculture was responsible for 49% of the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as at 2014 (MfE 2016). As well, increasing attention has been paid to the role of livestock run-off in the dire state of New Zealand’s waterways; although this is mainly attributable to dairy farming, farming more broadly is nonetheless also implicated (Monaghan et al. 2007). A point also worth noting is that even though sheep and beef produced in New Zealand are raised on pasture – rather than grain fed (as is more usual internationally) – it is not necessarily more environmentally friendly. Methane is still produced, large tracts of land are used for grazing, high volumes of water are needed (for beef in particular) and various chemicals are used to ensure good pasture is available, which in all equates to relatively inefficient, and hence resource-intensive food production (Garnett et al. 2017; Pearce 2017). Environmental issues nationally and globally, a high reliance on export meat revenue, and high rates of meat consumption within New Zealand, means the interrelated areas of meat consumption and production are timely areas for academic research.

In this article, I draw on discussions relayed during focus groups held across New Zealand on a series of current and future meat and meat-like production and consumption practices, in order to explore two interrelated areas. Firstly, to tease out those areas where environmental concerns were deemed important in food purchase decisions. On the whole, research undertaken in developed nations that has sought to investigate indicators of whether or not a meat or meat-like food will be eaten has found that environmental factors are low on the list of concerns (Richardson et al. 1994). Or, if they are considered, they are not necessarily acted on in practice (Hauser et al. 2011; Vanhonacker et al. 2013; Tucker 2014). This low prioritisation is due in part to a general lack of understanding of the environmental impacts of meat consumption; for example, Tobler et al. (2011) found that organic food purchase and reducing meat consumption were perceived by consumers to have the least environmental benefits in terms of possible ways to reduce environmental harm through food choices. As such, the deleterious environmental implications of meat production appear to wane in importance for consumers when meat purchase decisions are made. Instead, sensory appeal or conversely ‘disgust’ is an important determinant, along with cost, convenience and health (Richardson et al. 1993, 1994; Lea and Worsley 2001; Prescott et al. 2002; Hoek, et al. 2011); of note, is that while health is deemed an important determinant of meat consumption, Mhurchu and Gorton (2007) found that New Zealand (and Australian) consumers’ understanding of the nutritional or health qualities of meat as per packaging labels was at best ‘moderate’. The second task of this article analyses whether and how environmental imperatives could be used in reducing meat consumption as part of a more sustainable diet by utilising those elements relayed by participants as being important environmentally.

Reducing meat consumption

Buttriss (2011), Duchin (2005), Popp et al. (2010) and Westhoek et al. (2014) work all demonstrate in different ways that reducing meat in diets will decrease environmental damages in the future. These changes include large GHG reductions and a reduction in cropland used for meat production. The apposite question here then, is by what means can meat consumption (and ultimately production) be reduced?

There is some willingness in Westernised nations to reduce meat consumption, but individuals do not necessarily put their attitudes or values into practice when it comes to making consumption decisions (Richardson et al. 1993; Holm and Møhl 2000; Grunert 2006; Hauser et al. 2011; de Bakker and Dagevos 2012). Reducing meat consumption as part of consumer decision-making is also a low priority, as factors such as affordability and taste take priority in food choices (DEFRA 2008; Tobler et al. 2011). The case then for a multi-faceted approach designed to appeal to a range of consumer segment needs and values is certainly valid.

Vranken et al. (2014) divide the drivers of meat consumption reduction into three main areas: economic, legal and social (Vranken et al. 2014). Introducing a food conversion efficiency tax (Goodland, 1997) would be one economic driver to reduce meat consumption. Legal instruments could include experiments with forced choice restriction taking the form of a mandatory vegetarian day (Vranken et al. 2014), or policy measures such as ending subsidised beef production (farming is not currently subsidised in New Zealand) and beef promotion, controlling extensive grazing and restoring regrowth forests, and redirecting land-use away from environmentally damaging practices (McAlpine et al. 2009). Individual and collective social mechanisms to drive meat consumption reduction might include introducing various educational, informational campaigns to encourage meatless or meat-reduced meals (Vranken et al. 2014). It is to the latter area that I now focus my attention.

Educating people about how to prepare meat-reduced/less meals, changing perceptions regarding barriers to cooking such meals, increasing familiarity with meat-alternatives and ensuring food items have sensory appeal are all important considerations for social mechanism strategies (Lea et al. 2005; Hoek et al. 2011; Schösler et al. 2012). Emphasis in any educational campaign would additionally profit from a focus on human health benefits of dietary change (Lea and Worsley 2001; Lea et al. 2005; Schösler et al. 2012; Westhoek et al. 2014). Situational habits and constraints are both central factors that Barr (2006) and Hauser et al. (2011) indicate are important for addressing the value–action gap. This necessarily involves paying heed to the economic, ecological, regional and cultural contexts in a given place, as well as more micro-level issues of individual context and characteristics (Holm & Møhl 2000; York and Gossard 2004; Tivadar and Luthar 2005; de Boer et al. 2006).

Underpinning all of the preceding considerations are the broader structural frameworks and ideologies that influence individual choices by way of powerful yet largely unconscious social norms. As Miller (2010, p. 135) drawing on Bourdieusian thought argues:

Individuals grow up to become, with varying degrees of typicality, members of a given society. This happens in most cases, not through formal education, but because they are inculcated into the general habits and dispositions of that society through the way they interact in their everyday practices with the order that is already prefigured in the objects they find around them.

The power and seduction of consumer society driven by an economic rationale that prioritises the market and profit over all else is a formidable force to be reckoned with, particularly from the perspective of an individual citizen. And yet, for structures to shift in a more environmentally sustainable direction, I argue that it needs to be driven in the first instance by concerned consumers as active citizens, who thereby lobby governments and other organisations for legislative and other change.

Consumers and citizens

Consumers as activists that ‘vote with their forks’ has become a popularised mode of food politics enactment (Guthman and Brown 2016). While popular, it is also problematic. Analogous to the value–action gap – where intentions based on current values oftentimes do not align in practice – is the citizen–consumer gap: the ‘hybrid’ described by Johnston (2008, p. 232) as being able to ‘satiate personal desires while simultaneously addressing social and ecological injustices’. The very nature of the terms points to an ‘ideological tension between consumerism and citizenship’ (Johnston 2008, p. 233), a point also alluded to by de Bakker and Dagevos (2012, p. 877): ‘is there not a yawning gap between our responsible intentions as citizens and our hedonic desires as consumers?’. Positioning consumers this way constructs individuals as problematic; as well, it places conflicting demands on individuals, which in real-world settings can be difficult, at best, to resolve (Johnston 2008). The neoliberal culture of individualised responsibility is key in this problem, and yet a bottom-up approach through activated individual and collectively organised consumers is, I believe, a crucial element in influencing the broader change needed. I take the position that investigating ways in which consumers might be encouraged to adjust their purchase and hence consumption practices towards those of conscientious consumers (citizens) through reducing meat consumption is a necessary undertaking if a bottom-up approach is to succeed.

Method

Participants

Research data were obtained from 19 focus groups that took place in different areas of New Zealand. Focus groups were the chosen method given they are useful for exploring individuals’ perceptions, motivations and reactions, so that individuals could contribute responses and debate, or discuss their views with others in detail (Liamputtong 2011). While criticisms exist of the focus group method, for example, where group conformity arises, or certain characters either dominate conversation or alternately do not contribute (Liamputtong 2011), none of these issues arose. This was due in large part I believe to the way that focus groups were run, with the facilitator taking a lead role in managing discussions, and due to having specific discussion points based on images to prompt conversation.

A total of 69 participants were recruited. Participants included slightly more females (n = 37) than males (n = 32) and a range of age groups: two individuals were aged 16–19 years, 22 were aged 20–35 years, 30 were 36–65 years old and the remaining 15 were aged 66 years or more. Most participants were in city locations (n = 33), followed by towns (n = 25) then rural locations (n = 6), with the remainder living in peri-urban or other locations such as small beach settlements (n = 5). The majority of participants ate meat at least four times a week (n = 45), while 17 individuals ate meat three days or less per week. The remaining seven participants did not consume meat.

Participant recruitment involved three different methods. The first method involved identifying small organisations or churches in areas where focus groups were planned and inviting them to advertise and disseminate information about the focus group. The second method was through randomly selecting telephone numbers to call using an online directory for people located in areas where focus groups were planned. The third method used social media networks to advertise upcoming focus groups in different parts of the country.

A low risk ethics notification was approved for this research. Part of this involved protecting participant identities, by not using their names. Instead, participants were allocated a number, and numeral which indicates ‘f’ for female or ‘m’ for male, e.g. ‘49f’.

The focus groups

Focus groups took place in a range of venues, with a maximum of four participants per focus group ultimately determined for ease of transcription. These groups lasted 1.5–2 hours each and were audio-recorded with participants’ consent. Socio-demographic and other information related to the individual participant were collected at the end of focus groups, after the audio recorder was turned off.

Focus groups were led by the facilitator who began by introducing the research project. This involved relaying some basic statistics about meat production and the environmental implications. The underpinning question driving this project was: in what ways might meat consumption be reduced in Aotearoa New Zealand? To explore this, participants were offered a series of hand-outs that included colour images related to each of seven different areas (in the order relayed here) that formed the focus of the research: (1) Conventional (or ‘intensive/productivist’) farming; (2) ‘alternative’, lower-resource input farming; (3) genetic modification (GM) in agriculture; (4) in vitro/cultured meat; (5) nose-to-tail eating; (6) other ‘living proteins’ (for example, entomophagy); and (7) meatless meals to signify reduced-meat consumption. Examples of images given, include for (1) ‘conventional’: a patchwork of farmed land in the Canterbury region of New Zealand; cows grazing on barren looking, brown land; pig in a pen, indoors; green pastures with sheep; barn raised, free-range turkeys; and for (2) ‘alternative’: two different images of free-range pigs; cow in an overgrown looking paddock with trees; free-range chickens outdoors on grass; permaculture production land; sheep grazing in an orchard under fruit trees. This range of production and consumption practices, age-old through to new, can each indicate something about what makes meat consumption appealing – or not – for different people. Participants were invited to consider each of the image sets in turn following a brief introduction from the facilitator to the practice depicted. Participant views and perceptions were encouraged from both personal and broader perspectives.

Key prompts were used for each set of images: (a) whether participants liked the practice or not, and why or why not and (b) whether they saw the practice as likely to assist with reducing meat consumption, and why or why not. Additional questions were asked of the five consumption based image sets regarding whether participants would consume any of the foods being depicted and why or why not. Each focus group participant was encouraged to respond to each area of questioning.

Data transcription and analysis

Participant responses were transcribed in full (facilitator questions and prompts were noted but not transcribed). The transcribed data were then coded and analysed using the ‘framework’ method (Ritchie et al. 2003), which provides a way of organising qualitative data for thematic analysis and subsequent simple statistics (e.g. frequency counts). The coding was organised by individual participant rather than by group, but with the ability to see which individuals were in the same group. Spreadsheets were used to organise data into emergent themes (based on image sets) and subthemes (or indices based on responses and comments within each theme/image set), which allowed participant responses on the same topic to be compared with each other, as well as a selected set of responses to be contrasted with other topics. For example, the ‘alternative agriculture’ theme was divided into five main subthemes: pro-alternative, anti-alternative, neutral, overall position and NZ culture/identity. Within these subthemes, different categories emerged, for example, ‘animal welfare’, ‘environment’ and ‘productivity’.

An effectual collection of data emerged, which demonstrated some distinctive patterns amiable to analysis. Participants revealed quite particular and often complex sets of values and views towards what made given production and consumption practices acceptable or not. From this, it is, therefore, possible to extract themes pertaining to how reducing meat consumption might be encouraged in the pursuit of more sustainable food consumption.

Results

Participants were more favourable towards alternative modes of farming over conventional (intensive) given their characterisation as less environmentally harmful. Concurrent with this is that nine participants expressed concern about the environmental implications of intensive forms of agriculture, citing water/river pollution, mono-cultural cropping, biodiversity loss and GHG emissions as problematic, while a further two described intensive farming as unnatural, equating this with being environmentally bad. For example, with reference to an image of sheep grazing on green pastures, one participant stated, ‘it doesn’t thrill my heart. It isn’t a beautiful image, it’s actually quite a sad image. It says chemicals to me … so many issues arise with that kind of … system’ (49f).

Support for the less resource-intensive farming systems was based on such farms having: a better carbon footprint, being more beneficial for soil and water, as creating less pollution, and being more ‘natural’ and hence better environmentally. A perception that also came through strongly was in aligning alternative farming methods with produce that is more ‘natural’ and, therefore, tastes better: ‘you can taste it, all of it; it’s not fake’ (47f). No one was opposed to alternative farming systems for environmental reasons.

The consuming of foods manufactured using technological interventions in their production – GM plant crops and animals, and in vitro meat – were met with limited environmental-based approval. Just two participants favoured GM for environmental reasons: the potential for growing food crops on infertile soil and carbon capture possibilities and using less water and chemicals as a possibility. A more frequent response was opposition to GM: it was seen as environmentally risky given the potential for chemical resistance and subsequently the creation of resistant weeds and the spreading of GM modified to non-modified varieties. This technology was described as ‘not natural’ and ‘playing around with nature’ (33f).

A few participants argued that in vitro meat is environmentally good. This was due to the possibilities of converting land-use away from animal grazing and feed crops. Nobody was opposed to this technology for environmental reasons. The weak environmental response to in vitro meat was instead overwhelmed by concerns about in vitro meat not being ‘natural’ or not being ‘real meat’ (64 m); 16 participants were opposed to in vitro meat on this basis.

When looking to ‘other’ ways of consuming, including nose-to-tail and eating ‘other’ protein-rich foods derived from living creatures that are not a usual part of New Zealanders’ diets, there was essentially no opposition on environmental grounds. Instead, there was some support noted for nose-to-tail eating, firstly, because it is a better use of resources with less waste produced, and secondly, for extending the living protein range for environmental reasons, in particular, if this meant consuming animals that are currently a pest – notably, rabbits.

Overall, participants’ positions on reducing meat consumption were positive: 38 people stated support for this, with just two opposing; the remaining 12 participants were mixed or undecided in their support. Among these responses, the three main drivers for reducing meat consumption by frequency of participant comment were: economic, health/nutrition and aesthetics/taste. Interestingly, when participants discussed reasons to be wary about reducing meat consumption, it was these same areas that were again mentioned. In short, economics, health/nutrition and aesthetics/taste are important factors in determining consumer food choices.

Thirteen participants contended that buying meat was very expensive and hence it would make better financial sense to purchase less, and when purchasing, to make it go further. Suggestions were made regarding the growing cost of meat and how this would likely mean that it becomes increasingly prohibitive to purchase, thereby leading to a decline in meat consumption: ‘I think meat is going to be unsustainable as the price will go up and will prompt people to eat less meat’ (59 m). Six participants, however, argued that eating meat was cheaper, given the high costs of vegetables, described by one participant as ‘ridiculously expensive’ (46f).

A varied diet with less meat was seen as healthy:

I don’t think that the way we eat meat on this planet is sustainable for our personal health. Just make it a thing you have a couple of times a week or as a treat. Have the best quality of natural, real stuff if you are going to keep eating it … . (41f)

This participant cited health benefits, referred to sustainability, and made a connection between good quality and ‘natural, real’ food. An assortment of other comments was made relating to why eating less meat would be beneficial health-wise, including given the fat content of many meats. The one main health-related concern involving consuming less meat, was the ability to get sufficient proteins, argued by several individuals as necessary to ‘fill you up’ (20f).

The third more frequently mentioned consideration for favouring meat reduction was aesthetics. Individuals made reference to how meatless and minimal-meat meals can be ‘lovely’ (42f), ‘very attractive’ (17f), along with ‘tasty and awesome’ (08 m). On the flipside were a handful of individuals who opposed reducing meat as they simply like the taste of it, and did not want to reduce how much they ate.

Other factors noted in relation to a meat-reduced diet included ethics, particularly regarding animal welfare, while others noted the benefits in converting land-use away from animal production towards more environmentally favourable purposes.

Two main factors influenced opposition to reducing meat consumption: firstly, 14 participants commented on a lack of knowledge in relation to how to prepare and cook meat-reduced/less meals, and believed that meal preparation would take a long time. Secondly, three individuals simply stated that eating meat was just a traditional aspect of their lifestyle, a habit and hence difficult to change: ‘ … our culture is definitely against small amounts of meat. It’s a cultural thing of eating meat; we are a farming nation of barbecuers [sic]’ (64 m); and ‘In this culture if you asked “what’s for dinner?”, you wouldn’t hear someone respond “venison and kumara”, you just hear “venison”; kumara is just a side and it wouldn’t be mentioned’ (28 m). In what ways then, does the environment matter?

Environmental motivations when thinking about meat production and consumption are in simple terms, sparse. When compiling all participants comments related to environmental considerations or motivations towards different production and consumption practices associated with meat, the physical attributes of the environment (such as land, water, air and biodiversity) were most prominently mentioned (48 comments), followed by aesthetics (39 comments), then natural/unnatural qualities (35 comments) and lastly resource use/waste-related issues (14 comments). How then might qualities deemed important for participants when making purchase decisions be used strategically to reduce meat consumption?

Discussion

The outcomes of this research support existing findings regarding factors influential in reducing meat consumption from a social perspective: the need for better education or information dispersion regarding perceived barriers to producing meat-reduced/less meals; ensuring there is sensory or aesthetic appeal; and placing emphasis on human health or nutritional benefits (Richardson et al. 1993; Lea and Worsley 2001; Lea et al. 2005; Hoek et al. 2011; Westhoek et al. 2014). Furthermore, the cultural significance of historically or traditionally embedded meat-centric eating practices in Aotearoa New Zealand is important – though increasing globalisation and multiculturalism is seeing a plethora of meat-less/reduced food options appearing.

Despite this nation’s changing demography, without a strong history of meat-less/reduced meals, the knowledge of how and what to cook (for example) ‘instead’ of a meat-based meal, is not always readily known. Nonetheless, this research has found that there are four environment-related areas that participants see as influential for thinking about meat and meat-like, production and consumption practices: (1) the physical environment; (2) aesthetics; (3) appealing to nature and (4) waste. If these factors can, in turn, be linked to areas found in past research to most determine whether meat and meat-like products are consumed or not, i.e. sensory appeal, cost, convenience and health – as mechanisms that can lure consumers towards more sustainable consumption – then this could provide one series of solutions for promoting meat-less meals and making them more accessible. New Zealanders are concerned about the state of the physical environment of this country (Johnson et al. 2008), yet participants expressed a need to increase education levels regarding the environmental impacts of what is consumed in the human diet. This can then be linked to education regarding personal health benefits, including allaying fears that lowering meat consumption will mean that individuals do not receive enough protein or cannot experience satiety (as some participants feared). In fact, all protein needs can be met by eating a balanced diet that does not need to include any animal-derived proteins, just as satiety is obtainable by omitting animal-derived proteins (NZ Nutrition Foundation 2013).

Secondly, participants appreciated both the aesthetics of landscape and of food. Increasing the aesthetic appeal of meatless or meat-reduced meals is an obvious step towards more such meals being produced in households, yet to date, there has been negligible marketing by government or non-governmental bodies towards downscaling meat consumption, or making meat-reduced/less meals attractive to consumers (though a notable example here is the Berrysmith Foundation who promote meat-free Mondays as part of their overall objective of promoting sustainable food practices and systems [Berrysmith Foundation 2015]). There are though, numerous advertising campaigns, often featuring national celebrities that exist to encourage meat consumption (see, for example, the Beef+Lamb website). In short, information about meat and meat-based meals is readily available, while the opposite is true of meatless or meat-reduced meals. This does not assist in breaking down perceived barriers to preparing these meals and instead adds to the perception of this being a difficult task. A vast chasm, therefore, exists between where things currently lie and where they need to go if there is to be a normalisation of meatless and meat-reduced meals. Concerted campaigning efforts towards aesthetically pleasing and comparably simple to cook reduced-meat meals would be helpful, as would de Bakker and Dagevos’s (2012) suggestion of integrating hybrid meat look-alike foods (for example, meat patties that contain less meat and more plant based ingredients) into meals. Perhaps, the other more directly environmentally aesthetic factor that could be utilised in promoting meat consumption reduction is using imagery of healthy, attractive environments in association with any meat-reduced advertising campaign or products.

Thirdly, the appeal to nature argument is one that posits, that natural is equated with ‘good’ or ‘right’, and conversely, that which is unnatural is ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ (Baggini 2002). This can be extended to ‘natural’ being equated with not just being better environmentally, but also safer and healthier. While this is more a normative assumption than ‘fact’, it is important to consider nonetheless. Incorporating ‘natural’ or ‘nature’ into any marketing towards reducing meat consumption – or referring to ‘unnatural’ as a deterrent as applicable – is, therefore, worthwhile.

Lastly, food waste is a huge area of concern in itself. There was widespread agreement among participants regarding the need to put more effort into wasting fewer resources, including land, water and food, which, in turn, lends itself to the reiteration of the point that better educating consumers as to the environmental implications of meat production would be beneficial given the inefficiencies and waste inherent in its production. Reducing waste and making better use of resources are akin to economic efficiency, which has personal appeal, and as such should be incorporated into any campaigns that promote increased resource efficiency. All in all, connecting meatless or meat-reduced meals with less waste and better resource use is a solid basis for the promotion of such meals.

Conclusion

Environmental factors should not be drawn on in isolation in an attempt to encourage meat consumption reduction, but should be rather introduced more determinately in conjunction with those areas most likely to motivate changes in consumption: economic, sensory/aesthetic appeal and health. There are, however, environmental imperatives that could be incorporated into any promotion of meat-reduced diets or products, through highlighting how a product is beneficial for the environment; is ‘natural’ (even if the ‘appeal to nature’ rhetoric is fallacious); will help deliver an aesthetically pleasing environment; or is less wasteful and hence more resource efficient.

Given the myriad factors that influence consumer choice, an extensive campaign that can appeal to a range of people is needed. This would do best if promoted or supported by government, though this is difficult to imagine when agricultural production is an important source of economic growth for New Zealand. I anticipate that a series of campaigns from producers and actors across the civil society sphere including non-governmental organisations and conscientious consumers will together provide the best platform from which to launch moves towards reducing the consumption of resource-intensive meat products. While this may place an unjust burden on individual consumers, I believe it is prerequisite that consumer attitudes and hence practices shift through being better informed, in order for widespread change to ultimately occur. Appealing to more direct, personal concerns and predilections of individuals remain for the time-being, the obvious path towards encouraging beneficial environmental practices, even though this leaves the larger issues of consumerism and the marginalisation of environmental values as problematic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.