A Risky Business? Climate Change and Meat Reduction in Aotearoa New Zealand. A Media Framing Analysis

ABSTRACT

The reduction of red meat in high-income countries is an impactful climate action and necessary to balance the projected growth of meat consumption in middle-income countries. Aotearoa New Zealand (herein Aotearoa) is a high-income country with elevated per capita greenhouse gas emissions. This research presents a media framing analysis of 58 news media stories on meat reduction as a climate action. It illuminates how arguments are constructed rhetorically and debates about meat reduction made convincing. Within Aotearoa media, a “risk” frame has been adopted for both pro meat reduction and anti-meat reduction positions. Arguments favoring reduction considered the risks of meat consumption to both human health and ecological systems. Arguments against meat reduction focused on risks to humans, relying on nutritional science to support claims. Both positions emphasized individual action and responsibility, presenting dietary “choice” as the foremost way to manage risk. In doing so, structural changes such as government policy change or food regulation were de-emphasized.

KEYWORDS:

• Media
• climate change
• meat reduction
• planetary health
• nutrition
• risk

Introduction

A broad consensus exists among climate scholars that meat produced from ruminant animals, such as cows, sheep, goat and deer, adversely affects the climate (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Along with other greenhouse gases (GHG), ruminant animals produce CO₄ (methane), a particularly problematic GHG due to its warming power. Globally, meat consumption is projected to grow due to population increase, economic prosperity, and dietary shifts within some middle-income countries (Godfray et al., 2018; OECD. & F.A.O., 2023). Although Aotearoa’s contribution to global GHG emissions is relatively low, animal agriculture is responsible for 45% of the country’s emissions (Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2022); considerably higher than the global average of 16.5% (Twine, 2021). While data suggests Aotearoa has reached peak meat consumption and this is unlikely to grow (Whitton et al., 2021), per capita rates of meat consumption from ruminant animals are approximately double the world average (OECD, 2023).

A transition to reduced-meat diets in high-income countries could benefit people and the planet (Rust et al., 2020). While meat can be a valuable source of protein (Klurfeld, 2018) and nutrition for some (Whitmee et al., 2015), consuming more than the recommended daily intake is linked to non-communicable diseases, including cancer, diabetes, and obesity (Godfray et al., 2018). Research shows reducing meat consumption is a high impact individual climate action compared with other actions such as recycling (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). While the science is clear, tensions around meat reduction ensue as illustrated in the following quotes from local newspapers:

Globally, there’s no question that we have to decrease our meat consumption. … for rich countries like NZ there’s no question. (Boyd as cited in MacManus, 2019).

Red meat, eaten in moderation, (the MoH recommendation is up to 500 grams cooked per week) has a role in a healthy lifestyle. (Slater, 2019)

News media play a central role in shaping public awareness and concern about climate change generally (Carvalho, 2010; Happer & Philo, 2013) and influence societal views and understandings concerning scientific evidence related to health, illness, and disease (Matthias et al., 2020). Media representation of health-related issues affects individuals’ understandings, which in turn can affect risk perception and health behaviors (Rowbotham et al., 2019). Consequently, examining local media can show how the relationships between meat, the climate, and human health are constructed.

Literature review

While media play a significant role in how people understand climate change and meat consumption, within climate change news articles very few describe the climate-meat connection. Studies spanning several countries found percentages of coverage as low as .14% (Lahsen, 2017) and generally around 5% (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2015; Friedlander et al., 2014; Kristiansen et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2014; Neff et al., 2009). Recent evidence suggests coverage is increasing in the United Kingdom (UK), although coverage is still relatively low at 12% (Mroz & Painter, 2023).

Reasons for the limited reporting include political influence and sociocultural support for meat consumption. Several studies noted strong ties between political and economic actors and industrialized animal agriculture as a key reason (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2015; Kristiansen et al., 2021; Lahsen, 2017; Lee et al., 2014). Compared with progressive newspapers, the right leaning press tends to downplay the issue due to higher levels of climate skepticism among their readership (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2015; Kristiansen et al., 2021). Meat has also historically had a strong symbolic association with masculinity (Adams, 2015; Fiddes, 1992). Accordingly, Almiron and Zoppeddu (2015) argued that the presence of a strong machismo culture could explain the low attention in the Italian and Spanish media (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2015). The dominance of male editors and employees unwilling to question their consumption habits was also proposed by Kristiansen et al. (2021) to rationalize the low coverage in United States (US) and UK newsrooms.

Sentiment towards meat appears to be shifting in some media. Sievert et al. (2022) noted a strongly polarized debate in the US, UK, Australia, and Aotearoa media that favored meat consumption. The UK press in particular framed meat reduction as elitist, an infringement on personal “choice,” and a risk to human health (Sievert et al., 2022). In contrast, Mroz and Painter (2023) reported finding an anti-meat consumption sentiment in the UK media with dominant narratives linking meat to environmental concerns, high GHGs, and climate change. These findings provide evidence for a “de-meatification” taking place in the UK media (Morris, 2018).

Beyond drawing audience awareness to social concerns, the media play a prominent role in assigning responsibility for social issues (Entman, 1993). The responsibility to solve the climate–environment–meat concern is constantly fluctuating. Neff et al. (2009) noted that the media initially attributed responsibility to individuals, but over time, responsibility shifted toward business and government. Similarly, a major focus on industry and political actors in the UK, German, and Spanish media was observed by Palau-Sampio et al. (2022) who also suggested that the media made a wide distribution of accountability. Other studies found an increased focus towards individual responsibility and action. To highlight, Kristiansen et al. (2021) reported that individuals in the US and UK media were assigned responsibility twice as much as other parties, such as industry or government, and recently the UK press placed the burden of responsibility on the individual (Mroz & Painter, 2023).

These mixed attributions of responsibility are reflected in the wide-ranging solutions presented by the media. For instance, technological solutions to address GHG emissions arising from cattle featured in the US and UK press (Kiesel, 2010; Lee et al., 2014) and Spanish and Italian media (Almiron & Zoppeddu, 2015). Multiple solutions were present in the UK, German and Spanish media with frequent mentions related to meat production practices, the requirement for systemic change, the role of plant-based food and insects, and the need to educate consumers (Palau-Sampio et al., 2022). Both Kristiansen et al. (2021) and Mroz and Painter (2023) observed a strong presence of dietary solutions related to eating less or no red meat. In total, these findings suggest a growing acknowledgement of meat’s impact on the environment and some media attention to meat reduction as a climate action.

Influenced by ideology and culture, social practices, national interests, and differing geopolitical outlooks, (Boyce & Lewis, 2009) media representation of climate change and climate actions are constantly evolving. The present study focuses on media in Aotearoa to examine reporting in a context where animal agriculture contributes significantly to the local economy, approximately 4% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2023). Aotearoa experienced significant neoliberal economic reforms from the 1990s (Oak, 2015). The removal of agricultural subsidies to correct market distortions saw an increase in farm size to increase herd productivity (Barnett & Pauling, 2005). Thus efforts towards meat reduction may be hampered by notions of “freedom” and “efficiency” promoted by the farming industry (Liepins & Bradshaw, 1999). Neoliberal logics results in government reluctance to interfere in the marketplace and impose restrictions on dietary “choices.” Moreover, meat is strongly tied to notions of masculinity and Aotearoa has a masculinized culture (Liepins, 2000; Panelli, 2004), which may also frustrate efforts towards meat reduction.

Rhetorical context

Media debate only has meaning in context (Billig, 1996) and the data were collected to explore rhetoric in response to key discursive moments that provided opportunities for heightened debate (Carvalho, 2008). These moments included the release of the Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems report (herein called EAT-Lancet) by Willett et al. (2019). This report proposed a “planetary diet” to stay within environmental boundaries, such as consuming no more than 98 g of red meat per week. Then in August 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL, 2019) was released which primarily focused on land use and included minor references to dietary change (Shukla et al., 2019). Within the wider context of global climate emissions from land-based meat production, this report was highly relevant to Aotearoa. The findings were welcomed by the meat industry who highlighted that there was no call for reduction in meat consumption (Meat Industry Association, 2019). Concurrently, the 5-year program He Waka Eke Noa (We’re All in This Together) began. This was a partnership between Māori (Indigenous people of Aotearoa), the animal agriculture industry and government to find practical solutions to reduce emissions, including pricing GHG emissions at the farm level as a levy. Farmers were previously exempt from the government’s main climate change policy that instigated levies through the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (Salmon et al., 2017). Furthermore in 2020, the government passed the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 aiming to “reduce all GHG’s (except methane) to net zero by 2050” (Ministry for the Environment, 2022). Debates around methane targets continue. Taken together, these key discursive moments suggest a lack of appetite to promote meat reduction in response to EAT-Lancet’s “planetary diet” by the meat industry and government. However, media debate ensued, driven by a strong pro meat reduction stance.

Combining framing analysis with a rhetorical perspective, this study explores how meat reduction as a climate change action was framed in the Aotearoa media and what rhetorical arguments were deployed to achieve this framing. The findings are understood in relation to Beck’s (1992) risk society theorizing. Understanding risk construction enables insight into how the debate is shaped and what might influence audience climate in(action).

Frames, framing, and rhetoric

This research is located within critical realism. Critical realism (CR) lies at a point between realist and constructionist positions and combines a realist ontology with a social constructionist epistemology (Elder-Vass, 2012). Situating this research within CR acknowledges climate change as a real, material event and knowledge of climate change as inevitably socially constructed. CR also accommodates the physiological effects of meat consumption on the body and meat consumption having varied cultural, social, and psychological meanings.

Underpinned by different research paradigms and theories, frame theory and associated terminology are contested. It is generally agreed, however, that framing analysis focuses on how a news story is presented, not what is presented (Kuypers, 2009). This article views framing as a dynamic process and media as part of the same social system as the audience, rather than an “elite mechanism” acting on the audience (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Hardin & Whiteside, 2009). Imbued with cultural resonance, media frames are powerful in their right, influencing audiences through their apparent “naturalness” and familiarity (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989).

Reflecting larger social themes, news frames act as a “central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events and suggesting what is at issue” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3). In other words, frames impart meaning and answer the question, “what is going on here?” A frame is the outcome of a framing process, whereby journalists consciously or unconsciously decide how information will be presented (D'Angelo, 2002; Kuypers, 2009). To frame is to “select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation” for the item described (Entman, 1993, p. 52, emphasis in original). In this way, framing provides boundaries about what to think, how to think, and how to argue a social issue (Phillips, 2019).

Framing analysis refers to the process of identifying and analyzing which aspects of an issue are salient, what aspects are de-emphasized, obscured, or absented (Kuypers, 2009). In this study, Entman’s (1993) conceptualization of framing is drawn on to analyses which framing elements (namely, define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgements, offer solutions) are captured within the frame. Framing analysis can be extended with a rhetorical perspective (Kuypers, 2009).

Examining rhetoric is useful for illuminating how arguments about climate and meat are made convincing. Following Aristotle, rhetorical arguments engage “practical reasoning” to influence decisions and choices in favor of a desirable position (Kock, 2013). As such, this study focuses on how audiences might be persuaded to act, rather than on whether argumentative claims are true or false. Aristotelian understandings of logos, ethos, and pathos appeals are particularly useful for exploring how persuasive arguments about meat consumption-reduction are built. Logos appeals aim to achieve agreement with an audience on a common-sense understanding through a rational process. Logos utilizes three techniques as articulated by Voci (2022): instruction (docere) and objective information; proof (probare), such as statistics and scientific data; and a logical-ethical warning (monere) appealing to audience rationality. While logic and evidence are central to persuasion; they are not enough. Simply telling people the facts about meat and climate change is unlikely to alter thoughts or behaviors (Priest, 2016). Logos requires ethos and pathos to be effective. Ethos appeals are based on ethics, character, and expertise (building credibility), drawing on opinions of experts to convince the public (Higgins & Walker, 2012). Characteristically dramatic, pathos appeals to the sympathies, beliefs, and values of the audience, tapping into emotions that are capable of modifying judgments and triggering action (Higgins & Walker, 2012).

Data analytical approach

The analysis used both deductive and inductive approaches to explore how meat reduction as a climate change action was framed and the rhetorical arguments deployed. To locate the frames, the articles were first read for how the topic was described. As several generic frames are commonly employed in news media and science debate (de Vreese, 2005), the data was reviewed to ascertain if the generic frames were present (following Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000) or common frames associated with climate change discourse such as “disaster/implicit risk,” “uncertainty,” (Painter, 2013) and “opportunity” (O’Neill et al., 2015). To illustrate, articles were read for content about uncertainty. Then, engaging a more inductive form of reasoning, the articles were re-read paying close attention to the words, phrases, visual images, type of language used, and persuasive rhetorical devices such as catchphrases, metaphor, and synecdoche (Fahnestock, 2011; Kuypers, 2009). For example, a photograph of Greta Thunberg is considered a synecdoche as her image stands in for the idea of intergenerational justice (Hayes & O'Neill, 2021). After exploring which framing elements were present, a detailed analysis of the rhetorical arguments that constructed the frame was conducted. NVivo was utilized to code examples of logos, ethos, pathos, and other rhetorical devices.

Data sample

Coinciding with the release of the EAT-Lancet report, data was collected from January 1st, 2019, until December 31st, 2022, from Aotearoa’s largest online news publication Stuff (www.stuff.co.nz). Stuff publishes content from its own national and regional newsrooms and hosts content from global and local news partners, reaching around 2 million unique users per month. Stuff is independently owned and defines itself as non-partisan (“About Stuff,” 2024). Stuff is considered progressive compared with Aotearoa’s second largest newspaper, The New Zealand Herald (Kenix & Bolanos Lopez, 2022).

Both Stuff and Google news’ internal search function were used to identify relevant articles. The search string included the terms meat, meat reduc*, climate change, plant-based, and environment in various combinations. Initially 118 articles were retrieved however many had limited relevance so further inclusion criteria were devised. This included requiring clear connections between meat and climate change impacts and a minimum of four sentences about the topic. If the focus was primarily on animal agriculture production practices and climate change, articles were excluded. A total of 58 articles were finally collected, with most (27) published in 2019. Ninety percent of articles were produced by Stuff, three were from regional newspapers and three were from partner news sites. The full data set is available in the supplementary materials. In the analysis, minor edits have been made to shorten or clarify extracts. Removed text is indicated with ellipses and substituted words with square brackets.

Findings

Within the media, a dominant “risk” frame was identified. The word risk is used to refer to “the possibility of an unwelcome outcome” (Fillmore & Atkins, 1992, p. 79). A “risk” frame was invoked for both pro-meat reduction and anti-meat reduction positions (herein called pro-reduction and anti-reduction). The pro-reduction stance was more common in the media, although this reduced over time. Closely related to the “risk frame” was an “attribution of responsibility” frame, which is presented elsewhere.

The pro-reduction stance framed ruminant meat consumption as a risk to the health of humans and ecological systems. The problem was located in GHG emissions arising from cattle and health risks related to non-communicable diseases. Animal biology and levels of meat consumption associated with Western diets were deemed casual agents. Meat consumption was constructed as “bad” for planetary health and knowledge put forward by the nutrition and meat industry problematized. The most prominent solution advanced by the media was to eat less meat.

At the same time, an anti-reduction position rendered meat essential for human health and meat reduction a risk to health, especially for those deemed vulnerable. The lack of nutritional knowledge was depicted as the force creating the problem and audiences were advised about meat’s superior nutritional credentials compared with plant-protein. Caregivers were encouraged to provide meat for health benefits, and the motives of those promoting plant-based diets were made questionable. Eating meat for its nutritional benefits was promoted to mitigate risks to nutritional health. Illustrative quotes of these risk framing elements are provided in Supplements 1 and 2.

Within an over-arching “risk” frame, various rhetorical arguments (herein called arguments) were engaged to encourage the audience to make a deliberative choice about meat consumption, that is, a careful consideration whether to eat meat. Supplement 3 contains a list of the Stuff media references quoted herein. The following sections explore these arguments in detail, beginning with the pro-reduction stance.

“Risk to planetary health” frame

Environmental-health arguments

Within a “risk to planetary health” frame, the problem of meat and the climate drew together the domains of environmental health and human health, highlighting risks associated with both, and setting up meat reduction as a mitigating solution. The first example is by opinion writers Fukuda and Hughes, members of a climate advocacy group:

Extract 1

Beef, lamb and processed meat were, by far, the largest contributors to heating the planet, emitting 21.17 and 12 kg of CO₂ equivalent per kilogram, respectively. Eating these frequently also has adverse health impacts by increasing the risk of heart diseases, cancer and diabetes. (Fukuda & Hughes, 2020)

In this extract, to establish the risk of meat to climate change, logos appeals of docere (instruct) and probare (prove) inform the audience of the specific GHG contributions of meat. Negative climate impacts and human health risks are intertwined using three-part lists, namely, “beef, lamb, and processed meat and heart diseases, cancer, and diabetes.” Three-part lists act persuasively by constructing descriptions that are representative or appear complete (Edwards & Potter, 1992). In this environmental-health argument, a range of visual images instructed, provided proof, and warned audiences that meat is “bad” for the planet and human health. Some articles incorporated graphs from academic studies that depicted the carbon emissions from various diets (e.g., Lewis, 2020; Macmillan & Drew, 2020) others included carbon tracking calculators (see Deguara 2020; Moger, 2019), drawing on logos (logical appeal) and giving the appearance of scientific authority.

Environmental-health arguments were supported by highlighting scientific consensus, referencing established expertise, and disputing opponent’s claims. Scientific consensus was neatly packaged in the statement expressed by Stuff Climate Change editor Gibson “They summarize thousands of pieces of research and go through multiple scientific reviews” (Gibson, 2022). Ethos appeals (credibility) were identified through referrals to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the 2020 Lancet Countdown lending support to claims linking meat and death, locating meat consumption as highly risky (Garlick, 2021). Discrediting, or at least disrupting the scientific claims of opponents was also noted. Extract 2 below is from a public health researcher, who argued dietary advice supporting meat consumption for sick people did not reflect current scientific evidence:

Extract 2

It [Dietitians New Zealand] asserted that sick people need to eat meat. This is hard to swallow from an organisation that is expounding outdated beliefs and is supported by Beef + Lamb NZ … (Potter, 2019)

The positioning of Dieticians NZ as outdated attempts to construct their advice as based on “bad” science with their refusal to accept newer evidence. The phrase “hard to swallow,” a dietary metaphor, suggests the claims put forward by Dieticians NZ would be difficult to accept. Overlapping with economic arguments, Dieticians NZ’s motives for supporting meat consumption are attributed to their financial relationship with the meat industry. This move engenders suspicion and discredits Dieticians NZ’s advice.

Economic arguments

Arguments drawing on economic reasons focused on exposing the meat industry’s economic motivation for promoting meat consumption and highlighting the health costs of meat consumption. By representing opponents as untrustworthy, it is possible to dispute and disrepute their health claims. The extract below is from a journalist-authored article:

Extract 3

It [SAFE] said the industry was making “misleading and exaggerated” claims of health benefits associated with eating meat and there was a trend of commissioning science that made their sector look good. “These are exactly the same tactics the tobacco industry used to protect their industry. The meat industry is putting financial wealth ahead of people’s health,” Safe Eat Kind co-ordinator Krysta Neve said. (Taunton, 2019)

Animal rights organisation SAFE claims the meat industry is “misleading” people and has engaged in dubious behavior for some time. These arguments focus on who is served by perpetuating health claims to demonstrate vested interests. By aligning the meat industry to the tobacco industry, the meat industry is positioned as harmful to people’s health. This emotional appeal may invoke audience outrage for being duped, or at very least, generate concern.

The rationale for meat reduction was extended through highlighting the financial benefits to the public health system as a functioning public health system has a broad appeal. In a journalist-authored article, Macmillan, a health and environment researcher is quoted:

Extract 4

“We could take a huge burden off the health system to the tune of tens of billions over our life time just by making quite modest changes towards more climate-friendly diets and healthier diets” Macmillan said. (Lewis, 2020)

The rhetorical force in this extract comes from the contrast between the “huge burden” inflicted on the health system versus the “modest change” required at the individual level, making the compromise between food choices and planetary health moderate, sensible, and prudent. The use of the inclusive pronouns “we” and “our” implies shared beliefs, responsibility, and rewards, while the risk of not acting reproduces burden. This claim sets up reducing meat as a triple win—climate, human health, and the economy.

Threat-to-life arguments

In threat-to-life arguments, calls for meat reduction were nested within climate change discourse of existential threats, the very high end of risk. The extract below is from a journalist reporting on the release of EAT-Lancet’s study:

Extract 5

The report explains our current diets are putting a huge strain on the earth and not only threatening animal existence, but also human existence. “Civilisation is in crisis,” wrote the editors of the Lancet. (Corcoran, 2019)

Extract 5 makes a direct link between what humans currently eat and the resulting threat to existence, demonstrating the existential threat posed by meat consumption. This is seen in emotive words such as “crisis,” which implores people to realize that urgent action is needed. The next extract similarly draws on pathos centered around an emotive rhetoric of a fearful future. The extract quotes a population health professor, Swinburn, in a journalist penned article:

Extract 6

It's either the consumers or their grandkids who are going to pay – with a burnt-up world. (Broughton, 2019)

In Extract 6, the use of the phrase “burnt-up world” summons a catastrophic future. Pathos appeals to fear act by persuading audiences to allay their concerns through engaging with the proposed solution (eat less meat). Moreover, the reference to “grandkids” also attempts to appeal to protection of loved ones.

To counter the threat-to-life, the catchphrase “save the planet” was repeatedly invoked in headlines and media articles (Brookes, 2019; Corcoran, 2019; Dixon, 2019; Franks, 2019; Kaplan 2019; Auckland Council, 2020). For example, one headline included the rhetorical question “Do we really have to stop eating meat to save the planet?” (Kaplan, 2019) to which the article argued yes. Stories of everyday people alongside ethos appeal to celebrities were also present. The extract below is from a journalist article and relates to a television personality:

Extract 7

Miriama Kamo and her family are tackling climate change head on and she hopes other Kiwis will join her in the battle to save the world. I think one of the most important messages that we can get out there is, that if you are anxious about climate change, the best way to combat that is to take action. (Harvey, 2022)

Extract 7 provides an example of how media draw on culturally resonant tropes to appeal to their audiences. In this extract, notions of “tackling, battle and combat” draw on masculinized metaphors of sport and war to protect the planet and future generations.

Various images worked alongside the text to amplify the threat-to-life with pathos appeals (emotions). For example, video footage contained an image of a young man carrying a placard that read You’re [sic] addiction to meat will end in Earth’s defeat (Golledge, 2019). Images of schoolgirls protesting, and polar bears on melting ice floes were examples of visual synecdoche used, with these images standing in for intergenerational justice and threats to life (Golledge, 2019; Sudain, 2019). Illustrations depicting the Earth on fire were found in still images and video content. In summary, the “risk to planetary health” frame drew on rhetorical arguments that constructed meat as a risk to human health, the environment, the economy, and existence in general.

“Risk to nutritional health” frame

The anti-reduction stance drew on alternative arguments to construct meat as necessary within a “risk to nutritional health” frame.

Human health arguments

Using human health arguments, meat reduction was implicitly constructed as a risk to human health. A trade-off was used between environmental risks and health risks, whereby human concerns were established as superior. On January 18th, 2 days after the EAT-Lancet report an article titled “Drastic reduction in red meat intake at odds with health guidelines, nutritionist warns” was authored by a journalist:

Extract 8

Scientists say the way we eat could be catastrophic for the environment, but could their alternative diet be catastrophic for our health? (Taunton, 2019)

Depicted in this extract is the superiority of human health concerns. Working on the expectations that as people, the audience will likely prioritize human wellbeing, the use of “but” in the middle of the sentence, subtly directs the argument toward the potential health catastrophe. Akin to the previous framing, the notion of catastrophe engages pathos and plays to fears of a worst-case scenario. In privileging human health, anxiety and fear related to catastrophic climate concerns are potentially diminished. In backing claims of meat’s necessity, multiple articles informed audiences of the micronutrients of meat, for example, Vitamin A (Flaws, 2021), four amino acids (lysine, threonine, methionine, tryptophan); three Omega-3 fatty acids (DHA, EPA, DPA), Vitamin D3 (Garlick, 2021).

Support for meat consumption repeatedly drew on government health guidelines to build the argument against meat reduction (e.g., Broughton, 2019; Kelly, 2020; Lewis, 2020; Slater, 2019).

Extract 9

The Ministry of Health (MOH) recommends adults eat at least one serving of fish and other seafood, eggs, poultry or red meat a day. Under its guidelines, a serving of red meat – a source of protein, vitamin B, iron and zinc – is approximately 100 grams and total weekly consumption should be less than 500 grams. (Taunton 2019)

Extract 9 draws on the logos appeals of docere (instruct) and ethos (credibility) to position the MOH as the authority on which to defend consumption of red meat. Referencing a government health agency reinforces the national dietary guidelines for meat consumption as credible due to perceptions of neutrality and commitment to population health. Other ethos appeals highlighted nutrition expertise by referring to job titles such as “programme director of nutrition and food sciences” (Garlick, 2021) and “registered nutritionist” (Kelly, 2020).

EAT-Lancet’s claims related to health were resisted based on scientific uncertainties. This was noted in an unnamed article:

Extract 10

John Ioannidis, chair of disease prevention at Stanford University, said he welcomed the growing attention to how diets affect the environment, but that the report's recommendations do not reflect the level of scientific uncertainties around nutrition and health. (“Less Beef,” 2019)

In this extract, an academic from a prestigious university contends “scientific uncertainties” related to nutritional health are inherent in EAT-Lancet’s report. Arguments around uncertainty make it possible to dismiss pro-reduction arguments until more appropriate and conclusive evidence becomes available.

In response to these nutritional risks and uncertainties, the notion of sustainability was co-opted to acknowledge links between certain kinds of meat production and the climate, whilst fortifying the necessity of meat for human health and wellbeing. The extract below is from Beef and Lamb NZ executives, Baker and Windle:

Extract 11

You can already feel good about eating locally raised beef and lamb. It stacks up well against existing sustainability measures, but when you factor in its nutrition credentials, you’ll really feel better. (Baker & Windle, 2021)

In Extract 11, the repetition of the pronoun “you,” addresses the audience directly and encourages them to agree, a powerful persuasive strategy. The rationale to eat meat is strengthened by claims that locally produced meat is “sustainable.” Pathos appeals to feeling “good” and feeling “better” associated meat with mental and physical wellbeing. The relationship between the environment and meat consumption is acknowledged, however, the pursuit of human health is prioritized.

Threat to the “vulnerable” arguments

Within the risk to health argument, certain groups of people were deemed particularly in need of meat and constructed as “vulnerable.” This included young people for development, women and girls for reproductive health, and the infirm to combat malnutrition. Arguments about risk of ill-health and vulnerability provide the moral ground for others to intervene and prescribe meat as a solution. For example, in the following extract from a journalist, the views of a dietician (North) were quoted regarding children’s health and development:

Extract 12

North said there were several key nutrients children could miss out on by becoming vegetarian or vegan, including protein which was vital for their growth … A lack of protein could also result in weakened immunity, meaning more sick days, while the amino acids in protein were used for making neurotransmitters which could influence mood and learning. (Taunton, 2019)

Taunton (2019) uses the notion of vitality to align meat with nutritional security. Meat reduction is also linked to physical and mental harm. Drawing heavily on nutritional science, logos appeal of monere (logical-ethical warning) imply without meat children will be “sick,” making meat reduction a moral concern. Protecting children is linked to the provision of meat. Nutritional concerns regarding girls and women were also common in some media (see Flaws, 2021; Garlick, 2021; Slater, 2019). Taunton (2019) further asserts the importance of meat for women’s health:

Extract 13

Fiona Greig, a registered nutritionist and Beef and Lamb's New Zealand's head of nutrition said she had concerns the suggested reduction could have implications for vulnerable groups, especially young women who may already be suffering from nutrient deficiencies. (Taunton, 2019)

In this extract an ethos appeal is first built by positioning Greig as a credible source as a “registered nutritionist.” The risk to young women is constructed by positioning them as candidates for “suffering,” with meat reduction positioned as increasing nutritional risk. Meat was portrayed as essential for the infirm. This construction took place within a media debate about sustainability guidelines developed for the health sector which recommended meat reduction. The following is from a journalist:

Extract 14

Dietitians NZ, a professional body, said in response to the sustainability guidelines that while promoting plant-based foods was right in general, it was not appropriate for those unwell in hospital. Malnutrition is common in patients, and often meat and dairy in meals is one of the best ways of ensuring nutrition requirements are met. (Lewis, 2019)

In Extract 14, the use of the qualifier “right in general” acknowledges a role for plant-based foods and sets up a specific exclusion for the infirm. The argument is strengthened by referring to Dieticians NZ as a “professional body.” Moreover, the idea of necessity for specific groups makes it permissible for others not constructed to be at risk, such as men, to continue their consumption unabated. Necessity for some, justifies universal meat consumption.

Economic arguments

Meat reduction as causing ill health was also rendered an economic problem. Highlighting economic arguments provides the basis for societal concern on the dietary decisions of others. Calling attention to the cost of treatment highlights how individual actions have widespread negative economic consequences:

Extract 15

As the amount of red meat Kiwis (New Zealanders) eat shrinks, hospitalisations and treatment costs for iron deficiency anaemia are on the rise. Annual costs have increased from $3.2 million to $6.7 m over the past 10 years, according to Ministry of Health. Over the past three years, close to $20 m has been spent on treatment. (Taunton, 2019)

These appeals draw on logical–ethical warnings along with common-sense understandings that “weaker” groups (young, women, the infirm) need meat. These appeals work to establish meat reduction as incongruent with nutritional health.

Those advocating plant-based diets were accused of having vested financial interests. Creating mistrust and uncertainty on novel issues is a rhetorical tactic that can forestall action and maintain the status quo (Oreskes & Conway, 2010). The extract below is written by Slater, an ex-CEO of Beef and Lamb NZ:

Extract 16

Scratch beneath the surface of the EAT-Lancet Commission and you suddenly see why a move to an entirely plant-based diet would be hugely beneficial, financially, to some heavily invested parties. (Slater, 2019)

The idiom “scratch beneath the surface” informs the audience they do not need to look very far to discover EAT-Lancet is commercially invested in plant-based diets, therefore not to be trusted. The argument relies on exaggeration, “hugely” beneficial to “heavily” invested parties. By constructing EAT-Lancet as untrustworthy, and tapping into the value of integrity, the audience is invited to reject EAT-Lancet’s claims. Primarily using health and economic arguments, meat was rendered necessary to combat nutritional risks within the “risk to nutritional health” frame.

Farmed animals: absent or obscured

While frames suggest how to argue a social issue, what is missing or muted contributes to the power of a frame as it works to focus attention. Moral or ethical concerns related to the killing of animals for food were scarce. In a journalist-authored article, an animal advocate from SAFE is quoted: “The rise of plant-based proteins now means it's never been easier for consumers to make compassionate choices for animals, the planet and their own health” (Taunton, 2019). Rather than prioritizing compassion, concern for animals is presented as an easy collateral advantage of dietary choices. In this 4-year data set, the debate remained centered on anthropocentric health concerns. This absence is contextual; Aotearoa is a traditionally agrarian economy with frequent media reporting of farming practices and farming issues. Farming news may include images of live and slaughtered animals and reporting on contentious topics such as live animal exports. In this context, arguments about animals as sentient and subject to exploitative farming practices risk alienating rather than co-opting audiences. In countries with less daily exposure to farming practices through the media, different arguments and absences might be noted.

Discussion

Risk has become a pervasive concept in Western societies with references to risk increasing in newspaper articles over time (Lupton, 2023). Constructions of “good” or “bad” diets, draw on risk discourse that have implications for health and how risk of illness and mortality are perceived (Chamberlain, 2004). In this analysis, risk provides the “central organizing idea” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3), suggesting what is at issue and what action can be taken. “Risk” framing introduces ontological insecurity into the debate, highlighting the unstable and chaotic nature of the world (Giddens, 1991; Innes & Steele, 2014). These existential threats are used to invoke fear and anxiety, it may also propel people to action (Beck, 1992).

While both pro-reduction and anti-reduction positions utilize a risk frame, they do so in different ways, and to motivate different actions. As a critical realist informed work, this analysis considered what could explain the framing, and what was fundamentally different about the two positions that gave rise to their constructions. Beck and other’s work on the “risk society” is informative here (Beck, 1992; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). The risk society thesis contends “manufactured risks,” that is, human made risks in Western societies can no longer be managed by the institutions and norms of the industrial era, because techno-scientific knowledge is insufficient to manage the new risks (Beck, 1992; Mythen, 2015). Consequently, science produces contradictory knowledge, eroding its authority. As experts “dump their contradictions and conflicts at the feet of the individual” (Beck, 1992, p. 137), what emerges are “subpolitics,” resulting in increased public interest about how to manage risks. Moreover, these changes encourage an increasingly “individualized culture” where, in the absence of traditions and certainties, people become planners of their lives (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). Each person decides how to handle risks, from large-scale life decisions to mundane daily choices, including whether to eat meat.

Commensurate with Beck’s theorizing that new risks produce contradictory knowledge between different scientific views, contests of knowledge and expertise between climate science and nutritional science were present in the data reviewed. The established authority of the nutrition industry and the MOH was problematized by the formation of various subpolitics. For example, new coalitions between health professionals, environmental experts, lay people, and climate activists emerged that foregrounded environmental health. A different subpolitics was seen in climate protests by school children which worked as direct challenge to traditional systems of authority (adults and the government).

While on the one hand, the “risk to planetary health” frame extends the concept of health, it also participates in (re)producing an individualized culture. It does this by framing diet as an individual choice and responsibility. Personal responsibility for eating the right food is constructed as a moral imperative both for personal health and planetary health. This focus on personal responsibility aligns with the US and UK media assigning of responsibility to the individual (Kristiansen et al., 2021; Mroz & Painter, 2023). While Beck argued anxiety can be harnessed for social change (Zinn, 2008), this individualizing responsibility overlooks structural conditions that impact an individual’s ability to access affordable and healthy food (Graham et al., 2018).

In the “risk to nutritional health” frame, scientific-techno challenges regarding the climate-meat association were muted, the scientific authority of plant-based advocacy made uncertain, and a focus was placed on individual nutrition. Within this paradigm, the rationalized self takes on personal responsibility for balancing nutrition according to the latest scientific expertise (Scrinis, 2008). Across the frame, no evidence was found of subpolitics (new groups) forming in the public interest to defend meat consumption, instead the relationship between nutrition and meat was reinforced. There was an emphasis on managing risks at the individual level engaging in what Scrinis (2008) called a “nutritionistic” approach. This reductive approach to food encouraged the audience to think of meat as constituent parts. The constant reinforcement of the Aotearoa’s MOH guidelines offered the audience the knowledge and tools to plan a proper diet and achieve a healthy body. Interestingly, the MOH guidelines “Eating for Healthy Vegetarians” were not mentioned across the data reviewed. This absence works to shore up privileging meat-eating guidelines. The prominence of nutritionistic discourse is rationalized by contrasting outcomes of the “vulnerable” with others who managed the risks associated with meat reduction appropriately. This finding is consistent with Sievert et al. (2022) who reported risks to health and vulnerable people were frequently mentioned in the media.

Limitations and future research recommendations

Critics question the ability of Beck’s (1992) risk theory to provide insight into cultural differences that impact upon the way risk is perceived and managed (Zinn, 2008) and this is a particular concern given Aotearoa’s position as a bi-cultural nation. Māori (Indigenous people of Aotearoa) notions of risk stem from a holistic worldview that does not privilege risk to people over environmental risk (Hyslop et al., 2023). Risk theorizing that accounts for cultural differences would provide richer and more nuanced insights.

Additionally, an analysis focused on frame production (D’Angelo et al., 2019) that examines cultural, gender, and economic influences could help explain why certain frames and rhetorical arguments are made in response to particular events or particular rhetorical arguments. Future research that interviewed journalists and industry informants about how they come to frame climate action related to meat consumption would be beneficial to understanding the processes behind frame construction.

Further, focusing on a progressive newspaper only limits understanding. Analysis of a right-wing outlet may produce different findings. Future research could undertake a comparative-synchronic analysis to understand if media construct frames and rhetorical arguments differently (Carvalho, 2008). A more in-depth exploration into the political economy of meat production and relationship between media, government, and industry could help explain the reasonably strong defense of meat present in Aotearoa New Zealand media. Finally, frames are not stable but change over time. An extended period would enable analysis of patterns of change in these arguments as they respond to new critical discursive moments.

Conclusion

The Aotearoa media use two opposing conceptualizations of meat reduction, one that frames meat reduction as good for the planet and people, and one that claims meat reduction puts nutritional health at risk. Scrutiny of the animal industry was present in debates although these mostly related to nutritional claims, shifting the focus away from climate concerns. Absence related to the ethical dilemma of meat consumption may be partly explained by a carnist culture (Joy, 2010) where meat consumption is normalized, and partly explained by the agrarian economy where animals farmed for food are commonplace. While research suggests that eating less, or no meat can result in significant GHG emission reductions (Poore & Nemecek, 2018) and is therefore important to debate, the use of a “risk” frame in the Aotearoa media focused both sides of the debate towards individual responsibility and choice. This focus may undermine the need for a more systemic approach, including dietary policy change. The use of the “risk to planetary health” frame makes available new understandings around climate action and meat reduction which highlight the environmental and health co-benefits. This opens space for considerations of health and wellbeing beyond human centric concerns, and positioning meat reduction as a viable climate action.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, School of Health for their financial support, the anonymous reviewers for their comments, and the editor of Environmental Communications for this opportunity.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).