When do our well-intentioned meat reduction efforts veer off course?

Alpro Foundation Supported Research

Dr Kate Laffan, Assistant Professor in Behavioural Science at University College Dublin, Ireland, investigates barriers to dietary change and inparticular, barriers to reducing meat intakes.

Introduction

With the growing awareness of the environmental impact associated with meat consumption, a growing number of individuals are considering a reduction in their meat intake or even embracing a meat-free diet. However, the actual shift in meat consumption remains limited.

The process of altering dietary habits is undeniably complex, fraught with numerous barriers that must be overcome and motivators that need to be effectively activated. It is a well-documented fact that good intentions to reduce the consumption of unhealthy foods does not necessarily translate into tangible actions. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the "intention-to-action gap," which also applies to intentions to reduce meat consumption, with intention alone accounting for a mere 27% of the path toward concrete action.(1)

Aims

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the everyday situations and factors that drive individuals’ with intentions to cut down on meat consumption to ultimately desire or eat meat.

The study explored factors that influenced:

• Meat desires: with or without actual consumption

• Meat consumption: times when the meat reducer actually ate meat

• Regretful meat consumption: situations which resulted in regretful feelings in the meat reducer after they consumed meat.

Method

Data was collected via three online surveys

1. Pre-screener: initially, a pre-screener was employed to identify individuals with intentions to reduce their meat consumption from two separate UK databases, comprising a total of 4,500 individuals. Those expressing an intent to reduce meat intake were subsequently invited to participate in a "Follow-up Survey" aimed at gaining deeper insights into their meat consumption habits.

2. Baseline survey: individuals who had indicated an intention to reduce meat intake in the pre-screener, were then administered with the baseline survey, which asked about their dietary habits.

3. Week 3 follow-up: Those completing the baseline line survey were asked to repeat the process 3 weeks later.

Baseline and 3-week follow up survey

Participants were asked about their food intake during specific meal occasions: breakfast, lunch, and dinner on the previous day, with responses provided in free-text format.

To ensure a representative sample, surveys were randomly dispatched to individuals on different days of the week.

Specific data collected

• Details about the meal occasions, including emotional states (such as happiness, stress, or sadness), location, dining companions, the presence of meat at the meal, identification of those consuming meat, whether the meal was a routine occurrence or a special event, and any concurrent activities while eating.

• Insight into the factors influencing their food choices, e.g., price, convenience, ethical considerations, nutritional aspects, and taste preferences.

• The survey also explored the responsibility for making specific food choices.

• Participants were asked to reflect on their perceptions of the situation, including whether they desired meat, what they ultimately consumed, and, if meat was consumed, whether they experienced subsequent regrets.

In total, 633 individuals completed both the baseline and follow-up surveys, contributing valuable information pertaining to 2,777 meal occasions.

Key findings

Initial screening

• 1.5% identified as vegan, 5% as vegetarian and 2.8% as pescatarian

• Of individuals consuming meat, 20% reported that they had intentions to reduce their intake – this was higher in women (25%) than men (18%). Reasons for their intentions: 73% for health; 63% for environment; and 52% for animal welfare

• Few were influenced by cost, views or habits of others, social circle, religion, political reasons

• Most intended to reduce red meat, whilst 60% pork and 40% poultry

Those intending to reduce their meat intake – overall meal patterns

Desire: individuals expressed a desire to consume meat during 33% of all meal occasions. Notably, this desire was more prevalent among those who aimed to reduce their meat intake for health-related reasons, as opposed to other motivations.

Meat consumption: in practice, individuals actually consumed meat during 27% of all meal occasions, indicating a strong intention to do so on certain occasions, despite their underlying desire to reduce meat consumption.

Regretful consumption: regret over meat consumption was reported on 12.5% of occasions, predominantly by individuals whose primary motivation for reducing meat was rooted in animal welfare concerns.

When did meat reducers waver the most?

Drivers for desire, meat consumption, and regretful eating of meat:

Taste emerged as the predominant driver for desiring and consuming meat, followed by factors such as quality, cost, nutritional considerations, and cravings. Importantly, when taste and quality were the key motivators, individuals experienced no regret. This suggests that meat reducers are more inclined to consume meat when the non-meat option is perceived as lower in quality and taste.

Day of the week: Sundays and weekends were identified as the most common times for meat reducers to experience desires, engage in meat consumption, and subsequently regret meat consumption.

Meal occasion: dinner stood out as the meal occasion most likely to trigger desires, meat consumption, and regret over meat consumption, whilst breakfast occasions were least likely to lead individuals astray, which may not be surprising as breakfast is less likely to include meat

Non-routine and eating out: non-routine meal occasions, including dining out at cafés, restaurants, or at the homes of family and friends, were more likely to stimulate desires, meat consumption, and regret over meat consumption. This could be attributed to the fact that in such situations food preparation is beyond individual control, there is an element in wishing to align with the social norm, and the influence of their external environment in cafes'/restaurants' e.g., menus prominently featuring meat options. these findings underscore the potential for environmental architecture change or nudging, such as menu design in cafes and restaurants, where non-meat options could be made the default choice, given more prominence on menus, and described in a way that enhances their desirability, catering to the hedonistic cues of craving, taste, and enjoyment.

Interestingly, the work environment exhibited the lowest propensity to drive desires, meat consumption, or regret over meat consumption.

Social influence: eating with friends, family, and partners – but not children – contributed to an increased likelihood of experiencing desires, meat consumption, or regret over meat consumption. This highlights the importance of social norms and cultural acceptance.

Dining with meat eating companions: dining with others who were consuming meat significantly increased the odds of experiencing desires to consume meat by 19 times, engaging in meat consumption by 14 times, and experiencing regret over meat consumption by 7.5 times.

In conclusion

There is a growing inclination among individuals to reduce their meat consumption, the results of this study highlight the situations where they are most susceptible to deviate from their intentions. Notably, these situations are characterised by the presence of hedonic cues such as taste, cravings, and enjoyment, especially when dining outside the home in restaurants or cafes, or in the company of others at different individuals' homes, particularly when those companions are partaking in meat consumption.

Save article as PDF

Save article as PDF