Environmental sustainability is not a major factor influencing meat consumption decisions for most Americans, despite growing awareness about the climate impacts of red meat production, according to Rutgers researchers.
The study, published in Appetiteexamined meat and seafood consumption patterns among a nationally representative sample of more than 1,200 American adults. The researchers found that while many Americans report reducing their consumption of red meat, health and price concerns are the main motivators, rather than environmental considerations.
“There is a disconnect between the growing evidence about meat’s environmental footprint and what is actually driving consumer behavior,” said Shauna Downs, associate professor in the Department of Health Behavior, Society and Policy at the School of Public Health. Rutgers and lead author of the study. “Our findings suggest that messages focused solely on sustainability may not resonate with the majority of American consumers regarding meat choice.”
Key findings of the study include:
- 78% of participants reported consuming red meat 1 to 4 times per week, and 14% consumed red meat 5 or more times per week.
- Nearly 70% said they had reduced red meat consumption in the past year, primarily citing health (64%) and price (32%) as reasons.
- Six percent of those who cut back on red meat cited environmental sustainability as a factor
- Health (85%) and taste (84%) were rated as the most important considerations when purchasing meat overall.
- Environmental sustainability (29%) and animal welfare (28%) were rated as less important.
The researchers found some demographic differences in meat consumption patterns and motivations. For example, respondents aged 65 and older were more likely to report a reduction in red meat consumption than younger adults. Black respondents rated factors such as price, health and sustainability as more important in meat purchasing decisions compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Compared to male respondents, women reported that environmental sustainability and health were important when making meat purchasing decisions.
“These findings can help inform more effective interventions and messaging campaigns to shift diets in a more sustainable direction,” Downs said. “Focusing on health benefits and affordability, rather than just environmental impacts, is more likely to motivate changes in meat consumption for most Americans.”
The study comes as climate scientists increasingly point to reducing meat consumption, particularly beef and lamb, as a key strategy to mitigate climate change. However, efforts to reduce meat consumption in the US face cultural and political obstacles, such as the meat industry’s strong lobbying power, and previous attempts to incorporate sustainability considerations into federal dietary guidelines were met with rejection.
“There are clearly some barriers to overcome in terms of making sustainability a priority for consumers,” said Emily V. Merchant, assistant professor in the Department of Global-Urban Public Health at the Rutgers School of Public Health and co-author of the study. . study. “Creative, multifaceted approaches that also emphasize health, taste and affordability may be needed to significantly change eating patterns.”
The researchers said future studies should explore how to effectively combine different motivators in public messages and interventions around meat consumption. They also called for more research into how to make minimally processed plant alternatives more attractive to meat eaters.
“Small changes in a population’s diet can generate significant environmental benefits,” Downs said. “Finding ways to make those changes that resonate with consumers’ existing priorities around food choices will be key. This needs to happen alongside policies aimed at making changes to the environments in which we make those food decisions. For example, including sustainability considerations in public procurement policies or making tasty plant-based meals more available and affordable.”
The study, conducted in collaboration with researchers from Columbia University’s Climate School, Cornell University and the International Food Policy Research Institute, was funded by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation.