In recent times, the role of animal source foods (ASFs) in dietary models has become increasingly controversial. Red and processed meats, in particular, are under scrutiny, with calls for a shift towards plant-based diets. This shift is promoted by various organizations that often influence dietary guidelines at global, national, and regional levels. Some of these actors, like the EAT-Lancet Commission, argue that individual choice alone is insufficient for achieving necessary changes and support measures like marketing campaigns, fiscal incentives, and legal interventions to reduce ASF consumption. Some proponents even suggest extreme measures, such as banning ASFs or using psychological tactics to discourage meat consumption.
This subsection addresses the following five questions:
- How do dietary guidelines discourage animal source foods and why are they criticized?
- What are some of the more extreme proposals for interventionism?
- Which interventionist actions have already been attempted or achieved?
________________________________
Health authorities worldwide shape public eating habits through dietary guidelines, which increasingly recommend reduced animal-sourced saturated fats and limited red meat consumption. Critics argue that these guidelines, based on expert opinions, stifle debate, impose Western nutrition on cultural minorities, and oversimplify nutrition, creating a one-size-fits-all approach. Although poultry is more accepted, recommendations for red meat are much lower than current levels, contrasting with historical diets. Critics question the suitability of this uniform approach to nutrition.
Further reading (summary of the literature):
Global, national, and regional health authorities have the mission to shape the eating behaviour of the public at large, by communicating their scientific opinions and recommendations via dietary guidelines. The place of ASFs within healthy and sustainable diets is increasingly under scrutiny, by proclaiming the need for a restricted intake of saturated fat from animal origin [AHA 2015; NHS 2017; WHO 2018] and of red meats and processed meats in particular [WHO 2015; NHS 2018].
Criticism of blanket recommendations
Since such organizations - and the advice they promote - represent expert opinion, this readily results in appeal to authority, hinders the debate on what constitutes an 'optimal' diet [see elsewhere], and suppresses and marginalizes dissident opinion. At times this can be patronizing, pushing Western nutrition theory upon cultural minorities [Best & Ward 2020; Katz-Rosene 2020], and thereby neglecting 'complexities of nourishment that are at the heart of kinship, social life, and caregiving' [Burnett et al. 2020]. The result is often a monolithic 'one-size-fits-all' reductionist approach to food and nutrition [Katz-Rosene 2020], excessively relying on an animal/plant divide [see elsewhere].
Patronizing attitude towards traditional minority diets
This is, for instance, the case for the 'Nunavik food guide', whereby a Mediterranean-style pyramid, rebranded as an igloo-shaped model, is used to 'reflect current issues in nutrition and to meet the needs' of the local Inuit [NRBHSS 2020]. Meat, fish, and fat, that were once at the heart of historical arctic diets [see elsewhere], have been strongly de-emphasized to the benefit of previously irrelevant foods such as vegetables, exotic fruits, (breakfast) cereals, and milk. Similarly, the Australian 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating' is superficially framed as a traditional dietary model but is once more based on Western nutritional dogma and at odds with indigenous eating habits [NHMRC 2015].
Excessive focus on red meat
Although dietary guidelines are more tolerant with respect to poultry, the recommended values for red meat (16-26 kg/p/y) are much lower than what is currently the case in the West [60-70 kg/p/y; see elsewhere] and far below what was the case for ancestral hunter-gatherer diets consumed during most (>95%) of the existence of the human species [see elsewhere]. To further underline the evolutionary mismatch of such nutritional advice, even chimpanzee populations are said to consume 10 kg (4-15 kg) of hunted meat per individual per year on average [Kaplan et al. 2002], ranging from very small intake levels to up to 30-70 kg/y for some of the males (as meat is not evenly distributed and consumed within chimpanzee communities) [Nishida 2012; Watts 2020; Pontzer & Wood 2021].
Extreme proposals for interventionism
Some actors, including certain academics, advocate for extreme interventionism to reduce meat consumption. Various tactics have been proposed, such as increasing meat prices, using 'compassion-inducing visual stimuli' on packaging or in restaurants, developing 'disgust-based interventions' like coloring meat blue, employing 'meat-shaming' techniques, creating allergies to beef with patches, launching public campaigns to challenge the association between meat and desirable traits, or even implementing legal bans on animal source foods. There is also a trend of using emotional and anxiety-inducing communication, especially targeting children, to portray meat and dairy as harmful and undesirable food choices.
Some actors, including certain academics, advocate for extreme interventionism to reduce meat consumption. Various tactics have been proposed, such as increasing meat prices, using 'compassion-inducing visual stimuli' on packaging or in restaurants, developing 'disgust-based interventions' like coloring meat blue, employing 'meat-shaming' techniques, creating allergies to beef with patches, launching public campaigns to challenge the association between meat and desirable traits, or even implementing legal bans on animal source foods. There is also a trend of using emotional and anxiety-inducing communication, especially targeting children, to portray meat and dairy as harmful and undesirable food choices.
Further reading (summary of the literature):
Calls for hard interventionism, as promoted by the EAT/FOLU network [see elsewhere], are taken to even further and more extreme levels by certain philanthrocapitalists and activists within NGOs, transnational organizations, and academia [Leroy et al. 2023]. Bill Gates, a major investor in vegan tech [see elsewhere], has expressed his support of the use of regulation to move rich countries fully into 100% synthetic beef [Temple 2021]. Because 'enhancement in taste of vegetarian food is not sufficiently motivating' [Pohlmann 2021], some academics argue that meat prices should be increased [Burgess 2021], or even go so far as to suggest encouragement of 'compassion-inducing visual stimuli' on product packaging or restaurant decor [Pohlmann 2021], the 'development of disgust-based interventions to reduce meat intake' [Becker & Lawrence 2021], for instance by 'deliberately tainting meat blue' [Spence 2021], using 'meat-shaming' techniques [Kranzbühler & Schifferstein 2023], making people allergic to beef using 'meat patches' that are akin to nicotine patches [Liao 2017], setting up public communication campaigns to attack the 'established association between meat consumption and desirable masculine traits' [Warlop 2021], or a full-blown legal ban on ASFs [cf. publication funded by the Wellcome Trust; Deckers 2013, 2016; also Malm 2020]. Christiana Figueres [UNFCCC’s ex-Executive Secretary, and member of the board of directors of both WRI and Impossible Foods; see elsewhere] has suggested to expel meat eaters from restaurants, equating them to smokers [Vella 2018]. Emotive and anxiety-inducing communication is already becoming more common, directly targeting children and representing ASFs as evil and threatening food choices [Greenpeace 2020].
What has been attempted or achieved?
Further reading (summary of the literature):
Increasingly, a societal and policy environment is being created that is hostile towards livestock, meat, and other animal source foods [Leroy et al. 2023]. Below, a non-exhaustive overview of interventionist proposals and measures is given:
- C40's 'Good Food Cities Declaration' by the Mayors of 14 global cities, engaging themselves to steer their citizens towards the EAT-Lancet Diet by 2030 [C40 2019], setting both a progressive (16 and 90 kg/p/y of meat and dairy, respectively) and ambitious target (zero meat and dairy) [C40 2019].
- Some C40 cities have reduced meat availability in public canteens, as for schools in Milan [WEF 2020] and Barcelona [weekly minimum of two vegan meals and maximum of one meal with red meat in schools; Ajuntament de Barcelona 2020]. Oslo has made vegetarian food the standard option at its municipality events [Aass Kristiansen 2022].
- Bogotá (Colombia) is not part of C40's 'Good Food' declaration, but is strongly engaged in C40 Cities' climate action group [C40 2020]; after declaring a climate crisis, the city council has introduced a meatless day [Arias Bonfante 2020].
- Amsterdam has endorsed the Plant-Based Treaty, including vegan Fridays [PBT 2024].
- Active promotion of vegan burgers by UN Environment [UN Environment 2019], a close ally of EAT and strategic partner of C40 'on a range of issues' [UNEP 2019].
- Calls for mandatory vegetarian meals and a reduction of ASFs (red meat in particular) in public canteens spreading beyond the C40 city network [Weston 2019; TheLocal 2020], although attempts were not always successful [e.g., Denmark; FoodSupply 2020].
- Calls to 'cut down on meat' as part of the cartoon-like 'Good Life Goals' [OnePlanet2020], designed for education by key partners of EAT [e.g., SEI and WBCSD; see elsewhere].
- Calls for a 50-% reduction of beef and lamb consumption by 2030 and a phasing out of by 2050 in the UK FIRES report, written by a team from six British universities and funded (£5m) by the UK government to meet its legal 'net-zero' target by 2050 [Allwood et al. 2019].
- Calls to introduce "plant-based dietary transitions" in educational institutions [Krattenmacher et al. 2023; Scallan 2023], resulting in bans on lamb and/or beef [Young 2020], e.g., Goldsmiths University of London [BBC 2019], Cambridge University [Cambridge University 2019], London School of Economics and Political Science [Carter 2020], and the University of Coimbra [Moyler 2019]; with Oxford University pressured to go in the same direction [Tritsch 2020]. Student-owned UniCafe restaurants affiliated with Helsinki University (Finland) also removed beef from the menus [Harmanen et al. 2020].
- Vegetarian meals as the default option in the zoo of Amsterdam [AT5 2018] and during events of its City Council [AT5 2019] or of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences [ATS 2018]. Similarly, a ban on meat has been introduced at the Oxford town hall [Kampfner 2023].
- A pledge to cut meat by 20% by public sector caterers in the UK, of which the meals reach 1/4 of the population and are being delivered to schools, universities, hospitals, and care homes [Carrington 2020].
- Decision to (temporarily) remove meat from school canteens in Lyon (France) by the city's Mayor, a vegan and member of the green party [BBC 2021; Figaro 2021]; similar plans were also considered by the Paris Municipality [Bouhout 2021].
- Plans of New York’s City Council to halve the red meat supply in municipal buildings and phase out processed meats in schools and hospitals by 2030 [Martin 2019].
- Meatless Mondays, e.g., in New York public schools [Rosa-Aquino 2019], in the Norwegian Armed Forces [which were met with resistance; Milford & Kildal 2019], and supported by a campaign from the Argentinian Environment Ministry [Gilbert 2021].
- San Francisco's decision to cut down on meat, eggs, and dairy in city jails (50% reduction by 2024) and hospitals (15% reduction by 2023) [Schneider 2020].
- The state-sponsored promotion of 'climate-friendly' (plant-based) diets across the Irish health care system, including hospitals and nursing homes [McGuirk 2023].
- The promotion of 'plant-based' burgers [Im 2018] and the removal of meat options by commercial airlines [Somsen & van Woerkom 2021].
- Introduction of a Statewide meat-free holiday in Colorado declared by its Governor, who previously urged the Department of Agriculture to move towards producing crops in support of the 'plant-based' industry [Starostinetskaya 2021].
- Manipulations of the display of ASFs in retail [cf. an Oxford University project funded by the Wellcome Trust, a co-founder of EAT; Poulter 2019], by 'changing the default' and editing 'choice architecture', rebranding of 'plant-based' options to a mainstream identity, labeling meat and dairy with plain labels as on cigarette packages, or even the banning of some ASFs [Southey 2021].
- EAT-Lancet's shaping of official dietary advice in Canada [Webster 2019] and Denmark [DTU 2020; Altomkost 2021], and apparently also New Zealand [Health.Gov.NZ 2021], as well as the EU Green Deal and Farm-to-Fork strategy [European Commission 2020].
- Various calls for the implementation of a tax on ASFs to decrease consumption, either for health or environmental reasons [Wirsenius et al. 2010; Wellesley 2015; Heikkinen 2016; Springmann et al. 2018; Carrington 2020; Pieper et al. 2020; Win 2020; Hepburn & Funke 2022], for instance by The UK Health Alliance on Climate Change [Cockburn 2020; UKHACC 2020], the UK Prime Minister [Robinson 2021], the German Minister of Food and Agriculture [Cody 2022], the Danish climate minister [Hancock 2023], and a Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission [Schreiber 2023].
- The banning of meat ads from public spaces in the city of Haarlem in The Netherlands, after a motion was submitted by the green political party [BBC 2023].
- In one of his first public speeches, Italy's environment minister has called for lower ASF consumption and more plant-based products [Fortuna 2021].
- France's minister for ecological transition has declared that she is 'trying to bring about a culture shift for French people' by introducing one compulsory vegetarian menu a week in all schools, while vegetarian options will be standard in public catering [Harvey 2021].
- Suggestions that a 'climate lockdown' may become necessary [Tate 2022], including a ban on red meat, by Marianna Mazzucato, professor at University College London and member of the UN Committee on Development Policy [Richardson 2020].
