Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate recent changes made by Australian consumers in their consumption of beef, chicken, pork and lamb, as well as the factors motivating both decreased and increased consumption of each type of meat. Reasons for meat-avoidance are also examined.

An online questionnaire was completed in July 2016 by two Australian samples comprising: adults from the general population; and vegetarians. Data were analysed for 287 meat consumers and 82 meat avoiders. Descriptive statistics and results of multinomial logistic regression models are presented.

Meat consumers most commonly reported reducing consumption of beef in the last 12 months (30 per cent); followed by lamb (22 per cent), pork (14 per cent) and chicken (8 per cent). The following factors were associated with reductions in meat consumption: concerns regarding price and personal health; age and household income; and food choice motivations related to personal benefits, social factors and food production and origin. Main reasons motivating meat-avoidance were concerns regarding animal welfare, health and environmental protection.

This is the first Australian study providing national-level insight on how and why meat consumption patterns are changing. Reasons for changes are examined through an anti-consumption lens, investigating rationale for avoiding, reducing and increasing consumption. This provides a more comprehensive understanding of meat consumption and anti-consumption decisions, which are becoming increasingly complex. Insights on the psychologically distinct motivations underpinning avoidance, reductions and increases in meat consumption can inform the development of strategies aimed at promoting a societal-shift towards consumption of more sustainable dietary protein sources.

The purpose of this paper is to describe research exploring consumer responses to potential changes in food-related practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Six focus groups explored consumer responses to measures to intended to mitigate the emissions from, and adapt to the impacts of climate change. These included: meat reduction, greater reliance on seasonal British food, meal replacement tablets, laboratory grown meat, communal eating houses, genetically modified food and food waste. Practice theory provided the lens to interpret the changes to meanings, competences and materials associated with food consumption.

Changes that could be assimilated within existing competencies were viewed more positively, with lack of competence a key barrier to accommodating change. At present, climate change and sustainability do not influence purchasing decisions. Policy measures delivering multiple benefits (“win-wins”), of which environmental performance may be one, stand an improved chance of establishing more sustainable practices than those focusing exclusively on environmental drivers.

Awareness of the role of sustainable food systems in the context of anthropogenic climate change is growing. Whilst scientific and technological research explores methods for reducing emissions and building resilience in food supply chains to changes in climate, there is comparatively little study of how consumers perceive these proposed “solutions”. This research provides a comprehensive overview of consumer responses to potential changes in eating practices related to climate change mitigation and adaptation and is of value to policy makers, academics and practitioners across the food supply chain.

The aim of this paper is to identify predictors of meat consumption and the intention to reduce it. Since meat consumption is one of the major contributors to human made environmental destruction including climate change, biodiversity loss or water and air pollution and at the same time under volitional control meat consumption is an interesting target for interventions.

An integrated model was derived from the theory of planned behaviour, the norm activation theory and the protection motivation theory which was tested in a paper-pencil based questionnaire study including self-reported meat consumption was conducted with a convenience sample of 210 adult inhabitants of Trondheim (Norway).

The model was confirmed to a large extent. Meat consumption was predicted strongly by meat eating habits, but also negatively by reduction intentions. Reduction intentions were determined by attitudes, moral beliefs and health beliefs. Moral beliefs were predicted by injunctive and descriptive norms as well as perceived behavioural control.

The study was based on a convenience sample, thus the sample is not representative. Furthermore, some of the measurement instruments are of only mediocre quality.

The results show that interventions to reduce meat consumption need to include habits braking components to be effective. Meat consumption reduction is motivated by a broad array of motivations, including morality and health. Intervention campaigns need to cover this spectrum.

This study is one of the first that systematically analyses determinants of meat consumption which makes it valuable in spite of its limitations.

Adopting meat reduction strategies within the UK is fundamental to limiting environmental damage and achieving public health benefits. This paper aims to compare the attitudes to adopting meat reduction strategies within the general population and people with a link to agriculture to understand attitudes to meat reduction.

Cross-sectional self-administered questionnaires were disseminated using online fora, community groups and by attending agricultural marts. Questionnaire development was informed by current literature, and structured around four theoretical domains: knowledge, social/cultural influences, beliefs about consequences and intentions to change and a food frequency questionnaire for meat consumption. Inclusion criteria were people > 18 years, living in the North East of Scotland. In total, 470 adult participants, from within the North East of Scotland, were recruited. The study population was divided into two groups, individuals with a link to the agricultural economy (n = 174) and the general public (n = 296).

The general public group were more willing than the agricultural community to adopt meatless meals (or were doing so) [55.1% (n = 162) vs 28.1% (n = 49), p < 0.001]. Barriers to change included habit, limited choice when eating out, resistance of family members, lack of information, income related to meat consumption and the status of meat within a meal. Men were less likely to choose meatless meals than women (23.8%, n = 36, vs 55.1%, n = 176, p < 0.001).

Meat reduction strategies should be tailored appropriately to population groups, with an understanding of social and political drivers, and further studies investigating barriers within the agricultural economy are warranted.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate if sudden retail price increases for beef products have affected consumers purchasing behaviors. Little research has been conducted that integrates retail price volatility with subdued food consumption motivations. Prior research about consumers’ meat-purchasing habits and systemic concerns linked to sustainability and animal welfare is limited or de-contextualized. This study also attempts to assess if retail price increases have triggered a change in perception of the meat industry, by looking at specific values related to animal protein production and consumption.

This study is based on an inductive, quantitative analysis of primary data obtained from a survey on beef consumption. For convenience and validity, all respondents had to be living in Canada for 12 months, and were at least 18 years old. The choice of country is not trivial. First, access to data were convenient for this study. Second, and most importantly, Canada has supply managed commodities that include poultry and chicken. In effect, Canada produces the amount of chicken it needs. Beef production is vulnerable to market volatility. As a result, demand-focussed market conditions for one often influence conditions for the other.

Findings indicate that higher prices have compelled 37.9 percent of the sample to reduce or to stop beef consumption altogether in the last 12 months. Beyond the issue of price, sustainability, food safety and health appear to be significant factors, more so than ethics (animal welfare). Results also show that education can be considered as a determinant for sustainable aspects of beef production when prices increase. Age and gender had no statistical significance on survey results. Some limitations are presented and future research paths are suggested.

Since the sample in this study was mainly composed of consumers based in Canada, the generalizations of the findings should be approached with some caution. The same research should be conducted with consumers from other parts of the Western world to verify if the results can be generalized.

This survey help the authors to understand some aspects of beef consumption at retail. Findings of this empirical study have implications for future communications to consumers, in that greater emphasis should be given to the connection consumers have with other nutritional alternatives. Since meat consumption in the Western world is intrinsically linked to culinary traditions, behaviors can be challenging to change.

The economic implications of a rapid adoption of a plant-based diet for the agricultural economy would be significant. However, the reality is that according to many studies of consumer behavior, customers still place a higher value on buying and eating meat than on any other food group. Canada’s relationship with animal proteins has deep cultural roots, particularly during holidays and summertime.

The present study has given important insights into the determinants of meat consumption reduction, a behavior which could both have long-term economic implications for the cattle and beef industries. This paper provides a deeper insight into some socio-economic factors that contribute to slow erosion of meat consumption reduction, and the effects of higher prices at retail. This is, as far as the authors know, likely the first study of its kind.

Meat consumption has a variety of implications in society. While various types of meat-restricted diets exist to address this, not enough is known about how the average meat consumer views different avenues to lessening their intake. In response, this study aims to assess US omnivores’ impressions of three meat-restricted diets.

An online survey was administered to a cross-sectional, census-balanced sample from Nielsen of 30,000+ US adults. Omnivores (N = 928) were randomized into one of the three conditions where they were asked about their perceptions of a vegetarian diet, a reduced-meat diet or a chicken-free diet as individuals not currently following that dietary pattern.

The findings showed that omnivores had a more favorable perception of a reduced-meat diet on a greater number of study variables as compared to the vegetarian or chicken-free diets. The research also demonstrated that a majority of omnivores were in the precontemplation stage of cognitive change, suggesting that most American omnivores are not actively demonstrating a readiness to alter their meat consumption in the ways presented.

This research is the first to examine the comparative trends around these three diets among omnivores. It also speaks to how the desirability of meat restriction varies by type of approach, i.e. elimination or reduction, and if the latter, what type. The findings may be of relevance for efforts to reduce global meat consumption for ethical, health, or environmental reasons.

This article is based on a six‐year survey of first year undergraduates and their meat consumption. The main focus is vegetarianism and the declining consumption of red meat over the past two decades. The levels of meat consumption and avoidance were analysed by gender, father’s occupation, voting intention and the reasons given for reduction/avoidance. The results found that the majority of vegetarians were women, although they were also the majority of the sample. Age, political inclination and social class appear to have had little bearing on meat consumption. There is also the suggestion that vegetarianism has reached a plateau. A wide range of further studies is suggested.

This paper reports the findings of an 11‐year longitudinal study of the food preferences of first‐year social science undergraduates at a UK university. Argues that this predominantly young and female response group constitutes a “critical case” that can be used to assess broader trends in meat consumption and meat avoidance. Relatively high levels of meat avoidance (in terms of reduced consumption or vegetarianism) were detected, although in recent years the trend appears to be away from avoidance and towards an increase in the reported inclination to eat meat. An attempt is made to interpret the findings of the study within the broader context of long‐term shifts in attitudes towards meat consumption in general, and towards beef consumption in particular.

The purpose of this paper is to explore strategic differences in marketing communication tactics for vegan and humane meat brands.

Content analysis was used to categorize the types of persuasive appeals used on the packaging of vegan and humane meat brands.

Humane meat brands use animal welfare and environmental appeals more often whereas vegan brands use taste appeals more frequently.

Marketers’ communication strategies for alternatives to traditional meat consumption are different from those of activists and non-profit organizations. By targeting middle of the road consumers, both vegan and humane brands can support widespread efficient and curtailment behaviors and in the process benefit consumers, the brands and society.

Anti-consumption and/or reduction of meat and animal by-products are arguably the most impactful ways in which consumers can alter their diets to positively impact individual and societal well-being. Consumers seeking alternatives to traditional meat consumption may either chose more sustainable meat products (efficient behaviors) or reduce/eliminate meat consumption (curtailment behaviors). Existing research suggests that such consumers can be divided into two segments – those driven by personal motives (health and/or taste) and those motivated by prosocial concern (environmental sustainability and/or animal welfare) and brands should match persuasive appeals to consumer motives, i.e. curtailment-focused vegan brands should use environmental or animal justice appeals and efficiency-focused humane meat brands should use taste or health appeals. However, the present research assumes marketers’ perspective and demonstrates that both vegan and humane brands target middle of the road consumers striving to balance multiple personal and prosocial goals, being socially responsible without compromising taste.

The present research aimed to understand how to predict and promote plant-based meat (PBM) consumption.

In Study 1 (N = 550), the authors investigated the psychosocial antecedents of the intentions to add PBM and to replace animal meat with PBM. In Study 2 (N = 390), the authors tested the effectiveness of different environmental messages promoting PBM consumption. The authors compared the effects of an addition message condition (i.e. a message promoting the addition of PBM to one's diet), a replacement message condition (i.e. a message promoting the replacement of animal meat with PBM) and a control condition (i.e. no message). In both studies, the authors considered the moderation of past PBM consumption (PMB eaters vs PBM noneaters).

Study 1 showed that a positive attitude towards eating PBM and a high awareness of the environmental consequences of meat production were key antecedents of participants' intention to eat PBM. The role of the other psychosocial antecedents varied according to past PBM consumption. Study 2 showed that both addition and replacement messages increased non-PBM eaters' positive attitude towards eating PBM and in turn willingness to pay for PBM. Instead, only replacement messages increased PBM eaters' willingness to pay for PBM.

The present research developed a model integrating the key psychosocial predictors of people's intentions to eat PBM. Furthermore, it is the first research that compared the persuasiveness of different environment messages to promote PBM consumption.