Amplification without the event: the rise of the flexitarian

Abstract

The social amplification of risk framework typically represents consequential effects associated with high levels of media attention proceeding from an initial risk event. This study considers selective meat-eating as risk-related social behaviour that is evidently not initiated by a single event yet, nevertheless, is demonstrably subject to extensive and broadbased media coverage. Recent reported trends indicate a rise in socalled 'flexitarianism' and reducetarianism' whereby people choose to restrict their consumption of meat in favour of a more plant-based diet. Through a content analysis of UK newspaper articles, we support claims from recent survey data that 'environmental concerns', 'animal welfare issues' and 'health considerations' are all strongly associated with decisions to eat less meat. Our study extends the explanatory scope of risk amplification by showing a more nuanced relationship between media coverage and risk-related behaviour in the case of selective meat-eating. Our findings have wider implications for risk communication and the role of the media in other contexts.

Where we work determines what we eat: A qualitative exploration of the multi-dimensional influences on meat consumption when home and office working during the Covid 19 lockdown in London, UK

“…For example, Participant 02 said: “I have tried to eat slightly healthier meals for dinner as opposed to simply the quick and easy option. I certainly have tried to eat less meat,” and Participant 08 said: “So, we're actually only allowing ourselves to have two meat days, and then we try to have two fish days and a vegetarian day Monday to Friday.” This is consistent with Duckett et al (2020) , who found that self-imposed restrictions on meat consumption range from choosing a meat-free day of the week or month to a more general pattern of occasional meat-eating. Participant 24 said they and their partner had made the conscious decision to buy less beef since homeworking: “We don't buy beef at all anymore.…”

“…A range of individual-level factors (such as lifestyle, preferences, gender) influence the choice to consume meat ( Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2020 ; Tobler et al, 2011 ). Environmental concerns, health considerations and animal welfare issues are examples of individual-level factors associated with decisions to eat less meat ( Duckett et al, 2020 ). These can change over time and place but are unlikely to change in isolation ( Kemper, 2020 ).…”

Flexitarians in Brazil: Who are They, What do They Eat, and Why?

“…These two factors together correspond to 56% of all the motivations that guided our participants' choices, followed by individual health concerns (33%). Similar findings have been found by Duckett, Lorenzo-Arribas, Horgan, and Conniff [30] and Kemper & White [26], who analyzed the motivations associated with adherence to flexitarianism and identified that they include (i) awareness of the environmental impacts of meat consumption; (ii) individual health concerns; and (iii) animal welfare concerns. Other studies [29,31,32,33,34] also confirm these factors.…”

Searching for the “politics of the possible” in flexitarianism

“…ii This tri-fold classification of flexitarian motivations finds further support in a recent study which uses flexitarianism, as reported in the national print news media, to explore the theory of the social amplification of risk (Duckett et al 2020) and offer a different, sociological perspective to the other work cited here.…”