Animal foods and climate change: shadowing eating practices

Cole, Matthew A.; Miele, Mara; Hines, Peter; Zokaei, Keivan; Evans, Barry Kenneth Peter; Beale, Jo

doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00751.x

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although environmental concerns are often cited as one of the main reasons driving consumer demand for alternative proteins, research has shown that only a minority of consumers are aware of and motivated by environmental concerns related to food production, in their desire to reduce meat consumption [ 11 , 125 , 126 , 127 ]. A recent systematic review of 34 studies found that only 13 to 26% of consumers were willing to stop or significantly reduce their meat consumption for environmental reasons, or have already changed their meat intake for environmental concerns [ 10 , 34 ].…”

Section: Summary Of Evidence On the Motivations To Consume Alternamentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

Tso

Lim

Forde

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternative proteins are receiving increased global attention. This burgeoning interest in plants (especially plant-based meat alternatives), insects, algae, and cultured meat has been attributed to their reported health benefits, lower environmental impact and improved animal welfare compared to conventional animal-based meat. Food producers and the media are promoting acceptance of these products, claiming superior nutritional, environmental and ethical credentials and a desirable novel sensory experience. However, the evidence supporting these claims remains unclear. In this review, we summarise the main evidence underlying the nutritional, sensorial, economical, ethical, and environmental reasons reported for the rise in consumer demand for alternative proteins. We found many of these reasons to lack a strong evidence base. For instance, evidence is emerging for the nutritional benefits of plant-based meat alternatives, but present claims are largely based on established evidence for plant-based diets. Significant research gaps remain, especially longitudinal evidence on the sustained effects of replacing conventional animal-based proteins with alternative sources. For many alternative proteins, challenges exist in achieving desirable sensory properties akin to animal-based meat to promote their acceptance by consumers. Overall, fundamental shifts in the food system are required to create a culture in which healthful and sustainable food choices are the norm.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Evidence On the Motivations To Consume Alternamentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

Tso

Lim

Forde

2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A common finding in the literature is that relatively few consumers have developed certain awareness of the environmental impacts of meat consumption. Consumers often underestimate the impacts of meat consumption on climate change compared to other actions such as recycling, favouring local, organic and seasonal foods, and reducing food waste and excessive packaging, and express scepticism of scientific evidence linking meat and climate change [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. This limited knowledge functions as a barrier since knowledge about the negative environmental impact of meat consumption is associated with higher willingness to change meat consumption behaviour [53][54][55].…”

Section: Prior Topical Research: Factors Influencing Environmentally mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All participants reported that they eat meats and vegetables in accordance with a typical Norwegian consumption pattern. The 24 participants were placed in four focus groups categorized by age, gender and marital status (single women 25-35, single men 25-35, married women 36-45 and married men [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. See Table A4 in Appendix C for detailed information about the participants.…”

Section: Focus Group Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Readiness to Reduce Meat Consumption for the Purpose of Environmental Sustainability: Insights from Norway

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food production is associated with various environmental impacts and the production of meat is highlighted as a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. A transition toward plant-based and low-meat diets has thus been emphasised as an important contribution to reducing climate change. By combining results from a consumer survey, focus group interviews and an in-store field experiment, this article investigates whether Norwegian consumers are ready to make food choices based on what is environmentally sustainable. We ask how consumers perceive the environmental impacts of food consumption, whether they are willing and able to change their food consumption in a more climate-friendly direction, and what influences their perceptions and positions. The results show that there is uncertainty among consumers regarding what constitutes climate- or environmentally friendly food choices and that few consumers are motivated to change their food consumption patterns for climate- or environmental reasons. Consumers’ support to initiatives, such as eating less meat and increasing the prices of meat, are partly determined by the consumers’ existing value orientation and their existing consumption practices. Finally, we find that although providing information about the climate benefits of eating less meat has an effect on vegetable purchases, this does not seem to mobilise consumer action any more than the provision of information about the health benefits of eating less meat does. The article concludes that environmental policies aiming to transfer part of the responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to food consumers is being challenged by the fact that most consumers are still not ready to make food choices based on what is best for the climate or environment.

show abstract

“…Anxieties are spreading about the dubious nutritional properties of 'junk food', about overeating and keeping control of weight, and about the long-term unknown and disquieting implications of eating GM foods. Moreover, whilst the intensification of animal breeding and rearing has made meat and animal products cheaper and more accessible to the vast majority of 'Westerners', the environmental consequences of intensive animal farming and the slaughter and suffering of farm animals, has raised new issues about the ethics of eating the flesh or other products of animals' bodies (Stuart, 2009;Cole et al, 2009). These concerns are not entirely new, and in antiquity (for example, in Greek philosophy and in the writings of the political and intellectual elites of the Roman Empire) there are many examples that emphasize that what we eat and how we eat, is part of how we should live a 'virtuous' life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

When foods become animals: Ruminations on Ethics and Responsibility in Care-fullpractices of consumption

Miele

Evans

2010

Ethics, Place & Environment

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing information to consumers in the form of food labels about modern systems of animal farming is believed to be crucial for increasing their awareness of animal suffering and for promoting technological change towards more welfare-friendly forms of husbandry (CIWF, 2007). In this paper we want to explore whether and how food labels carrying information about the lives of animals are used by consumers while shopping for meat and other animal foods. In order to achieve this, we draw upon a series of focus group discussions that were held in Italy as part of a large EU funded project (Welfare Quality Õ ). In the focus group discussions we addressed how, when or if, claims made about the lives of animals on food labels intervened in what the participants bought and ate. We contend that such labels bring the lives of animals to the forefront and act as new 'subjectifiers' (Latour, 2005: 212) that offer a new tool for becoming an 'ethically competent consumer', who cares about the lives of animals while shopping for food. However, this offer is not always easily accommodated within existing competences and previous commitments, as it requires a reassessment of existing, and often intimate, practices of shopping, cooking and eating. We argue that new labels carrying welfare claims, with their intention of increasing market transparency, produce two contrasting outcomes: they open new spaces of action, which offer an opportunity for investing in new competences and for engaging with animal welfare issues, in short, they allow an 'ethically competent consumer' to emerge, but they also produce another outcome, or a collateral casualty (Bauman, 2007), namely the ethically non-competent consumer.

show abstract

Animal foods and climate change: shadowing eating practices

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins

Consumer Readiness to Reduce Meat Consumption for the Purpose of Environmental Sustainability: Insights from Norway

When foods become animals: Ruminations on Ethics and Responsibility in Care-fullpractices of consumption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About