Comparing meat abstainers with avid meat eaters and committed meat reducers

Abstract

Shifting our eating patterns toward less animal-based and more plant-based diets is urgently needed to counter climate change, address public health issues, and protect animal welfare. Although most consumers agree that these are important topics, many consumers are not particularly willing to decrease the meat intensity of their diets. In supporting consumers to shift their diets, it is important to understand consumers’ attitudes, motivations, and preferences related to meat consumption and to take differences across consumers on these aspects into account. This study aims to in-depth research meat abstainers (vegetarians and vegans), and to explore how and to what extent they differ from avid meat eaters and committed meat reducers in terms of their (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) attitudes and norms, (3) food choice motives, and (4) food preferences and behavior. A survey has been conducted among a representative sample of Dutch adults. Comparisons show that meat abstainers (N = 198) differ from committed meat reducers (N = 171) and avid meat eaters (N = 344) on the four included categories of variables. In terms of demographics, we largely confirm the stereotype of vegans and vegetarians being highly educated females. In attitudes and norms, large differences exist with meat abstainers being least pro-meat and avid meat eaters being most pro-meat. Food choice motives confirm this, with meat abstainers valuing animal welfare and a good feeling higher than committed meat reducers and avid meat eaters. Finally, differences across the groups are most pronounced in terms of their food preferences and consumption, with a much higher appreciation of plant-based protein sources among meat abstainers, a high appreciation of non-meat animal-based proteins across committed meat reducers and a high appreciation of meat products among avid meat eaters. This shows that although differences across the groups are gradual and expected, in terms of reduction motivations and preferences of protein sources the three groups (frequent meat consumption-meat reduction-meat avoidance) are very distinct, which makes it unlikely to expect big shifts from one group to another in the short term.

Food availability, perceived food environment and social norm perceptions of healthy and vegetarian food consumption at a public music festival in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study

“…This may be due to age, gender and education level. Prior studies reported more vegetarians and flexitarians among younger adults36 and highly educated women 37. While 11% of participants identified as vegetarian, a larger proportion may have been flexitarian.…”

Meat Consumption and Availability for Its Reduction by Health and Environmental Concerns: A Pilot Study

“…It is also important to note that the evaluated sample had a large representation of participants with secondary or higher education. Although it was anticipated that participants with more educational qualifications would have a greater knowledge about the ecological footprint of meat, the results did not show any differences between the groups based on this variable [6, 23,24].…”

Understanding and tackling meat reduction in different cultural contexts: a segmentation study of Swiss and Vietnamese consumers

“…Endorsing this approach, health appears to be the overarching motive for reducing meat consumption as well as maintaining at least some meat consumption ( Latvala et al, 2012 ; de Boer et al, 2017 ; Mylan, 2018 ; Lacroix and Gifford, 2019 ; Malek et al, 2019 ; Sanchez-Sabate et al, 2019 ; Fehér et al, 2020 ; Kemper, 2020 ; Collier et al, 2021 , 2022 ; Kemper and White, 2021 ; Malek and Umberger, 2021a , b ; Verain and Dagevos, 2022 ; Valli et al, 2023 ). Meat is sometimes perceived as an essential food that provides strength and vigour ( de Koning et al, 2015 ; Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt, 2017 ).…”

“…Environmental issues are more important for low-meat eaters, vegetarians and young people; they reinforce those already committed to reducing meat consumption but rarely bring about a change in diet on their own ( de Boer et al, 2017 ; Sanchez-Sabate et al, 2019 ; Fehér et al, 2020 ; Hielkema and Lund, 2021 ; Kemper and White, 2021 ; Malek and Umberger, 2021a ; Trewern et al, 2022 ; Verain and Dagevos, 2022 ; Verain et al, 2022 ; Valli et al, 2023 ). de Boer and Aiking (2021) suggest that pro-environmental food choices are not necessarily motivated by environmental concern but rather result from a complex process involving social motivation, such as being other-oriented and socially responsible.…”

“…Investigating the top food choice motives of different consumer groups, several authors ( Latvala et al, 2012 ; Verain and Dagevos, 2022 ; Verain et al, 2022 ) have highlighted that meat eaters differ from vegetarians in that they prioritise egoistic motives such as health, taste, price and food safety over altruistic motives such as animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Meat attachment ( Graça et al, 2015 ), a multidimensional construct that includes hedonism or the pleasure of eating meat, negatively affects the propensity to adopt a more plant-based diet.…”