Meat reduction, vegetarianism, or chicken avoidance: US omnivores’ impressions of three meat-restricted diets

Abstract

PurposeMeat 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.Design/methodology/approachAn 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.FindingsThe 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.Originality/valueThis 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.

Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism: A systematic and comprehensive literature review of quantitative studies

“…Political motives were primarily observed in the Vgn (20%) and Vgt-Vgn-AHR (16%) streams. Justice and world hunger concerns referred to the world hunger problem [ 13 , 205 ] and various arguments on how VEG can improve food availability or exacerbate social inequality and injustices [ 161 , 164 ]. However, these arguments require more specificity and detail.…”

“…Third, studies with a strong social character, in which we detected an interest in studying the effect of following VEG diets due to living with VEG family members or friends [ 53 , 114 ]. It is worth mentioning that some studies took a broader approach to motivations and studied them abstractly as a general concern to pursue their choice of VEG, but without delving into the type of motivation that affected the decision-making [ 13 ]. The interest in measuring motivations was observed, especially in studies on Vgn (53%), Vgt (46%), and Vgt-M (51%).…”

“…Knowledge was measured in 17% of studies and referred to the familiarity with VEG products [ 143 , 227 ], VEG diet [ 13 , 171 ], and the understanding of the relevance and impacts of VEG on health [ 103 ] and environment [ 202 ]. Knowledge was explored primarily in studies focused on Vgt-Vgn-M (24%).…”

“…Vegetarianism, as a philosophy of life, generally relates to the protection of non-human animals (hereafter referred to as “animals”), which, in practice, translates to a lifestyle that abstains from the consumption of all types of animal flesh, including meat (i.e., beef, pork), poultry (i.e., chicken, turkey), and fish and seafood [ 12 ]. Vegetarianism comprises several modalities: ovo-vegetarianism (accepts the consumption of eggs but not dairy products), lacto-vegetarianism (accepts the consumption of dairy products but not eggs), or lacto-ovo-vegetarianism (accepts the consumption of both eggs and dairy products) [ 13 , 14 ]. By contrast, veganism can be understood as a philosophy of life rooted in anti-speciesism, which, in practice, translates to rejecting the consumption of any product (or service) which involves the exploitation of an animal either in the context of food (meat, eggs, dairy, honey, gelatin), clothing (leather, silk), or any other form (entertainment and experimentation) as far as possible and practicable [ 15 , 16 ].…”

Sustainable meat consumption intentions: conceptualisation, scale development and validation

“…It is argued that measuring consumers' SMCI is a multidimensional social phenomenon rather than an individual choice (Rahman and Luomala, 2020;Nguyen and Johnson, 2020). Asher and Peters (2020) stated that social connection and dietary perceptions are interlinked, such as people alter their food consumption intentions in response to what others do. Hence, SMCI conceptualises a multidimensional concept: the purchase of organic meat, meat detachment and meat curtailment that comprises all three conceptsenvironmental, social and economic.…”