Understanding the Political Challenge of Red and Processed Meat Reduction for Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Sievert, Katherine; Lawrence, Mark; Parker, Christine; Baker, Phillip

doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2020.238

Cited by 35 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 133 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…78 Sievert et al, in their analysis of the politics of 'meat reduction, ' find that just three corporations account for 63% of the global pork market, and two control 46% of the beef market. 79 Discursive power is the power to shape underlying values, belief-systems (ie, world views and ideologies) and social norms, and the surface-level 'frames' and discourses through which food problems are interpreted and communicated. 18,19 This is a more 'hidden' form of power that precedes and surrounds decision and non-decision making processes.…”

Section: Forms Of Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

Baker

Lacy-Nichols

Williams

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today’s food systems are contributing to multiple intersecting health and ecological crises. Many are now calling for transformative, or even radical, food systems change. Our starting assumption in this Special Issue is the broad claim that the transformative changes being called for in a global food system in crisis cannot – and ultimately will not – be achieved without intense scrutiny of and changes in the underlying political economies that drive today’s food systems. The aim is to draw from diverse disciplinary perspectives to critically evaluate the political economy of food systems, understand key challenges, and inform new thinking and action. We received 19 contributions covering a diversity of country contexts and perspectives, and revealing inter-connected challenges and opportunities for realising the transformation agenda. We find that a number of important changes in food governance and power relations have occurred in recent decades, with a displacement of power in four directions. First, upwards as globalization has given rise to more complex and globally integrated food systems governed increasingly by transnational food corporations (TFCs) and international financial actors. Second, downwards as urbanization and decentralization of authority in many countries gives cities and sub-national actors more prominence in food governance. Third, outwards with a greater role for corporate and civil society actors facilitated by an expansion of food industry power, and increasing preferences for market-orientated and multi-stakeholder forms of governance. Finally, power has also shifted inwards as markets have become increasingly concentrated through corporate strategies to gain market power within and across food supply chain segments. The transformation of food systems will ultimately require greater scrutiny of these challenges. Technical ‘problem-solving’ and overly-circumscribed policy approaches that depoliticise food systems challenges, are insufficient to generate the change we need, within the narrow time-frame we have. While there will be many paths to transformation, rights-based and commoning approaches hold great promise, based on principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination, alongside coalition building and social mobilization, including social movements grounded in food sovereignty and agroecology.

show abstract

Section: Forms Of Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

Baker

Lacy-Nichols

Williams

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite these calls for transformation, policy attention and political priority for the notion of RPM reductionwhat we define as systematic efforts, involving actions throughout the food system, to reduce the production, marketing and consumption of red and processed meat (19) appears to be low. Few (if any) governments have undertaken systematic policy action on RPM reduction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of factors contribute to this policy inertia, including contention as to whether RPM is actually a problem (20) and politically entrenched opposition due to the cultural, historical and economic importance of meat (21,22) . There is a lack of academic attention to the power of ideas and narratives surrounding RPM, and how these are reinforced and employed by various interest groups to promote or resist its reduction (19) . This paucity is an oversight, as the way issues are framed in civic discourses can have a significant influence on the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of the general public (23) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis

Sievert

Lawrence

Parker

et al. 2021

Public Health Nutr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Diets high in red and processed meat (RPM) contribute substantially to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, and the global burden of chronic disease. High-profile reports have called for significant global RPM reduction, especially in high-income settings. Despite this, policy attention and political priority for the issue is low. Design: The study used a theoretically guided framing analysis to identify frames used by various interest groups in relation to reducing RPM in online news media articles published in the months around the release of four high-profile reports by authoritative organisations that included a focus on the impacts of high RPM production and/or consumption. Setting: Four major RPM producing and consuming countries – USA, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Participants: None Results: 150 news media articles were included. Articles reported the views of academics, policymakers, industry representatives, and the article authors themselves. RPM reduction was remarkably polarising. Industry frequently framed RPM reduction as part of a ‘Vegan Agenda’ or as advocated by an elite minority. Reducing RPM was also depicted as an infringement on personal choice and traditional values. Many interest groups attempted to discredit the reports by citing a lack of consensus on the evidence, or that only certain forms of farming and processing were harmful. Academics and nutrition experts were more likely to be cited in articles that were aligned with the findings of the reports. Conclusions: The polarisation of RPM reduction has led to a binary conflict between pro- and anti-meat reduction actors. This division may diminish the extent to which political leaders will prioritise this in policy agendas. Using nuanced and context-dependent messaging could ensure the narratives around meat are less conflicting and more effective in addressing health and environmental harms associated with RPM.

show abstract

“…In the US, warning may face First Amendment challenges [83]. Furthermore, the strong political power of the meat industry [83,84], as well as deep-rooted ideologies of carnism and neoliberalism [84], could make implementing meat warnings politically challenging.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Developing health and environmental warning messages about red meat: An online experiment

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The United States has among the highest per capita red meat consumption in the world. Reducing red meat consumption is crucial for minimizing the environmental impact of diets and improving health outcomes. Warning messages are effective for reducing purchases of products like sugary beverages but have not been developed for red meat. This study developed health and environmental warning messages about red meat and explored participants’ reactions to these messages. Methods A national convenience sample of US red meat consumers (n = 1,199; mean age 45 years) completed an online survey in 2020 for this exploratory study. Participants were randomized to view a series of either health or environmental warning messages (between-subjects factor) about the risks associated with eating red meat. Messages were presented in random order (within-subjects factor; 8 health messages or 10 environmental messages). Participants rated each warning message on a validated 3-item scale measuring perceived message effectiveness (PME), ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Participants then rated their intentions to reduce their red meat consumption in the next 7 days. Results Health warning messages elicited higher PME ratings than environmental messages (mean 2.66 vs. 2.26, p<0.001). Health warning messages also led to stronger intentions to reduce red meat consumption compared to environmental messages (mean 2.45 vs. 2.19, p<0.001). Within category (health and environmental), most pairwise comparisons of harms were not statistically significant. Conclusions Health warning messages were perceived to be more effective than environmental warning messages. Future studies should measure the impact of these messages on behavioral outcomes.

show abstract

Understanding the Political Challenge of Red and Processed Meat Reduction for Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Cited by 35 publications

References 133 publications

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis

Developing health and environmental warning messages about red meat: An online experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About