What’s really at ‘steak’? Understanding the global politics of red and processed meat reduction: A framing analysis of stakeholder interviews

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

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.08.007

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[…] In the face of the 21st century, I believe that we have to work more with open source and that the knowledge should be shared by many brands”. Similar fear emerged from interviews conducted in Australia in a previous study by Sievert and colleagues [ 45 ]: stakeholders fear that production power will pass into the hands of large companies, which seek to increase their profits by investing in this new food sector.…”

Section: Review Of Selected Papersmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…In this area, a first category of beliefs makes explicit reference to positive and negative beliefs about environmental consequences of introducing AP (category: ENVIRONMENT). Overall, most of the opinions collected by the studies in our literature review are positively connotated [ 36 , 45 , 48 ]. The positive expectations about consequences of the AP introduction are mostly related to a decrease in environmental exploitation (“It consumes less water, fewer resources and emits less greenhouse gases.” [ 39 ]), which is strictly correlated to economic considerations about the efficiency of AP [ 40 , 50 ] that we further discuss below.…”

Section: A Secondary Analysis Of Stakeholders’ Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One major negative belief expressed by several stakeholders refers to the possibility of monopolization or “oligarchy” of this new market perpetrated by large companies at the expense of the small ones. This could be due to the need of large investment in technologies and research, especially in the early moments of market creation and development; and specially with reference to cultured meat, which seems to be perceived as the most demanding in terms of economic investments [ 42 , 43 , 45 , 48 ]. Nevertheless, according to other stakeholders, even if larger producers might meet the needs of this new market more quickly due to their financial and technological resources, this market opportunity may also be extended to small farms through inclusive policies and cooperative initiatives [ 47 ].…”

Section: A Secondary Analysis Of Stakeholders’ Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third category groups the beliefs that make explicit reference to animal welfare (category: ANIMAL WELFARE). This is one area in which only positive beliefs did emerge [ 38 , 39 , 44 , 45 ]. According to the interviewed stakeholders, the introduction of AP “could help to achieve a future world without the exploitation of animals” [ 36 ], and avoids animals’ sufferings [ 40 , 47 ].…”

Section: A Secondary Analysis Of Stakeholders’ Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Stakeholder Beliefs about Alternative Proteins: A Systematic Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, a great deal of research has been conducted on consumers’ attitudes and beliefs in favor and against alternative proteins (AP). By contrast, a much more limited research effort has been devoted to understanding stakeholders’ point of view. The current work provides a first systematic review of the existing literature on stakeholders’ beliefs towards alternative protein sources. Moreover, a secondary content analysis was carried out on the selected studies, providing an overview of the major themes emerging from the existing literature in relation to utilitarian, normative, and control beliefs that stakeholders hold towards AP. Results showed that stakeholders’ beliefs are very different from those that emerged from previous research on consumers’ views. Overall, stakeholders appear much more aware, compared to consumers, of the implications of using alternative proteins in relation to the main pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, social). Stakeholders’ beliefs were grouped into 13 categories, such as “economics”, “consumers”, and “rules”. With respect to future scenarios, they attribute an important role to political institutions, with respect to both economic and communication aspects, which they consider crucial to overcome persistent consumer skepticism.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Selected Papersmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: A Secondary Analysis Of Stakeholders’ Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Secondary Analysis Of Stakeholders’ Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Secondary Analysis Of Stakeholders’ Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stakeholder Beliefs about Alternative Proteins: A Systematic Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are usually derived from soy or other plant-based protein-rich foods such as legumes, and sold in various formats including burger patties, sausages, stir fry cubes, and mince ( 6 ). While the role of these products in healthy and sustainable diets is contested, they are becoming more commonplace on supermarket shelves ( 7 , 8 ). According to estimates from the Mintel Global New Product Database, since 2015, the number of plant-based meats has exceeded 4,400 different products globally (from Mintel Group Ltd., in Estell et al, ( 3 )).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marketing strategies used for alternative protein products sold in Australian supermarkets in 2014, 2017, and 2021

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMarketing plays an important role in consumers’ perceptions and acceptance of new foods. The purpose of this study was to investigate the marketing strategies used for alternative protein products available in Australia in 2014, 2017, and 2021.MethodsProduct data were extracted from FoodTrack™, an established database of packaged supermarket products. Marketing strategies investigated included product format descriptors, front of pack (FOP) labeling claims, price, and in-store placement (2021 only).ResultsData from 292 alternative protein products (n = 12 tofu-based products; n = 100 legume-based products; and n = 180 plant-based meats) were analyzed. Across the product range, “burgers” (n = 86), “strips and similar” (n = 51) and “sausages” (n = 42) were the most common product formats, accounting for ∼61% of the product range. Nutrient content claims featured on 273 (93%) products. “Positive” nutrient claims (those highlighting the presence of a nutrient) occurred on FOP labels four times more than “negative” nutrient claims (those highlighting the absence or low levels of a nutrient; 432 versus 101, respectively). Protein-related claims were the most common “positive” nutrient claim (n = 180, 62%). Health claims on FOP labels appeared on 10% of products. Most products (n = 265, 91%) mentioned a dietary pattern (such as “vegetarian” and “plant-based”), or a combination of dietary patterns on their FOP label. The price of alternative products increased over time; between 2014 and 2021, on average, the unit price increased (9% increase, p = 0.035) and the pack size decreased (14% decrease, p < 0.001). There was inconsistency in product placement across the eight stores visited. Occasionally (n = 3 of 13 locations), chilled alternative protein products were positioned near conventional meat products. More commonly, alternative protein products shared space with other vegetarian products (such as non-dairy cheeses and tofu blocks) or alongside convenience products, suggesting these products are promoted as convenience foods, or options for individuals with special dietary needs.DiscussionThis study provides a useful evidence base to understand the marketing strategies used for alternative protein products. It appears from this analysis that considerable effort has gone into providing consumers with a level of familiarity and comfort prior to purchasing these alternative protein products.

show abstract

Grazing for dollars: responsible investing for healthy and sustainable animal agriculture in Australia

Sievert,

Carey,

Parker

et al. 2024

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investments by the global finance sector contribute to industrial-scale agriculture along with its harmful environmental impacts, making their actions significant in supporting or opposing sustainable food systems transformation. Previous research has shown that institutional investors identify animal agriculture as an important consideration with respect to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues regarding sustainable food systems. This study aimed to explore ways in which so-called ‘responsible’ investors in Australia consider risks related to animal agriculture, and whether existing ESG metrics are ‘fit-for-purpose’ for assessing issues related to sustainable animal agriculture. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with responsible investors and relevant non-government organisations (NGOs) in Australia. We found that the responsible investment sector lacked mechanisms to recognise the inter-connections between animal agriculture and multiple environmental and social outcomes. Furthermore, we found that investors largely focused on ‘techno’ solutions to the impacts of animal agriculture, such as alternative proteins, through a ‘single issue’ lens. They rarely made connections to other relevant ‘food systems’ issues, such as health. We conclude that holistic approaches are needed to monitor and assess the impacts of animal agriculture in the investment sector and suggest that integrated ‘food systems’ metrics will be necessary to inform these approaches.

show abstract

What’s really at ‘steak’? Understanding the global politics of red and processed meat reduction: A framing analysis of stakeholder interviews

Cited by 15 publications

References 36 publications

Stakeholder Beliefs about Alternative Proteins: A Systematic Review

Stakeholder Beliefs about Alternative Proteins: A Systematic Review

Marketing strategies used for alternative protein products sold in Australian supermarkets in 2014, 2017, and 2021

Grazing for dollars: responsible investing for healthy and sustainable animal agriculture in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About