Abstract:Meat is critical with respect to sustainability because meat products are among the most energy-intensive and ecologically burdensome foods. Empirical studies of the meat-consumption frequency of Dutch consumers show that, apart from meat-avoiders and meat-eaters, many people are meat-reducers that eat no meat at least one day per week. Meat-consumption frequencies provide empirical evidence for different modes of "flexitarianism," including light, medium, and heavy flexitarians. In particular, the existence o… Show more
“…Such a cultural change would be much harder to achieve, but is required to adopt new sustainable and healthy dietary patterns. Maintaining existing dietary patterns may not be enough to reach the true potential of dietary change (Dagevos and Voordouw 2013;Gonzalez Fischer and Garnett 2016;Green et al 2015).…”
More sustainable dietary patterns are needed to mitigate global warming. This study aims to identify data-driven healthy dietary patterns that benefit the environment. In EPIC-NL, diet was assessed using a 178-item FFQ in 36,203 participants aged 20-70 years between 1993 and 1997. The Dutch Healthy Diet index 2015 (DHD15-index) was used to score healthiness of the diet. As proxy for environmental impact, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated using life cycle analysis. To determine patterns that are both healthy and environmentally friendly, reduced rank regression was applied. A BPlant-based Pattern^characterized by high consumption of fruits, vegetables, and legumes, and low consumption of fries, red meat, and processed meat and a BDairy-based Pattern^characterized by high consumption of dairy, and nuts and seeds and low consumption of coffee and tea, sugar-containing sodas, lowfiber bread, and savory sauces were derived. At equal energy intake, the diet of adherents (highest quartile) to the BPlant-based Pattern^were significantly healthier (89.8 points on the DHD15-index, p < 0.0001) and more sustainable (3.96 kg C0 2 -eq/day, p < 0.0001) compared to the average diet (76.2 points, 4.06 kg C0 2 -eq/day), whereas the BDairy-based Pattern^was somewhat healthier (77.9 points, p < 0.0001), but less sustainable (4.43 kg C0 2 -eq/day, p < 0.0001). When deriving dietary patterns based on health and environmental aspects of the diets, a BPlant-based^and a BDairy-based^pattern were observed in our study population. Of these, the plant-based diet benefits health as well as the environment.
“…Such a cultural change would be much harder to achieve, but is required to adopt new sustainable and healthy dietary patterns. Maintaining existing dietary patterns may not be enough to reach the true potential of dietary change (Dagevos and Voordouw 2013;Gonzalez Fischer and Garnett 2016;Green et al 2015).…”
More sustainable dietary patterns are needed to mitigate global warming. This study aims to identify data-driven healthy dietary patterns that benefit the environment. In EPIC-NL, diet was assessed using a 178-item FFQ in 36,203 participants aged 20-70 years between 1993 and 1997. The Dutch Healthy Diet index 2015 (DHD15-index) was used to score healthiness of the diet. As proxy for environmental impact, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated using life cycle analysis. To determine patterns that are both healthy and environmentally friendly, reduced rank regression was applied. A BPlant-based Pattern^characterized by high consumption of fruits, vegetables, and legumes, and low consumption of fries, red meat, and processed meat and a BDairy-based Pattern^characterized by high consumption of dairy, and nuts and seeds and low consumption of coffee and tea, sugar-containing sodas, lowfiber bread, and savory sauces were derived. At equal energy intake, the diet of adherents (highest quartile) to the BPlant-based Pattern^were significantly healthier (89.8 points on the DHD15-index, p < 0.0001) and more sustainable (3.96 kg C0 2 -eq/day, p < 0.0001) compared to the average diet (76.2 points, 4.06 kg C0 2 -eq/day), whereas the BDairy-based Pattern^was somewhat healthier (77.9 points, p < 0.0001), but less sustainable (4.43 kg C0 2 -eq/day, p < 0.0001). When deriving dietary patterns based on health and environmental aspects of the diets, a BPlant-based^and a BDairy-based^pattern were observed in our study population. Of these, the plant-based diet benefits health as well as the environment.
“…as a result of rearing, transportation and slaughtering practices) may lead to the voluntary avoidance of some or even all animal products in one's diet (e.g. Beardsworth and Bryman 2004;Beardsworth and Keil 1991;Dagevos and Voordouw 2013;Dibb and Fitzpatrick 2014;Graça et al 2015;Santos and Booth 1996) and are increasingly integrated into the commercial food system (Beardsworth and Keil 1991). This has been confirmed by Mäkiniemi et al (2011), who investigated differences between ethical and unethical food on the basis of their observation that there has been a substantial growth in ethical food consumption.…”
Section: Knowledge and Skillsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Several authors found that habits and routines are among the main barriers to reduced meat consumption (Lea et al 2006;Dagevos and Voordouw 2013;Graça et al 2015). Dibb and Fitzpatrick (2014) add that many of our day-today food habits are routine in that we eat often and without much deliberation.…”
Section: Habits and Tastementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It requires supportive government policies and practices, new and different business practices and civil society initiatives working in synergy (Dibb and Fitzpatrick 2014;Biesbroek et al 2013;Darnton and Evans 2013;Garnett et al 2015b;Thøgerson 2014;Westhoek et al 2011). While several authors still claim that ''advocating for reduced meat consumption as part of healthy sustainable diets has not yet translated into policies and practices from government to support consumer behaviour change'' (Dibb and Fitzpatrick 2014, p. 5;Dagevos and Voordouw 2013;Laestadius et al 2014;Bailey et al 2014;Westhoek et al 2011), it is evident that a variety of institutions have already started to take action and/or are preparing to do so. This includes governments in countries such as China, where the government is running a major campaign employing well-known U.S. actors such as Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Guardian 2016), and Germany, where reducing meat consumption is now included in the climate goals (BMUB 2016).…”
A dietary shift towards reduced meat consumption is an efficient strategy for countering biodiversity loss and climate change in regions (developed and transition countries) where consumption is already at a very high level or is rapidly expanding (such as China). Biodiversity is being degraded and lost to a considerable extent, with 70 % of the world's deforestation a result of stripping in order to grow animal feed. Furthermore, about 14.5 % of the world's anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are calculated to be the result of (mainly industrial) livestock farming. The research reviewed here focuses on the feasibility of reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries, as this would-among other positive effects-reduce the global loss of biodiversity, the need for unsustainable agricultural practices and GHG emissions. This article reviews the barriers, opportunities and steps that need to be taken in order to encourage the consumption of less meat, based on an interdisciplinary and multifactor approach. The evidence is gathered from a systematic metaanalysis of factors (including personal, sociocultural and external factors) that influence individual meat-eating behaviour. The most relevant factors that influence behaviour appear to be emotions and cognitive dissonance (between knowledge, conflicting values and actual behaviour) and sociocultural factors (e.g. social norms or social identity). For different factors and groups of people, different strategies are appropriate. For example, for men and older people deploying the health argument or arguing for flexitarianism (reduced meat consumption) may prove the most promising approaches, while providing emotional messages or promoting new social norms is recommended in order to address barriers such as cognitive dissonance.
“…Our subject pool is a representative sample of the population of non-vegetarian households in the Netherlands because: (i) we started with a representative sample of Dutch households; (ii) we mentioned neither the topic nor the purpose of our study in our contacts with the respondents in the selection phase of the study; and (iii) 93% of the households who were invited for the initial survey, ended up participating in the experiment. For a general analysis of meat consumption in the Netherlands, see Gilsing et al [45] and also Dagevos and Voordouw [46]. Respondents were asked whether they were willing to participate in a study, and, if so, whether they were available during the entire period in which the study was implemented, whether they ate meat, and who was responsible for the household's groceries shopping.…”
Abstract:To examine which considerations play a role when individuals make decisions to purchase sustainable product varieties or not, we have conducted a large scale field experiment with more than 600 participating households. Households can vote on whether the budgets they receive should only be spent on purchasing the sustainable product variety, or whether every household in a group is free to spend their budget on any product variety. By conducting several treatments, we tested whether people tend to view sustainable consumption as a social dilemma or as a moral dilemma. We find little support for the hypothesis that social dilemma considerations are the key drivers of sustainable consumption behaviour. Participants seem to be caught in a moral dilemma in which they not only weigh their individual financial costs with the sustainable benefits but they also consider the consequences of restricting other people's freedom of choice. Complementary survey results further substantiate this claim and show that many people are reluctant to impose restrictions on their peers, but, at the same time, our results also suggest substantial support for the government to regulate the availability of unsustainable product varieties.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.