The Policy Barriers to Reducing Meat Consumption

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has consistently emphasized the need to reduce animal-based food consumption in Western countries in its annual report, The State of Food and Agriculture. In particular, reducing red and processed meat for public health and environmental reasons¹. The 2024 edition emphasizes sustainability and health, highlighting how important dietary shifts are for increasing welfare. This shift is also a crucial goal for European agricultural policy². However, policy action is lagging despite the growing scientific consensus on the benefits of reducing meat consumption. This article explores the obstacles and policy levers in achieving healthier and more sustainable diets.

Environmental Impact of Overconsumption

Growing wealth and intensive livestock production have made meat cheaper and more accessible, contributing to overconsumption in the world’s wealthiest countries. This has significant health and environmental consequences, including being responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions³. Consider the Paris Agreement, which recommends that countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5% annually. Beef and sheep meat production have the highest emissions, with up to 50 kg of CO₂ per 100 g of protein. Furthermore, almost 40% of global crop production is allocated to animal feed, which competes with human nutrition and threatens global food security. The land required for raising livestock also contributes significantly to deforestation and biodiversity loss.

Health Consequences

Meat consumption also has significant health consequences, including an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, stroke, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and overall mortality rates⁴. According to the international EAT-Lancet Commission, an ideal healthy and sustainable diet includes approximately 70 g (2.5 oz) of meat and fish per day or less. At the same time, dairy products, legumes, nuts, and eggs provide sufficient protein intake alongside other dietary components⁵. For Western countries, this implies an average reduction of meat consumption by half. Conversely, meat consumption in many Global South countries could still increase slightly to reach 70 g, ensuring adequate nutritional intake for the population.

From Science to Policy Design

Despite widespread scientific support for reducing meat and animal product consumption in Western countries, little has been done at the policy level. To understand why, we must examine the tools available to policymakers to influence meat consumption levels.

Various strategies can reduce the consumption of animal-based products. These strategies range from soft interventions, such as promoting and incentivizing alternatives, to complex interventions, such as restricting choices. Some soft policy levers have been implemented through diet education campaigns and the increased availability of alternative protein sources. However, their success has been limited, and policymakers must go further to achieve tangible results⁶.

The introduction of a meat tax would likely be more effective and necessary than relying on information-based initiatives⁷. By reflecting the social and environmental costs of meat in its price, taxation can automatically adjust consumption toward healthier and more sustainable levels. The primary risk of this measure is the potential financial burden on lower-income households. This risk can be mitigated by lowering taxes on meat alternatives, subsidizing less-polluting meats, and redistributing tax revenues to low-income households⁸.

However, shifting prices alone is insufficient to change entrenched consumption patterns. These measures should be accompanied by softer policies addressing meat consumption’s cultural and behavioral aspects. Meat is deeply embedded in many cultures, often serving as a social marker of wealth, celebration, masculinity, and modernity. Policies addressing these cultural factors include public awareness campaigns, reducing meat intake in public institutions, and forming industry partnerships to promote alternative protein sources.

From Policy Design to Public and Political Support

Even if these policies are well-designed, their success ultimately depends on public and political support.

Public support is crucial. Policies that increase the cost of a widely enjoyed product like meat are often met with resistance. Nevertheless, certain strategies can increase acceptance, such as combining taxes with subsidies, launching educational campaigns, and clearly communicating these policies’ public health and environmental benefits. Encouraging a shift from quantity to quality and framing meat consumption as celebratory rather than an everyday activity may help align policies with existing cultural norms.

While public support varies across countries, political support remains limited in most Western nations⁹. Therefore, increasing political buy-in is a top priority for scientists, activists, and policymakers. Denmark offers a notable exception, with its parliament recently approving a tax on livestock methane emissions¹⁰. Similar attempts in New Zealand and the Netherlands were ultimately rejected, highlighting the political challenges involved.

The scientific consensus on reducing meat consumption in Western countries is strong and supported by global institutions such as the United Nations’ FAO. Reducing meat intake is a straightforward and effective strategy for addressing both health and environmental challenges. However, current policy efforts are insufficient and lack public and political backing. Raising public awareness and building political support must be the highest priority moving forward.

Flexitarian and vegetarian diets are already gaining popularity, supported by influential figures in sports, entertainment, and the media. Moving forward, researchers should continue to investigate the most effective policy tools. A successful strategy will likely combine soft measures that address cultural and behavioral aspects of meat consumption with more complex financial interventions, such as targeted taxation, to create a balanced, effective, and publicly acceptable framework.

---

1. The State of Food and Agriculture 2024; FAO, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2616en.
2. Berkhout, P.; Bos, H.; Nel, J.; Schut, A.; Vellinga, T.; Geerling-Eiff, F. Key Dilemmas on Future Land Use for Agriculture, Forestry and Nature in the EU. 2024.
3. Gerber, P. J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, 2013.
4. Tilman, D.; Clark, M. Global Diets Link Environmental Sustainability and Human Health. Nature  2014, 515 (7528), 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959.
5. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; Jonell, M.; Clark, M.; Gordon, L. J.; Fanzo, J.; Hawkes, C.; Zurayk, R.; Rivera, J. A.; De Vries, W.; Majele Sibanda, L.; Afshin, A.; Chaudhary, A.; Herrero, M.; Agustina, R.; Branca, F.; Lartey, A.; Fan, S.; Crona, B.; Fox, E.; Bignet, V.; Troell, M.; Lindahl, T.; Singh, S.; Cornell, S. E.; Srinath Reddy, K.; Narain, S.; Nishtar, S.; Murray, C. J. L. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–LancetCommission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. The Lancet 2019, 393 (10170), 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.
6. Bryant, C.; Couture, A.; Ross, E.; Clark, A.; Chapman, T. A Review of Policy Levers to Reduce Meat Production and Consumption. Appetite 2024, 203, 107684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107684.
7. Funke, F.; Mattauch, L.; Bijgaart, I. van den; Godfray, H. C. J.; Hepburn, C.; Klenert, D.; Springmann, M.; Treich, N. Toward Optimal Meat Pricing: Is It Time to Tax Meat Consumption? Environ. Econ. Policy 2022. https://doi.org/10.1086/721078.
8. Klenert, D.; Funke, F.; Cai, M. Meat Taxes in Europe Can Be Designed to Avoid Overburdening Low-Income Consumers. Food 2023, 4 (10), 894–901. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00849-z.
9. Dagevos, H.; Voordouw, J. Sustainability and Meat Consumption: Is Reduction Realistic? Sci. Pract. Policy 2013, 9 (2), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908115.
10. Sengupta, S.; Fuente, C. de la. Taxing Farm Animals’ Farts and Burps? Denmark Gives It a Try. The New York Times. November 26, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/26/climate/denmark-methane-farm-animal-tax.html (accessed 2024-12-01).