Less meat helps people and planet - but where is the clear direction?

As the Netherlands works towards a sustainable future, it is evident that efforts cannot focus solely on reducing emissions from industry, aviation and road traffic. The food system must also change to help prevent further climate warming. The carbon footprint of animal products is generally far higher than that of plant-based foods. The same holds for other environmental pressures from livestock farming, such as land use, water consumption and pollution of soil and water.

A plant-based diet also offers proven benefits for public health. This is why the government aims for a 50:50 balance in protein consumption. “But recent experience and current practice show that such a half and half target will not be attainable before 2030,” Dagevos explains. “Achieving it will require targeted and proactive government policy."

Since 1997, Dagevos has followed agricultural policy as part of his research at Wageningen University & Research. He identifies the first obstacle in the traditional policy focus on production, rather than on consumer behaviour. “Agricultural policy has always centred on production and market supply,” he says. “In the 1990s, this began to shift due to issues such as food safety and genetic modification, and consumer preferences slowly came into view.” Within Wageningen University & Research, Dagevos was among the first to explore the consumer’s role, then still a relatively new theme.

“The same pattern appears in the protein transition. Policy is heavily oriented towards increasing the supply of plant-based products, but consumers play a decisive role. The government’s 50:50 target depends directly on behavioural change. Without different choices on the plate, the goal will not be reached.”

At present there are no plans for follow-up research into how consumers can be encouraged to eat less meat, nor into how they can accept and embrace such a shift. Yet insights in this area could provide valuable guidance for future policy. “There is no clear policy line for actively involving consumers in the transition or for influencing actual demand.” According to Dagevos, this is partly due to the political sensitivity of the topic. “This is a clear example of a theme within the Wageningen research domain that has become politicised. Eating less meat touches a nerve. It has lost political priority, and the protein target itself has recently lost both urgency and persuasive power. A clear policy direction is essential. It signals where the government wants to go, and it offers certainty and recognition to businesses and consumers.”

Political reluctance to intervene in consumption in general and meat consumption in particular is closely tied to concerns about societal support. “The assumption often is that people reject any policy that guides eating habits. But research shows that acceptance is higher than politicians think. Saying bluntly that everyone must eat less meat and dairy provokes resistance. But that is not the actual message. The message is that moderating meat and dairy intake benefits both the individual and the planet.”

To support policymakers in exploring possible interventions to encourage lower meat consumption, Dagevos and colleague Marleen Onwezen organised a range of options using an intervention ladder. Softer, less intrusive measures appear at the bottom and harder measures at the top. They used this ladder to formulate concrete policy actions that show at a glance how the balance between proteins could be shifted and how the protein transition could be accelerated.

In their advice to policymakers, the researchers highlight four measures that they believe deserve priority. First, they recommend communicating a clear and inspiring narrative that frames flexitarian eating as the starting point, both for newcomers and for people already familiar with plant-forward diets.

This narrative underpins the remaining three measures, which include supporting supermarkets, restaurants and caterers, and sharing lessons learned. The researchers also encourage politicians to reopen the discussion on price incentives. Finally, government could lead by example by regulating food procurement in public buildings.

Most measures on the ladder are familiar options. “Yes, they are not all in place yet, but they are easy to imagine. The ladder puts them in perspective. Where exactly does the government stand on this ladder? Which strategy does it choose? Step by step or by skipping rungs? Does it dare to experiment with combinations of measures to see whether they reinforce one another? Our work is successful if the ladder sparks these kinds of questions.”