Bhattacharya, Bryant and Couture 2023

https://bryantresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Chewing-It-Over.pdf

Meat reduction is not a fringe goal or idea – it is endorsed by over half the UK population:

• 57% of the country believe that most people should eat less meat, while only 16% disagree.
• 58% of people have taken steps to eliminate or reduce their own meat consumption.
• They are motivated by animal welfare, health and environmental concerns – which often go together.
• There is no doubt that animal welfare concerns are widely shared:
  • 83% say they care about farmed animal welfare
  • 61% have some discomfort with the way animals are treated on farms.

Support for policies on meat reduction

There is less consensus that meat reduction ought to be a political focus

• 43% of people believe that the government should encourage people to eat less meat, but 34% disagree with that notion.
  The public tends to prefer ‘softer’ measures like public education and labelling:
  • 74% would support government-mandated animal welfare labels on meat products.
  • Polls also suggest strong support for teaching school children about farmed animal welfare.

Yet these policy interventions alone are unlikely to achieve dramatic reductions in meat consumption. While there is evidence to suggest that welfare labelling can shift purchasing behaviour, evidence from other domains (like alcohol and junk food) suggests it has less impact than affordability.

• The idea of a meat tax is particularly unpopular, 69% would be against such an initiative.
• By contrast, people are more open to subsidising plant-based alternatives: 58% would support a 20% subsidy, with only 21% against.

The public doesn't realise how badly farmed animals are treated

• 36% say that chickens are generally not well treated, compared to 16% for beef cattle.
• Moreover, 34% of people believe treatment of broiler chickens is good.
• Yet only 16% believe most farm animals are poorly treated, despite the fact that chickens account for the vast majority of farm animals.

The public supports higher standards

• 91% say they would prefer stricter policies in this area.
• 59% would favour a ban on all ‘factory farming’, including 31% of ‘Meat Lovers’.

Many would be willing to accept stronger regulation, even if it increased prices:

• 66% say they would pay more for meat from higher-welfare animals.

People correctly realise that chicken is lower env footprint and healthier

Despite some appreciation of the greater suffering involved in chicken consumption, it is regarded as healthier and less environmentally damaging:

• 75% of people think chicken is a “healthy” food, compared to 34% for beef and 27% for pork.
• 25% think chicken is bad for the environment, compared to 55% for beef and 42% for pork.

Segmenting on meat reduction intentions

One in five people are hardcore Meat Lovers – the other 81% are ‘persuadable’

• 19% are Hardcore Meat lovers. They are more likely to be men, middle aged (average age 50), and to vote Conservative, with 50% university educated. They generally tend to view animal products as healthy and environmentally unproblematic. Yet 27% of people in this group still say they have some discomfort with the way animals are treated on farms, and nearly a third want to ban factory farms.
• 12% are Animal Lovers: 58% are vegetarian or vegan, and 96% have made some effort to avoid or limit meat. 70% are women and 63% are university educated. They are typically middle aged (48 years on average) and they are most likely to vote Labour. They are disproportionately drawn from both high and low-income groups (as opposed to middle income).
• 32% are Animal Sympathisers: Only 6% are vegetarian or vegan, but they tend to have pro-animal views 83% have tried to reduce their meat consumption. They are disproportionately likely to have high or low incomes but are less likely to be in middle income brackets. Their average age is 47.
• 37% hold no strong views, and are broadly reflective of the general population in terms of gender, age and income.

Meat alternatives

Alternative proteins are already helping some consumers to reduce their meat consumption,

• but only 26% say they are satisfied with the existing products on the market.
• Existing plant-based products are seen as convenient, though with some qualms over taste and major concerns over affordability:
  • On the Importance of Price and Taste for Food Choice
  • 45% say plant-based meat alternatives are convenient.
  • 37% say they are tasty; 34% say they are not.
  • 44% say they are not affordable, compared to 28% who say that they are
  • 52% of people are not enthused about existing products, but would be open to eating them in the future.

Gov investment in alt proteins

Nevertheless, most people are amenable to government subsidy and investment
in alternative proteins:

• 62% would favour public investment in research to develop better alternatives.
• 58% support price subsidies for alternative proteins.

People with a more positive view of alternative proteins tend to be more supportive of meat reduction policies:
• For example, 28% of those who believe plant-based meat is tasty would
support a meat tax, compared to just 6% who do not find plant-based meat
tasty.
However, they will have to overcome suspicion – particularly of cultivated
meat

People are ambivalent about the health impact of alternative proteins:

• 49% of people regard plant-based meat as healthy.
• However, there is substantial concern over its processed natured, and a lack of trust in the food industry more broadly.

There is also significant scepticism of cultivated meat in particular:

• Only 39% would even try cultivated meat and only 22% would be willing to buy it.
  However, cultivated meat may be particularly attractive to ‘swing’ consumers
  seeking to reduce their meat consumption:
  • 55% of Animal Sympathisers say they would try cultivated meat.
  • By contrast Animal Lovers (31%) were even less likely to try cultivated meat
  than the ‘No Strong Views’ group (35%).