The science is clear that eating meat can be bad for our health; eating meat has been linked to an increase in cardiovascular risks, diabetes, stroke, cancers, and even dementia. Meat is also bad for the planet, with the livestock industry being estimated to be responsible for up to 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. Eating meat is also surprisingly closely connected to the risk of pandemics, with zoonotic diseases (caused by harmful germs that spread between animals and people) much more easily spread from eating animals.
Governmental policy and legislative choices play an important role in our excessive meat consumption. The Committee on Climate Change has recommended a 20% reduction in UK meat consumption by 2030 if we want to hit our net zero targets. Additionally, the Department of Health and Social Care recommends eating no more than 70g of meat a day, but average meat consumption in the UK is closer to 90g. So, what is the best approach? Do we advocate for a ‘nanny state’ that bans meat or imposes hefty taxes? Or do we advocate for a removal of all subsidies for meat farming and just let the market and people decide how much meat we consume under the hopes that awareness of the dangers of meat will drive down consumption?
There are of course significant problems with both approaches, but maybe there is a third option. One that can be applied not just to meat but to all society’s destructive large-scale behaviours, from alcohol to tobacco to ultra-processed foods to sedentary lifestyles.
In 2003 Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein coined the phrase Libertarian Paternalism. Essentially arguing that the best way to produce policy is to design interventions that change behaviour without affecting people’s right to choose. So, you can still eat as many steaks as you like but policy will build an environment that unconsciously discourages eating an excessive amount. This idea could be argued to balance individual and government responsibilities, the government is nudging people to healthier choices, but the individual still gets to make the final decision.
For example, in a recent study of ours we found that sticking a graphic warning label (similar to those you see on cigarettes) onto meals could reduce the amount of meat chosen. Not only were the labels effective, leading to between a seven and 10 percent reduction in meat meals chosen, but the idea of introducing them as policy received fairly neutral responses. Which, let’s be honest, makes it more popular than most policy proposals!
When we look at recent research we can see that a variety of interventions have shown promising effectiveness on reducing meat consumption. Whether changing the ratio of meat to non-meat meals on offer, making meat meals less appealing by using less flattering descriptions, changing which meals appear at the top of the menu, or adding eco and warning labels to discourage the selection of meat meals, there are many ways of changing the environment without reducing the freedom of choice consumers ask for.
The question is though: is this approach the best or the worst of both arguments? Does Libertarian Paternalism thread the needle between governmental and personal responsibility? Others might say the approach is too hands off, or too hands on. If we accept that as a society we would benefit from eating less meat, which policy strategy do you support? The ‘nanny state’, the free market, or the libertarian paternalist approach?
The paper described in this blog-post can be accessed here:
Hughes, J. P., Weick, M., & Vasiljevic, M. (2023). Impact of pictorial warning labels on meat meal selection: A randomised experimental study with UK meat consumers. Appetite, 190, 107026. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666323024881
