We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites.
View our privacy policy
The food we eat is a crucial piece of the puzzle when it comes to tackling climate change.
The Climate Change Committee includes diet change as a key part of the pathway towards a lower carbon future, while the UK’s National Food Strategy recommended a 30% reduction in meat consumption by 2032 to achieve a more sustainable food system. Reducing meat and dairy consumption alongside other diet-related choices, such as buying local produce, and reducing food waste all play a role in this transition.
While there have been notable shifts in recent years – meat consumption in the UK, for instance, has hit an all time low – there’s still a long way to go to bring about wider changes in the culture of food.
This is complexified by the myriad range of factors that play a role in how people engage with food – from gender, to costs, to the physical places we make food choices, to cultural influences and deeply held worldviews. So, it’s no surprise that food can often be seen as an personal, emotional, and sometimes politically toxic subject.
Yet while a vegan or vegetarian diet may not be right for everyone – what’s clear is that there is an ‘appetite’ for change.
Opinion data shows that large numbers of people are willing to buy local produce and reduce their food waste. Policies that can help lower food-related emissions – including better food labelling and even taxes on meat and dairy – tend to receive more support than opposition. And there are a range of examples where people-focused campaigns and initiatives have been effective in reducing the impact of diets.
This topic thread was produced in collaboration with the Centre for Climate and Social Transformations (CAST).
A unique project working with football fans has found substantial reductions in meat consumption amongst the participants who took part.
The Manchester Is Green project, led by Hubbub, used a ‘gamifying’ approach to meat reduction with Man United and Man City fans. This encouraged participants to make ‘tactical substitutions’ in their diet, instead of meat, along with other measures.
Three months after the challenge, amongst the 72 participants:
The project suggests there is huge potential for people to shift their diet related behaviours within a short time frame, and shows how sport and identity may play an important role in this.
9 in 10 fans who took part felt that football clubs and players should be inspiring fans to take on more planet-friendly behaviours – linking with other research about the importance of climate leadership.
Research commissioned by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, suggests that people in the UK find it difficult to ‘juggle’ competing drivers of food choices (for example price, value, budget, convenience, health, environment, ethics and so on). Price often wins out in decision making, leading many to make uncomfortable compromises.
While many aspired to a more environmentally friendly diet, barriers such as price, a lack of trusted information; and feeling that the problem was ‘too big’ to make a difference – often undermined these goals.
And on a day-to-day basis, people tended to prioritise their immediate needs and concerns: ensuring the food they ate was safe and as healthy as it could be within their budget.
Despite this, some actions, such as reducing food waste and packaging waste, were areas where people felt they had more power to take action.
Alongside this, many people did not trust that key food decision-makers have the public’s best interests at heart. They felt that food businesses and the Government prioritise profit over people.
The public wanted decision-makers to support both their immediate needs and to protect the long-term interests of people and planet.
Polling by Ipsos shows that people are much more likely to support (62%) than oppose (17%) a policy that changes product pricing based on how environmentally friendly a product is.
In addition, people were also more likely to support (47%) than oppose (32%) taxes on red meat and dairy products in principle, although this trend did not remain when personal lifestyle and financial impacts were highlighted.
Another popular policy was increasing vegetarian/vegan options in public food provisioning (56% support versus 21% oppose), which remained popular when lifestyle trade-offs were highlighted but not when financial trade-offs were highlighted.
However, a majority of respondents did not feel confident that increasing vegetarian/vegan provisioning would lead to fair outcomes across different groups of the population.
Overall, support for policies varied across groups to some extent – with wealthy people and those with left-leaning political views more likely to be supportive of diet related climate policies.
Research conducted as part of Climate Outreach’s Britain Talks Climate work shows clear differences between segments of the UK population in terms of their opinions and preferences around food and climate change.
For instance, ‘Progressive Activists’ (vocal, passionate and politically active, but despairing about how the Government has tackled climate change) are the only segment to show majority support for reducing their meat and dairy intake as a personal step on climate change. They were also the only segment in favour of taxing meat and dairy products.
On the other hand, ‘Backbone Conservatives’ (patriotic, conservative and optimistic, skeptical of symbolic lifestyle changes and deeply caring about food, farming and the rural economy) showed limited interest in reducing their own meat and dairy intake. They showed very little enthusiasm for vegetarianism and none for veganism. However, they are positive towards ‘common sense’ ethical actions such as buying local, eating seasonally, reducing food waste and supporting British farmers.
‘Disengaged Battlers’ (broadly supportive of the need to tackle climate change, but feel unrepresented and are too busy surviving day-to-day to give environmental issues more of their attention) show strong support for penalising brands that use excessive or difficult-to- recycle plastic packaging (76%), and for setting targets for supermarkets to reduce food waste (80%).
Four years of CAST polling data shows trends among different audiences. Older age groups, men and those who lean Centre or Right politically are generally less willing to reduce their meat consumption. No clear pattern was found for income or rural vs urban residents.
The UK Climate Assembly, held in 2019-20, gathered public perspectives on how the UK should achieve its net zero climate target. It brought together 108 participants, selected to represent the demographic diversity of the UK, who met over several weekends to look at evidence, deliberate on the question and produce recommendations for the Government.
Discussions revealed that participants support reducing meat and dairy consumption for climate and other reasons, such as health. Other favoured policies included emissions labelling for food; low carbon farming regulation and incentives; training on sustainable land use; support for local food production; and changing retailers’ behaviour. People also highlighted that policies should consider things like fairness, support for farmers, affordability and education.
Discussion workshops held by the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) in Devon, Aberdeen and Manchester in 2022 produced similar findings – that people (across a range of ages, genders, ethnicities and income levels) were supportive of a transition to healthier diets with less meat, and emphasised the importance of fairness in relation to dietary changes and policies.
Halving meat consumption and swapping red meat for white meat were considered desirable and feasible, alongside eating a balanced diet. These strategies were seen as quick and easy changes that many people would be able to make.
Strong negative reactions were only noticeable for strategies which were perceived to take away choice completely, such as fully meat-free diets. These were generally perceived as too restrictive and involving too much of a change for most people (i.e. unfair), at least in the near future. There were also concerns about vegan diets being unhealthy and detrimental to the livelihoods of farmers.
A major review of the nation’s food strategy and culture highlights the need for dramatic change in how the UK produces and consumes food to improve public health, protect the NHS and ensure resilience to shocks, such as climate change.
The review, which looks at the entire food chain ‘from field to fork’, recommends a 30% reduction in meat consumption by 2032, along with a range of measures to reduce diet inequalities and move away from ‘junk food’ culture.
The review notes that voluntary measures will not be enough. It recommends that all food companies with more than 250 employees – including retailers, restaurants, fast food joints, contract caterers, wholesalers, manufacturers and online ordering platforms – should publish an annual report on a range of measures, including food waste and sales of protein by type (meat, dairy, fish, plant, or alternative protein).
The review also acknowledges that the spaces in which consumers buy and eat food can have a strong influence on people’s dietary choices:
“Supermarkets and the hospitality sector are extremely adept at nudging consumers towards certain products and behaviours. They can do this by changing their layouts and menus, using discounts and promotions, reformulating their own products, changing their packaging and labelling, and using their enormous purchasing power selectively.”
This aligns with what we already know about people’s dietary habits being far from simple individual choices. What we eat is affected by a wide range of structural factors – these include biological, medical, developmental, psychological, economic and social factors, as well as the influence of media, infrastructure and the food environment. The Government’s Obesity System Map is a great visualisation of these many interlinking variables.
This landmark IPCC report considers plant-based diets as a significant opportunity for reducing emissions, and includes reducing meat consumption as a policy recommendation.
Reducing food waste and improving farming practices (e.g. to halt soil damage and desertification) are also discussed as vital steps in protecting our food system and environment.
IPCC Co-Chair, Eduardo Calvo Buendía, said:
“The food system as a whole, which includes food production and processing, transport, retail consumption, loss and waste is currently responsible for up to a third of our global greenhouse gas emissions”.