A study from the University of Helsinki and Stockholm Resilience Center explores whether quality meat leads to reduced consumption. Researchers find conflicting attitudes among Finnish consumers toward sustainable diets.
Finnish consumers who buy natural pasture-raised beef have varied perspectives on sustainable meat consumption, a new study reveals. Researchers from the University of Helsinki and the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University set out to explore whether the concept of “less but better” meat truly reduces overall meat intake. The study, published in the journal Agriculture and Human Values, underscores the complexity of integrating quality and sustainability into dietary habits.
Charolais cattle graze freely on non-cultivated pastures in Finland. These cows eat primarily locally produced grass, making their meat a preferred choice for consumers concerned about animal welfare and environmental impact. However, the idea that choosing higher-quality meat naturally leads to consuming less meat is more nuanced than initially thought.
“We wanted to understand how consumers gaining access to ‘better’ meat rationalize their overall meat consumption – whether they see a link between eating ‘better’ and eating ‘less,’” lead author Irina Herzon, a senior university lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Sciences at the University of Helsinki, said in a news release.
Interviews with 21 Finnish consumers revealed that while all participants acknowledged meat could be part of a sustainable diet, many felt that the need to reduce meat consumption was a global issue more pressing outside Finland. Factors such as health benefits, naturalness and the origin of the meat shaped consumer preferences, with a distinct leaning towards domestically produced Finnish beef.
Several respondents associated higher costs of naturally raised beef with eating less, using the premium price as a deterrent to overconsumption. On the other hand, some consumers saw the quality and ethical standards of natural pasture-raised beef as a reason to maintain or even increase their meat intake.
This dichotomy suggests that simply providing access to high-quality meat does not straightforwardly translate to reduced meat consumption.
“We need to encourage reduced meat consumption while also promoting high-quality, sustainable production options,” added Herzon.
The study stresses the importance of clearer definitions of what constitutes “better” meat in the context of sustainability and cultural norms. It calls for more detailed guidelines on how much reduction in meat consumption is required to meet environmental targets effectively.
With livestock production having significant environmental repercussions, more research is necessary to establish clear, sustainable consumption criteria and develop strategies to shift consumer behavior to align with these goals.
Source: University of Helsinki