What if promoting health benefits—rather than environmental arguments—proved to be a more effective approach to converting people to a plant-based diet? This is what a research team recommends, based on their findings that although people are aware of the environmental impact of meat-based diets, this awareness alone is not enough to reduce meat consumption.
Long considered a fringe choice, plant-based diets are now recognised for their environmental and ethical benefits, but their adoption faces persistent barriers: lack of awareness of their proven health benefits, cognitive dissonance (“knowing but not acting”), and public messages that often induce guilt about environmental destruction.
In our latest study, we reveal a major paradox: the health argument—arguably the most personal and least divisive—is strangely absent from campaigns promoting plant-based diets, even though it could help overcome individual and social resistance that hinders the adoption of more plant-based diets.
Although the French population is aware of the climate impact associated with meat consumption, it greatly underestimates the risks that meat poses to health (cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc.) and overestimates its nutritional importance in a “balanced” diet, even though it pays particular attention to individual health issues.
A marked difference in the level of knowledge of the multiple impacts
A global transition to plant-based diets could significantly mitigate the negative impact of the food system on the environment, health, and animal welfare.
While disseminating information on the health and environmental impacts of individual diets has become a popular tool among policymakers and social scientists to encourage consumers to adopt more sustainable diets, little is known about the French population's knowledge of the health benefits of a plant-based diet.
Using a representative sample of the French population (N = 715), we assessed average knowledge of the relative benefits of plant-based diets in various areas. We show that, on average, people have a good understanding of the relatively low environmental impact of plant-based diets (greenhouse gases, land use), but significantly underestimate their health benefits.
We also find that people significantly underestimate the prevalence of intensive agriculture and, consequently, the animal welfare benefits of adopting a plant-based diet.
Our findings thus seem to indicate that society is mainly divided into two groups: those who have a positive opinion of plant-based diets in all areas, and those who see fewer benefits in plant-based diets in all areas.
This work opens up a promising avenue for reflection on the role of information campaigns in changing individual eating habits.
Knowledge that does not seem to trigger behavioral changes
Climate change and global environmental issues are now among the main concerns of the French population. Our study confirms that the public is well informed about the harmful impact of meat consumption, both on the environment and on animal welfare.
Our results show, in particular, that respondents have a fairly accurate idea of the orders of magnitude involved and know, for example, that producing the same amount of protein from beef can generate 100 times more carbon than from peas. However, far from triggering a massive change in behavior, this knowledge mainly causes individual discomfort. They are informed, yes, and concerned, certainly, but they are not very willing, if at all, to change what they eat.
Perhaps more troubling, our study reveals that discussing the impact of cattle farming on the climate or denouncing animal abuse in industrial farms can even provoke a form of rejection: when faced with these sensitive topics, some people choose to avoid learning more about them.
In this context, it seems unrealistic to hope that large-scale change will be based on individual behavioral changes, when the problems (ethical or ecological) linked to our eating habits are primarily a matter of societal choices—and therefore a collective responsibility, from which individuals may feel disenfranchised.
Our work outlines effective communication strategies, focused in particular on individual benefits, to encourage concrete changes at the individual level, starting with the issue of food.
Can awareness of the impact on health change the situation?
Given the mixed success of ecological and ethical arguments—beef consumption has fallen by 6% in twenty years, but overall meat consumption has plateaued in recent years at 85 kg per year per person— our research highlights the lack of information about the individual health benefits of a more plant-based diet, even though this topic seems particularly important to French people.
However, the scientific recommendations are clear. In 2019, a study conducted by 37 researchers and published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet had already put forward proposals for feeding the growing global population more healthily. These scientists recommended a maximum of one serving of red meat per week and two weekly servings of poultry and fish, which would lead to a 20% reduction in adult mortality.
On its public website Manger Bouger, the official French public health agency Santé publique France also highlights the protective role of fruit and vegetables in preventing diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, as well as obesity. Finally, recent research also emphasizes that consuming plant-based foods is associated with better cardiovascular health, provided they are of good nutritional quality and have undergone little or no industrial processing.
Coordinate public action in health, ecology, and agriculture to promote plant-based diets
Finally, our findings suggest that the lack of a decline in meat consumption at the national level is largely based on the medically false but widespread belief that a diet low in meat is still healthier than a completely plant-based diet. This research therefore opens up a new and more effective angle of attack for converting populations to a plant-based diet, by promoting the health argument rather than the environmental argument.
Changing meat consumption habits requires coordinated action by the departments of health, agriculture, and ecology. However, to be truly convincing, it is also necessary to communicate with the public using an effective strategy. Highlighting the health benefits for individuals is an essential aspect of communication that must be taken into account. Other stakeholders are also worth mobilising in this context, such as the medical profession and any other potential influencers in terms of nutrition.
The transition to a plant-based diet will depend not only on information, but also on how it is reformulated: less moralising, more tangible evidence, better targeting of individual issues, and above all, coordinated public action (health, ecology, agriculture).
This article by Ricardo Azambuja, Associate Professor, EDHEC Business School; Anahid Roux-Rosier, Associate Professor, Fundação Dom Cabral; and Sophie Raynaud, Assistant Professor, Excelia has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.
Photo de Chantal Garnier sur Unsplash
