Reducing meat consumption is important for environmental reasons, most notably for lowering the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It’s also essential for preserving biodiversity through decreasing the amount of land required for growing animal feed. Furthermore, high meat consumption is correlated with several health conditions, such as heart disease, certain cancers, and type 2 diabetes. Rising per capita meat consumption is only worsening these environmental and health consequences.

Research has looked at various ways of decreasing meat consumption, from influencing people’s emotions to measures like nudging. But voluntary actions alone are likely to fall short of the dietary changes needed to reach the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Policy changes are required, but in order to be successful, these need public support to avoid backlash or other negative outcomes.

The objective of this study was to examine how environmental risk perception and political trust affect policy acceptance by comparing responses to four different meat reduction policies among Finnish adults. The Finnish context is particularly interesting for looking at meat reduction policies: most Finns are concerned about the state of the environment and trusting of political decision-makers, while also having high per capita meat intake.

An online questionnaire was sent to potential survey participants by an independent polling firm. The sample was designed to be representative of the Finnish population for age, gender, and region. After a filter for quality control, the survey yielded 1,999 responses.

Using Likert scales, participants were asked to rate four hypothetical meat reduction policies:

1. Heavily taxing meat products that are most harmful to the environment;
2. Prohibiting discounts on meat products;
3. Limiting shelf space for meat products in stores; and
4. Halving current consumption of meat products.

These ratings were based on three attributes shown to influence policy acceptance: effectiveness, fairness, and intrusiveness. Participants also rated their level of environmental risk perception (concern for climate change and biodiversity loss) and political trust (impressions of political decision-makers). The survey asked for demographic information as well, including options for omnivorous, pescatarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets.

The authors then assessed how the three attributes affect the influence of environmental risk perception and political trust on policy acceptance.

Acceptance rates for the four meat reduction policies ranged between 25% and 35%. Heavily taxing the most environmentally harmful meat products was the most acceptable, while prohibiting discounts on meat products was the least acceptable. Overall, 44% to 53% of respondents didn’t accept any of the proposed policies.

The perceived fairness of a meat reduction policy was the strongest predictor of acceptance. And while perceived effectiveness contributed to acceptance, it had less influence than perceived fairness. Perceived intrusiveness negatively impacted acceptance, but its effects were smaller than anticipated when also accounting for perceived fairness and effectiveness.

Higher environmental risk perception was linked to greater acceptance, higher perceived effectiveness and fairness, and lower perceived intrusiveness. This suggests that Finns with more concern for climate change and biodiversity loss view meat reduction policies more favorably. Political trust impacted acceptance mainly through perceived fairness, meaning that high-trust individuals likely expect their politicians to design fair policies.

Omnivores, who made up 88% of the sample, were less likely to accept meat reduction policies than non-meat eaters (pescatarians, vegetarians, and vegans combined). More specifically, they found the policies to be less effective, less fair, and more intrusive. They also scored lower in concern for climate change and biodiversity loss than non-meat eaters.

A limitation of this study is that policy descriptions were brief, potentially leading to different interpretations of what a policy measure would entail. For example, respondents could have understood “halving meat consumption” as either a national target or an individual goal. Another limitation is that the only individual factors considered were environmental risk perception and political trust. Other personal values or beliefs, such as health or animal welfare concerns, weren’t included. Finally, the results are specific to Finland, so generalizations to other countries should be made with care.

Overall, this study highlights the importance of including fairness and effectiveness when communicating the benefits of proposed meat reduction policies to the public. Designing policies with public values in mind, particularly fairness, could increase support. Political trust is also key to this policy work. As meat reduction policies can be contentious, decision-makers should communicate clearly and consistently with the public, demonstrating their competence, motivations, and legitimacy in putting these policies forward.