In recent years, sustainable and meat-free diets have not only gained more popularity, but have also become controversial topics. While the decision to incorporate these diets into our lives is generally a “personal choice,” external factors created by retailers, restaurants, policymakers, and other choice architects may directly influence our decisions. In research terms, these are sometimes referred to as “behavioral interventions.”

This paper invites us to reflect on the ethical consequences of interventions aimed at reducing meat consumption, and discusses ethical strategies based on the FORGOOD framework. 

One common example of a behavioral intervention is nudging. This strategy includes setting ordering defaults to plant-based options, adding sustainability labels to products, or positioning meat-free food items in strategic places – for example, near cash registers or at eye level to attract more attention, or placing vegetarian options first on restaurant menus. Some people may consider these actions legitimate, and their implementation might prove effective in increasing sales and encouraging sustainable diets. However, it could be argued that these actions are also manipulative and do not respect an individual’s preferences and freedom to choose. 

For this reason, critics have proposed the use of the FORGOOD framework, which includes seven ethical considerations: Fairness, Openness, Respect, Goals, Opinions, Options, and Delegations. They suggest that these should be evaluated before implementing any behavioral interventions to encourage sustainable diets. 

1. Choice architects should ensure that the interventions are Fair and do not contribute to undesirable consequences. For example, in low-income countries, reducing meat consumption might represent a financial burden for some people, as meat-free diets might not be affordable for everyone. In addition, choice architects need to reflect on how a large-scale change in behavior might impact the economy of people who work with farmed animals, particularly in households that financially rely on this type of work. 

2. It should be considered if the intervention is Open and transparent, while manipulating people into sustainable diets should be avoided. Instead, choice architects can educate people by openly disclosing information about the reasoning behind the behavioral intervention. For example, they can provide information about the CO2 emissions of the different food options. In contrast, an example of a hidden or less open intervention includes defaulting to meat-free foods without disclosing the availability of meat options at a restaurant or an event. An example of a manipulative intervention includes the use of graphic warning labels that trigger strong emotions in people.

3. Interventions should be Respectful. They should respect the person’s preferences, even if they are biased. Moreover, it’s important that choice architects acknowledge that preferences can change over time and that they might be influenced by any given context. Interventions should also respect the freedom of choice, which entails the individual right to make errors. They should respect the person’s autonomy and understand that food choices are personal. Finally, choice architects should respect people’s dignity and ensure that interventions do not stigmatize people for what they eat. 

4. Choice architects should have a clear vision and understand what the Goals of the behavioral intervention are. Is it because they want to promote healthier lifestyles? Or because they have environmental and/or animal welfare concerns? Or do they want to help people achieve their own goals? In any case, it is fundamental for them to reflect on the ethical justification for intervening in people’s food choices.

5. Choice architects should reflect on people’s Opinions about the interventions. While an intervention should be considered acceptable, public approval is not necessarily the best indicator to determine if such an intervention is ethical. In contrast, public disapproval should encourage reflection, as it may indicate an underlying ethical problem.

6. It’s important to consider if there are alternative Options. Are there other behavioral and/or non-behavioral interventions that might be more effective, more ethical, and that could help achieve the same goal?

7. Finally, choice architects should consider how they will competently and ethically use the resources (e.g., money, power, time) that society Delegated to them.

This paper offers a critical perspective and invites advocates to reflect and consider all the ethical implications that behavioral interventions may unintentionally entail. One key aspect that is missing from its analysis, however, is a clearer sense of power dynamics. The paper fails to recognize that many “choice architecture” interventions aimed at promoting meat-free meals, for example, are enacted “from below” by groups and individuals with considerably less power and resources than a major food retailer or company. The paper also does not address the issue that, while ethical advocates may choose to follow these guidelines because they see it’s the right thing to do, those with a profit motive have no incentive to do so. Still, what might resonate most with advocates is the reminder that dietary preferences are deeply personal, and this paper highlights the importance of honoring each person’s autonomy and freedom of choice. It advocates for a stance of respect and education, rather than imposition, encouraging reflection and constructive dialogue.