Lessons From University Meat Reduction Initiatives
Convincing consumers to reduce their meat consumption saves animal lives and protects the environment. There have been many individual studies of meat reduction initiatives that can inform future campaigns, but these studies focus on different dining settings (e.g., restaurants, universities, canteens). As a result, it can be challenging to compare the results.
In this study, the authors looked at a “uniform” setting for meat reduction initiatives — university campus dining — to investigate the most effective methods for encouraging people to eat less meat. They outlined three general strategies that reduction campaigns typically use:
- Implicitly manipulating consumer choices (e.g., changing how veg*n and non-veg*n items are arranged on a menu, or adjusting the physical layout of a dining hall to make veg*n options more accessible).
- Consciously targeting consumer decision-making (e.g., using promotional messaging or encouraging veg*n purchases through price incentives)
- Strategies that do both (a.k.a. “bimodal” strategies)
The authors assessed existing research published between 2000-2021. They considered studies that looked at students, faculty, and staff, but the studies had to take place in a natural dining setting (as opposed to being an artificial experiment). The studies also had to assess either intended meat reduction, self-reported dietary changes, or observed changes in meat consumption. In total, they narrowed down their database to 29 studies.
Around two-thirds of the interventions resulted in meat reduction, with an average reduction rate of 82%. The authors found that it is most effective to use “bimodal” methods (i.e., strategy 3) to encourage meat reduction in university settings. Promotional messaging was commonly used alongside other methods, while rearranging a dining hall layout was least likely to be included alongside another method.
Furthermore, interventions that used two methods simultaneously (regardless of whether a study used strategy #1, #2, or #3) were more successful than those that used individual methods. For example, promotional messaging was successful 57% of the time when done on its own and 76% when used with another approach. Finally, there were no significant differences based on interventions in North America vs. Europe.
The authors highlight some limitations to their research, such as the fact that they couldn’t measure how these interventions impact long-term meat consumption. Also, since they looked at university settings in Europe and North America, it’s unclear whether the same findings would apply to other dining contexts (e.g., restaurants or occupational dining halls) and other regional locations.
While this study can’t answer every question about implementing a successful meat reduction initiative, it suggests that advocates working with universities would be wise to try a bimodal approach. This means giving consumers a choice, but working to influence these choices in both conscious and implicit ways. Advocates working in this area would benefit from learning more about nudges and effective messaging in veg*n campaigns.