A systematic review by researchers in the U.K. explores the range of policy levers available to governments seeking to reduce animal farming and meat consumption for environmental and public health reasons. Four main types of interventions are analyzed:

1. Financial measures
2. Command-and-control regulations
3. Informational approaches
4. Behavioral interventions

The review categorizes and evaluates these policy options based on both their potential impact and public acceptability. For each intervention, the researchers examined scientific evidence and real-world examples to assess effectiveness and feasibility of implementation.

Financial Measures

Financial measures include taxes on meat products, subsidies for plant-based alternatives, carbon trading schemes for agriculture, and buyouts of animal farms. For example, in 2011, Denmark introduced a tax on saturated fat that included meat products, while Germany has recently discussed removing its value-added tax (VAT) reduction on meat.

On the subsidy side, Denmark committed 1 billion kr for plant-based food development, and the California Energy Commission has provided grants up to $4.6 million for dairies to transition to plant-based production. New Zealand is pioneering agricultural carbon trading through its He Waka Eke Noa program, which will bring farms into emissions trading by 2025. In the Netherlands, a €25 billion government buyout program was announced in 2021 to help animal farmers transition away from livestock production.

Command-And-Control Regulations

Command-and-control measures encompass both regulation of production and restrictions on consumption. Production regulations like the European Union’s (E.U.) minimum space requirements for egg-laying hens have successfully improved welfare standards. Several jurisdictions have implemented consumption restrictions in public institutions. For instance, New York City has adopted Meatless Mondays across its public schools, hospitals, and correctional facilities since 2019. The Danish government attempted to mandate two meat-free days per week in state canteens in 2020, but had to abandon the policy after public backlash.

Informational Approaches

Informational measures include food labels, national dietary guidelines, and public information campaigns. European supermarkets including Nestle and Tyson Foods are piloting Foundation Earth’s eco-labels that grade food items from A+ to G based on environmental impact. The Netherlands and Sweden have updated their dietary guidelines to explicitly recommend limiting meat consumption to 300 grams and 500 grams per week, respectively.

However, some governments continue funding pro-meat campaigns. The U.K. recently backed a £4 million campaign to promote red meat consumption among young people, while the E.U. spent €3.6 million on its “Become a Beefatarian” campaign in 2020.

Behavioral Interventions

Behavioral interventions focus on “nudging” consumers toward plant-based choices. A study at the University of Cambridge found that placing vegetarian options first in buffets increased their selection by four to six percentage points. The non-profit organization Greener by Default works with institutions like York St John University and Lancaster University in the U.K. to make plant-based dishes the default menu choice. In the U.S., Harvard University’s implementation of the Menus of Change initiative included surveying students on favorite plant-based dishes to increase acceptance.

How Effective Are These Interventions?

The researchers found that interventions are most effective when multiple approaches are combined. For example, subsidies for plant-based foods can make meat taxes more palatable, while behavioral nudges can amplify the impact of informational campaigns. Success also depends heavily on context — what works in one setting or culture may not translate to others.

For animal advocates, these findings suggest a strategy of focusing on the most publicly acceptable interventions first while building support for stronger measures. The study recommends starting with behavioral changes in institutional settings, improving plant-based options, and implementing transparent labeling systems. More restrictive policies can follow as public awareness increases and social norms shift.

A key limitation noted is that while the study followed systematic review protocols, it did not implement all PRISMA standards (internationally recognized guidelines for conducting reviews) in order to maximize relevance for policymakers. Additionally, by focusing specifically on meat rather than all animal products, some relevant policies targeting dairy and eggs may have been excluded.

The researchers conclude that governments have many tools available to reduce meat production and consumption, but must carefully consider both effectiveness and acceptability. A strategic combination of different policy levers, implemented thoughtfully over time, offers the best path forward for advancing this challenging but crucial transition.