Given the links between meat consumption and human and environmental health, researchers aimed to replicate a study from 2013/2014 to see how public opinion on sustainable diets has changed in the last 10 years. Their goal was to explore people’s motivations and day-to-day experiences in ways that surveys might miss.

The researchers attempted to match the methodology and demographic makeup of the original study. They held nine focus groups with a total of 60 Scottish adults, split by urban versus rural locations and “deprivation” level (a measure that includes income, employment, education, health, access to services, crime, and housing statistics). While the small sample size didn’t allow for quantitative analysis, the group setting revealed how people challenge one another, think through complex issues interactively, and capture nuance.

Using thematic analysis, the researchers identified six key themes that emerged from the focus group discussions:

• Understanding of the term “sustainable diets”
• Awareness of how food choices affect the environment
• Awareness of the environmental impact of meat consumption
• Willingness to reduce meat consumption
• Barriers to eating less meat
• Factors that support eating less meat

The researchers found that awareness of the term “sustainable diets” had increased since 2013/2014, partly due to an increase in media coverage about climate change. Participants cited “the news” (mainly television and radio) as a source but were often confused by conflicting messages, with some also doubting the media’s credibility: “to me, they [the media] tell lies to get a story.”

Despite this increase in awareness, participants’ understanding varied widely. Some associated sustainable diets with affordability or personal health, saying, for instance, “It’s maybe basic foods that are going to sustain you and you don’t need any more than that.” Others gave answers more aligned with environmental concerns, but tended to focus on issues such as plastic packaging rather than climate.

Rural participants, regardless of deprivation level, were generally more skeptical about the environmental impact of people’s food choices, often requesting stronger evidence: “Has there been definite proof that cows are bad for the environment?” They also raised concerns about other environmental issues like fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil fuels, and questioned whether the impact of meat consumption was as harmful as these other contributors — or even harmful at all: “I think it’s all a conspiracy theory myself.” Urban, low-deprivation participants, in contrast, were more likely to frame the impact of meat consumption in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite these differences and the skepticism in rural groups, awareness of the link between food choices, meat consumption, and climate change had increased across all groups compared to 2013/2014.

The original study noted strong resistance to reducing meat consumption. In the present study, however, many low-deprivation participants in particular expressed a greater willingness to eat less meat, which the researchers suggest might be due to social desirability. This tendency to want to “say the right thing” may not always translate into actual behavioral changes. It could also hint at a cultural shift, whereby reducing meat is becoming a marker of social status, as this kind of signaling was largely absent in the 2013/2014 study. For low-deprivation participants who had actually reduced their meat consumption, this was attributed to health concerns and animal welfare considerations.

Notably, many of the barriers identified in 2013/2014 were still present. Participants mentioned enjoying the taste of meat, difficulties changing household habits, and a lack of appealing options when eating out. While awareness of plant-based alternatives had increased, they were typically seen as expensive, overly processed, or unsatisfying. Instead, the concept of a “balanced diet” that included moderate meat consumption was often discussed. Across groups, participants agreed that local food is more sustainable, an idea which was rarely challenged and often used as a justification to continue eating meat.

At the same time, some participants shared what helped them reduce meat, such as setting meat-free days, trying new recipes, or swapping in ingredients like lentils or mushrooms. These small, practical changes were often framed as manageable and realistic.

While awareness of sustainable diets has improved in the last 10 years, ongoing barriers suggest that focusing on practical solutions may lead to better outcomes. The confusion and skepticism about meat and climate change could be a key focus for advocates. The sometimes clear socioeconomic and geographic divides between the focus groups show that different strategies might be needed. For rural and lower-income communities, focusing on affordability, ease, and local relevance may work best, while urban and higher-income individuals may respond more to messages about climate change and animal welfare.