By John Salak –
People may be increasingly worried about the impact red meat production is having on the environment, but it’s not having much effect on their beef consumption.
Numbers vary somewhat depending on sources but there seems to be a consensus that despite environmental and health concerns connected to beef, per capita consumption has held steady or perhaps gradually increased over the last decade.
The price of beef, in fact, appears to influence buying and consumption patterns more than environmental concerns, according to a study by Rutgers University.
The university’s research was based and meat and seafood consumption patterns among more than 1,200 U.S. adults. Many participants did report reducing their red meat intake but noted health concerns and price were the primary motivators rather than environmental considerations, the researchers added.
“There’s a disconnect between the mounting evidence on meat’s environmental footprint and what’s actually driving consumer behavior,” noted Shauna Downs, an associate professor at Rutgers and the study’s lead author. “Our findings suggest that messaging focused solely on sustainability may not resonate with most U.S. consumers regarding meat choices.”
Ultimately Americans are heavy red meat eaters. They consume between 58 and about 80 pounds of beef on average, depending on the data source. The United States Department of Agriculture opts for the lower number, while Our World in Data suggests the higher per capita consumption rate, which it notes is four times greater than global per capita beef consumption.
All sources also underscore that per capita consumption in the U.S. hasn’t changed much in the last decade despite the growing concerns over the cardiovascular issues tied to high beef intake.
The Rutgers’ study, in fact, reported that 78 percent of its participants said they consumed red meat one to four times per week, with 14 percent noted consuming it five or more times weekly.
University researchers also reported that of the 70 percent who claimed to have reduced their consumption in the last year, 64 percent cited health reasons for the cutback, while 32 percent noted price was the reason. Only six percent cited environmental sustainability as a factor in eating less beef.
Overall, the most important factors when purchasing red meat were health, cited by 85 percent, and taste, coming in a close second at 84 percent. Environmental sustainability and animal welfare garnered only 29 percent and 28 percent, respectively.
Demographics also come into play regarding beef eating. Those 65 and older, for example, were more likely to report reducing red meat intake than younger adults. Black respondents rated factors such as price, health and sustainability as more important in meat purchasing decisions compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Female respondents were also more likely than men to focus on the importance of environmental sustainability and health issues.
“These findings can help inform more effective interventions and messaging campaigns to shift diets in a more sustainable direction,” Downs said. “Focusing on health benefits and affordability, rather than environmental impacts alone, is more likely to motivate changes in meat consumption for most Americans.”
The findings come as climate scientists increasingly warn of the negative impact beef and lamb production is having on the climate. Reducing consumption is seen as a key mitigating factor. The university’s team, however, noted that reducing U.S. production faces cultural and political roadblocks that include strong lobbying from the meat industry.
“There are clearly some barriers to overcome in terms of making sustainability a priority for consumers,” said study co-author Emily V. Merchant, assistant professor at Rutgers. “Creative, multifaceted approaches that also emphasize health, taste and affordability may be needed to shift eating patterns in a meaningful way.”
Relatively small changes, nonetheless, can have significant impacts.
“Small shifts in diet across a population can add up to significant environmental benefits,” Downs said. “Finding ways to make those shifts that resonate with consumers’ existing priorities around food choice will be key. This needs to happen alongside policies aimed at making changes to the environments in which we make those food choices. For example, including sustainability considerations in public procurement policies or making tasty plant-based meals more available and affordable.”
