Department of Psychology, University of Bath, United Kingdom.
Bryant Research, London, United Kingdom.
Appetite. 2024 Dec 1;203:107684. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107684. Epub 2024 Sep 19.
It is increasingly apparent that we require a substantial reduction in animal production and consumption for the sake of the environment and public health. In this paper, we conducted a systematic review to explore the policy levers available for governments to reduce animal farming and the consumption of meat. The policy levers generated by the review are categorised by four main types of interventions: Financial measures, Command- and-control, Informational, and Behavioural. First, we explore four financial measures: taxes on meat is the most-studied intervention, and the least publicly accepted in polling, sometimes being implemented indirectly via measures such as carbon taxes or rescinding VAT exemptions; subsidies for animal product alternatives are considered as a more publicly acceptable alternative approach, and would reduce long-term demand for meat by making alternatives more competitive; agricultural carbon trading schemes are discussed, and may represent a politically feasible way to hold livestock producers accountable for negative externalities; and buyouts of animal farms can be an impactful way to compensate producers to leave the industry, but must be done with care to avoid unintended social and market consequences. Second, we explore two command-and-control measures: regulating animal production with standards such as animal welfare requirements and health and safety rights for agricultural workers is amongst the most well-supported policies, and is an impactful way to ensure minimum standards of production are met; however, restrictions on animal consumption, such as meat-free days in public catering, are less publicly accepted. Third, we discuss three informational measures: food product labels, such as animal welfare or environmental impact labels, fulfil consumers' expectations to have this information, and although there is limited evidence that they impact consumer behaviour directly, such labels may nonetheless incentivise producers to competitively improve; likewise, national dietary guidelines appear to have little direct impact on food choices, but can impact other institutions such as schools and medical institutions; policies on information campaigns can help or hurt meat reduction efforts, with some jurisdictions prohibiting meat advertisements, while others spend millions on campaigns to promote meat consumption. Fourth, we explore a range of behavioural measures which could be implemented in public catering settings and/or incentivised in food service, including presentation and positioning of meat- and plant-based dishes, and altering the food options on offer - we find that adding more high-quality plant-based options to menus and presenting these options as the default wherever the format allows are highly impactful and tractable behavioural policies that could reduce meat consumption. Informational and behavioural measures can complement traditional fiscal and command-and-control measures to reduce animal production and consumption. We discuss the implications for researchers and policymakers.
为了环境和公众健康,我们显然需要大幅减少动物生产和消费。本文通过系统综述,探讨了政府减少畜牧业和肉类消费的政策手段。综述生成的政策手段按四种主要干预类型分类:财政措施、命令与控制、信息和行为。首先,我们探讨了四种财政措施:对肉类征税是研究最多的干预措施,但在民意调查中公众接受度最低,有时通过碳税或取消增值税豁免等措施间接实施;对动物产品替代品的补贴被认为是一种更能被公众接受的替代方法,通过使替代品更具竞争力,减少对肉类的长期需求;农业碳交易计划也在讨论中,可能是一种让畜牧业生产者对负外部性负责的政治上可行的方式;动物农场的收购可以成为一种有影响力的补偿生产者离开该行业的方式,但必须小心谨慎,以避免意外的社会和市场后果。其次,我们探讨了两种命令与控制措施:用动物福利要求和农业工人健康与安全权利等标准来规范动物生产,是最受支持的政策之一,也是确保生产达到最低标准的有效方法;然而,限制动物消费,如公共餐饮中的无肉日,公众接受度较低。第三,我们讨论了三种信息措施:食品产品标签,如动物福利或环境影响标签,满足了消费者对这些信息的期望,尽管有有限的证据表明它们直接影响消费者行为,但这些标签可能仍然激励生产者进行有竞争力的改进;同样,国家饮食指南似乎对食物选择没有直接影响,但可以影响学校和医疗机构等其他机构;信息宣传政策可以帮助或阻碍减少肉类的努力,一些司法管辖区禁止肉类广告,而另一些司法管辖区则花费数百万美元开展宣传肉类消费的运动。第四,我们探讨了一系列可在公共餐饮场所实施或在餐饮服务中激励的行为措施,包括肉类和植物性菜肴的呈现和定位,以及改变提供的食物选择——我们发现,在菜单上增加更多高质量的植物性选择,并将这些选择作为格式允许的默认选项,是非常有影响力和可行的行为政策,可以减少肉类消费。信息和行为措施可以补充传统的财政和命令与控制措施,以减少动物生产和消费。我们讨论了对研究人员和政策制定者的影响。