Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution

Abstract

The shift towards a more sustainable diet necessitates less reliance on foods of animal origin. This study presents data from a representative survey of Dutch consumers on their practices related to meat, meat substitution and meat reduction. The practices reflected a cultural gradient of meat substitution options running from other products of animal origin and conventional meat free meals to real vegetarian meals. To investigate feasible substitution options, a variety of meals without meat were presented using photos, which were rated by the participants in terms of attractiveness and chances that they would prepare a similar meal at home. The results demonstrated the influence of meal formats, product familiarity, cooking skills, preferences for plant-based foods and motivational orientations towards food. In particular, a lack of familiarity and skill hampered the preparation of real vegetarian meals. Based on the findings we propose a diversified understanding of meat substitution and we specify four policy-relevant pathways for a transition towards a more plant-based diet, including an incremental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian meals, a pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience, a pathway of reduced portion size, and practice-oriented change towards vegetarian meals.

Introduction

The high consumption of animal based proteins, especially meat, has been identified as one of the most relevant topics to be addressed if Western consumers are to shift towards a more sustainable diet (Leitzmann, 2003, Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003, Reijnders and Soret, 2003, Stehfest et al., 2009, Steinfeld et al., 2006). The scale and intensity of animal production generates an increasing proportion of global environmental pressure, including climate change. Stehfest et al. (2009) point out that the large impact of the livestock sector on climate change is regularly overlooked, while a global transition towards low-meat diets, which are also desirable for health reasons, may reduce the costs of climate change mitigation by as much as 50% in 2050. In Western countries such as the Netherlands, where meat consumption has been stabilizing around 86.7 kg (meat with bones) per capita per year (PVE, 2010), the main goal needs to be a (partial) substitution of proteins of animal origin by plant proteins (Aiking, 2011, Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2010, Smil, 2002). Due to the overall popularity of meat and the great variety of factors that influence food patterns, however, it may take a profound societal transition to achieve this goal. Although the need for a substitution has frequently been advocated, only few studies have discussed consumer readiness and willingness to eat a more plant-based diet (de Boer and Aiking, 2011, Elzerman et al., 2011, Lea et al., 2006, Wansink, 2002). The present paper examines survey data from Dutch consumers on their practices related to meat, meat substitution and meat reduction in order to identify some feasible pathways for a transition towards a more plant-based diet.

One of the ways to study pathways for a transition is to look at the changes of the recent past. This perspective is crucial to better understand meat’s special status (deFrance, 2009, Fiddes, 1991) and the interrelated character of continuity and change in food consumption, which underlies the structural aspects of meals (Mennell, Murcott, & van Otterloo, 1992). Other relevant literature to consider includes the lessons drawn from effective, protein-related dietary changes (Wansink, 2002). According to psychological motivation theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), the essence of making effective changes is that new practices must be to some degree congruent with the rest of the behavior of the consumer. In other words, the range of meat-free options that are currently available should match the practices and the motives of consumers who may be ready to adopt a particular option. Finding those matches is an important step to identify potential pathways, as will be shown in the next sections.

A key strategic point is that meat’s special status can be distinguished from its mass consumption. Although complex societies throughout history made use of animals and their meat to provide food, to establish social distinctions as wealth and status and to foster social unity through the symbolic manipulation of animals in ritual (deFrance, 2009), the upsurge in consumption of meat is a relatively recent phenomenon. The food historians Teuteberg and Flandrin (1999) and the geographer Grigg (1995) have noted that the transition from cereal protein¹ (i.e. bread) to animal derived protein in Europe was finalized only after World War II. Nevertheless, most Western European countries belonged to the group of major meat consumers already before that, which may have paved the way for the steep increase that followed. Today, meat consumption is the result of a chain of industrial activities that produce highly standardized meat products, commonly sold in supermarkets and de-animalized to avoid reminding customers about the link between the meat dish and the killing of an animal (Vialles, 1994). Hence, it is not meat’s special status that has to be the primary focus of change efforts, but its heavily routinized consumption, which accounts for the sheer volume of meat.

The main reason why meat’s special status still needs attention is that it is closely connected to the structural aspects of meals. The well-known anthropologist Mary Douglas (1972) has shown that meals follow an underlying system of rules, which amounts to a grammar comparable to that of a language. She identified persistent trans-cultural hierarchies of people’s valuation of foods, in which meat ranks highest, followed by fish and then other animal derived products (Douglas & Nicod, 1974). Also, she showed that meals typically consist of a tripartite structure of meat/fish, a staple and one or two different vegetables. As the research of Douglas was conducted in the 70s of the previous century, it is an open question to which extend these patterns are still in place. Even if they are not, however, these patterns are likely to have influenced consumers who have grown up in this era. It is also important to consider that Douglas’ research was conducted in the United Kingdom and applies typically to Western European countries. Her findings might not easily translate to Chinese or Indian food culture where meals are composed in an entirely different manner. The Netherlands, however, fit in well with Douglas’ findings. A commercial study that surveyed 5000 households in 2005 shows that their meals had a quite consistent tripartite structure of a staple, a vegetable and a protein component, typically meat. More precisely, on the day of the fieldwork (i.e. a Wednesday) 52% consumed potatoes (boiled or meshed), 86% used a vegetable and 86% prepared meat (Knorr, 2005). Yet, Italian and Asian dishes were also served, which may indicate an incremental change of meal patterns towards new meal formats.

The role of meal formats in cultural continuity and change can be seen in many historical examples of changes in dietary habits. In the past, substitution of particular foodstuffs was often a superimposed change of eating habits due to scarcity and limited choices. According to the historian Montanari (1994), transitions in food consumption patterns usually happen by way of substitution with a food that can take over the function of the foodstuff that fell away. The same replacement rules are relevant for planned changes, for instance, when unfamiliar foods can be introduced by combining them with existing foods. An example occurred during World War II, when US citizens were encouraged to incorporate protein-rich organ meats into their protein-deficient diets (Wansink, 2002). Obviously, efforts to change eating habits require a thorough understanding of consumers’ responses in terms of food acceptability, and food preparation and serving methods. In drawing lessons from the recent history of dietary changes, Wansink (2002) notes that, in its most basic form, an acceptable food must be available; must taste good; must be familiar; and must look, taste, and feel as expected.

To achieve a partial substitution of animal-based proteins by plant proteins a variety of options is currently available. It should be noted, however, that many conventional Western meat-free dishes contain other animal-based products such as fish, eggs, cheese or other dairy products. From a sustainability perspective, these products offer not much advantage compared with meat (de Boer & Aiking, 2011). Other popular options are stir-fries and pasta dishes, which may have slightly neutralized the role of meat as a centrepiece on the plate, such as in the Mediterranean diet (Montanari, 1994). Also, there are various possibilities to prepare meals without animal-based products. Supermarkets in the Netherlands nowadays store a variety of products that are marketed as meat substitutes. While the turn-over of meat substitutes grows steadily, absolute market share is still low by about 1% of the market for meat and meat products (Aurelia, 2002). Still, 36% of households have been reported to purchase meat substitutes occasionally (GfK Panel Services Benelux, 2009). The products are sold as burgers, stir-fry cubes or “mince-meat” and they usually derive from soybeans. The Dutch company Ojah® produces a variety of 100% plant protein substitutes that resemble the texture and bite of meat. Other products are, for example, Valess® that is based on dairy and algae or Quorn® that is derived from a fungus (Peregrin, 2002). We refer to these products as instant meat substitutes because they are marketed as such and are processed, prepared and labeled for use instead of meat. That way, consumers can easily identify them as relatively familiar alternative sources of protein. We mention tofu as a separate foodstuff because it is also sold in raw form. Earlier studies have shown that meat substitutes appeal to a wide range of consumers, above and beyond the “traditional vegetarian” market (Hoek et al., 2004, McIlveen et al., 1999, Sadler, 2004).

In addition to the instant meat substitutes, there is extensive variety of foods containing high-quality plant protein, which include many foodstuffs that are not foreign to Dutch cooking such as beans, pulses, nuts and whole grains (McGee, 2004). It requires, however, some nutritional knowledge, some knowledge of preparation and an adjustment of personal food habits to use them. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the majority of consumers are aware of the large variety of plant protein sources (Lea et al., 2006). Organic stores that usually cater for specific consumer segments store many plant protein sources in pure form and some instant substitutes derived from these sources (i.e. lentil or falafel burgers). The stores are often prepared to serve customers with vegetarian, macrobiotic or anthroposophical diets, which entail food styles that are less geared towards the consumption of meat to begin with. Instead of substitution, the products offered are simply aimed at providing a healthy source of (plant) proteins.

Last but not least, insects are being considered as a potential replacement for animal derived proteins (Vogel, 2010). Some organizations currently lobby in the Netherlands for the use of insects for human consumption and some stores have already included mainly locusts and mealworms into their assortment. The insects are marketed as a delicacy and can be ordered in some restaurants and some Internet shops specializing in exotic (meat) products. The consumption of entire insects, as we know it from many Asian and African countries, still seems unlikely to take over the West, as reminders of livingness or of particular textures may trigger aversion (Martins & Pliner, 2006). Therefore, scientists currently also focus on the use of insect protein in convenience products, replacing protein from other sources (Verkerk, Tramper, van Trijp, & Martens, 2007).

The broad variety of options suggests several pathways for a transition, which will be more or less different from existing eating patterns, and may or may not involve new foods. The pathways have to be targeted to consumers with different degrees of readiness and willingness to change eating habits. Their readiness to adopt a particular substitute will depend on current practices, such as preferred meal formats, product familiarity, cooking skills, and general preferences for plant-based instead of animal-based foods. Because the heterogeneity of culinary practices and beliefs regarding use of protein products may be very large (Barr and Chapman, 2002, Newby and Tucker, 2004), it is important to consider two broader motivational orientations that capture consumers’ concerns with food. Using a survey questionnaire among the general population in the Netherlands, de Boer and colleagues (2007) have shown that consumers’ level of involvement in food can be separated into taste-oriented and reflection-oriented motivational goals. Both of them are relevant in the present context. The first orientation includes the cultivation of an adventurous taste, which contrasts with the opposite pattern of preferences for an ordinary meal. As far as plant-based meals increase the variety of food choices, they may be attractive to consumers who are driven by an adventurous taste (Bäckström et al., 2004, Ullrich et al., 2004). Insects may also be attractive to consumers with an adventurous taste. The second orientation involves reflective attention to the wider implications of food choices in terms of health, naturalness of the food, weight control and ethical considerations (de Boer et al., 2007, Pollard et al., 1998), which contrasts with the opposite pattern of being easy about food. A reflective orientation may be associated with a preference for more plant-based proteins and relatively small portions of meat (de Boer, Boersema, & Aiking, 2009).

In sum, the paper aims to clarify attitudes towards various substitution options and identify pathways towards the (partial) substitution of meat in the future. It tries to accommodate a number of theoretically relevant distinctions, such as preferred meal formats, as well as taste-oriented and reflection oriented food-choice motives, in addition to more practical distinctions regarding product familiarity, portion size and cooking skills. A wide range of strategically relevant options will be considered, both existing and novel ones. The next section describes the design and the content of the survey on these topics.