The “Less but Better” concept has recently garnered significant attention as a potential approach to addressing the environmental issues associated with meat consumption. This paradigm urges consumers to reduce their overall meat intake while simultaneously favoring higher-quality, sustainably produced options. However, a new study led by researchers from the University of Helsinki and the Stockholm Resilience Center challenges the assumption that access to superior meat quality directly correlates with a decline in overall meat consumption.
The focus of this research revolves around understanding the behaviors and decision-making processes of consumers who purchase premium, natural pasture-raised beef. This type of beef is derived from cattle that graze on rich, non-cultivated pastures and consume predominantly locally sourced grass. Given the ecological significance of livestock farming — often linked to critical environmental ramifications such as greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and biodiversity loss — there is an urgent need for sustainable shifts in consumption patterns and agricultural practices.
In a qualitative study, researchers conducted in-depth interviews with a selected group of 21 Finnish consumers who are regular buyers of such sustainable meat products. According to Dr. Irina Herzon, the lead author of the study, the primary aim was to decipher how these consumers perceive the interplay between meat quality and quantity in their diets. The pivotal inquiry revolved around whether access to high-quality meat might prompt a conscientious effort to reduce meat consumption.
The consumers interviewed expressed a belief that incorporating meat into a sustainable diet is feasible. Interestingly, while there was a general acknowledgment of the necessity to cut down on meat consumption globally, many participants felt that such reductions were less pertinent in Finland compared to other regions grappling with more significant environmental concerns. This intriguing perspective reveals regional discrepancies in consumer perceptions about meat consumption and sustainability.
The motivations that drive these consumers include health benefits, the intrinsic naturalness of the products, and the origin of the meat. Notably, there was a robust preference for domestically sourced meat, particularly Finnish beef, as consumers often associate local production with environmental sustainability and support for local farmers. This inclination not only reflects a growing appreciation for regional products but also highlights the complexity of sustainability narratives in various cultural contexts.
When discussing what constitutes “better” meat, the participants pointed to animal welfare practices as a fundamental factor influencing their purchasing decisions. However, despite their awareness of ethical considerations, taste emerged as the dominant driver for buying choices. The relationship between opting for “better” meat and consuming “less” remains nuanced and multifaceted. Some consumers regarded the higher price of premium meat as a justification for reducing their overall intake, whereas others interpreted premium purchasing power as an allowance for maintaining or even increasing their meat consumption.
The study’s findings underscore the inherent challenges of promoting sustainable diets based on the “less but better” ethos. The researchers argue that there needs to be more explicit definitions of what “better” meat entails in the context of sustainability, particularly as it relates to cultural standards and preferences. This is essential for crafting effective strategies that can convert consumer awareness into behavioral changes aligned with sustainability objectives.
Dr. Herzon further emphasizes the need for balance: encouraging a reduction in meat consumption while simultaneously promoting the benefits of high-quality, sustainable production methods. The intricate dynamics between consumer preferences and environmental impact highlight the necessity for further research aimed at clarifying sustainable meat consumption guidelines. Such investigations should seek to foster strategies that can effectively reshape consumer behaviors to align with the goals of a resilient and sustainable food system.
As discussions around sustainable agriculture and consumption grow increasingly essential in the discourse of global environmental strategies, it becomes evident that this topic will require ongoing attention and innovation. Understanding consumer behavior regarding meat quality versus quantity offers crucial insights into not only improving product offerings but also steering broader cultural shifts that prioritize sustainability in dietary choices.
The intersection of consumer psychology and sustainable production presents a unique opportunity for researchers and policymakers alike to devise approaches that can bridge the gap between intention and action. The findings from the Helsinki and Stockholm study serve as a valuable reminder of the complexities inherent in dietary habits and the critical role that education, communication, and engagement will play in shaping the future landscape of sustainable food systems.
As we move forward, defining clear frameworks for what constitutes sustainable consumption and how best to facilitate shifts in consumer habits will be vital. This research underscores the pressing need for leaders in agriculture, environmental science, and public health to collaborate effectively in addressing the multidimensional challenges presented by meat consumption and sustainability.
Only through combined efforts can we enact the necessary changes that will enable us to create a food culture that champions both quality and sustainability, ensuring future generations can enjoy a diet that respects animal welfare, supports local economies, and minimizes environmental impact.
Subject of Research: Consumer behavior regarding meat quality and quantity
Article Title: Does “better” mean “less”? Sustainable meat consumption in the context of natural pasture-raised beef
News Publication Date: 13-Feb-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10707-2
References: Not specified
Image Credits: Iryna Herzon
Keywords: Sustainable meat consumption, quality vs quantity, pasture-raised beef, environmental impact, consumer behavior, food sustainability, agriculture ethics
