Health and Price as Primary Drivers of Meat Consumption A recent study led by Rutgers University highlights that health concerns and cost, rather than environmental impact, are the primary factors influencing Americans’ meat purchasing choices. The research, published in the journal Appetite, analyzed responses from over 1,200 U.S. adults to determine what drives meat and seafood consumption. According to Shauna Downs, an associate professor at Rutgers and lead author of the study, despite growing awareness of meat production’s climate impact, environmental sustainability ranks low in importance for most consumers.
Key findings reveal that 85% of respondents cited health, and 84% cited taste, as their top reasons for choosing meat. Price also played a significant role, with 32% of participants indicating it influenced their decisions to reduce red meat intake over the past year. In contrast, only 6% of those reducing red meat consumption said environmental concerns were a motivating factor. This preference structure, the study suggests, points to a disconnect between the awareness of meat’s environmental footprint and consumer behavior—a gap that has implications for public health campaigns aimed at encouraging more sustainable eating habits.
Demographic Differences in Meat Consumption Preferences The study also found notable demographic variations in attitudes toward meat consumption. Older adults, specifically those aged 65 and above, were more likely than younger respondents to report reducing red meat intake, largely due to health concerns. Differences also emerged across racial and gender lines. Black respondents rated health, price, and sustainability as more significant factors compared to other groups, while female participants showed a higher likelihood of valuing environmental sustainability and health in their meat-purchasing choices compared to males.
Emily V. Merchant, a study co-author and assistant professor at Rutgers, believes these findings could inform targeted approaches to encourage more sustainable diets. Merchant suggests that by focusing on health benefits and affordability, public health campaigns might gain more traction than efforts that emphasize sustainability alone. Downs adds that campaigns that incorporate consumer priorities, such as health and taste, could be more effective in encouraging changes in dietary habits.
The Path Forward for Promoting Sustainable Diets The Rutgers study arrives at a time when climate scientists emphasize reducing meat consumption as a key strategy to mitigate climate change. Despite this, the U.S. faces unique challenges in shifting dietary patterns due to cultural norms, political influences, and the lobbying power of the meat industry, which has previously resisted attempts to include sustainability guidelines in federal dietary recommendations.
Downs and her team argue for more nuanced approaches to promoting sustainable diets, suggesting that interventions combine multiple motivators like taste, health, and affordability to create a stronger appeal. According to the researchers, policy changes supporting these interventions—such as integrating sustainability into public procurement or making affordable, plant-based options more accessible—could help facilitate dietary shifts that align with climate goals. Additionally, the study encourages further exploration of how minimally processed plant-based alternatives might be made more attractive to traditional meat consumers, focusing on taste and affordability as key factors.
The study, conducted in partnership with Columbia University’s Climate School, Cornell University, and the International Food Policy Research Institute, was funded by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation. Downs concludes that small dietary shifts across the population could lead to significant environmental benefits, stressing the importance of aligning these shifts with consumers’ existing preferences to make meaningful progress.
