Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

‘Less but better’ meat is a sustainability message in need of clarity

Nature Food volume 1, pages 520–522 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

The expression ‘less but better’ is used to guide Western meat consumption towards sustainability. Its definition, however, lacks clarity and may push meat consumption further from sustainable practices. The research community needs to provide a more informed explanation to consumers of what is ‘less’ and what is ‘better’.

Despite this, few policies have been implemented to achieve a more balanced consumption of meat in relation to other food groups. Possible reasons include controversy about using state interventions to regulate diets5, individual reluctance to reduce meat consumption despite awareness of its environmental consequences6, and the perceived importance of meat for Western food cultures, where meat often has connotations of familiarity, masculinity, status and convenience7.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Global consumption of beef, pork and poultry from 1961 to 2013.
Fig. 2: Quality aspects that can be used to define ‘better meat’.

References

  1. Willett, W. et al. Lancet 6736, 3–49 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Science. 360, 987–992 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Food Balances (Old Methodology and Population) (FAOSTAT, accessed 22 May 2018); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBSH

  4. Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V. C. & Troy, D. Meat Sci. 98, 561–568 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mazzocchi, M., Saba, A. & Traill, W. B. Health Econ. Policy Law 10, 267–292 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F. & Campbell, J. Appetite 96, 487–493 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chiles, R. M. & Fitzgerald, A. J. Agric. Human Values 35, 1–17 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Red and Processed Meat — Advice (Swedish Food Agency, 2019); https://go.nature.com/30MhuXq

  9. Limit Red and Processed Meat (World Cancer Research Fund, 2019); https://go.nature.com/3gLfGU8

  10. van Zanten, H. H. E. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4185–4194 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Coleman, G., Jongman, E., Greenfield, L. & Hemsworth, P. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 19, 198–209 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yunes, M., von Keyserlingk, M. & Hötzel, M. Animals 7, 75 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mellor, D. J. Animals 6, 21 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gerber, P. J. et al. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities (FAO, 2013).

  15. Röös, E., Patel, M., Spångberg, J., Carlsson, G. & Rydhmer, L. Food Policy 58, 1–13 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hocquette, J. F. et al. Anim. Prod. Sci. 54, 1537–1548 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L. & Brunsø, K. Meat Sci. 66, 259–272 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aaslyng, M. D. & Meinert, L. Meat Sci. 132, 112–117 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bonny, S. P. F. et al. Animal 11, 1399–1411 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Priolo, A., Micol, D. & Agabriel, J. Anim. Res. 50, 185–200 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. de Boer, J., Schösler, H. & Aiking, H. Appetite 76, 120–128 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bernués, A., Olaizola, A. & Corcoran, K. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 265–276 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dumont, B. et al. Animal 13, 1771–1784 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clark, M. & Tilman, D. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 064016 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Clune, S., Crossin, E. & Verghese, K. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 766–783 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mottet, A. et al. Glob. Food Sec. 14, 1–8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nordborg, M., Davis, J., Cederberg, C. & Woodhouse, A. Sci. Total Environ. 581–582, 448–459 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  28. van Boeckel, T. P. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5649–5654 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Scherer, L., Tomasik, B., Rueda, O. & Pfister, S. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 1476–1490 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems (IPES-Food, 2016).

  31. Röös, E. et al. Glob. Environ. Change 47, 1–12 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Kajsa Resare Sahlin & Line J. Gordon

  2. Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

    Kajsa Resare Sahlin & Elin Röös

Authors
  1. Kajsa Resare Sahlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elin Röös
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Line J. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kajsa Resare Sahlin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Resare Sahlin, K., Röös, E. & Gordon, L.J. ‘Less but better’ meat is a sustainability message in need of clarity. Nat Food 1, 520–522 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00140-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00140-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing