Of all aspects of the climate debate, there is probably none more emotional or divisive than the politics of food. Diet is deeply personal and loaded with cultural meaning. And, for too many people, simply affording healthy food is becoming increasingly difficult.

In this newsletter I’m going to look at just one aspect of the politics of food – whether the public can be persuaded to eat less meat.

There is an overwhelming evidence base that our current food systems are disastrous for the planet and that some kinds of dietary change will be necessary to tackle climate change – the Climate Change Committee, for instance, say that we should be eating 35% less meat by 2050. A recent RSPB-led study found that changing land use to reach Net Zero will require trade-offs with food production, which it suggests can be managed by reducing food waste, improving productivity, and reducing meat and dairy consumption.

Diet is a key part of tackling climate change – but when did you last hear a politician speak about it? In an earlier newsletter I mentioned the strange announcement by Rishi Sunak that he was scrapping a “meat tax” that didn’t exist. But while it was never a government proposal, taxation is the lever that many economists would recommend – and it is exactly the approach the UK government took when they wanted to tackle a different dietary problem, through the sugar tax.

The reason price signals are not usually viewed as a legitimate tool is obvious: no government wants to make food more expensive. So, instead, could the public be persuaded to change their habits?

Meat-eating is already falling – partially because of environmental reasons

Some important context – while most of us in the UK are carnivores, the consumption of meat has actually fallen to the lowest levels since the 1970s, driven both by rising food prices and a rise in plant-based diets. YouGov have found that 1 in 8 people in the UK say they are vegetarian or vegan.

But dietary change doesn’t necessarily mean enforced veganism. Meat reduction, or even substituting beef for other meat, could result in big reductions in emissions. A recent US study found that this form of dietary substitution could cut diet-related emissions by 35% while giving them a healthier diet.

The “cigarette warning” experiment

Researchers at Durham University experimented with providing consumers with cigarette-style warning labels linking meat consumption with poor health, climate change, and pandemics. They found that these labels resulted in participants being 7-10% less likely to choose a meal including meat.

While I’d be wary of extrapolating too much about long-term behavioural changes from this kind of study, the research does suggest that this sort of messaging can change behaviour at the margins – and notably, participants were most likely to consider the climate link credible.

Comparative international research has found that 44% of people in the U.K. say they would be willing to limit beef/meat consumption for climate reasons. This is despite the climate impact of food being a reasonably low profile issue, and with no coordinated attempt to raise its salience. It’s possible that persuasive, consistent messaging from trusted sources could expand that number and move people from “would” into “will”.

But it’s also an area with considerable risk. Environmental messaging is always most effective when we can show that pro-environmental changes bring personal benefits, as well as saving the planet. Telling people they have to give up their burgers strays much closer into the hectoring, holier-than-thou caricature the movement needs to avoid.

There’s not an easy solution to this issue: politicians don’t want to lecture voters, green groups might struggle to persuade outside of their bubble, and livestock farmers understandably don’t want to be told that they are surplus to requirements. But, compared to parts of the economy where decarbonisation requires massive capital investment, the emissions reductions from dietary change can come remarkably cheaply.