Understanding the Political Challenge of Red and Processed Meat Reduction for Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Document Type : Review Article


1 School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

2 Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

3 Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia


Diets high in red and processed meat (RPM) contribute substantially to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the global burden of chronic disease. Recent high-profile reports from international expert bodies have called for a significant reduction in global dietary meat intake, particularly RPM, especially in high-income settings, while acknowledging the importance of animal-sourced foods to population nutrition in many lower-income countries. However, this presents a major yet under-investigated political challenge given strong cultural preferences for meat and the economic importance and power of the meat industry.
A theoretically-guided narrative review was undertaken. The theoretical framework used to guide the review considered the interests, ideas and institutions that constitute food systems in relation to meat reduction; and the instrumental, discursive and structural forms of power that actors deploy in relation to others within the food system.
High production and consumption levels of RPM are promoted and sustained by a number of factors. Actors with an interest in RPM included business and industry groups, governments, intergovernmental organisations, and civil society. Asymmetries of power between these actors exist, with institutional barriers recognised in the form of government-industry dependence, trade agreement conflicts, and policy incoherence. Industry lobbying, shaping of evidence and knowledge, and highly concentrated markets are key issues. Furthermore, prevailing ideologies like carnism and neoliberalism present embedded difficulties for RPM reduction. The literature noted the power of actors to resist meat reduction efforts exists in varying forms, including the use of lobbyin, shaping of evidence and knowledge, and highly concentrated markets.
There are a number of political challenges related to RPM reduction that contribute to policy inertia, and hence are likely to impede the transformation of food systems. Research on policy efforts to reduce RPM production and consumption should incorporate the role of power and political feasibility.



"Watch the Special Issue Video Summary"


  Check the full list of "Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems" special issue here


  1. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1223-1249. doi:1016/s0140-6736(20)30752-2
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Australian Health Survey: First Results, 2011-12. ABS; 2013.
  3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Risk Factors to Health, Nutrition. Australia: AIHW; 2017.
  4. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1151-1210. doi:1016/s0140-6736(17)32152-9
  5. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2018.
  6. Wyness L. The role of red meat in the diet: nutrition and health benefits. Proc Nutr Soc. 2016;75(3):227-232. doi:1017/s0029665115004267
  7. De Smet S, Vossen E. Meat: the balance between nutrition and health. A review. Meat Sci. 2016;120:145-156. doi:1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.008
  8. IARC Monographs. Red Meat and Processed Meat. Vol 114. Lyon, France: WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2018.
  9. World Cancer Research Fund. Meat, fish and dairy products and the risk of cancer. Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Cancer: A Global Perspective. https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Meat-Fish-and-Dairy-products.pdf. Published 2018.
  10. Cross AJ, Sinha R. Meat-related mutagens/carcinogens in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2004;44(1):44-55. doi:1002/em.20030
  11. Jägerstad M, Skog K. Genotoxicity of heat-processed foods. Mutat Res. 2005;574(1-2):156-172. doi:1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.01.030
  12. Manz DH, Blanchette NL, Paul BT, Torti FM, Torti SV. Iron and cancer: recent insights. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1368(1):149-161. doi:1111/nyas.13008
  13. Garnett T, Appleby MC, Balmford A, et al. What is a Sustainable Healthy Diet? A Discussion Paper. Oxford, United Kingdom: Food Climate Research Network (FCRN); 2014.
  14. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). Nutrition and Food Systems. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy: HLPE; 2017.
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2013.
  16. Reisinger A, Clark H. How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming? Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24(4):1749-1761. doi:1111/gcb.13975
  17. Alkon AH. Food justice and the challenge to neoliberalism. Gastronomica. 2014;14(2):27-40. doi:1525/gfc.2014.14.2.27
  18. Koch RM, Swiger LA, Chambers D, Gregory KE. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 1963;22(2):486-494. doi:2527/jas1963.222486x
  19. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Animals and Animal Products. Delft, the Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education; 2010.
  20. Fuchs D, Kalfagianni A. The causes and consequences of private food governance. Bus Polit. 2010;12(3):1-34. doi:2202/1469-3569.1319
  21. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Cattle Ranching and Deforestation: Livestock Policy Brief. Rome, Italy; FAO; 2006.
  22. Lundström M. The political economy of meat. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2019;32(1):95-104. doi:1007/s10806-019-09760-9
  23. Godfray HCJ, Aveyard P, Garnett T, et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science. 2018;361(6399):eaam5324. doi:1126/science.aam5324
  24. Henchion M, McCarthy M, Resconi VC, Troy D. Meat consumption: trends and quality matters. Meat Sci. 2014;98(3):561-568. doi:1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.007
  25. World Health Organization (WHO). 3.4 Availability and Changes in Consumption of Animal Products. WHO; 2000. https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.html.
  26. Popkin BM, Adair LS, Ng SW. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutr Rev. 2012;70(1):3-21. doi:1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00456.x
  27. Peters GM, Rowley HV, Wiedemann S, Tucker R, Short MD, Schulz M. Red meat production in australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(4):1327-1332. doi:1021/es901131e
  28. Ranganathan J, Vennard D, Waite R, et al. Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future: Creating a Sustainable Food Future. World Resources Institute; 2016. http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Shifting_Diets_for_a_Sustainable_Food_Future_0.pdf.
  29. Patz JA, Frumkin H, Holloway T, Vimont DJ, Haines A. Climate change: challenges and opportunities for global health. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1565-1580. doi:1001/jama.2014.13186
  30. Silbergeld EK, Graham J, Price LB. Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:151-169. doi:1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090904
  31. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15). IPCC; 2018.
  32. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447-492. doi:1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4
  33. Parker C, Carey R, De Costa J, Scrinis G. Can the hidden hand of the market be an effective and legitimate regulator? the case of animal welfare under a labeling for consumer choice policy approach. Regul Gov. 2017;11(4):368-387. doi:1111/rego.12147
  34. Parker C, Carey R, Haines F, Johnson H. Can Labelling Create Transformative Food System Change for Human and Planetary Health? A Case Study of Meat. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020; In Press.
  35. Mason P, Lang T. Sustainable Diets: How Ecological Nutrition Can Transform Consumption and the Food System. London, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2017.
  36. Garnett T. Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc Nutr Soc. 2013;72(1):29-39. doi:1017/s0029665112002947
  37. Baggini J. A Tax on Red Meat? That Won’t Save the Planet – Or do Much to Improve Our Health. The Guardian. May 29, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/29/tax-red-meat-save-the-planet-improve-health-sin-levy.
  38. Bless A. Opinion: Does Australia Need a Tax on Red Meat? Sydney Environment Institute; 2018.
  39. Baker P, Demaio AR. The political economy of healthy and sustainable food systems. In: Lawrence M, Friel S, eds. Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems. London, UK: Routledge; 2019.
  40. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). Too Big to Feed: Exploring the Impacts of Mega-Mergers, Concentration, Concentration of Power in the Agri-Food Sector. IPES-Food; 2017.
  41. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1. 2006. doi:13140/2.1.1018.4643
  42. Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6):e12931. doi:1111/eci.12931
  43. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. doi:1136/bmj.b2700
  44. Corduneanu-Huci C, Hamilton A, Ferrer IM. Understanding Policy Change: How to Apply Political Economy Concepts in Practice. World Bank Publications; 2012.
  45. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). The New Science of Sustainable Food Systems: Overcoming Barriers to Food System Reform. Brussels, Belgium: IPES-Food; 2015.
  46. Harris J, Anderson M, Clément C, Nisbett N. The Political Economy of Food. London, UK: Institute of Development Studies; 2019.
  47. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). Unravelling the Food–Health Nexus: Addressing Practices, Political Economy, and Power Relations to Build Healthier Food Systems. Brussels, Belgium: IPES-Food; 2017.
  48. Hall PA. The role of interests, institutions, and ideas in the comparative political economy of the industrialized nations. In: Lichbach M,  Zuckerman A, eds. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997:174-207.
  49. Baker P, Brown AD, Wingrove K, et al. Generating political commitment for ending malnutrition in all its forms: a system dynamics approach for strengthening nutrition actor networks. Obes Rev. 2019;20 Suppl 2:30-44. doi:1111/obr.12871
  50. Clapp J, Fuchs DA. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2009.
  51. Fuchs D, Di Giulio A, Glaab K, et al. Power: the missing element in sustainable consumption and absolute reductions research and action. J Clean Prod. 2016;132:298-307. doi:1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.006
  52. Frey FW. The problem of actor designation in political analysis. Comp Polit. 1985;17(2):127-152. doi:2307/421726
  53. Shearer JC, Abelson J, Kouyaté B, Lavis JN, Walt G. Why do policies change? institutions, interests, ideas and networks in three cases of policy reform. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(9):1200-1211. doi:1093/heapol/czw052
  54. Béland D. Ideas and Policy Change: A Global Perspective. International Sociological Association, Research Committee; 2007:19.
  55. Baker P, Friel S, Kay A, Baum F, Strazdins L, Mackean T. What enables and constrains the inclusion of the social determinants of health inequities in government policy agendas? a narrative review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(2):101-111. doi:15171/ijhpm.2017.130
  56. Baker P, Friel S, Gleeson D, Thow AM, Labonte R. Trade and nutrition policy coherence: a framing analysis and Australian case study. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(12):2329-2337. doi:1017/s1368980019000752
  57. Pomey MP, Morgan S, Church J, et al. Do provincial drug benefit initiatives create an effective policy lab? the evidence from Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2010;35(5):705-742. doi:1215/03616878-2010-025
  58. Smith K. Institutional filters: the translation and re-circulation of ideas about health inequalities within policy. Policy Polit. 2013;41(1):81-100. doi:1332/030557312x655413
  59. Béland D. Ideas, institutions, and policy change. J Eur Public Policy. 2009;16(5):701-718. doi:1080/13501760902983382
  60. Scott WR. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. SAGE Publications; 2013.
  61. Clapp J, Scrinis G. Big food, nutritionism, and corporate power. Globalizations. 2017;14(4):578-595. doi:1080/14747731.2016.1239806
  62. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). The New Science of Sustainable Food Systems: Overcoming Barriers to Food Systems Reform. London: IPES-Food; 2015.
  63. Fuchs D. Business Power in Global Governance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers; 2007.
  64. Goffman E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1974.
  65. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 2004;170(4):477-480.
  66. McCambridge J, Hartwell G. Has industry funding biased studies of the protective effects of alcohol on cardiovascular disease? a preliminary investigation of prospective cohort studies. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2015;34(1):58-66. doi:1111/dar.12125
  67. Baker P, Hawkes C, Wingrove K, et al. What drives political commitment for nutrition? a review and framework synthesis to inform the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(1):e000485. doi:1136/bmjgh-2017-000485
  68. Challies E. The limits to voluntary private social standards in global agri-food system governance. Int J Sociol Agric Food. 2013;20(2):175-195.
  69. Henson S, Reardon T. Private agri-food standards: implications for food policy and the agri-food system. Food Policy. 2005;30(3):241-253. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2005.05.002
  70. NVivo qualitative data analysis software -- Version 122018 [computer program]. QSR International; 2018.
  71. Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A, Liao TF. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2004. doi:4135/9781412950589
  72. PH. Corporate Concentration in Global Meat Processing: The Role of Government Subsidies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2019.
  73. Panagiotou D. Market power effects of the livestock mandatory reporting act in the US meat industry: a stochastic frontier approach under uncertainty. J Ind Competition Trade. 2019;19(1):103-122. doi:1007/s10842-018-0280-9
  74. Beef+Lamb New Zealand. Meat processing in New Zealand. 2019; https://beeflambnz.com/sites/default/files/Meat%20processors%20in%20NZ%20-%20May%202019.pdf.
  75. Sexton AE, Garnett T, Lorimer J. Framing the future of food: the contested promises of alternative proteins. Environ Plan E Nat Space. 2019;2(1):47-72. doi:1177/2514848619827009
  76. He J, Evans NM, Liu H, Shao S. A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020;19(5):2639-2656. doi:1111/1541-4337.12610
  77. Fortune A. Cargill Increases Investment in Pea Protein Business. Global Meat News; 2019.
  78. Nickel R, Polansek T. Big Ag Wants a Cut of Booming Fake-Meat Market. Reuters. September 9, 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-meat-alternative-idUSKCN1VU11B.
  79. Meat & Livestock Australia. About MLA - The Red Meat Industry. https://www.mla.com.au/about-mla/the-red-meat-industry/. Accessed May 10, 2019. Published 2019.
  80. Bless A. Addressing the Impacts of Red Meat Consumption: Lessons from Australia’s Tobacco Control Regime. Sydney, Australia: Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney; 2019.
  81. Milman O, Leavenworth S. China's Plan to Cut Meat Consumption by 50% Cheered by Climate Campaigners. The Guardian. June 20, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/chinas-meat-consumption-climate-change.
  82. Food and Agriculture Organization. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2006.
  83. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change and land. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2019.
  84. Legg W. Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition: What Roles for Livestock? Rome: HLPE; 2017.
  85. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). List of Codex Committees: Active. http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/en/. Accessed October 28, 2020. Published 2020.
  86. Abadie LM, Galarraga I, Milford AB, Gustavsen GW. Using food taxes and subsidies to achieve emission reduction targets in Norway. J Clean Prod. 2016;134(Pt A):280-297. doi:1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.054
  87. Bähr CC. Greenhouse gas taxes on meat products: a legal perspective. Transnational Environmental Law. 2015;4(1):153-179. doi:1017/s2047102515000011
  88. Blandford D, Gaasland I, Vårdal E. The trade-off between food production and greenhouse gas mitigation in Norwegian agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014;184:59-66. doi:1016/j.agee.2013.11.025
  89. Caro D, Frederiksen P, Thomsen M, Pedersen AB. Toward a more consistent combined approach of reduction targets and climate policy regulations: the illustrative case of a meat tax in Denmark. Environ Sci Policy. 2017;76:78-81. doi:1016/j.envsci.2017.06.013
  90. Chloupkova J, Svendsen GT, Zdechovsky T. A global meat tax: from big data to a double dividend. Agric Econ. 2018;64(6):256-264. doi:17221/270/2016-agricecon
  91. Dorner Z, Kerr S. Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study. Clim Policy. 2017;17(8):998-1013. doi:1080/14693062.2016.1215285
  92. Fellmann T, Witzke P, Weiss F, et al. Major challenges of integrating agriculture into climate change mitigation policy frameworks. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang. 2018;23(3):451-468. doi:1007/s11027-017-9743-2
  93. Gren IM, Moberg E, Säll S, Röös E. Design of a climate tax on food consumption: examples of tomatoes and beef in Sweden. J Clean Prod. 2019;211:1576-1585. doi:1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.238
  94. Revell BJ. One Man's Meat … 2050? ruminations on future meat demand in the context of global warming. J Agric Econ. 2015;66(3):573-614. doi:1111/1477-9552.12121
  95. Snowdon W, Thow AM. Trade policy and obesity prevention: challenges and innovation in the Pacific Islands. Obes Rev. 2013;14 Suppl 2:150-158. doi:1111/obr.12090
  96. Thow AM, Swinburn B, Colagiuri S, et al. Trade and food policy: case studies from three Pacific Island countries. Food Policy. 2010;35(6):556-564. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2010.06.005
  97. Vinnari M, Tapio P. Sustainability of diets: from concepts to governance. Ecol Econ. 2012;74:46-54. doi:1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.012
  98. Wirsenius S, Hedenus F, Mohlin K. Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Clim Change. 2011;108(1-2):159-184. doi:1007/s10584-010-9971-x
  99. Taylor CR, Walsh MG, Lee C. The US/EU beef controversy and a proposed framework for resolving standards disputes in international trade. J Consum Aff. 2003;37(1):101-122. doi:1111/j.1745-6606.2003.tb00442.x
  100. Thow AM, Annan R, Mensah L, Chowdhury SN. Development, implementation and outcome of standards to restrict fatty meat in the food supply and prevent NCDs: learning from an innovative trade/food policy in Ghana. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:249. doi:1186/1471-2458-14-249
  101. Reducetarian Foundation. Reducetarian - About. https://reducetarian.org/what. Published 2020.
  102. Lykkeskov A, Gjerris M. The moral justification behind a climate tax on beef in Denmark. Food Ethics. 2017;1(2):181-191. doi:1007/s41055-017-0017-1
  103. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Appetite for Destruction. Gland, Switzerland: WWF; 2017.
  104. Laestadius LI, Neff RA, Barry CL, Frattaroli S. No No meat, less meat, or better meat: understanding NGO messaging choices intended to alter meat consumption in light of climate change. Environ Commun. 2016;10(1):84-103. doi:1080/17524032.2014.981561
  105. Laestadius LI, Neff RA, Barry CL, Frattaroli S. Meat consumption and climate change: the role of non-governmental organizations. Clim Change. 2013;120(1):25-38. doi:1007/s10584-013-0807-3
  106. Vapnek J, Chapman MS. Legislative and Regulatory Options for Animal Welfare. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); 2010.
  107. Torrez M. Meatless Monday: simple public health suggestion or extremist plot? J Environ Law Litig. 2013;28(3):515-544.
  108. Singer R. Neoliberal backgrounding, the Meatless Monday campaign, and the rhetorical intersections of food, nature, and cultural identity. Commun Cult Crit. 2017;10(2):344-364. doi:1111/cccr.12155
  109. Zenoff A, Sabbagh H, Mui H, Safaeinili N. The Meatless Monday Campaign in Los Angeles. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/meatless_monday_evaluation_plan.pdf. Published December 9, 2014.
  110. Graham T, Abrahamse W. Communicating the climate impacts of meat consumption: the effect of values and message framing. Glob Environ Change. 2017;44:98-108. doi:1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.004
  111. Joy M. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Conari Press; 2011.
  112. Monteiro CA, Pfeiler TM, Patterson MD, Milburn MA. The Carnism Inventory: measuring the ideology of eating animals. Appetite. 2017;113:51-62. doi:1016/j.appet.2017.02.011
  113. Arcari P. Normalised, human-centric discourses of meat and animals in climate change, sustainability and food security literature. Agric Human Values. 2017;34(1):69-86. doi:1007/s10460-016-9697-0
  114. Gambert I, Linné T. From rice eaters to soy boys: race, gender, and tropes of ‘plant food masculinity.’ Anim Stud J. 2018;7(2):129-179.
  115. Allen AM, Hof AR. Paying the price for the meat we eat. Environ Sci Policy. 2019;97:90-94. doi:1016/j.envsci.2019.04.010
  116. Apostolidis C, McLeay F. Should we stop meating like this? reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food Policy. 2016;65:74-89. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.002
  117. Bonnet C, Bouamra-Mechemache Z, Corre T. An environmental tax towards more sustainable food: empirical evidence of the consumption of animal products in France. Ecol Econ. 2018;147:48-61. doi:1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.032
  118. Brunelle T, Coat M, Viguié V. Demand-side mitigation options of the agricultural sector: potential, barriers and ways forward. OCL - Oilseeds and fats, Crops and Lipids. 2017;24(1):D104. doi:1051/ocl/2016051
  119. de Bakker E, Dagevos H. Reducing meat consumption: ethical arguments in the context of today's consumer society. In: Global Food Security: Ethical and Legal Challenges: EurSafe 2010, Bilbao, Spain, 16-18 September 2010.
  120. Stoll-Kleemann S, Schmidt UJ. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Reg Environ Change. 2017;17(5):1261-1277. doi:1007/s10113-016-1057-5
  121. Garnett T. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy. 2011;36(Suppl 1):S23-S32. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.010
  122. Hoek AC, Pearson D, James SW, Lawrence MA, Friel S. Healthy and environmentally sustainable food choices: consumer responses to point-of-purchase actions. Food Qual Prefer. 2017;58:94-106. doi:1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.008
  123. Lang T. Meat and policy: charting a course through the complexity. In: The Meat Crisis: Developing More Sustainable and Ethical Production and Consumption. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2017:317-334.
  124. Lerner H, Algers B, Gunnarsson S, Nordgren A. Stakeholders on meat production, meat consumption and mitigation of climate change: Sweden as a case. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2013;26(3):663-678. doi:1007/s10806-012-9420-0
  125. McAlpine CA, Etter A, Fearnside PM, Seabrook L, Laurance WF. Increasing world consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global change: a call for policy action based on evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia and Brazil. Glob Environ Change. 2009;19(1):21-33. doi:1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.008
  126. Niva M, Jallinoja P. Taking a stand through food choices? characteristics of political food consumption and consumers in Finland. Ecol Econ. 2018;154:349-360. doi:1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.013
  127. Poppe KJ. On markets and government: property rights to promote sustainability with market forces. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2013;66:33-37. doi:1016/j.njas.2013.05.010
  128. Whitley CT, Gunderson R, Charters M. Public receptiveness to policies promoting plant-based diets: framing effects and social psychological and structural influences. J Environ Policy Plan. 2018;20(1):45-63. doi:1080/1523908x.2017.1304817
  129. Rothgerber H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol Men Masc. 2013;14(4):363-375. doi:1037/a0030379
  130. Clonan A, Roberts KE, Holdsworth M. Socioeconomic and demographic drivers of red and processed meat consumption: implications for health and environmental sustainability. Proc Nutr Soc. 2016;75(3):367-373. doi:1017/s0029665116000100
  131. Adams CJ. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. USA: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2015.
  132. Upton’s Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association VERSUS Phil Bryant MS. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Vol Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-462-HTW-LRA2019. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Uptons-Naturals-Co.-et-al.-v.-Phil-Bryant-et-al.-Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief_7.1.2019.pdf.
  133. Watson E. PBFA and Upton's Naturals Challenge Mississippi Law Restricting Plant-Based and Cell-Cultured 'Meat' Labelling. Food Navigator-USA; 2019.
  134. Watson E. PBFA, Upton's Naturals Drop Lawsuit as Mississippi Revises Plant-Based Meat Labeling Law: 'This is a Total Victory.’ Food Navigator-USA: 2019.
  135. Daly JG. Reducing meat and dairy consumption: a cultural change approach. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability. 2011;7(2):223-234.
  136. Kunst JR, Hohle SM. Meat eaters by dissociation: how we present, prepare and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust. Appetite. 2016;105:758-774. doi:1016/j.appet.2016.07.009
  137. Mann D, Thornton L, Crawford D, Ball K. Australian consumers' views towards an environmentally sustainable eating pattern. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(14):2714-2722. doi:1017/s1368980018001192
  138. GRAIN, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). Emissions Impossible: How Big Meat and Dairy Are Heating Up the Planet. GRAIN, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP); 2018.
  139. Meat & Livestock Australia. MLA Global Consumer Tracker Australia. https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/prices--markets/documents/os-markets/red-meat-market-snapshots/2019/mla-ms-australia-beef-sheep-2019.pdf. Accessed February 2020. Published 2019.
  140. Clapp J. Financialization, distance and global food politics. J Peasant Stud. 2014;41(5):797-814. doi:1080/03066150.2013.875536
  141. McMichael P. A food regime genealogy. J Peasant Stud. 2009;36(1):139-169. doi:1080/03066150902820354
  142. Lang T, Barling D. Food security and food sustainability: reformulating the debate. Geogr J. 2012;178(4):313-326. doi:1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00480.x
  143. Evans N, Morris C, Winter M. Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Prog Hum Geogr. 2002;26(3):313-332. doi:1191/0309132502ph372ra
  144. Lawrence G, Richards C, Lyons K. Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change. J Rural Stud. 2013;29:30-39. doi:1016/j.jrurstud.2011.12.005
  145. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Red meat livestock industry structure. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/meat-wool-dairy/red-meat-livestock/facts. Published 2020.
  146. The Food and Land Use Coalition. The Global Consultation Report of the Food and Land Use Coalition. The Food and Land Use Coalition; 2019.
  147. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Taxing America’s Health: Subsidies for Meat and Dairy Products. https://archive.vn/20130415140347/http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=2586. Accessed February 28, 2020. Published 2011.
  148. Schram A, Ruckert A, VanDuzer JA, et al. A conceptual framework for investigating the impacts of international trade and investment agreements on noncommunicable disease risk factors. Health Policy Plan. 2018;33(1):123-136. doi:1093/heapol/czx133
  149. Clark SE, Hawkes C, Murphy SM, Hansen-Kuhn KA, Wallinga D. Exporting obesity: US farm and trade policy and the transformation of the Mexican consumer food environment. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2012;18(1):53-65. doi:1179/1077352512z.0000000007
  150. Friel S, Gleeson D, Thow AM, et al. A new generation of trade policy: potential risks to diet-related health from the trans pacific partnership agreement. Global Health. 2013;9:46. doi:1186/1744-8603-9-46
  151. Reisch L, Eberle U, Lorek S. Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy. 2013;9(2):7-25. doi:1080/15487733.2013.11908111
  152. White RR, Brady M. Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production? Food Policy. 2014;49(Pt 1):41-49. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2014.06.007
  153. Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D'Croz D, et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. 2018;562(7728):519-525. doi:1038/s41586-018-0594-0
  154. Parker C, Haines F. An ecological approach to regulatory studies? J Law Soc. 2018;45(1):136-155. doi:1111/jols.12083
  155. Parker C, Haines F, Boehm L. The promise of ecological regulation: the case of intensive meat. Jurimetrics. 2018;59:15-42.
  156. Stuckler D, Nestle M. Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001242. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1001242
  157. Monteiro CA, Moubarac JC, Cannon G, Ng SW, Popkin B. Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system. Obes Rev. 2013;14 Suppl 2:21-28. doi:1111/obr.12107
  158. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO's role in animal production. http://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/. Accessed February 28, 2020.
  159. Kelloway C, Miller S. Food and Power: Addressing Monopolization in America’s Food System. Washington, DC: Open Markets Institute; 2019.
  160. Keogh M. "There's a Major Beef Over Dietary Guidelines". The Sydney Morning Herald; 2011.
  161. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. National Pork Producers Council Annual Lobbying Totals: 1998-2019. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobbying?id=D000000676. Published 2020.
  162. Corkery M, Yaffe-Bellany D, Swanson A. Powerful Meat Industry Holds More Sway After Trump’s Order. New York Times. April 29, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/business/coronavirus-trump-meat-plants.html.
  163. Wilde P, Pomeranz JL, Lizewski LJ, Ruan M, Mozaffarian D, Zhang FF. Legal feasibility of US government policies to reduce cancer risk by reducing intake of processed meat. Milbank Q. 2019;97(2):420-448. doi:1111/1468-0009.12385
  164. de Area Leão Pereira EJ, de Santana Ribeiro LC, da Silva Freitas LF, de Barros Pereira HB. Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest. Land Use Policy. 2020;92:104491. doi:1016/j.landusepol.2020.104491
  165. Almiron N, Zoppeddu M. Eating meat and climate change: the media blind spot--a study of Spanish and italian press coverage. Environ Commun. 2015;9(3):307-325. doi:1080/17524032.2014.953968
  166. Pohjolainen P, Tapio P, Vinnari M, Jokinen P, Räsänen P. Consumer consciousness on meat and the environment - Exploring differences. Appetite. 2016;101:37-45. doi:1016/j.appet.2016.02.012
  167. Buddle EA, Bray HJ, Ankeny RA. Why would we believe them? meat consumers’ reactions to online farm animal welfare activism in Australia. Communication Research and Practice. 2018;4(3):246-260. doi:1080/22041451.2018.1451209
  168. Cole M. Getting (Green) Beef: Anti-Vegan Rhetoric and the Legitimizing of Eco-Friendly Oppression. In: Critical Animal and Media Studies. Routledge; 2015:121-137.
  169. Bruce A. The lore of low methane livestock: co-producing technology and animals for reduced climate change impact. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2013;9(1):10. doi:1186/2195-7819-9-10
  170. Lacy-Nichols J, Scrinis G, Carey R. The politics of voluntary self-regulation: insights from the development and promotion of the Australian Beverages Council's Commitment. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23(3):564-575. doi:1017/s1368980019002003
  171. Herzog HJ. Why We Can’t Reverse Climate Change with ‘Negative Emissions’ Technologies. The Conversation. October 9, 2018. https://theconversation.com/why-we-cant-reverse-climate-change-with-negative-emissions-technologies-103504.
  172. Hedenus F, Wirsenius S, Johansson DJA. The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim Change. 2014;124(1):79-91. doi:1007/s10584-014-1104-5
  173. Sonoda Y, Oishi K, Chomei Y, Hirooka H. How do human values influence the beef preferences of consumer segments regarding animal welfare and environmentally friendly production? Meat Sci. 2018;146:75-86. doi:1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.030
  174. Van Loo EJ, Hoefkens C, Verbeke W. Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: perceived (mis) match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy. Food Policy. 2017;69:46-57. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.001
  175. Parker C, Carey R, Scrinis G. The consumer labelling turn in farmed animal welfare politics: from the margins of animal advocacy to mainstream supermarket shelves. In: Phillipov M, Kirkwood K, eds. Alternative Food Politics: From the Margins to the Mainstream. Routledge (Critical Food Series, 2018); 2017.
  176. Ilea RC. Intensive livestock farming: global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2009;22(2):153-167. doi:1007/s10806-008-9136-3
  177. Magnusson RS. Obesity prevention and personal responsibility: the case of front-of-pack food labelling in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:662. doi:1186/1471-2458-10-662
  178. Mason P, Lang T. Sustainable Diets: How Ecological Nutrition Can Transform Consumption and the Food System. Taylor & Francis; 2017.
  179. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Red Meat and Processed Meat: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon, France: IARC; 2018.
  180. Roussell MA, Hill AM, Gaugler TL, et al. Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet study: effects on lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95(1):9-16. doi:3945/ajcn.111.016261
  181. Dixon J, Sindall C, Banwell C. Exploring the intersectoral partnerships guiding Australia's dietary advice. Health Promot Int. 2004;19(1):5-13. doi:1093/heapro/dah102
  182. Steele S, Ruskin G, Stuckler D. Pushing partnerships: corporate influence on research and policy via the International Life Sciences Institute. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23(11):2032-2040. doi:1017/s1368980019005184
  183. Zeraatkar D, Johnston BC, Bartoszko J, et al. Effect of lower versus higher red meat intake on cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes: a systematic review of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):721-731. doi:7326/m19-0622
  184. Johnston BC, Zeraatkar D, Han MA, et al. Unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: dietary guideline recommendations from the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):756-764. doi:7326/m19-1621
  185. Bero L. When Big Companies Fund Academic Research, The Truth Often Comes Last. The Conversation. October 2, 2019. https://theconversation.com/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes-last-119164.
  186. Carolan M. The Real Cost of Cheap Food. Routledge; 2013.
  187. Ferrante L, Fearnside PM. Brazil’s new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia’s environment, traditional peoples and the global climate. Environ Conserv. 2019;46(4):261-263. doi:1017/s0376892919000213
  188. de Boer J, Aiking H. Strategies towards healthy and sustainable protein consumption: a transition framework at the levels of diets, dishes, and dish ingredients. Food Qual Prefer. 2019;73:171-181. doi:1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.012
  189. Hospes O, Brons, A. Food systems governance: a systematic literature review. In: Kennedy A, Liljeblad J, eds. Food Systems Governance: Challenges for Justice, Equality and Human Rights. Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.
  190. Chapman S. Public Health Advocacy and Tobacco Control: Making Smoking History. John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
  191. Chang KM, Hess JJ, Balbus JM, et al. Ancillary health effects of climate mitigation scenarios as drivers of policy uptake: a review of air quality, transportation and diet co-benefits modeling studies. Environ Res Lett. 2017;12(11):113001. doi:1088/1748-9326/aa8f7b
  192. Farchi S, De Sario M, Lapucci E, Davoli M, Michelozzi P. Meat consumption reduction in Italian regions: health co-benefits and decreases in GHG emissions. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182960. doi:1371/journal.pone.0182960
  193. Hyland JJ, Henchion M, McCarthy M, McCarthy SN. The role of meat in strategies to achieve a sustainable diet lower in greenhouse gas emissions: a review. Meat Sci. 2017;132:189-195. doi:1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.014
  194. Virah-Sawmy M, Durán AP, Green JMH, Guerrero AM, Biggs D, West CD. Sustainability gridlock in a global agricultural commodity chain: reframing the soy–meat food system. Sustain Prod Consum. 2019;18:210-223. doi:1016/j.spc.2019.01.003
  195. Bryngelsson D, Wirsenius S, Hedenus F, Sonesson U. How can the EU climate targets be met? a combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy. 2016;59:152-164. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.012
  196. da Costa NB Jr, Baldissera TC, Pinto CE, Garagorry FC, de Moraes A, de Faccio Carvalho PC. Public policies for low carbon emission agriculture foster beef cattle production in southern Brazil. Land Use Policy. 2019;80:269-273. doi:1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.014
  197. Delgado C, Rosegrant M, Steinfeld H, Ehui S, Courbois C. Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. In: Pinstrup-Andersen P, Pandya-Lorch R, eds. The Unfinished Agenda: Perspectives on Overcoming Hunger, Poverty, and Environmental Degradation. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2001.
  198. Du Y, Ge Y, Ren Y, et al. A global strategy to mitigate the environmental impact of China's ruminant consumption boom. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4133. doi:1038/s41467-018-06381-0
  199. Evans N, Gaskell P, Winter M. Re-assessing agrarian policy and practice in local environmental management: the case of beef cattle. Land Use Policy. 2003;20(3):231-242. doi:1016/S0264-8377(03)00026-7
  200. Friel S, Dangour AD, Garnett T, et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture. Lancet. 2009;374(9706):2016-2025. doi:1016/s0140-6736(09)61753-0
  201. Garnett T. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environm Sci Policy. 2009;12(4):491-503. doi:1016/j.envsci.2009.01.006
  202. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H. Global environmental consequences of the livestock sector's growth. Outlook Agric. 2008;37(1):7-13. doi:5367/000000008783883555
  203. Gerber PJ, Vellinga TV, Steinfeld H. Issues and options in addressing the environmental consequences of livestock sector’s growth. Meat Sci. 2010;84(2):244-247. doi:1016/j.meatsci.2009.10.016
  204. Kumm KI. Towards sustainable Swedish agriculture. J Sustain Agric. 2001;18(4):27-37. doi:1300/J064v18n04_05
  205. Leifeld J, Fuhrer J. Greenhouse gas emissions from Swiss agriculture since 1990: implications for environmental policies to mitigate global warming. Environ Sci Policy. 2005;8(4):410-417. doi:1016/j.envsci.2005.04.001
  206. Mosnier C, Duclos A, Agabriel J, Gac A. What prospective scenarios for 2035 will be compatible with reduced impact of French beef and dairy farm on climate change? Agric Syst. 2017;157:193-201. doi:1016/j.agsy.2017.07.006
  207. Rivera-Ferre MG, López-i-Gelats F, Howden M, Smith P, Morton JF, Herrero M. Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: mitigation and adaptation options. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2016;7(6):869-892. doi:1002/wcc.421
  208. Röös E, Bajželj B, Smith P, Patel M, Little D, Garnett T. Greedy or needy? land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Glob Environ Change. 2017;47:1-12. doi:1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.001
  209. Santos R, Antunes P, Baptista G, Mateus P, Madruga L. Stakeholder participation in the design of environmental policy mixes. Ecol Econ. 2006;60(1):100-110. doi:1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.025
  210. Sarkwa FO, Timpong-Jones EC, Assuming-Bediako N, Aikins S, Adogla-Bessa T. The contribution of livestock production to climate change: a review. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2016;28(3):Article 37.
  211. Singh V, Rastogi A, Nautiyal N, Negi V. Livestock and climate change: the key actors and the sufferers of global warming. Indian J Anim Sci. 2017;87(1):11-20.
  212. Stevanović M, Popp A, Bodirsky BL, et al. Mitigation strategies for greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and land-use change: consequences for food prices. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(1):365-374. doi:1021/acs.est.6b04291
  213. Tessema WK, Ingenbleek PTM, van Trijp HCM. Pastoralism, sustainability, and marketing. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2014;34(1):75-92. doi:1007/s13593-013-0167-4
  214. Tilman D, Clark M. Food, agriculture & the environment: can we feed the world & save the earth? Daedalus. 2015;144(4):8-23. doi:1162/DAED_a_00350
  215. Williams JE, Price RJ. Impacts of red meat production on biodiversity in Australia: a review and comparison with alternative protein production industries. Anim Prod Sci. 2010;50(8):723-747. doi:1071/an09132
  216. Bowles N, Alexander S, Hadjikakou M. The livestock sector and planetary boundaries: a ‘limits to growth’ perspective with dietary implications. Ecol Econ. 2019;160:128-136. doi:1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.033
  217. Cederberg C, Hedenus F, Wirsenius S, Sonesson U. Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of animal food products - implications for long-term climate targets. Animal. 2013;7(2):330-340. doi:1017/s1751731112001498
  218. Henderson B, Golub A, Pambudi D, et al. The power and pain of market-based carbon policies: a global application to greenhouse gases from ruminant livestock production. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang. 2018;23(3):349-369. doi:1007/s11027-017-9737-0
  219. Moran D, Wall E. Livestock production and greenhouse gas emissions: defining the problem and specifying solutions. Anim Front. 2011;1(1):19-25. doi:2527/af.2011-0012
  220. Revell B. Meat and Milk Consumption 2050: the Potential for Demand-side Solutions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. EuroChoices. 2015;14(3):4-11. doi:1111/1746-692X.12103
  221. Sarlio S. “Serving sustainable and healthy food to consumers and decision makers”: from commitments to action. In: Sarlio S, ed. Towards Healthy and Sustainable Diets: Perspectives and Policy to Promote the Health of People and the Planet. Cham: Springer; 2018:63-82. doi:1007/978-3-319-74204-5_4
  222. Springmann M, Mason-D’Croz D, Robinson S, et al. Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nat Clim Chang. 2017;7(1):69-74. doi:1038/nclimate3155
  223. Snowdon W, Moodie M, Schultz J, Swinburn B. Modelling of potential food policy interventions in Fiji and Tonga and their impacts on noncommunicable disease mortality. Food Policy. 2011;36(5):597-605. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2011.06.001
  224. Galaz V, Crona B, Dauriach A, Jouffray J-B, Österblom H, Fichtner J. Tax havens and global environmental degradation. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2(9):1352-1357. doi:1038/s41559-018-0497-3
  225. Edjabou LD, Smed S. The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly diets – the case of Denmark. Food Policy. 2013;39:84-96. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2012.12.004
  226. Hahn WF, Davis CG. Costs of taxing sodium: a lunch meat application. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev. 2014;17(Special Issue A):25-39. doi:22004/ag.econ.164596
  227. Peñalvo JL, Cudhea F, Micha R, et al. The potential impact of food taxes and subsidies on cardiovascular disease and diabetes burden and disparities in the United States. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):208. doi:1186/s12916-017-0971-9
  228. Pitt A, Bendavid E. Effect of meat price on race and gender disparities in obesity, mortality and quality of life in the US: a model-based analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0168710. doi:1371/journal.pone.0168710
  229. Säll S, Gren IM. Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden. Food Policy. 2015;55:41-53. doi:1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.008
  230. Schmidhuber J. The growing global obesity problem: Some policy options to address it. eJADE - Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics. 2004;1(2):272-290. Bebin in ketabe
  231. Schönbach JK, Thiele S, Lhachimi SK. What are the potential preventive population-health effects of a tax on processed meat? a quantitative health impact assessment for Germany. Prev Med. 2019;118:325-331. doi:1016/j.ypmed.2018.11.011
  232. Springmann M, Mason-D'Croz D, Robinson S, et al. Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: a modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0204139. doi:1371/journal.pone.0204139
  233. Vázquez-Rowe I, Larrea-Gallegos G, Villanueva-Rey P, Gilardino A. Climate change mitigation opportunities based on carbon footprint estimates of dietary patterns in Peru. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0188182. doi:1371/journal.pone.0188182
  234. Markandya A, Galarraga I, Abadie LM, Lucas J, Spadaro JV. What role can taxes and subsidies play in changing diets? Finanzarchiv. 2016;72(2):175-210. doi:1628/001522116x14581329755499
  235. Grebitus C, Steiner B, Veeman MM. Paying for sustainability: a cross-cultural analysis of consumers’ valuations of food and non-food products labeled for carbon and water footprints. J Behav Exp Econ. 2016;63:50-58. doi:1016/j.socec.2016.05.003
  236. Röös E, Ekelund L, Tjärnemo H. Communicating the environmental impact of meat production: challenges in the development of a Swedish meat guide. J Clean Prod. 2014;73:154-164. doi:1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.037
  237. Bonny SPF, Gardner GE, Pethick DW, Hocquette JF. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? J Integr Agric. 2015;14(2):255-263. doi:1016/s2095-3119(14)60888-1
  238. de Bakker E, Dagevos H. Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: questioning the citizen-consumer gap. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2012;25(6):877-894. doi:1007/s10806-011-9345-z
  239. Schmidinger K, Bogueva D, Marinova D. New meat without Livestock. In: Handbook of Research on Social Marketing and Its Influence on Animal Origin Food Product Consumptio. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2018:344-361.
  240. Kurz V. Nudging to reduce meat consumption: immediate and persistent effects of an intervention at a university restaurant. J Environ Econ Manage. 2018;90:317-341. doi:1016/j.jeem.2018.06.005
  241. Hanson EC. Successful Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Introduction. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin; 2006.
  242. Attride-Stirling J. Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual Res. 2001;1(3):385-405. doi:1177/146879410100100307
  • Receive Date: 29 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 28 October 2020
  • Accept Date: 18 November 2020
  • First Publish Date: 02 December 2020