WUR: Diversity between various groups of eaters

Two recently published studies from Wageningen University & Research compared consumers with various eating patterns. The studies focussed specifically on meat eaters, flexitarians and vegetarians, and on the diversity within these groups.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality has set a policy objective of shifting the ratio between animal and plant proteins in the Dutch diet to 50/50 by 2030.  Generally speaking, our eating habits are not yet aligned with the scientific consensus and the stated policy goal: some people eat a diet with the right proportions, but the majority do not. People with different diets have different motivations to change their eating habits and find a new balance between animal-based and plant-based diets.

Meat eaters, flexitarians and meat avoiders

Consumer studies on animal and plant-based eating understandably address three main categories: meat eaters, flexitarians and meat avoiders (vegetarians and vegans). Recent studies on these groups have shown that flexitarians are a distinct group between avid meat eaters and strict meat avoiders, and that flexitarians are diverse.

Differences between various groups of eaters 

It has become clear that many social contexts, motives, knowledge or skills of consumers often stand in the way of attaining a more plant-based eating culture than the current one. However, the large and diverse group of flexitarians shows that cutting down on meat and eating more plants does have potential. It is therefore obvious that the 50/50 policy should also be targeted at this group. Flexitarians are enthusiastic about reducing the frequency and amount of their meat consumption. Flexitarians are important in helping make a new protein balance part of the mainstream.

Avid meat eaters will become more willing to shift to a more balanced protein diet for reasons of health and affordability. Vegetarians, in turn, can also contribute to a more plant-based diet by swapping animal protein alternatives for plant-based ones. They can also set a good example for omnivores by showing them how plant-based eating can be easy, delicious or healthy in everyday practice.

Challenges and leads

There are obstacles in the social environment, where eating meat is still firmly established. Such obstacles include a perceived lack of skills to cook plant-based meals and inadequate awareness about the collateral damage of meat production on the environment. This outcome suggests that it is not very easy for consumers who have more 'meaty' diets to shift towards more plant-based diets. Meat eaters seem more receptive to taking smaller steps, such making a specific commitment to smaller portions of meat.

Conclusion

Motivations to cut down on meat vary widely between groups, and this can be used in communication. For instance, there appears to be relatively little knowledge about the health benefits of reduced meat consumption. Health is therefore a trump card to play in communicating the policy to eat more plant-based foods and less animal-based foods. The social environment also provides opportunities. For example, by using social media (especially influencers) to spread the 'more plant-based, less animal-based' message. Or by showing flexitarians and vegetarians as a good example, thus attracting the attention of meat-eating target groups.

Wur.nl/en