ASFs and Livestock

Plant-based' interventionism

In recent times, the role of animal source foods (ASFs) in dietary models has become increasingly controversial. Red and processed meats, in particular, are under scrutiny, with calls for a shift towards plant-based diets. This shift is promoted by various organizations that often influence dietary guidelines at global, national, and regional levels. Some of these actors, like the EAT-Lancet Commission, argue that individual choice alone is insufficient for achieving necessary changes and support measures like marketing campaigns, fiscal incentives, and legal interventions to reduce ASF consumption. Some proponents even suggest extreme measures, such as banning ASFs or using psychological tactics to discourage meat consumption.

This subsection addresses the following five questions:

How do dietary guidelines discourage animal source foods and why are they criticized?
What are some of the more extreme proposals for interventionism?
Which interventionist actions have already been attempted or achieved?

Criticism of dietary guidelines

Health authorities worldwide shape public eating habits through dietary guidelines, which increasingly recommend reduced animal-sourced saturated fats and limited red meat consumption. Critics argue that these guidelines, based on expert opinions, stifle debate, impose Western nutrition on cultural minorities, and oversimplify nutrition, creating a one-size-fits-all approach. Although poultry is more accepted, recommendations for red meat are much lower than current levels, contrasting with historical diets. Critics question the suitability of this uniform approach to nutrition.

Further reading (summary of the literature):

Global, national, and regional health authorities have the mission to shape the eating behaviour of the public at large, by communicating their scientific opinions and recommendations via dietary guidelines. The place of ASFs within healthy and sustainable diets is increasingly under scrutiny, by proclaiming the need for a restricted intake of saturated fat from animal origin [AHA 2015; NHS 2017; WHO 2018] and of red meats and processed meats in particular [WHO 2015; NHS 2018].

Criticism of blanket recommendations

Since such organizations - and the advice they promote - represent expert opinion, this readily results in appeal to authority, hinders the debate on what constitutes an 'optimal' diet [see elsewhere], and suppresses and marginalizes dissident opinion. At times this can be patronizing, pushing Western nutrition theory upon cultural minorities [Best & Ward 2020; Katz-Rosene 2020], and thereby neglecting 'complexities of nourishment that are at the heart of kinship, social life, and caregiving' [Burnett et al. 2020]. The result is often a monolithic 'one-size-fits-all' reductionist approach to food and nutrition [Katz-Rosene 2020], excessively relying on an animal/plant divide [see elsewhere].

Patronizing attitude towards traditional minority diets

This is, for instance, the case for the 'Nunavik food guide', whereby a Mediterranean-style pyramid, rebranded as an igloo-shaped model, is used to 'reflect current issues in nutrition and to meet the needs' of the local Inuit [NRBHSS 2020]. Meat, fish, and fat, that were once at the heart of historical arctic diets [see elsewhere], have been strongly de-emphasized to the benefit of previously irrelevant foods such as vegetables, exotic fruits, (breakfast) cereals, and milk. Similarly, the Australian 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating' is superficially framed as a traditional dietary model but is once more based on Western nutritional dogma and at odds with indigenous eating habits [NHMRC 2015].

Excessive focus on red meat

Although dietary guidelines are more tolerant with respect to poultry, the recommended values for red meat (16-26 kg/p/y) are much lower than what is currently the case in the West [60-70 kg/p/y; see elsewhere] and far below what was the case for ancestral hunter-gatherer diets consumed during most (>95%) of the existence of the human species [see elsewhere]. To further underline the evolutionary mismatch of such nutritional advice, even chimpanzee populations are said to consume 10 kg (4-15 kg) of hunted meat per individual per year on average [Kaplan et al. 2002], ranging from very small intake levels to up to 30-70 kg/y for some of the males (as meat is not evenly distributed and consumed within chimpanzee communities) [Nishida 2012; Watts 2020; Pontzer & Wood 2021].

Extreme proposals for interventionism

Some actors, including certain academics, advocate for extreme interventionism to reduce meat consumption. Various tactics have been proposed, such as increasing meat prices, using 'compassion-inducing visual stimuli' on packaging or in restaurants, developing 'disgust-based interventions' like coloring meat blue, employing 'meat-shaming' techniques, creating allergies to beef with patches, launching public campaigns to challenge the association between meat and desirable traits, or even implementing legal bans on animal source foods. There is also a trend of using emotional and anxiety-inducing communication, especially targeting children, to portray meat and dairy as harmful and undesirable food choices.

Share this page on: