In the fifth edition of our Expert Series, Dr Trent Grassian explores the findings of his PhD research and the implications for campaigners, policy makers and researchers.
One of the most common questions within the animal protection movement is how campaigns can successfully encourage people to become vegan and how to ensure new transitioners will stay vegan. The proportion of the British population reducing their consumption of animal food products (AFPs) has increased dramatically over the last decade, while vegetarian and vegan options are now widely available in supermarkets and restaurants across the UK.[i] Recent estimates found that 44% of Britons reported eating less meat, while 2 to 3% were vegetarian or vegan (veg*n).[ii] Furthering the increased prevalence of reducers and abstainers is essential if we want to stop the unnecessary suffering and exploitation of animals, while presenting significant benefits for future sustainability, the environment, and human health.[iii]
While governments remain hesitant to change dietary practices through political interventions, non-profit campaigns remain a primary promoter of AFP reduction and abstention (i.e. veg*nism).[iv] However, little research has investigated the effectiveness of these campaigns or examined reducers’ and abstainers’ transition journeys, including how their diets change and their perceived motivators and barriers to such changes. Previous research has found animal and health-related motivators may be the most popular.[v] While a variety of potential barriers have been identified (e.g. taste, availability, and awareness), previous findings have been inconclusive in regards to which may be most impactful to potential vegans and which may be easiest to address in a campaign context.[vi]
This research project was designed and conducted by Dr. Trent Grassian as part of his PhD programme, with oversight and full ethical approval by the University of Kent. A mixed-methods approach was used to allow for a large sampling strategy at multiple points over a prolonged period of time (twelve months) that included the depth of specific experiences, areas of conflicting opinion and campaign design. Reported findings discuss the first six months.
Six UK-based organisations featuring seven different reduction and vegan campaigns agreed to participate in the research project, with campaign participants serving as the research sample (n=1,587). An on-line questionnaire delivered at zero, one, three and six months measured participants’ sociodemographic characteristics, dietary habits (reported changes from the previous six months, a food-frequency questionnaire from the past two days, and planned changes for the upcoming six months), reduction motivators and barriers. Additional data was derived from focus groups with campaign participants throughout the UK (n=33) and interviews with campaign staff members (n=13).
Who are reducers and abstainers?
In general, campaign samples suggest a lack of diversity in who they are reaching: 80% identified as female, 25% were from the top 10% of income and 96% were white (compared to 82% of the general UK population). Participants were also extremely likely to report already reducing their AFP consumption over the previous six months and were unlikely to report plans to newly abstain from AFPs (e.g. pescatarians planning to become vegetarian). Planned and reported changes tended to follow The Reduction Hierarchy, with participants most likely to plan to reduce red, then white, meat, before dairy, and finally fish and eggs. For abstention, fish generally preceded that of dairy or eggs.
Clear differences emerged between the current and planned dietary habits of campaign participants, suggesting that they may be reaching different populations and serve distinct purposes in the transition process. While reduction campaigns included more meat reducers and non-reducers, vegan campaigns tended to draw more vegetarians and pescatarians, in addition to a large proportion of meat reducers. In addition, participants in two of three vegan campaigns generally did not plan to be following a vegan diet in six months.
How did dietary change occur?
Most participants (57%) were successfully meeting their reduction goals at six months, including 12% who had surpassed their initials goals (e.g. planned vegetarians eating a vegan diet). In addition, 71% reported eating fewer or zero servings of meat at six months than at zero. Reductions were generally (a) greatest in the first month, (b) gradual and (c) tended to follow The Reduction Hierarchy. Participants in vegan campaigns tended to reduce more and were more likely to shift dietary category (e.g. a pescatarian becoming a vegetarian).
Of the dietary groups, planned meat reducers were the least likely to meet all of their dietary goals at each point (39% at six months). Those pursuing stricter goals were more likely to succeed, with planned vegans — the only group where the majority were not already following their planned diet — the most likely to be meeting their goals at each point and twice as likely to do so at six months (78%) than meat reducers.
Meat reducers were more likely to eat less meat if they planned to reduce their white meat and/or fish consumption. Red meat reducers — those who planned to eat less red meat but not less white meat or fish — were as successful at reducing red meat but were more likely to eat more or the same in other areas. Where reductions occurred, they often disappeared but could instead lead to future abstentions, presenting a Meat Reducer Typology. Over time, participants were more likely to report a veg*n diet and less likely to report eating meat:
- Temporary reducers (54% at six months) ate meat and did not decrease the amount from zero months.
- Long-term reducers (36% at six months) ate no or less meat.
- Abstainers (10% at six months) are following a pescatarian, vegetarian, or vegan diet.
Reduction motivators
Participants generally had multiple motivating factors and were most likely to include animal protection (85% as a primary and 12% as secondary), followed by the environment (81% as primary and 15% as secondary) and health (61% as primary and 30% as secondary). Animal protection was the most universal motivator and was more strongly linked to larger reductions and higher levels of successful reduction and elimination than all other motivator categories. Many vegans reported a vegan mindshift, where AFPs could come to readily represent their animal origins, suffering and death. For instance, one participant stated: ‘Once I made that connection, I couldn’t unmake it.’
The lower number of health-motivated individuals suggests a potential engagement gap, though this motive – along with environmental motivators – were most strongly linked to successful reductions when they were secondary motivators and when animal protection was a primary motivator. Financial motivators were found to be inversely related to reduction success.
Reduction barriers
A variety of barriers emerged as important for reducers and abstainers, suggesting the need for more targeted interventions. Social barriers emerged as particularly important, especially for new vegans, who could experience stigmatisation, isolation, repeated questioning or debate from omnivores, discomfort when others consumed AFPs and a need to ‘perform’ veganism.[vii] Many near-vegans reported social exceptions to following a vegan diet (e.g. cake at work or eating out with friends).
Ultimately, successful transitions were commonly linked to embracing new dietary norms, moving beyond omnivorous norms of a meal as needing a meat-type element. Through participating in a campaign, individuals may not only change their consumption of AFPs but their perspective on consumption itself. While a mindshift may most readily facilitate this process through the re-categorisation as non-foods, practicing new styles of eating may support the formation of unconscious habits and, ultimately, a new understanding of the eating process. One participant explained: ‘It’s not limiting yourself. It’s opening yourself to a whole new way of eating.’
For participants who are lacking in motivation or are heavily reliant on culturally normative omnivorous practices, the first step in their transition may be a recognition that a meat-free or vegan meal can be sufficient, healthy and tasty. Here, the use of veg*n substitutes can be helpful in maintaining meal-time norms and make the transition process feel less dramatic. However, the continued reliance on pre-formed, omnivorous habits and norms may inhibit the transition from reflective to reflexive consumption. Each time reducers plan and consume a veg*n meal they may then rely on conscious reflection and thus view these occurrences as time-intensive, complicated and/or expensive. While meat-centric meals may remain easy and habitual, veg*n meals may require a recipe or the purchasing of pre-made meals or substitutes. Abstainers, instead, commonly described having an expanded palette and developing skills to integrate reflexive vegan habits into their daily lifestyle.
To establish a new behaviour, one ultimately needs to practice it.[viii] It may be that, for those psychologically and physically able and ready, the participation in a month-long vegan challenge can better support the establishment and maintenance of new ways of eating and new dietary norms. By necessitating vegan habit formation through repeated and regular practicing of veganism, participants may not only be more likely to find veganism to be easy, they may have more opportunities to explore new foods and types of meals. This research also suggests the importance of creating targeted campaigns that address the individual nature of dietary habits and transition.
The full dissertation will be released later this year and a free report is available on-line, specifically designed for campaigners, policy makers and researchers, summarising the findings of this PhD project. You can also find more information about the research through Trent’s blog or contract Trent to schedule a free presentation for your organisation about the research. He can be found via email at [email protected] or Twitter at @trentgrass.
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
[i] Peat 2016; Just Eat 2018
[ii] Lee and Simpson 2016; Latvala et al. 2012; Cumberledge, Kazer, and Plotnek 2015
[iii] Henning 2011; Herrero et al. 2013; Weis 2013
[iv] Wellesley, Happer and Froggatt 2015
[v] e.g. Eating Better 2013; Park, Bryson, and Curtice 2014; Janssen et al. 2016; Lee and Simpson 2016
[vi] e.g. Warde 2000 & 2014; Verplanken and Wood 2006; Dibb 2013; Onwezen and van der Weele 2016; Graςa, Calheiros and Oliveira 2014 & 2016
[vii] Twine 2014
[viii] Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002
Sources cited:
Cumberledge, T., Kazer, J. and Plotnek, J. (2015). The Case for Protein Diversity: Accelerating the Adoption of More Sustainable Eating Patterns in the UK. [Online]. Available at: http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/advice/the-case-for-protein... [Accessed: 11 November 2015].
Dibb, S. (2013). Adopting Healthy, Sustainable Diets: Key Opportunities and Barriers. [Online]. Available at: http://livewellforlife.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Adopting-healthy-su... [Accessed: 22 July 2015].
Eating Better (2013). Briefing: Public Attitudes & Behaviors Research. [Online]. Available at: http://www.eating-better.org/uploads/Documents/Briefing_Eating_Better_Yo... [Accessed: 11 September 2015].
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. and Oliveira, A. (2014). Moral Disengagement in Harmful but Cherished Food Practices? An Exploration into the Case of Meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27:749–765.
Graça, J., Calheiros, M.M. and Oliveira, A. (2016). Situating moral disengagement: Motivated reasoning in meat consumption and substitution. Personality and Individual Differences 90:353–364.
Henning, B. (2011). Standing in Livestock’s ‘Long Shadow’: The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet. Ethics & the Environment 16:63–93.
Herrero, M. et al. (2013). Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110:20888–20893.
Janssen, M. et al. (2016). Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite 105:643–651.
Latvala, T. et al. (2012). Diversifying meat consumption patterns: Consumers’ self-reported past behaviour and intentions for change. Meat Science 92:71–77.
Lee, L. and Simpson, I. (2016). Are We Eating Less Meat?: A British Social Attitudes Report. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/1116002/vegetarian-society-bsa-2014.pdf [Accessed: 22 November 2016].
Onwezen, M.C. and van der Weele, C.N. (2016). When indifference is ambivalence: Strategic ignorance about meat consumption. Food Quality and Preference 52:96–105.
Park, A., Bryson, C. and Curtice, J. (2014). British Social Attitudes: The 31st Report. [Online]. London. Available at: bsa-31.natcen.ac.uk [Accessed: 30 January 2017].
Peat, J. (2016). Vegan Food Sales Up By 1,500% in Past Year. The London Economic [Online]. Available at: http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/food-drink/vegan-food-sales-up-by-1500-... [Accessed: 11 December 2016].
Twine, R. (2014). Vegan Killjoys at the Table—Contesting Happiness and Negotiating Relationships with Food Practices. Societies 4:623–639.
Verplanken, B. and Wood, W. (2006). Interventions to Break and Create Consumer Habits. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 25:90–103.
Warde, A. (2014). After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture 14:279–303.
Warde, A. (2000). Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and Pleasure. Cambridge: Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
