- Email: [email protected]
Eating Sustainably
C H A P T E R
8 Eating Sustainably: Values, Attitudes and Identity I am a fan of Marks and Spencer. A big fan. During a recent stay in the United Kingdom, M&S was my go-to store for food. Their food hall is a delight. The store had vine-ripened cherry tomatoes, bright red and organic. They were expensive, though, and grown in Portugal. Perhaps locally grown British tomatoes would be better. They were definitely cheaper, but not organic. And the fresh, precut mangoes looked delicious, but according to the label, the mango pieces had come from more than one country, and were then packed in South Africa. That sounds like a lot of air miles. My favourites were probably the ‘now, later’ avocados: one is ready to eat now, the second you can ripen at home. Brilliant! Ah, wrapped in plastic. Eating sustainably is not easy. It is not made easy either. As a consumer, you may be wondering: what is better? Should I buy local, or organic? Where does this product come from and how did it get here? And what’s with all the plastic? (See Box 8.1.) The Food and Agricultural Organisation (2010) defines sustainable diets as ‘those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations’. They add that ‘sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources’. It is clear from this definition that sustainable food consumption is an issue with interrelated aspects, including health and the environment. The question of how people make decisions about what they eat has concerned many scholars from many fields for many decades. Health and nutrition specialists grapple with the question of why despite health campaigns urging people to eat ‘five a day’ our intake of fruit and vegetables has not changed all that much (Nestle, 2007).
Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811359-2.00008-1
113
© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
114
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
BOX 8.1
THE CARBON FOOTPRINT O F W H AT W E E AT In his book How Bad are Bananas?, Mike Berners-Lee (2011) calculates the carbon footprint of everything. He bases his analysis on life-cycle assessment (LCA), which is ‘a standardized methodological framework used to calculate the environmental impact of a product, process, or service throughout its lifecycle’ (Hallstro¨m, Carlsson-Kanyama, & Bo¨rjesson, 2015, p. 1). LCA enables researchers to identify all the processes that have to happen to, for example, grow an apple, or an orange, and calculate the emissions at each step. This includes the use of fossil fuel-based pesticides, use of plastic packaging and transport-related emissions in the journey from farm to plate expressed in the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq). Apples and oranges are pretty good from a carbon point of view. They are grown outside (not in a greenhouse, which requires fossil fuel-based heating), transported by boat (not by air, which requires more fossil fuels) and there is hardly any plastic packaging involved. According to Berners-Lee, the bright red organic vine-ripened cherry tomatoes I was eyeing up in M&S could well have an impressive carbon footprint. He estimates that adding the carbon emissions of producing 1 kg of cherry tomatoes grown out of season, in a greenhouse could amount to 50 kg of CO2-equivalent. To compare, he estimates the carbon footprint of a banana at 80 g.
Sociologists and anthropologists focus on the social and cultural meanings of how people experience food in everyday life (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991) and how food choices can be expressions of people’s environmental and civic engagement (Seyfang, 2006). Psychologists ask, what motivates people to eat sustainably, and why do positive attitudes towards sustainable foods not translate into sustainable food choices? Psychologists study the individual determinants of food choices, such as values, identity and attitudes (De Boer, De Witt, & Aiking, 2016; Kalof, Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1999). In this chapter, I focus on people’s individual motivations to eat foods with a low environmental impact, and this includes (1) reducing the consumption of meat and dairy, (2) eating organic foods and (3) eating local foods. Many people indicate they buy locally produced foods at least some of the time, but people are less willing to buy organic foods, and even more reluctant to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy (Lea & Worsley, 2008; Tobler, Visschers, & Siegrist, 2011).
IV. FOOD
THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF EATING MEAT
115
But, from a climate change perspective, reducing meat consumption can achieve more substantive reductions in emissions than buying locally sourced food (Weber & Matthews, 2008). What are the motivations for people to choose organic, local and plant-based diets? And how well do theoretical models from psychology explain people’s intentions and behaviours in these three domains?
THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF EATING MEAT Worldwide, industrial animal agriculture accounts for approximately 15% 18% of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) greenhouse gas emissions per year (Gerber et al., 2013; Steinfeld, Gerber, Wassenaar, Castel, & De Haan, 2006). These emissions include methane from belching (methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, but has a shorter life span in the atmosphere), nitrous oxide from the use of fertilisers and carbon emissions from the use of machinery. There are other environmental problems associated with industrial animal agriculture, including but not limited to deforestation, loss of biodiversity, leaching of excess nitrogen, land use changes, and depletion and pollution of available freshwater (Gerber et al., 2013; Steinfeld et al., 2006). With increased population and affluence, global demand for livestock products is projected to increase by 70% by 2050 (Gerber et al., 2013). Technological innovations in agriculture, such as the development of methane inhibitors, can reduce the climate burden of modern industrial agriculture. In affluent countries, at least, a reduction in meat and dairy consumption is also necessary to lower the climate impacts of the food system. A review of the literature (Hallstro¨m et al., 2015) finds that changing from a meat-based to a vegetarian diet achieves average emission reductions of 540 kg CO2-equivalent per person per year; going vegan reduces emissions by an average of 760 kg of CO2-equivalent per person per year. These estimates will depend on the foods that are used to substitute meat. Vegetarian diets that contain high amounts of cheese achieve lower carbon savings, because dairy products have a high climate impact (see, e.g., Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonza´lez, 2009). People are not necessarily aware of the climate impacts of meat consumption (Campbell-Arvai, 2015; De Boer et al., 2016; Lea & Worsley, 2008). A qualitative piece of research included focus groups and interviews with 90 people from Scotland and the results suggest that people were largely unaware of the link between meat consumption and climate change. People thought their personal meat consumption played only a minor role in the context of climate change (Macdiarmid, Douglas, & Campbell, 2016). Campbell-Arvai (2015) conducted interviews with
IV. FOOD
116
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
university students in the United States and found that ‘[u]nprompted, few students discussed environmental issues when they described the factors that are important to them in their food choices’ (p. 290). These students considered vegetarian diets to be one of the least effective ways of mitigating the environmental impact of their food choices. Quantitative studies confirm this pattern. Based on survey data, De Boer et al. (2016) found that only 12% of people in a Dutch sample and 6% of people in a US sample were aware of the climate impacts of meat consumption. Public awareness of the environmental impacts of meat and dairy production is starting to rise. Research findings suggest that more and more people are gradually phasing out meat from their diets. The rise in number of flexitarians people who are vegetarian most of the time, but sometimes still eat meat, or who have significantly reduced the amount of meat they eat attests to this trend. A Dutch study (Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013) asked people about their meat-eating patterns in 2009 and again in 2011. The researchers found that the proportion of carnivores (i.e., those who were eating meat as part of their dinner seven times a week) declined from 26.7% (in 2009) to 18.4% (in 2011), and the proportion of meat reducers (i.e., those who were eating meat with their dinner only one or two times a week) increased from 11.6% (in 2009) to 14.8% (in 2011). Based on their findings, Dagevos and Voordouw note: Consumer receptivity to [. . .] a “war on meat” is unlikely because the great majority do not regard vegetarianism as an attractive alternative. Apparently, giving up meat is not easy, particularly in a carnivorous food culture. However, evidence suggests that reducing the number of weekly meat meals is a moderate way to induce behaviour change that is acceptable and attainable for many consumers. (p. 7)
PART-TIME VEGANS AND FLEXITARIANS Different diets limit the frequency, portion size and types of meat and dairy products (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Ruby, 2012). A vegetarian diet usually means an absence of meat, but variations include lactoovo-vegetarian (includes dairy and eggs), lacto-vegetarian (includes dairy) and pescatarian (includes fish). Vegan diets exclude all foods from animal origin. People fall along a spectrum of veganism and vegetarianism; some people would self-identify as vegan, but occasionally eat dairy, or identify as a vegetarian but sometimes eat meat or fish. A recent review (Ruby, 2012) indicates that the proportion of vegetarianism in the population lies around the 1% 3% mark in the United States,
IV. FOOD
FACTORS RELATED TO MEAT CONSUMPTION
117
the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand; around 6% 8% in Canada, Germany and Ireland; and 40% in India. The Guardian describes that, in the United Kingdom, the adoption of plant-based diets has gone from ‘a fringe movement’ to ‘mainstream veganism’. According to figures published in The Guardian, in 2016, about 500,000 people indicated they were vegan, a reported increase of 350% since 2006; and 20% of those under 35 said they have tried a vegan diet (Hancox, 2018). People shift to vegetarian and vegan diets for a number of reasons, including health, environmental sustainability, moral considerations and animal welfare (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Fox & Ward, 2008). Health motivations are predominant and include the benefits of vegetarian diets for personal health and preventing disease. For example, people who eat diets low in red meat have a reduced risk of incurring coronary heart disease and type II diabetes (McEvoy, Temple, & Woodside, 2012).
FACTORS RELATED TO MEAT CONSUMPTION Research on the individual determinants of meat consumption and vegetarianism spans the spectrum from general values (from Schwartz’s values theory) to specific behavioural beliefs and attitudes (see Table 8.1). Several researchers have used the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (see Chapter 2: Understanding the Drivers of Human Behaviour). This theory includes people’s intentions to reduce their meat consumption, people’s opinions about eating meat (‘attitudes’), what other people think about meat consumption (‘subjective norms’) and people’s ability to reduce their intake of meat (‘perceived behavioural control’). These TPB studies generally find that intentions to reduce meat consumption are associated with attitudes towards eating meat, attitudes towards vegetarian foods and perceived behavioural control. People who have more favourable attitudes towards meat are less willing to reduce their meat consumption, while people with more positive attitudes towards vegetarian foods, and those who think they are capable of reducing meat consumption, are more likely to say they intend to reduce their consumption of meat (Carfora, Caso, & Conner, 2017; Grac¸a, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Sparks, Conner, James, Shepherd, & Povey, 2001; Sparks & Guthrie, 1998). In these studies, subjective norms are generally not related to intentions to reduce meat consumption. Study findings also suggest that when applied to food choices, the variables from the theory of planned behaviour are not sufficient to explain the variation in food choices. Scholars have used two extra concepts, in particular: self-identity and values.
IV. FOOD
TABLE 8.1 Details of the Studies Discussed in This Chapter Author (year)
Country & sample size
Theory
Sample
Outcome measure(s)
Findings
MEAT CONSUMPTION Campbell-Arvai (2015)
United States (N 5 320)
Values, beliefs, NEP
University students
Self-reported food behaviours (incl. meat)
Biospheric values, environmental beliefs (but not NEP) predict food-related behaviours
De Boer et al. (2007) 1 De Boer and Aiking (2011)
Netherlands (N 5 1530)
Values theory
General public (stratified sampling); meat eaters only
Self-reported meat consumption
Universalism related to lower meat consumption, eating free-range meat (2007), preference for plant-based meals (2011)
De Boer, Scho¨sler, and Boersema, (2013)
Netherlands (N 5 1083)
Values theory
General public (stratified sampling)
Self-reported meat consumption; willingness to reduce
Care for nature related to meat consumption and willingness to eat meat-free
Carfora et al. (2017)
Italy (N 5 342)
TPB 1 identity
Students
Intention to reduce red meat consumption
PBC strongest predictor; followed by attitudes and identity
Grac¸a et al. (2015)
United States (N 5 318)
TPB
General public
Intention to reduce meat consumption
Attitudes strongest predictor, followed by PBC
Hayley, Zinkiewicz, and Hardiman, 2015
Australia (N 5 202)
Values Theory
Convenience sample
Self-reported meat consumption
Universalism negatively and power and security positively related to meat consumption
Sparks and Guthrie (1998)
United Kingdom (N 5 235) Denmark (N 5 242) Finland (N 5 239)
TPB, identity, personal norm
General public
Intention to eat a diet low in animal fats
Attitudes and identity predictors of intentions in all three countries
Vermeir and Verbeke (2008)
Belgium (N 5 456)
TPB
Young adults
Intention to consume sustainable dairy
Attitude strongest predictor, then subjective norm, PCE, and perceived availability
ORGANIC Arvola et al. (2008)
Italy (N 5 202) Finland (N 5 270) United Kingdom (N 5 200)
TPB 1 moral attitudes
General public (30% buy organic food weekly)
Intentions to buy organic apples and ready-to-cook pizza
Attitudes, moral attitude, subjective norm related to intentions; some country differences
Chen (2007)
Taiwan (N 5 470)
TPB
General public
Intention to buy organic foods
Attitudes strongest predictor, then subjective norm and PBC
Dean et al. (2012)
England (N 5 500)
TPB, identity, personal norm
Convenience sample
Intention to buy organic tomatoes
Attitudes, subjective norm and green identity predict intentions
Honkanen et al. (2006)
Norway (N 5 1283)
Ecological motivations
General public (representative sample)
Intention to buy organic food
Ecological motives related to attitudes; attitudes related to intentions
Michaelidou and Hassan (2008)
Scotland (N 5 222)
Identity
Convenience sample (on the Isle of Arran)
Intention to buy organic food
Ethical self-identity predicts attitudes and intentions
Thøgersen and ¨ lander (2006) O
Denmark (N 5 1520)
TPB 1 personal norm
General public (panel study over three years)
Purchase frequency of buying organic milk
Personal norm strongest predictor of behaviour, then perceived cost
Zagata (2012)
Czech Republic (N 5 1054)
TPB
Regular organic consumers
Intention to buy organic foods (dairy, meat, bread, vegetables)
Subjective norm strongest predictor, followed by attitudes and PBC
Zhou et al. (2013)
China (N 5 479)
TPB 1 values
Consumers at supermarkets
Intention to buy organic vegetables
Attitudes strongest predictor, then PBC; self-transcendence values moderate these relationships
(Continued)
TABLE 8.1 (Continued) Author (year)
Country & sample size
Theory
Sample
Outcome measure(s)
Findings
Kumar and Smith (2017)
United States (N 5 502)
TPB
Convenience sample of local food consumers
Intention to buy local food
Attitudes strongest predictor of intentions, then subjective norm
Nurse Rainbolt et al. (2012)
United States (N 5 1296);
TPB
Grocery shoppers
Willingness to pay (WTP) for locally grown apples
Subjective norm and PCE related to WTP
Shin and Hancer (2016)
United States (N 5 751)
TPB, moral norm
General public
Intention to buy local food
Attitudes strongest predictor, then moral norms and PBC
LOCAL
FACTORS RELATED TO MEAT CONSUMPTION
121
The Role of Identity Self-identity is defined as an individual’s adoption of particular groups (e.g., ‘I am vegan’) and/or traits (‘I am honest’) as part of their self-concept (Fleming & Petty, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). It encompasses a person’s uniqueness expressed through one’s values, attitudes and opinions. There is reciprocity between identity and food consumption. Identity can give an explanation for a stability in dietary choices: when people see themselves as a healthy person, they will (aim to) eat healthy foods. Similarly, food choices can mark somebody’s identity and distinctiveness. Qualitative research indicates that people develop (and alter) their food identities based on preferred eating habits (e.g., developed in childhood), personal preferences and by comparing their eating patterns with relevant others (Fox & Ward, 2008). Quantitative work by Paul Sparks and colleagues finds that the identity concept can have additional explanatory value over and above constructs such as attitudes. In one of these studies, Sparks and Guthrie (1998) examined the determinants of intentions to eat a diet low in animal fats. They extended the theory of planned behaviour with a concept they called ‘health-conscious identity’. This referred to the extent to which people thought of themselves as somebody who is concerned about the health effects of their food choices. The researchers conducted surveys in the United Kingdom, Denmark and Finland. The findings demonstrated that in these countries, the three variables from the theory of planned behaviour were predictive of intentions to eat a diet low in animal fats, but to different degrees. For example, perceived behavioural control was a significant predictor of behavioural intentions in Finland and Denmark, but not in the United Kingdom (perhaps due to differences in availability of meat substitutes in these countries). But in all three countries, the concept of health-conscious identity significantly predicted behavioural intentions, over and above the TPB variables. People who more strongly identified as being a health-conscious person expressed a stronger willingness to reduce their intake of animal fats. A more recent study from Italy (Carfora et al., 2017) focused on the role of a meat-eating identity. This refers to the extent to which somebody identifies with being a meat eater (measured by questions such as ‘I am someone who likes meat with every meal’). In this study, undergraduate students were asked to keep an online daily food diary for a period of 1 week. In this online diary, students selected which foods they had eaten for breakfast, lunch and dinner, plus any snacks they had consumed in between meals. They were also asked to state their intention to eat a recommended amount of two medium sized portions of red meat per week. The results indicate that more positive attitudes towards eating the recommended portions of red meat were associated with
IV. FOOD
122
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
stronger behavioural intentions, and that when students had a higher perceived control over eating two portions of red meat per week, they expressed stronger intentions to do so (subjective norms were unrelated to intentions). In addition to attitudes and perceived behavioural control, identification with being a meat eater was negatively associated with intentions to reduce red meat consumption. Students who more strongly identified with being a meat eater were significantly less likely to express an intention to eat the recommended two portions of red meat. From an identity perspective, the meanings people attach to eating meat are important: people choose to consume meat because the meanings of meat are consistent with their self-concept (Allen, Wilson, Ng, & Dunne, 2000). If eating meat, or being healthy, is an important part of someone’s self-concept, eating meat confirms this identity. As identities are relatively enduring, stable traits people ascribe to themselves, they may form a barrier to reduce meat consumption. Indeed, information campaigns that aim to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption may be interpreted as a threat to somebody’s identity as a meat eater (Abrahamse, Gatersleben, & Uzzell, 2009). The association that is found between identity and meat consumption may partly help explain why people are generally reluctant to give up meat.
Values and Meat Consumption Values, as guiding principles in people’s lives, influence food choices. According to Schwartz’s values theory (outlined in Chapter 2: Understanding the Drivers of Human Behaviour), human values arrange themselves along two dimensions: self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values and openness to change versus tradition values. Studies consistently report that meat consumption is associated with self-enhancement values and vegetarianism is related to selftranscendence values (Allen et al., 2000; De Boer, Hoogland, & Boersema, 2007; Graham & Abrahamse, 2017; Kalof et al., 1999). Self-enhancement values include the values of power and authority over others, which may explain why those who more strongly endorse self-enhancement values tend to eat meat more often, compared with those with weaker self-enhancement values (Allen et al., 2000; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). People with strong universalism and care for nature values are more likely to report being a vegetarian (or report eating less meat). Universalism values describe a desire to protect the welfare of people, animals and nature, which explains the positive relationship between universalism and vegetarianism. Openness to change values are generally positively associated with vegetarianism, presumably because vegetarians move away from conventional dietary practices centred around meat. Vermeir and Verbeke
IV. FOOD
FACTORS RELATED TO MEAT CONSUMPTION
123
(2008) found weak correlations between tradition values and sustainable dairy consumption in a study of Belgian young adults. Traditional values (e.g., humble, devout, respect traditions) were positively related to intentions to buy sustainable dairy. Other researchers have suggested that the relationships between openness to change and tradition values and meat consumption are generally not very strong (Graham & Abrahamse, 2017; Kalof et al., 1999). The relationships between values and meat consumption hold true in different countries. Early work by Linda Kalof, Tom Dietz and Paul Stern (Kalof et al., 1999) used a representative sample of about 400 US residents, of whom 5% indicated they were vegetarian. When controlled for socio-demographics, such as age, gender and education, selftranscendence (altruistic) values were positively associated with vegetarianism. People with stronger altruistic values were more likely to report being vegetarian. The study also found that tradition values were negatively related to vegetarianism: those who strongly valued custom and tradition were more likely to report being meat eaters. In Europe, De Boer and colleagues have conducted a series of studies with large, broadly representative samples of the Dutch population. They have generally found negative relationships between universalism and care for nature values and meat consumption (De Boer & Aiking, 2011; De Boer et al., 2007). For example, De Boer et al. (2007) recruited 1500 people for their study (of whom 1.6% indicated they did not eat meat). They used a stratified sampling procedure, which resulted in a sample broadly representative of the Dutch population. Using the Portrait Values Questionnaire (see Chapter 2: Understanding the Drivers of Human Behaviour), people were classified along the 10 value types (e.g., universalism, hedonism). When controlled for sociodemographic variables, people with stronger universalism values were more likely to have a diet higher in free-range meat or a diet with less meat altogether. In two smaller scale studies with female participants from Finland, Lindeman and Sirelius (2001) examined the relationships between values (measured via the Schwartz Values Scale) and food preferences. They composed different ‘ideologies’ based on these values. In both studies, the researchers found that vegetarians were more likely to endorse a stronger ecological ideology (which included universalism values) compared with omnivores. Study findings from New Zealand (Allen et al., 2000; Graham & Abrahamse, 2017) and Australia (Hayley et al., 2015; Lea & Worsley, 2001) also suggest that values are key determinants of meat consumption. These studies have found that people who self-identified as vegetarians more strongly valued self-transcendence values (e.g., equality and social justice). In contrast, people who more strongly endorsed self-enhancement values (e.g., hierarchical domination and social power) were more likely to
IV. FOOD
124
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
self-identify as meat eaters, express more positive attitudes towards eating meat and report eating more meat. Taken together, the findings indicate that interventions that are aimed at encouraging a reduction in meat consumption should take factors such as values, identity and attitudes into consideration. An information campaign to reduce meat consumption could be framed in terms of people’s self-transcendence values, for example by emphasising the climate impacts of eating meat, so that the message aligns with what is important to people (see Chapter 9: Encouraging Sustainable Food Choices).
MOTIVATIONS TO BUY ORGANIC FOOD The organic movement started with Rachel Carson. In her book Silent Spring, published in 1962, Carson a marine biologist warned against the growing use of toxic pesticides and chemicals in our food and our environment. She was deeply concerned about the proliferation of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers that were produced from toxic compounds after World War II. Silent Spring sold hundreds of thousands of copies worldwide, and as a result, people have become more aware of the chemicals used in food production. Organic foods are grown according to a number of principles. Organic foods are produced without artificial fertilisers, antibiotics and herbicides. Organic farming practices also include higher levels of animal welfare and environmentally sustainable land management, such as crop rotation. Organic food production is regulated in many countries. For example, organic foods that have been certified by the US Department of Agriculture carry a USDA label, and European countries have an EU-wide organic certification scheme. Consumer demand for organic products is growing. In the United States, for example, sales of organic foods increased by 8.4% in 2016, totalling US$47 billion and accounting for about 5% of all food sales in the country (Organic Trade Association, 2017). In the European Union, the market share of organic foods increased by 11% in 2016, worth 33.5 billion euros, and in Asian countries, such as China, the proportion of organic foods is rising (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, 2018). In spite of these indicators of growth, organic food consumption comprises a relatively small proportion of overall consumer spending. This partly has to do with the extra expense: the price premium on organics makes these products less affordable for people. Also, there is limited availability of certain foods because organic food production is largely based on seasonality. Research on what motivates people to buy organic foods is voluminous (for reviews, see Aertsens, Verbeke, Mondelaers, and Van
IV. FOOD
MOTIVATIONS TO BUY ORGANIC FOOD
125
Huylenbroeck, 2009; Hughner, McDonagh, Prothero, Shultz, and Stanton, 2007). Consistent findings emerge from this body of research about what motivates people to buy organic. What follows is a brief synthesis of some of these findings (for a summary, see Table 8.1).
Health, or the Environment? A common finding, especially in earlier work, is that people buy organic foods because of better taste, and perceived health benefits such as the wholesomeness of organics and absence of chemicals (e.g., Grankvist & Biel, 2001; Lea & Worsley, 2005; Magnusson, Arvola, ˚ berg, & Sjo¨de´n, 2003). People who more frequently buy Hursti, A organic foods tend to express a stronger sense of responsibility for their own health. Environmental or ethical considerations are a second cluster of motivations for organic food choices (Grankvist & Biel, 2001; Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Honkanen, Verplanken, & Olsen, 2006; Magnusson et al., 2003). A study from Norway (Honkanen et al., 2006) found that ecological motivations (measured by asking people about the importance of environmental and animal rights issues) were positively related to people’s attitudes towards organic food. This suggests that when people are more concerned about environmental and animal welfare issues, they will also have a more positive attitude towards organic food (making it more likely they would buy organic food). Some studies have compared the relative importance of health and environmental concerns. The general consensus seems to be that health considerations play a more important role in people’s choices to buy organic foods than environmental benefits (Magnusson et al., 2003; Tregear, Dent, & McGregor, 1994; Wandel & Bugge, 1997). For example, Magnusson et al. (2003) measured people’s concerns about health (e.g., ‘improve my own or my family’s health’) and environmental concerns (e.g., ‘improve the state of the environment’). The study found that health concerns were stronger predictors of both attitudes and intentions to buy four types of organic foods (milk, bread, potatoes and meat) than environmental concerns. Health concerns were predictive of intentions to buy all four types of organic foods, whereas environmental concerns only predicted intentions to buy organic milk.
Organic Food Choices and the Theory of Planned Behaviour Researchers frequently apply the theory of planned behaviour when predicting organic food consumption. Attitudes towards organic foods refer to people’s beliefs about organic foods (and their positive or
IV. FOOD
126
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
negative evaluation of these beliefs), such as taste, health and the environment. Subjective norms refer to perceived social pressure to buy organic foods, that is, when important other people endorse the purchase of organic foods, people will likely have stronger intentions to buy organic foods. Perceived behavioural control refers to people’s perceptions of personal control over what they buy and eat and includes factors such as time, affordability, availability and recognition of organic products (e.g., organic labelling). In studies on consumer food choices, perceived behavioural control is often divided into two separate variables, called perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and perceived availability. PCE refers to an individual’s perceived belief that her or his purchase will achieve an end goal (e.g., ‘I believe that by purchasing certain kinds of food, I can have a substantial positive impact on the environment’). Perceived availability refers to consumer perceptions of the availability of organic foods where they would normally shop for groceries. Intentions to buy organic instead of conventional foods are most strongly correlated with attitudes towards organic foods (e.g., Arvola et al., 2008; Chen, 2007; Zhou, Thøgersen, Ruan, & Huang, 2013). People who have more positive attitudes towards organic foods express stronger intentions to buy organic foods. Subjective norms (e.g., whether important other people endorse buying organic) are also often a significant predictor of behavioural intentions. Perceived behavioural control is generally not, or only weakly, related to behavioural intentions (Scalco, Noventa, Sartori, & Ceschi, 2017). There appear to be some differences between countries in terms of how important these three variables are to people. Arvola et al. (2008) compared the importance of the variables of the theory of planned behaviour to explain intentions to buy organic apples (instead of conventional ones) in three European countries (Italy, Finland and the United Kingdom). The survey included the standard TPB measures of attitudes using a semantic differential (e.g., ‘Buying organic apples instead of conventional apples is harmful/beneficial’), subjective norm (e.g., ‘Most people I value would buy organic apples instead of conventional apples’) and perceived behavioural control (e.g., ‘If I wanted to, it would be possible for me to buy organic apples instead of conventional apples’). In all three countries, attitudes towards organic apples were positively associated with intentions to buy organic apples. Perceived behavioural control was unrelated to behavioural intentions in the three countries. But, the role of subjective norms was different in the three places: in the United Kingdom and Finland, subjective norms were associated with intentions to purchase organic apples, while in Italy, subjective norm was unrelated to intentions. A study of consumers in the Czech Republic who regularly buy organic food found that subjective
IV. FOOD
MOTIVATIONS TO BUY ORGANIC FOOD
127
norms were the most important predictor of intentions to buy organic foods (Zagata, 2012). The author attributes this to the specific context of the Czech organic market, where consumer knowledge about organic food is relatively low, and argues that in deciding whether to by organic foods, people may then rely more on what other people think about organic food. A recent meta-analysis on the use of the theory of planned behaviour in the domain of organic food consumption indicates that it is a suitable model for explaining willingness to buy organic foods (Scalco et al., 2017), explaining between 50% and 80% of the variance in intentions to buy organic foods. However, the study authors draw attention to the fact that most studies included a measure of behavioural intentions, but not organic purchasing behaviours, and call for more research on the determinants of organic food choices. There is also relatively little research comparing the determinants of different types of organic food groups. The study findings by Arvola et al. (2008) and by Magnusson et al. (2003) discussed above indicate that different organic food products might be related to different determinants. More research is needed to explore the determinants of different behaviours. If a choice for certain organic products is mainly driven by environmental concerns (e.g., milk), while others are driven more by health concerns (e.g., meat), then campaigns to promote the uptake of specific organic food groups could emphasise these aspects more prominently. Researchers have added other concepts to the theory of planned behaviour, to increase the explanatory power of the model. Most often, researchers have used the personal norm concept (i.e., moral considerations) from the norm-activation model, the self-identity concept (discussed earlier in this chapter) and the Schwartz values.
Moral Considerations Organic food consumption can be considered a form of moral decision making (i.e., ‘doing the right thing’). Following the reasoning of the norm-activation model, discussed in Chapter 2, Understanding the Drivers of Human Behaviour, when people are aware of the positive consequences of organic food production (no chemicals, seasonality) and assume responsibility for these consequences (organic food benefits individual health and wellbeing), they may develop a moral obligation (personal norm) to buy organic foods. Personal norms are indeed related to intentions to purchase organic ¨ lander (2006) used a longitudinal panel food products. Thøgersen and O study to examine whether the personal norm concept was able to
IV. FOOD
128
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
predict intentions to buy organic milk and organic milk consumption over time. They recruited a broadly representative sample of the Danish population (N 5 1520), and measured the variables from the theory of planned behaviour, and personal norms over a period of three years. The personal norm construct was added to the TPB model and was measured via two questions: ‘I feel I should choose organic instead of conventional milk for the sake of the environment’, and ‘I get a bad conscience if I choose conventional instead of organic milk’. The results indicate that personal norms were a stronger predictor of buying organic milk than attitudes and subjective norms were. Other research, the previously mentioned study by Arvola et al. (2008), confirms this relationship between moral considerations and organic food choices in a cross-national context. They found that in their sample from the United Kingdom and Italy, the concept of moral norms significantly predicted intentions to buy organic foods over and above the TPB variables (but in the Finnish sample it did not). The findings suggest that in some countries at least marketing efforts could consider moral considerations (‘doing the right thing’) in the context of promoting organic food choices.
Identity Self-identity refers to stable and prominent aspects of one’s selfperception (e.g., ‘I think of myself as a green consumer’; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). Researchers have added the concept of self-identity to the theory of planned behaviour in studies that explain organic food consumption choices. One of the first studies in this area found that people who more strongly identified as green consumers had stronger intentions to buy organic vegetables (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). The self-identity concept added significantly to the prediction of intentions, over and above attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control. More recent studies (Dean, Raats, & Shepherd, 2012; Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008) also find that self-identity independently contributes to the prediction of behavioural intentions. A Scottish study focused on the concept of ethical self-identity. This refers to the extent to which ethical considerations are a part of somebody’s identity, or whether people consider themselves to be ‘ethical consumers’. In this study, ethical selfidentity was positively associated with intentions to purchase organic foods (Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008). This suggests that when ethical issues are central to an individual’s self-identity, this may foster stronger intentions to purchase organics.
IV. FOOD
LOCAL: THE NEW ORGANIC?
129
Values Researchers have also explored the relationship between values and organic food consumption. Study findings indicate that the consumption of organic foods is most strongly associated with values from the selftranscendence/self-enhancement dimension in Schwartz’s typology, such as universalism and benevolence (Krystallis, Vassallo, Chryssohoidis, & Perrea, 2008; Lea & Worsley, 2005). Krystallis et al. (2008) found that universalism and benevolence were the most important values in predicting regular organic consumption in a sample of over a thousand Greek consumers. In an Australian study, Lea and Worsley (2005) found that values related to care for nature and social equality were positively associated with beliefs about organic foods. And a study among Chinese consumers (Zhou et al., 2013) found that intentions to buy organic vegetables were determined by attitudes towards organic vegetables and levels of perceived behavioural control to buy organic vegetables. Self-transcendence values moderated these relationships; indeed, strengthened them. For example, when people had strong self-transcendence values the relationship between their attitudes towards organic foods and their intentions to buy organic foods was stronger compared with when people had weak self-transcendence values. This suggests that self-transcendence values can strengthen the attitude intention relationship. Self-transcendence values such as care for nature inform people’s attitudes and intentions to purchase organic foods, suggesting that values can be promising entry points for developing information campaigns to encourage the consumption of organic foods.
LOCAL: THE NEW ORGANIC? In 2007, the term locavore was declared new word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary (Grist, 2007). It was defined as ‘a person who endeavours to eat only locally produced food’. The term local refers to a food system where food is produced and sold within a certain geographic area. Adams and Salois (2010, p. 331) point out that while organic foods are generally clearly defined and have certified labelling programs, local food is ‘a more abstract concept, with definitions often varying by consumer perceptions’. Is local within a distance of 50 miles, or 100 miles? Does local mean within the boundaries of a province or state, or to the country border? Other scholars argue that perhaps the term local refers to broader notions of citizenship, ethics and community engagement (see Seyfang, 2006). Local food consumption is a fast-growing movement with increased consumer spending (Adams & Salois, 2010). Connecting food producers
IV. FOOD
130
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
BOX 8.2
FOOD SECURITY Food security is defined by the Food and Agricultural Organisation as a situation when ‘all people at all times have physical or economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (cited in PinstrupAndersen, 2009, p. 5). Food security encompasses three key components: the availability of food (e.g., sufficient quantities), access to food (e.g., having sufficient resources) and the nutritional quality of food (e.g., quality and safety of food supply). Globalisation and increased international trade have fundamentally altered how the food system operates. For example, food production and distribution tend to be concentrated in large corporations, which can drive down the prices farmers receive; and increased use of mono-cropping makes crops more vulnerable to pests and diseases. The farmer-led La Via Campesina advocates for reform of modern agriculture and has grown into a large international social movement. La Via Campesina strives to make small-scale farmers and food producers more central to the food system by opposing big corporations, and resisting the intensification of farming and the proliferation of genetically modified seeds (Desmarais, 2012). Climate change is projected to have big impacts on crop yields around the globe, which will affect food security. Local food systems (e.g., farmers markets) are one way to ensure food security as they provide a buffer between consumers and global food markets. By buying local, consumers can support local economies and environmental sustainability.
and consumers in the same region (e.g., farmers’ markets) can result in more self-reliant food networks. Local food networks support local economies and help ensure food security (see Box 8.2). Local foods do not necessarily have a lower impact on the environment. The term ‘food miles’ has garnered attention in popular media and books, suggesting that the farther food travels, the more energy is used, and the more carbon is emitted. Various scholars have questioned the narrow focus on food miles as the main contributor to a product’s carbon footprint (Mila` i Canals, Cowell, Sim, & Basson, 2007; Saunders & Barber, 2008). For example, a study that compared the carbon footprint of New Zealand products shipped to the United Kingdom with that of their UK counterparts came to some surprising conclusions. Their analysis indicates that, because of differences in production practices, New Zealand dairy products used half the energy of UK dairy
IV. FOOD
FACTORS RELATED TO LOCAL FOOD CONSUMPTION
131
products, and imported New Zealand apples were 10% more efficient than locally grown UK apples, even when shipping was taken into account (Saunders & Barber, 2008). Another study found that seasonality is an important factor to take into consideration. New Zealand apples that are consumed in the Northern Hemisphere spring (when apples are in season in the Southern Hemisphere autumn) can have a similar carbon footprint to UK apples; in the Northern Hemisphere autumn, however, UK apples tend to have a lower footprint (Mila` i Canals et al., 2007). And lastly, it is not so much the distance travelled but the mode of transport that is used for this distance that influences a product’s food footprint. In his book How Bad Are Bananas?, Mike Berners-Lee explains that if you live in New York, a bottle of wine from California can actually have a higher carbon footprint than wine imported from France. The French wine has a smaller footprint because it will probably have arrived by boat, whereas the Californian wine will have arrived by truck; road transport results in higher carbon emissions than shipping.
FACTORS RELATED TO LOCAL FOOD CONSUMPTION In their review of the local food movement, Adams and Salois (2010) highlight that consumers consider locally produced foods to have health, environmental, economic and community benefits. Other benefits include better flavour, freshness, nutrition and food safety (Kumar & Smith, 2017). As with the organic food movement, local food consumers are motivated by a desire to move away from industrial agriculture. There is a lack of research on people’s individual motivations for local food choices (Zepeda & Li, 2006). Three studies from the United States have used the theory of planned behaviour to examine motivations to buy local foods. Kumar and Smith (2017) used a convenience sample of local food consumers (mostly female, mostly Caucasian) to examine the relationships between the variables from the theory of planned behaviour and intention to buy local foods. Health consciousness, concern about the environment and concern about the local economy were all positively associated with attitudes towards local foods. Attitudes towards local foods, in turn, were positively associated with behavioural intentions. Subjective norms (what other people think of local food consumption) were also correlated with intentions, but perceived behavioural control was unrelated to intention to purchase local foods. Nurse Rainbolt, Onozaka and McFadden (2012) found that subjective norms and PCE were positively associated with willingness to pay for local apples. And lastly, Shin and Hancer (2016) expanded the
IV. FOOD
132
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
TPB to include the concept of moral norm (‘doing the right thing’) and found that moral norms were positively associated with intentions to buy local food and that it explained variance in behavioural intentions, in addition to attitudes and perceived behavioural control. In this sense, these findings mirror what has been observed in the organic food literature.
EATING SUSTAINABLY: FROM THEORY TO INTERVENTION The research to date suggests that different categories of sustainable food choices are related to different determinants. Meat consumption and vegetarianism seem strongly guided by people’s self-enhancement and self-transcendence values, and to people’s identity; organic and local food consumption are most strongly related to attitudes, social norms and moral norms. This means that approaches to encourage sustainable food choices will need to address these different motivations depending on the type of food-related behaviour. Interventions to encourage sustainable food choices could also focus on raising awareness of the climate impacts of people’s food choices, as there seems to be a general lack of awareness of the environmental impacts of food consumption, and meat consumption in particular. The lack of awareness should perhaps come as no surprise. As Foley (2014) noted in a piece for National Geographic: ‘When we think about threats to the environment, we tend to picture cars and smokestacks, not dinner’ (p. 35).
IV. FOOD
8 Eating Sustainably: Values, Attitudes and Identity I am a fan of Marks and Spencer. A big fan. During a recent stay in the United Kingdom, M&S was my go-to store for food. Their food hall is a delight. The store had vine-ripened cherry tomatoes, bright red and organic. They were expensive, though, and grown in Portugal. Perhaps locally grown British tomatoes would be better. They were definitely cheaper, but not organic. And the fresh, precut mangoes looked delicious, but according to the label, the mango pieces had come from more than one country, and were then packed in South Africa. That sounds like a lot of air miles. My favourites were probably the ‘now, later’ avocados: one is ready to eat now, the second you can ripen at home. Brilliant! Ah, wrapped in plastic. Eating sustainably is not easy. It is not made easy either. As a consumer, you may be wondering: what is better? Should I buy local, or organic? Where does this product come from and how did it get here? And what’s with all the plastic? (See Box 8.1.) The Food and Agricultural Organisation (2010) defines sustainable diets as ‘those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations’. They add that ‘sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources’. It is clear from this definition that sustainable food consumption is an issue with interrelated aspects, including health and the environment. The question of how people make decisions about what they eat has concerned many scholars from many fields for many decades. Health and nutrition specialists grapple with the question of why despite health campaigns urging people to eat ‘five a day’ our intake of fruit and vegetables has not changed all that much (Nestle, 2007).
Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811359-2.00008-1
113
© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
114
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
BOX 8.1
THE CARBON FOOTPRINT O F W H AT W E E AT In his book How Bad are Bananas?, Mike Berners-Lee (2011) calculates the carbon footprint of everything. He bases his analysis on life-cycle assessment (LCA), which is ‘a standardized methodological framework used to calculate the environmental impact of a product, process, or service throughout its lifecycle’ (Hallstro¨m, Carlsson-Kanyama, & Bo¨rjesson, 2015, p. 1). LCA enables researchers to identify all the processes that have to happen to, for example, grow an apple, or an orange, and calculate the emissions at each step. This includes the use of fossil fuel-based pesticides, use of plastic packaging and transport-related emissions in the journey from farm to plate expressed in the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq). Apples and oranges are pretty good from a carbon point of view. They are grown outside (not in a greenhouse, which requires fossil fuel-based heating), transported by boat (not by air, which requires more fossil fuels) and there is hardly any plastic packaging involved. According to Berners-Lee, the bright red organic vine-ripened cherry tomatoes I was eyeing up in M&S could well have an impressive carbon footprint. He estimates that adding the carbon emissions of producing 1 kg of cherry tomatoes grown out of season, in a greenhouse could amount to 50 kg of CO2-equivalent. To compare, he estimates the carbon footprint of a banana at 80 g.
Sociologists and anthropologists focus on the social and cultural meanings of how people experience food in everyday life (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991) and how food choices can be expressions of people’s environmental and civic engagement (Seyfang, 2006). Psychologists ask, what motivates people to eat sustainably, and why do positive attitudes towards sustainable foods not translate into sustainable food choices? Psychologists study the individual determinants of food choices, such as values, identity and attitudes (De Boer, De Witt, & Aiking, 2016; Kalof, Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1999). In this chapter, I focus on people’s individual motivations to eat foods with a low environmental impact, and this includes (1) reducing the consumption of meat and dairy, (2) eating organic foods and (3) eating local foods. Many people indicate they buy locally produced foods at least some of the time, but people are less willing to buy organic foods, and even more reluctant to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy (Lea & Worsley, 2008; Tobler, Visschers, & Siegrist, 2011).
IV. FOOD
THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF EATING MEAT
115
But, from a climate change perspective, reducing meat consumption can achieve more substantive reductions in emissions than buying locally sourced food (Weber & Matthews, 2008). What are the motivations for people to choose organic, local and plant-based diets? And how well do theoretical models from psychology explain people’s intentions and behaviours in these three domains?
THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF EATING MEAT Worldwide, industrial animal agriculture accounts for approximately 15% 18% of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) greenhouse gas emissions per year (Gerber et al., 2013; Steinfeld, Gerber, Wassenaar, Castel, & De Haan, 2006). These emissions include methane from belching (methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, but has a shorter life span in the atmosphere), nitrous oxide from the use of fertilisers and carbon emissions from the use of machinery. There are other environmental problems associated with industrial animal agriculture, including but not limited to deforestation, loss of biodiversity, leaching of excess nitrogen, land use changes, and depletion and pollution of available freshwater (Gerber et al., 2013; Steinfeld et al., 2006). With increased population and affluence, global demand for livestock products is projected to increase by 70% by 2050 (Gerber et al., 2013). Technological innovations in agriculture, such as the development of methane inhibitors, can reduce the climate burden of modern industrial agriculture. In affluent countries, at least, a reduction in meat and dairy consumption is also necessary to lower the climate impacts of the food system. A review of the literature (Hallstro¨m et al., 2015) finds that changing from a meat-based to a vegetarian diet achieves average emission reductions of 540 kg CO2-equivalent per person per year; going vegan reduces emissions by an average of 760 kg of CO2-equivalent per person per year. These estimates will depend on the foods that are used to substitute meat. Vegetarian diets that contain high amounts of cheese achieve lower carbon savings, because dairy products have a high climate impact (see, e.g., Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonza´lez, 2009). People are not necessarily aware of the climate impacts of meat consumption (Campbell-Arvai, 2015; De Boer et al., 2016; Lea & Worsley, 2008). A qualitative piece of research included focus groups and interviews with 90 people from Scotland and the results suggest that people were largely unaware of the link between meat consumption and climate change. People thought their personal meat consumption played only a minor role in the context of climate change (Macdiarmid, Douglas, & Campbell, 2016). Campbell-Arvai (2015) conducted interviews with
IV. FOOD
116
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
university students in the United States and found that ‘[u]nprompted, few students discussed environmental issues when they described the factors that are important to them in their food choices’ (p. 290). These students considered vegetarian diets to be one of the least effective ways of mitigating the environmental impact of their food choices. Quantitative studies confirm this pattern. Based on survey data, De Boer et al. (2016) found that only 12% of people in a Dutch sample and 6% of people in a US sample were aware of the climate impacts of meat consumption. Public awareness of the environmental impacts of meat and dairy production is starting to rise. Research findings suggest that more and more people are gradually phasing out meat from their diets. The rise in number of flexitarians people who are vegetarian most of the time, but sometimes still eat meat, or who have significantly reduced the amount of meat they eat attests to this trend. A Dutch study (Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013) asked people about their meat-eating patterns in 2009 and again in 2011. The researchers found that the proportion of carnivores (i.e., those who were eating meat as part of their dinner seven times a week) declined from 26.7% (in 2009) to 18.4% (in 2011), and the proportion of meat reducers (i.e., those who were eating meat with their dinner only one or two times a week) increased from 11.6% (in 2009) to 14.8% (in 2011). Based on their findings, Dagevos and Voordouw note: Consumer receptivity to [. . .] a “war on meat” is unlikely because the great majority do not regard vegetarianism as an attractive alternative. Apparently, giving up meat is not easy, particularly in a carnivorous food culture. However, evidence suggests that reducing the number of weekly meat meals is a moderate way to induce behaviour change that is acceptable and attainable for many consumers. (p. 7)
PART-TIME VEGANS AND FLEXITARIANS Different diets limit the frequency, portion size and types of meat and dairy products (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Ruby, 2012). A vegetarian diet usually means an absence of meat, but variations include lactoovo-vegetarian (includes dairy and eggs), lacto-vegetarian (includes dairy) and pescatarian (includes fish). Vegan diets exclude all foods from animal origin. People fall along a spectrum of veganism and vegetarianism; some people would self-identify as vegan, but occasionally eat dairy, or identify as a vegetarian but sometimes eat meat or fish. A recent review (Ruby, 2012) indicates that the proportion of vegetarianism in the population lies around the 1% 3% mark in the United States,
IV. FOOD
FACTORS RELATED TO MEAT CONSUMPTION
117
the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand; around 6% 8% in Canada, Germany and Ireland; and 40% in India. The Guardian describes that, in the United Kingdom, the adoption of plant-based diets has gone from ‘a fringe movement’ to ‘mainstream veganism’. According to figures published in The Guardian, in 2016, about 500,000 people indicated they were vegan, a reported increase of 350% since 2006; and 20% of those under 35 said they have tried a vegan diet (Hancox, 2018). People shift to vegetarian and vegan diets for a number of reasons, including health, environmental sustainability, moral considerations and animal welfare (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Fox & Ward, 2008). Health motivations are predominant and include the benefits of vegetarian diets for personal health and preventing disease. For example, people who eat diets low in red meat have a reduced risk of incurring coronary heart disease and type II diabetes (McEvoy, Temple, & Woodside, 2012).
FACTORS RELATED TO MEAT CONSUMPTION Research on the individual determinants of meat consumption and vegetarianism spans the spectrum from general values (from Schwartz’s values theory) to specific behavioural beliefs and attitudes (see Table 8.1). Several researchers have used the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (see Chapter 2: Understanding the Drivers of Human Behaviour). This theory includes people’s intentions to reduce their meat consumption, people’s opinions about eating meat (‘attitudes’), what other people think about meat consumption (‘subjective norms’) and people’s ability to reduce their intake of meat (‘perceived behavioural control’). These TPB studies generally find that intentions to reduce meat consumption are associated with attitudes towards eating meat, attitudes towards vegetarian foods and perceived behavioural control. People who have more favourable attitudes towards meat are less willing to reduce their meat consumption, while people with more positive attitudes towards vegetarian foods, and those who think they are capable of reducing meat consumption, are more likely to say they intend to reduce their consumption of meat (Carfora, Caso, & Conner, 2017; Grac¸a, Calheiros, & Oliveira, 2015; Sparks, Conner, James, Shepherd, & Povey, 2001; Sparks & Guthrie, 1998). In these studies, subjective norms are generally not related to intentions to reduce meat consumption. Study findings also suggest that when applied to food choices, the variables from the theory of planned behaviour are not sufficient to explain the variation in food choices. Scholars have used two extra concepts, in particular: self-identity and values.
IV. FOOD
TABLE 8.1 Details of the Studies Discussed in This Chapter Author (year)
Country & sample size
Theory
Sample
Outcome measure(s)
Findings
MEAT CONSUMPTION Campbell-Arvai (2015)
United States (N 5 320)
Values, beliefs, NEP
University students
Self-reported food behaviours (incl. meat)
Biospheric values, environmental beliefs (but not NEP) predict food-related behaviours
De Boer et al. (2007) 1 De Boer and Aiking (2011)
Netherlands (N 5 1530)
Values theory
General public (stratified sampling); meat eaters only
Self-reported meat consumption
Universalism related to lower meat consumption, eating free-range meat (2007), preference for plant-based meals (2011)
De Boer, Scho¨sler, and Boersema, (2013)
Netherlands (N 5 1083)
Values theory
General public (stratified sampling)
Self-reported meat consumption; willingness to reduce
Care for nature related to meat consumption and willingness to eat meat-free
Carfora et al. (2017)
Italy (N 5 342)
TPB 1 identity
Students
Intention to reduce red meat consumption
PBC strongest predictor; followed by attitudes and identity
Grac¸a et al. (2015)
United States (N 5 318)
TPB
General public
Intention to reduce meat consumption
Attitudes strongest predictor, followed by PBC
Hayley, Zinkiewicz, and Hardiman, 2015
Australia (N 5 202)
Values Theory
Convenience sample
Self-reported meat consumption
Universalism negatively and power and security positively related to meat consumption
Sparks and Guthrie (1998)
United Kingdom (N 5 235) Denmark (N 5 242) Finland (N 5 239)
TPB, identity, personal norm
General public
Intention to eat a diet low in animal fats
Attitudes and identity predictors of intentions in all three countries
Vermeir and Verbeke (2008)
Belgium (N 5 456)
TPB
Young adults
Intention to consume sustainable dairy
Attitude strongest predictor, then subjective norm, PCE, and perceived availability
ORGANIC Arvola et al. (2008)
Italy (N 5 202) Finland (N 5 270) United Kingdom (N 5 200)
TPB 1 moral attitudes
General public (30% buy organic food weekly)
Intentions to buy organic apples and ready-to-cook pizza
Attitudes, moral attitude, subjective norm related to intentions; some country differences
Chen (2007)
Taiwan (N 5 470)
TPB
General public
Intention to buy organic foods
Attitudes strongest predictor, then subjective norm and PBC
Dean et al. (2012)
England (N 5 500)
TPB, identity, personal norm
Convenience sample
Intention to buy organic tomatoes
Attitudes, subjective norm and green identity predict intentions
Honkanen et al. (2006)
Norway (N 5 1283)
Ecological motivations
General public (representative sample)
Intention to buy organic food
Ecological motives related to attitudes; attitudes related to intentions
Michaelidou and Hassan (2008)
Scotland (N 5 222)
Identity
Convenience sample (on the Isle of Arran)
Intention to buy organic food
Ethical self-identity predicts attitudes and intentions
Thøgersen and ¨ lander (2006) O
Denmark (N 5 1520)
TPB 1 personal norm
General public (panel study over three years)
Purchase frequency of buying organic milk
Personal norm strongest predictor of behaviour, then perceived cost
Zagata (2012)
Czech Republic (N 5 1054)
TPB
Regular organic consumers
Intention to buy organic foods (dairy, meat, bread, vegetables)
Subjective norm strongest predictor, followed by attitudes and PBC
Zhou et al. (2013)
China (N 5 479)
TPB 1 values
Consumers at supermarkets
Intention to buy organic vegetables
Attitudes strongest predictor, then PBC; self-transcendence values moderate these relationships
(Continued)
TABLE 8.1 (Continued) Author (year)
Country & sample size
Theory
Sample
Outcome measure(s)
Findings
Kumar and Smith (2017)
United States (N 5 502)
TPB
Convenience sample of local food consumers
Intention to buy local food
Attitudes strongest predictor of intentions, then subjective norm
Nurse Rainbolt et al. (2012)
United States (N 5 1296);
TPB
Grocery shoppers
Willingness to pay (WTP) for locally grown apples
Subjective norm and PCE related to WTP
Shin and Hancer (2016)
United States (N 5 751)
TPB, moral norm
General public
Intention to buy local food
Attitudes strongest predictor, then moral norms and PBC
LOCAL
FACTORS RELATED TO MEAT CONSUMPTION
121
The Role of Identity Self-identity is defined as an individual’s adoption of particular groups (e.g., ‘I am vegan’) and/or traits (‘I am honest’) as part of their self-concept (Fleming & Petty, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). It encompasses a person’s uniqueness expressed through one’s values, attitudes and opinions. There is reciprocity between identity and food consumption. Identity can give an explanation for a stability in dietary choices: when people see themselves as a healthy person, they will (aim to) eat healthy foods. Similarly, food choices can mark somebody’s identity and distinctiveness. Qualitative research indicates that people develop (and alter) their food identities based on preferred eating habits (e.g., developed in childhood), personal preferences and by comparing their eating patterns with relevant others (Fox & Ward, 2008). Quantitative work by Paul Sparks and colleagues finds that the identity concept can have additional explanatory value over and above constructs such as attitudes. In one of these studies, Sparks and Guthrie (1998) examined the determinants of intentions to eat a diet low in animal fats. They extended the theory of planned behaviour with a concept they called ‘health-conscious identity’. This referred to the extent to which people thought of themselves as somebody who is concerned about the health effects of their food choices. The researchers conducted surveys in the United Kingdom, Denmark and Finland. The findings demonstrated that in these countries, the three variables from the theory of planned behaviour were predictive of intentions to eat a diet low in animal fats, but to different degrees. For example, perceived behavioural control was a significant predictor of behavioural intentions in Finland and Denmark, but not in the United Kingdom (perhaps due to differences in availability of meat substitutes in these countries). But in all three countries, the concept of health-conscious identity significantly predicted behavioural intentions, over and above the TPB variables. People who more strongly identified as being a health-conscious person expressed a stronger willingness to reduce their intake of animal fats. A more recent study from Italy (Carfora et al., 2017) focused on the role of a meat-eating identity. This refers to the extent to which somebody identifies with being a meat eater (measured by questions such as ‘I am someone who likes meat with every meal’). In this study, undergraduate students were asked to keep an online daily food diary for a period of 1 week. In this online diary, students selected which foods they had eaten for breakfast, lunch and dinner, plus any snacks they had consumed in between meals. They were also asked to state their intention to eat a recommended amount of two medium sized portions of red meat per week. The results indicate that more positive attitudes towards eating the recommended portions of red meat were associated with
IV. FOOD
122
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
stronger behavioural intentions, and that when students had a higher perceived control over eating two portions of red meat per week, they expressed stronger intentions to do so (subjective norms were unrelated to intentions). In addition to attitudes and perceived behavioural control, identification with being a meat eater was negatively associated with intentions to reduce red meat consumption. Students who more strongly identified with being a meat eater were significantly less likely to express an intention to eat the recommended two portions of red meat. From an identity perspective, the meanings people attach to eating meat are important: people choose to consume meat because the meanings of meat are consistent with their self-concept (Allen, Wilson, Ng, & Dunne, 2000). If eating meat, or being healthy, is an important part of someone’s self-concept, eating meat confirms this identity. As identities are relatively enduring, stable traits people ascribe to themselves, they may form a barrier to reduce meat consumption. Indeed, information campaigns that aim to encourage people to reduce their meat consumption may be interpreted as a threat to somebody’s identity as a meat eater (Abrahamse, Gatersleben, & Uzzell, 2009). The association that is found between identity and meat consumption may partly help explain why people are generally reluctant to give up meat.
Values and Meat Consumption Values, as guiding principles in people’s lives, influence food choices. According to Schwartz’s values theory (outlined in Chapter 2: Understanding the Drivers of Human Behaviour), human values arrange themselves along two dimensions: self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values and openness to change versus tradition values. Studies consistently report that meat consumption is associated with self-enhancement values and vegetarianism is related to selftranscendence values (Allen et al., 2000; De Boer, Hoogland, & Boersema, 2007; Graham & Abrahamse, 2017; Kalof et al., 1999). Self-enhancement values include the values of power and authority over others, which may explain why those who more strongly endorse self-enhancement values tend to eat meat more often, compared with those with weaker self-enhancement values (Allen et al., 2000; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). People with strong universalism and care for nature values are more likely to report being a vegetarian (or report eating less meat). Universalism values describe a desire to protect the welfare of people, animals and nature, which explains the positive relationship between universalism and vegetarianism. Openness to change values are generally positively associated with vegetarianism, presumably because vegetarians move away from conventional dietary practices centred around meat. Vermeir and Verbeke
IV. FOOD
FACTORS RELATED TO MEAT CONSUMPTION
123
(2008) found weak correlations between tradition values and sustainable dairy consumption in a study of Belgian young adults. Traditional values (e.g., humble, devout, respect traditions) were positively related to intentions to buy sustainable dairy. Other researchers have suggested that the relationships between openness to change and tradition values and meat consumption are generally not very strong (Graham & Abrahamse, 2017; Kalof et al., 1999). The relationships between values and meat consumption hold true in different countries. Early work by Linda Kalof, Tom Dietz and Paul Stern (Kalof et al., 1999) used a representative sample of about 400 US residents, of whom 5% indicated they were vegetarian. When controlled for socio-demographics, such as age, gender and education, selftranscendence (altruistic) values were positively associated with vegetarianism. People with stronger altruistic values were more likely to report being vegetarian. The study also found that tradition values were negatively related to vegetarianism: those who strongly valued custom and tradition were more likely to report being meat eaters. In Europe, De Boer and colleagues have conducted a series of studies with large, broadly representative samples of the Dutch population. They have generally found negative relationships between universalism and care for nature values and meat consumption (De Boer & Aiking, 2011; De Boer et al., 2007). For example, De Boer et al. (2007) recruited 1500 people for their study (of whom 1.6% indicated they did not eat meat). They used a stratified sampling procedure, which resulted in a sample broadly representative of the Dutch population. Using the Portrait Values Questionnaire (see Chapter 2: Understanding the Drivers of Human Behaviour), people were classified along the 10 value types (e.g., universalism, hedonism). When controlled for sociodemographic variables, people with stronger universalism values were more likely to have a diet higher in free-range meat or a diet with less meat altogether. In two smaller scale studies with female participants from Finland, Lindeman and Sirelius (2001) examined the relationships between values (measured via the Schwartz Values Scale) and food preferences. They composed different ‘ideologies’ based on these values. In both studies, the researchers found that vegetarians were more likely to endorse a stronger ecological ideology (which included universalism values) compared with omnivores. Study findings from New Zealand (Allen et al., 2000; Graham & Abrahamse, 2017) and Australia (Hayley et al., 2015; Lea & Worsley, 2001) also suggest that values are key determinants of meat consumption. These studies have found that people who self-identified as vegetarians more strongly valued self-transcendence values (e.g., equality and social justice). In contrast, people who more strongly endorsed self-enhancement values (e.g., hierarchical domination and social power) were more likely to
IV. FOOD
124
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
self-identify as meat eaters, express more positive attitudes towards eating meat and report eating more meat. Taken together, the findings indicate that interventions that are aimed at encouraging a reduction in meat consumption should take factors such as values, identity and attitudes into consideration. An information campaign to reduce meat consumption could be framed in terms of people’s self-transcendence values, for example by emphasising the climate impacts of eating meat, so that the message aligns with what is important to people (see Chapter 9: Encouraging Sustainable Food Choices).
MOTIVATIONS TO BUY ORGANIC FOOD The organic movement started with Rachel Carson. In her book Silent Spring, published in 1962, Carson a marine biologist warned against the growing use of toxic pesticides and chemicals in our food and our environment. She was deeply concerned about the proliferation of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers that were produced from toxic compounds after World War II. Silent Spring sold hundreds of thousands of copies worldwide, and as a result, people have become more aware of the chemicals used in food production. Organic foods are grown according to a number of principles. Organic foods are produced without artificial fertilisers, antibiotics and herbicides. Organic farming practices also include higher levels of animal welfare and environmentally sustainable land management, such as crop rotation. Organic food production is regulated in many countries. For example, organic foods that have been certified by the US Department of Agriculture carry a USDA label, and European countries have an EU-wide organic certification scheme. Consumer demand for organic products is growing. In the United States, for example, sales of organic foods increased by 8.4% in 2016, totalling US$47 billion and accounting for about 5% of all food sales in the country (Organic Trade Association, 2017). In the European Union, the market share of organic foods increased by 11% in 2016, worth 33.5 billion euros, and in Asian countries, such as China, the proportion of organic foods is rising (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, 2018). In spite of these indicators of growth, organic food consumption comprises a relatively small proportion of overall consumer spending. This partly has to do with the extra expense: the price premium on organics makes these products less affordable for people. Also, there is limited availability of certain foods because organic food production is largely based on seasonality. Research on what motivates people to buy organic foods is voluminous (for reviews, see Aertsens, Verbeke, Mondelaers, and Van
IV. FOOD
MOTIVATIONS TO BUY ORGANIC FOOD
125
Huylenbroeck, 2009; Hughner, McDonagh, Prothero, Shultz, and Stanton, 2007). Consistent findings emerge from this body of research about what motivates people to buy organic. What follows is a brief synthesis of some of these findings (for a summary, see Table 8.1).
Health, or the Environment? A common finding, especially in earlier work, is that people buy organic foods because of better taste, and perceived health benefits such as the wholesomeness of organics and absence of chemicals (e.g., Grankvist & Biel, 2001; Lea & Worsley, 2005; Magnusson, Arvola, ˚ berg, & Sjo¨de´n, 2003). People who more frequently buy Hursti, A organic foods tend to express a stronger sense of responsibility for their own health. Environmental or ethical considerations are a second cluster of motivations for organic food choices (Grankvist & Biel, 2001; Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Honkanen, Verplanken, & Olsen, 2006; Magnusson et al., 2003). A study from Norway (Honkanen et al., 2006) found that ecological motivations (measured by asking people about the importance of environmental and animal rights issues) were positively related to people’s attitudes towards organic food. This suggests that when people are more concerned about environmental and animal welfare issues, they will also have a more positive attitude towards organic food (making it more likely they would buy organic food). Some studies have compared the relative importance of health and environmental concerns. The general consensus seems to be that health considerations play a more important role in people’s choices to buy organic foods than environmental benefits (Magnusson et al., 2003; Tregear, Dent, & McGregor, 1994; Wandel & Bugge, 1997). For example, Magnusson et al. (2003) measured people’s concerns about health (e.g., ‘improve my own or my family’s health’) and environmental concerns (e.g., ‘improve the state of the environment’). The study found that health concerns were stronger predictors of both attitudes and intentions to buy four types of organic foods (milk, bread, potatoes and meat) than environmental concerns. Health concerns were predictive of intentions to buy all four types of organic foods, whereas environmental concerns only predicted intentions to buy organic milk.
Organic Food Choices and the Theory of Planned Behaviour Researchers frequently apply the theory of planned behaviour when predicting organic food consumption. Attitudes towards organic foods refer to people’s beliefs about organic foods (and their positive or
IV. FOOD
126
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
negative evaluation of these beliefs), such as taste, health and the environment. Subjective norms refer to perceived social pressure to buy organic foods, that is, when important other people endorse the purchase of organic foods, people will likely have stronger intentions to buy organic foods. Perceived behavioural control refers to people’s perceptions of personal control over what they buy and eat and includes factors such as time, affordability, availability and recognition of organic products (e.g., organic labelling). In studies on consumer food choices, perceived behavioural control is often divided into two separate variables, called perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and perceived availability. PCE refers to an individual’s perceived belief that her or his purchase will achieve an end goal (e.g., ‘I believe that by purchasing certain kinds of food, I can have a substantial positive impact on the environment’). Perceived availability refers to consumer perceptions of the availability of organic foods where they would normally shop for groceries. Intentions to buy organic instead of conventional foods are most strongly correlated with attitudes towards organic foods (e.g., Arvola et al., 2008; Chen, 2007; Zhou, Thøgersen, Ruan, & Huang, 2013). People who have more positive attitudes towards organic foods express stronger intentions to buy organic foods. Subjective norms (e.g., whether important other people endorse buying organic) are also often a significant predictor of behavioural intentions. Perceived behavioural control is generally not, or only weakly, related to behavioural intentions (Scalco, Noventa, Sartori, & Ceschi, 2017). There appear to be some differences between countries in terms of how important these three variables are to people. Arvola et al. (2008) compared the importance of the variables of the theory of planned behaviour to explain intentions to buy organic apples (instead of conventional ones) in three European countries (Italy, Finland and the United Kingdom). The survey included the standard TPB measures of attitudes using a semantic differential (e.g., ‘Buying organic apples instead of conventional apples is harmful/beneficial’), subjective norm (e.g., ‘Most people I value would buy organic apples instead of conventional apples’) and perceived behavioural control (e.g., ‘If I wanted to, it would be possible for me to buy organic apples instead of conventional apples’). In all three countries, attitudes towards organic apples were positively associated with intentions to buy organic apples. Perceived behavioural control was unrelated to behavioural intentions in the three countries. But, the role of subjective norms was different in the three places: in the United Kingdom and Finland, subjective norms were associated with intentions to purchase organic apples, while in Italy, subjective norm was unrelated to intentions. A study of consumers in the Czech Republic who regularly buy organic food found that subjective
IV. FOOD
MOTIVATIONS TO BUY ORGANIC FOOD
127
norms were the most important predictor of intentions to buy organic foods (Zagata, 2012). The author attributes this to the specific context of the Czech organic market, where consumer knowledge about organic food is relatively low, and argues that in deciding whether to by organic foods, people may then rely more on what other people think about organic food. A recent meta-analysis on the use of the theory of planned behaviour in the domain of organic food consumption indicates that it is a suitable model for explaining willingness to buy organic foods (Scalco et al., 2017), explaining between 50% and 80% of the variance in intentions to buy organic foods. However, the study authors draw attention to the fact that most studies included a measure of behavioural intentions, but not organic purchasing behaviours, and call for more research on the determinants of organic food choices. There is also relatively little research comparing the determinants of different types of organic food groups. The study findings by Arvola et al. (2008) and by Magnusson et al. (2003) discussed above indicate that different organic food products might be related to different determinants. More research is needed to explore the determinants of different behaviours. If a choice for certain organic products is mainly driven by environmental concerns (e.g., milk), while others are driven more by health concerns (e.g., meat), then campaigns to promote the uptake of specific organic food groups could emphasise these aspects more prominently. Researchers have added other concepts to the theory of planned behaviour, to increase the explanatory power of the model. Most often, researchers have used the personal norm concept (i.e., moral considerations) from the norm-activation model, the self-identity concept (discussed earlier in this chapter) and the Schwartz values.
Moral Considerations Organic food consumption can be considered a form of moral decision making (i.e., ‘doing the right thing’). Following the reasoning of the norm-activation model, discussed in Chapter 2, Understanding the Drivers of Human Behaviour, when people are aware of the positive consequences of organic food production (no chemicals, seasonality) and assume responsibility for these consequences (organic food benefits individual health and wellbeing), they may develop a moral obligation (personal norm) to buy organic foods. Personal norms are indeed related to intentions to purchase organic ¨ lander (2006) used a longitudinal panel food products. Thøgersen and O study to examine whether the personal norm concept was able to
IV. FOOD
128
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
predict intentions to buy organic milk and organic milk consumption over time. They recruited a broadly representative sample of the Danish population (N 5 1520), and measured the variables from the theory of planned behaviour, and personal norms over a period of three years. The personal norm construct was added to the TPB model and was measured via two questions: ‘I feel I should choose organic instead of conventional milk for the sake of the environment’, and ‘I get a bad conscience if I choose conventional instead of organic milk’. The results indicate that personal norms were a stronger predictor of buying organic milk than attitudes and subjective norms were. Other research, the previously mentioned study by Arvola et al. (2008), confirms this relationship between moral considerations and organic food choices in a cross-national context. They found that in their sample from the United Kingdom and Italy, the concept of moral norms significantly predicted intentions to buy organic foods over and above the TPB variables (but in the Finnish sample it did not). The findings suggest that in some countries at least marketing efforts could consider moral considerations (‘doing the right thing’) in the context of promoting organic food choices.
Identity Self-identity refers to stable and prominent aspects of one’s selfperception (e.g., ‘I think of myself as a green consumer’; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). Researchers have added the concept of self-identity to the theory of planned behaviour in studies that explain organic food consumption choices. One of the first studies in this area found that people who more strongly identified as green consumers had stronger intentions to buy organic vegetables (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). The self-identity concept added significantly to the prediction of intentions, over and above attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control. More recent studies (Dean, Raats, & Shepherd, 2012; Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008) also find that self-identity independently contributes to the prediction of behavioural intentions. A Scottish study focused on the concept of ethical self-identity. This refers to the extent to which ethical considerations are a part of somebody’s identity, or whether people consider themselves to be ‘ethical consumers’. In this study, ethical selfidentity was positively associated with intentions to purchase organic foods (Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008). This suggests that when ethical issues are central to an individual’s self-identity, this may foster stronger intentions to purchase organics.
IV. FOOD
LOCAL: THE NEW ORGANIC?
129
Values Researchers have also explored the relationship between values and organic food consumption. Study findings indicate that the consumption of organic foods is most strongly associated with values from the selftranscendence/self-enhancement dimension in Schwartz’s typology, such as universalism and benevolence (Krystallis, Vassallo, Chryssohoidis, & Perrea, 2008; Lea & Worsley, 2005). Krystallis et al. (2008) found that universalism and benevolence were the most important values in predicting regular organic consumption in a sample of over a thousand Greek consumers. In an Australian study, Lea and Worsley (2005) found that values related to care for nature and social equality were positively associated with beliefs about organic foods. And a study among Chinese consumers (Zhou et al., 2013) found that intentions to buy organic vegetables were determined by attitudes towards organic vegetables and levels of perceived behavioural control to buy organic vegetables. Self-transcendence values moderated these relationships; indeed, strengthened them. For example, when people had strong self-transcendence values the relationship between their attitudes towards organic foods and their intentions to buy organic foods was stronger compared with when people had weak self-transcendence values. This suggests that self-transcendence values can strengthen the attitude intention relationship. Self-transcendence values such as care for nature inform people’s attitudes and intentions to purchase organic foods, suggesting that values can be promising entry points for developing information campaigns to encourage the consumption of organic foods.
LOCAL: THE NEW ORGANIC? In 2007, the term locavore was declared new word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary (Grist, 2007). It was defined as ‘a person who endeavours to eat only locally produced food’. The term local refers to a food system where food is produced and sold within a certain geographic area. Adams and Salois (2010, p. 331) point out that while organic foods are generally clearly defined and have certified labelling programs, local food is ‘a more abstract concept, with definitions often varying by consumer perceptions’. Is local within a distance of 50 miles, or 100 miles? Does local mean within the boundaries of a province or state, or to the country border? Other scholars argue that perhaps the term local refers to broader notions of citizenship, ethics and community engagement (see Seyfang, 2006). Local food consumption is a fast-growing movement with increased consumer spending (Adams & Salois, 2010). Connecting food producers
IV. FOOD
130
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
BOX 8.2
FOOD SECURITY Food security is defined by the Food and Agricultural Organisation as a situation when ‘all people at all times have physical or economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (cited in PinstrupAndersen, 2009, p. 5). Food security encompasses three key components: the availability of food (e.g., sufficient quantities), access to food (e.g., having sufficient resources) and the nutritional quality of food (e.g., quality and safety of food supply). Globalisation and increased international trade have fundamentally altered how the food system operates. For example, food production and distribution tend to be concentrated in large corporations, which can drive down the prices farmers receive; and increased use of mono-cropping makes crops more vulnerable to pests and diseases. The farmer-led La Via Campesina advocates for reform of modern agriculture and has grown into a large international social movement. La Via Campesina strives to make small-scale farmers and food producers more central to the food system by opposing big corporations, and resisting the intensification of farming and the proliferation of genetically modified seeds (Desmarais, 2012). Climate change is projected to have big impacts on crop yields around the globe, which will affect food security. Local food systems (e.g., farmers markets) are one way to ensure food security as they provide a buffer between consumers and global food markets. By buying local, consumers can support local economies and environmental sustainability.
and consumers in the same region (e.g., farmers’ markets) can result in more self-reliant food networks. Local food networks support local economies and help ensure food security (see Box 8.2). Local foods do not necessarily have a lower impact on the environment. The term ‘food miles’ has garnered attention in popular media and books, suggesting that the farther food travels, the more energy is used, and the more carbon is emitted. Various scholars have questioned the narrow focus on food miles as the main contributor to a product’s carbon footprint (Mila` i Canals, Cowell, Sim, & Basson, 2007; Saunders & Barber, 2008). For example, a study that compared the carbon footprint of New Zealand products shipped to the United Kingdom with that of their UK counterparts came to some surprising conclusions. Their analysis indicates that, because of differences in production practices, New Zealand dairy products used half the energy of UK dairy
IV. FOOD
FACTORS RELATED TO LOCAL FOOD CONSUMPTION
131
products, and imported New Zealand apples were 10% more efficient than locally grown UK apples, even when shipping was taken into account (Saunders & Barber, 2008). Another study found that seasonality is an important factor to take into consideration. New Zealand apples that are consumed in the Northern Hemisphere spring (when apples are in season in the Southern Hemisphere autumn) can have a similar carbon footprint to UK apples; in the Northern Hemisphere autumn, however, UK apples tend to have a lower footprint (Mila` i Canals et al., 2007). And lastly, it is not so much the distance travelled but the mode of transport that is used for this distance that influences a product’s food footprint. In his book How Bad Are Bananas?, Mike Berners-Lee explains that if you live in New York, a bottle of wine from California can actually have a higher carbon footprint than wine imported from France. The French wine has a smaller footprint because it will probably have arrived by boat, whereas the Californian wine will have arrived by truck; road transport results in higher carbon emissions than shipping.
FACTORS RELATED TO LOCAL FOOD CONSUMPTION In their review of the local food movement, Adams and Salois (2010) highlight that consumers consider locally produced foods to have health, environmental, economic and community benefits. Other benefits include better flavour, freshness, nutrition and food safety (Kumar & Smith, 2017). As with the organic food movement, local food consumers are motivated by a desire to move away from industrial agriculture. There is a lack of research on people’s individual motivations for local food choices (Zepeda & Li, 2006). Three studies from the United States have used the theory of planned behaviour to examine motivations to buy local foods. Kumar and Smith (2017) used a convenience sample of local food consumers (mostly female, mostly Caucasian) to examine the relationships between the variables from the theory of planned behaviour and intention to buy local foods. Health consciousness, concern about the environment and concern about the local economy were all positively associated with attitudes towards local foods. Attitudes towards local foods, in turn, were positively associated with behavioural intentions. Subjective norms (what other people think of local food consumption) were also correlated with intentions, but perceived behavioural control was unrelated to intention to purchase local foods. Nurse Rainbolt, Onozaka and McFadden (2012) found that subjective norms and PCE were positively associated with willingness to pay for local apples. And lastly, Shin and Hancer (2016) expanded the
IV. FOOD
132
8. EATING SUSTAINABLY: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND IDENTITY
TPB to include the concept of moral norm (‘doing the right thing’) and found that moral norms were positively associated with intentions to buy local food and that it explained variance in behavioural intentions, in addition to attitudes and perceived behavioural control. In this sense, these findings mirror what has been observed in the organic food literature.
EATING SUSTAINABLY: FROM THEORY TO INTERVENTION The research to date suggests that different categories of sustainable food choices are related to different determinants. Meat consumption and vegetarianism seem strongly guided by people’s self-enhancement and self-transcendence values, and to people’s identity; organic and local food consumption are most strongly related to attitudes, social norms and moral norms. This means that approaches to encourage sustainable food choices will need to address these different motivations depending on the type of food-related behaviour. Interventions to encourage sustainable food choices could also focus on raising awareness of the climate impacts of people’s food choices, as there seems to be a general lack of awareness of the environmental impacts of food consumption, and meat consumption in particular. The lack of awareness should perhaps come as no surprise. As Foley (2014) noted in a piece for National Geographic: ‘When we think about threats to the environment, we tend to picture cars and smokestacks, not dinner’ (p. 35).
IV. FOOD