Dietary Behavior as a Target of Environmental Policy: Which Policy Instruments Are Adequate to Incentivize Plant-Based Diets?

One way to address the contextual conditions of meat consumption is to introduce price-based instruments, for which different proposals are discussed (e.g., [3,39,45,46,47,48,49]). Various authors suggest charging the full VAT rate of 19% on meat products or even on meat and dairy products instead of the reduced 7% [3,9,39,40,45,48,49,50,51,52]. However, this means that all meat prices would increase in equal proportions by 11.2%. More expensive meat from better forms of husbandry would become even more expensive and many customers would possibly resort to cheaper meat from poorer husbandry conditions to maintain the amount of meat consumed [52,53]. To compensate for the price difference between organic and conventional products, exemptions from tax increases [39] (pp. 51ff) or higher subsidies [50] for organic products are, therefore, suggested.

Alternatively, or complementarily, additional taxes or special levies on meat are discussed, which could differ in their amount according to different types of meat (among others [47,54,55]). In addition, a climate tax, or a broader sustainability tax on food in general is also proposed, which internalizes various negative environmental or even social externalities [3] (pp. 571–580). In contrast to modified VAT rates, however, the introduction of additional economic instruments requires a relatively large effort, and the calculations are sometimes complex [48] (p. 23), [52] (p. 31). Unlike a tax, a special levy would add a fixed amount to the price of products, for example, 40 ct/kg of meat (e.g., [54]). However, according to GAWEL [53] (p. 54), this should be regularly adjusted to price developments. If taxes or levies on meat are too small, it could happen that prices in the retail trade would not increase at all but that the price increase would be passed on to other products by the retailers or that producers would be pushed even harder to lower prices [53] (pp. 34–35).

Instead of directly addressing consumers with price increases on the demand side, price-based instruments could also indirectly affect consumers when addressing the supply side. Although not the focus of this article, the inclusion of emissions from livestock farming in the EU emissions trading scheme is particularly promising in indirectly influencing food behavior [56,57]. The advantage of a demand-side pricing instrument is that if in one country the demand for meat is reduced by national public policies this applies to domestic as well as imported meat products. Supply-side measures, on the contrary, require border adjustment mechanisms as complementary tools [56].

It is empirically still unclear at what price increase meat consumption would actually decrease. More empirical studies are required to allow for making clearer assumptions here. However, calculating with tax rates of 15% and 30% [58] or between 3% and 13% depending on the type of meat [59], studies suggest that price increases could have an effect on dietary behavior. Banse and Sturm [48] (pp. 29ff) conclude in their analysis that abolishing the VAT concession in Germany for animal products could reduce their consumption by 6% overall, which, in turn, would reduce GHG emissions by 5.4 million t CO_2eq annually. Förster et al. [52] (p.16) assumed a decrease in the consumption of meat and meat products excluding out-of-home consumption of 11% to 12%.

Price-based instruments have a particularly strong effect on those population groups that consume a lot of meat and, at the same time, are primarily price-oriented in their purchasing decisions [60]. Thus, these instruments are likely to have less of an effect on the consumption of high-income households—they have a regressive effect, i.e., they burden low-income households more than high-income households [3] (p. 461). Therefore, it is often suggested that a higher tax rate on meat should be accompanied by compensatory measures that relieve low-income households [52,53,61,62].

One option is to completely abolish VAT on fruits, vegetables, and legumes and, if necessary, other plant-based foods [50,52,55]. This would make plant-based products and meat substitutes more attractive in terms of prices, as they are currently relatively expensive. Studies show that a combination of taxes on some products and subsidies on others is also more effective [61]. However, it is questionable whether a reduction in VAT on certain products would actually be passed on in full to customers by retailers or partially offset by higher net prices [46] (p. 164). Another variant is to compensate low-income households for the additional costs through transfer payments. For example, the German Environment Agency proposes, among other things, an increase in the standard rates for food in government transfer payments and free meals in nurseries and schools [39,49].

In the discussion of price-based approaches, reference is also made to possible substitution effects, i.e., to which foods consumers switch [3,58,63]. Moreover, an increase in the price of meat in Germany could lead to an increased export of meat products instead of a reduction in its production in Germany [6,53]. Therefore, it is suggested that measures that target the price for consumers should always be accompanied by measures that target changes on the production side [39,47].

Another strategy is to change the basic factors influencing dietary behavior. One variant is educational programs that inform, e.g., about the environmental impacts of meat consumption. Studies show that those people who are already environmentally aware but lack the concrete knowledge relevant for action can be stimulated to change their consumption. Nutritional counseling, too, can have an effect on dietary behavior [64] (p. 4). Studies also show that cooking classes focused on vegetarian diets help people learn the skills necessary to change their dietary behavior and lead to a reduction in meat consumption in the longer term [65]. Although more empirical research is needed on this, studies, to date, suggest that educational interventions can be successful [65], but they need time to show effects.

Because dietary behavior is formed at an early age, nutritional education in school and daycare is discussed. Thus, the German Advisory Council for Consumer Affairs (SVRV) [32] (p. 208) suggests expanding nutritional education, to train teachers more for this purpose and to improve teaching materials. A combination of education and information with formulating one’s own nutrition goals has also been shown to be effective in studies [65]. Campaigns and counseling can be more successful if they start at points in time when habits are disrupted anyway. This applies, for example, to the phase when young people move out of their parents’ house and are responsible for their own food supply for the first time [34] (p. 57).

In addition to education and advice, persuasive instruments such as campaigns are also discussed, with which civil society organizations or governments draw attention to unhealthy or environmentally harmful products, directly or with the support of prominent personalities, and promote different consumption [4] (pp. 68ff) (e.g., Veganuary 2023). Here, social norms and identities help to increase the relevance of the information conveyed [4] (p. 68f). If dietary habits and norms change in social groups, this also facilitates and motivates people close to these groups to change their dietary habits [7] (p. 1273). Furthermore, campaigns can initiate debates and change norms in the longer term, which, in turn, can be the basis for further action [34] (p. 48). The Scientific Advisory Board for Agricultural Policy, Food and Consumer Health Protection (WBAE) in Germany recommends running campaigns over a longer period of time, with a wide reach and frequent repetitions [3] (p. 586).

However, campaigns, educational projects, and information can only have an impact if they are designed appropriately for the target group. Otherwise, they can even lead to defensive attitudes, which, under certain circumstances, can lead to even higher meat consumption [65] (p. 3). To reach people with less environmental awareness, it can be helpful to communicate the co-benefits of low meat consumption, such as for health [65,66] or animal welfare [65].

In terms of the third approach mentioned above, people can be supported at the very moment of food selection so that environmentally friendly values and knowledge do result in behavioral change. In the situation of food shopping, product labels can help those who already have an interest in and a basic knowledge of environmentally friendly nutrition to make a purchasing decision. One possible instrument is a label that makes environmental externalities transparent, for example, by indicating the GHG emissions of a product (e.g., [2,3]). Labels composed of different sustainability dimensions are also being discussed. However, these are much more difficult to implement as they require an even more comprehensive database and calculation method [3] (p. 661).

As initial meta-studies show, labels on food products could be quite effective, depending on their specific design [67]. If designed to be simple and clear, information on GHG emissions or certain other environmental issues had an impact on choices in experimental studies and reduced the consumption of environmentally harmful products [68,69]. A similar effect was shown on menus [70]. However, the indication of GHG emissions has a greater effect on consumers who are already environmentally conscious and who already consume comparatively little meat [71].

Other studies assume a rather low direct effect of information on purchasing behavior (e.g., [72]). In many cases, environmental labels are not properly understood [62] (pp. 65ff). According to a study by Meyerding et al. [73], the majority of consumers hardly understand the carbon footprint of a product if it is only given as a number. This label proved to be effective only for a small proportion of the study participants with greater environmental awareness and more pronounced knowledge of and trust in environmental labels ([73]; similarly, [74,75,76]). Therefore, a label that uses traffic light colors in addition to numerical information could be more useful for consumers [3,68,69,73,76]. This is especially the case if it is mandatory. In the future, it could be expanded to include other sustainability dimensions. For interested consumers, additional information via QR codes or apps is proposed (e.g., [2] (p. 205)).

As a further approach, guidelines are being discussed that provide recommendations for healthy and environmentally friendly nutrition and for corresponding offerings in canteens. Springmann et al. [1,77] see considerable potential for achieving ecological and also health objectives in the adaptation of national nutrition guidelines with regard to the reduced consumption of animal products (especially beef and dairy products).

However, if only the recommendations are adjusted, the effect is questionable. On average, the population in Germany strongly exceeds the current recommendations of the German Nutrition Society (DGE) [78] (pp. 63–64) and probably only a few people will change their consumption when the adjustment is limited to national recommendations. Therefore, various authors [3,32,49,55] recommend that the menus of public and private canteens, such as those of a broad range of educational institutions, hospitals, or youth hostels, be oriented toward guidelines for healthy and environmentally friendly nutrition and corresponding quality standards of the DGE [78]. This is also included in the nutrition strategy of the Federal Government of Germany from January 2024 [79] (p. 5).

The potential for changing habits and norms is particularly great in canteens where people eat regularly and together [2] (pp. 198–199). School canteens, in particular, can have a major impact on dietary behavior today and in the longer term, because children act as multipliers, carrying new ideas, values, and norms into families [62] (p. 83). They, therefore, also have an effect on the development of basic influencing factors (see above). Similarly, there is still great potential for change in hospitals and nursing homes, particularly because of the large number of meals consumed. If public canteens increase the proportion of vegetarian meals in their daily offerings, they also live up to the state’s role model function [34,80]. In addition, appropriate pricing can make vegetarian options cheaper and, thus, more attractive compared to meat-based dishes, which, in turn, affects the contextual conditions.

Beyond food selection in canteens, studies have found other measures that change decision contexts to be helpful [81] (p. 5). These include, for example, changing the presentation of dishes in restaurants or canteens and the standard selection at events (see also [9] (pp. 383–384)). Studies in which meatless dishes are presented as standard options on the menu and meat dishes are offered on demand or on a separate menu suggest that this could lead to a reduction in meat consumption (e.g., [82,83,84]). Changes in the arrangement of food in buffets of hotels, youth hostels, and canteens have a similar aim (e.g., [45] (p. 120), [85] (pp. 79–80)). Here, meat dishes can be placed less visibly or conveniently to reach than vegetarian dishes [86] (pp. 79–80). Another way of presenting food differently and, thus, influencing behavior is by visually dividing shopping carts into differently sized areas for fruit and vegetables and for meat and dairy products in order to show how large the share of certain product groups in the diet should be [85] (pp. 76–77).

These approaches take effect at the moment of decision and activate social norms and values but, at the same time, can also change behavioral beliefs, such as social norms, in the longer term. In the long term, plant-based diets could, thus, be perceived as common and desirable, while high meat consumption would be seen as out of the ordinary [86] (p. 5).

Advertising bans also have an impact at the moment of dietary decisions. Following regulations in the area of alcohol and tobacco, these have also been discussed in recent years for meat and other environmentally harmful foods [2] (p. 207), [3] (pp. 379ff). Assessments have investigated their feasibility and constitutionality [46,87]. The Dutch city of Haarlem was the first city in the world to decide to ban advertising of conventionally produced meat and other climate-damaging products in public spaces starting in 2024 [88]. As an alternative to advertising bans on meat, mandatory labeling with environmental or health information on advertising posters or in promotional videos is also being discussed [2,3].

In principle, studies on the effect of advertising restrictions in various areas show positive effects on children’s nutrition. However, there have been only a few studies on the effect of advertising and advertising restrictions on adults [62]. A study by Dubois et al. [89] uses the example of an advertising ban on potato chips to show that it is certainly suitable to reduce demand. However, the effect is reduced if prices fall as a consequence of declining sales. Moreover, a ban on a product category must not be too narrowly defined because, otherwise, other similarly problematic products will be consumed instead [89] (pp. 424–426).