The Emotions of Meat: Why Change Feels So Hard — and What We Can Do About It
Few things evoke personal emotion more than food does and, in recent years, few foods have provoked emotional reaction more than meat. How is it that the centre of plate has become a battle ground for minds, healthy hearts as well as climate?
It is well established that animal agriculture is one of the biggest drivers of emissions. Life Cycle Assessments have suggested that a plant rich diet is the second biggest opportunity to drive emissions reduction, 10x the impact of electric cars.
Further, between 20% and 25% of all deaths in adults, including from coronary heart disease, stroke, type-2 diabetes and several cancers, have been associated with imbalanced diets - a result of insufficient fruit, vegetables, whole grains and too much red & processed meats, along with a high intake of salty, sugary discretionary foods.
Yet, global appetite for animal protein has grown +58% since 2000 and is predicted to grow +14% by 2030 globally compared to 2018-20, largely driven by growing middle incomes and total population. The need for nutrition and high quality protein in developing nations is critical, but is also driving food related emissions and poorer health through excess consumption in developed countries.
These sustainability & health issues are two of the biggest issues of global public concern; yet personal familiarity, comfort and cost are prioritised at the expense of the quality of diet and impact on the planet. Why could this be?
Most people like meat. Today, with some European variation, populations of Western countries are typically 6-10% vegan, 15-25% flexitarian and the remaining 65-75% meat eaters. Animal proteins are not only delicious and easy to use, but also versatile in cuisines that have been established for millennia. It’s clear where these proteins come from, even if we don’t like to think about it - but what about plant proteins? According to a 2023 GFI survey, the most common reason people don’t repurchase plant-based meat is simple: taste.
But taste isn’t the only factor. Whether someone tries a plant-based product — and whether they buy it again — is also influenced by deeper cultural and psychological drivers. Many people feel a strong identification with animal meat, shaped by tradition, family meals, and personal preference.
Others aren’t fully convinced by the ‘why’ driving a switch to plant-based — especially if the health or environmental benefits feel abstract or unclear. And for many, price remains a barrier. In times of inflation, unfamiliar foods that cost more can feel like an unjustifiable risk.
In Australia, it’s not hard to understand the national and cultural identity associated with animal agriculture - Australia has a long history of ‘outback’ pastoralism that has been culturally romanticised. Aboriginal people also harvested animals and plants well before European colonisation!
Yet at the same time, among the largest health crises in Australia and worldwide are CardioVascular Diseases (CVD), diabetes and other bowel related illnesses that result from chronic insufficiency of fibre. Our love of meat does provide us with important nutrients such as iron, Vitamin B12 & protein, but this love affair—especially in its flavourful, highly processed forms— also contributes to a diet high in saturated fats, total fats and low in dietary fibre, elevating many long term health risks.
Clearly, changing behaviour to improve nutrition or sustainability is extremely difficult. Food choice is highly personal and decision making is significantly influenced by social and cultural norms, self-perceptions, attitudes, preferences and habits. Shifting away from a behaviour of eating meat requires upending centuries of ingrained preference and cultural identification akin to a hiker ascending to the peak of Everest. Some will achieve it, but is it practical for most of us? Perhaps we should aim for base camp first!
What if we gave consumers the opportunity to enjoy food in formats and flavours that they recognised, at a lower cost and delivered these proteins with an improved nutritional profile? What if many consumers didn’t need to consciously change their meat-eating behaviours - or entertain a new ideology - to do so? Could we drive a more modest, but broader based sustainability benefit?
Given these emotional drivers of food consumption, particularly for meat, we suggest that a better route is to take advantage of the highly complementary, nutritional nature of both plant and animal proteins to create products that deliver a familiar taste and form, improving nutrition and lowering cost. By considering where tangible value losses occur all the way from farm to fork, our customers face cost pains and yield losses in their commercial kitchens or food products.
What drives us at Harvest B is the belief that protein should be a solution — not a compromise. We see an opportunity to reshape food systems not by asking everyone to change their beliefs, but by meeting them where they already are: in their kitchens, at their tables, in the dishes they know and love.
By using the best of both plant and animal nutrition, we can reduce waste, stretch value further, and help foodservice providers serve meals that are both satisfying and smart — for health, budgets, and the planet.
The emotions of meat are real. But so is the need for progress.
Let’s stop asking people to climb Everest — and start helping them achieve base camp.
