We Will Live As We Will Eat

We Will Live
As We Will Eat
Anticipating the future power of
sustainability amid our shifting food culture
A Futures Project for World Meat Free Day
May 2016
—
By James Murphy
& Martin Thomas

2 We Will Live As We Will Eat
CONTENTS
Introduction...................................... 3
Executive summary......................... 4
Expert interviews............................. 4
The state of the nation................... 5
The new spectrum of
meat sensitivities.............................7
Our eating culture in 2025............. 9
The trends that matter................. 10
An accelerated future....................14
Literature review.............................15
Foreword
The issue of the planet’s long-term wellbeing
never leaves our news headlines for long.
We in the UK and across the Western world
are collectively living in ways that are provably
unsustainable. As a result, the pressure is
rising to encourage individuals and families
to adopt more directly the basic principles of
sustainability in what they choose to eat and
to create an ever more focused debate about
better eating options.
All parties to World Meat Free Day know that we
need to intensify our efforts to communicate
the values of sustainable living and specifically
to persuade more people to think about the role
of meat, both in relation to their own health and
that of the planet.
And so, welcome to We Will Live As We Will Eat.
This is a completely new study, commissioned
on behalf of the World Meat Free Day to explore
our contemporary food culture in Britain and
to anticipate the food culture we might expect
(indeed hope) to see in a decade from now.
The authors are consultants from Dissident,
which specialises in analysing the play of
socio-economic trends inside markets and
sectors. They were given the freedom to take a
fresh, independent look at the whole question
of sustainability as a discrete concern in the
minds of consumer citizens. To deliver this
they conducted a major opinion research
study, analysed the available scholarship on
the topic and talked to leading experts on
sustainable eating. We hope that their analysis
and forecasts of future attitudes to food and
sustainability in the UK over the next decade
make for interesting reading and will help
catalyse further debate.
Sue Dibb, Coordinator at Eating Better
On behalf of World Meat Free Day 2016
This year's World Meat Free Day will take place
on 13th June 2016 www.worldmeatfreeday.com
Though the views and forecasts contained
herein are those of the authors, we would like
to acknowledge the support of the following
organisations in helping to produce this report:
Forum for the Future,
Food Ethics Council
Carbon Trust
Compassion in World Farming
Eating Better
WWF
Newcastle University
Woodside Training
Deutsches Institut für Lebensmitteltechnik
WRAP
All research statistics quoted in this report
relate to an ICM Unlimited poll (a representative
sample of UK adults, 16+) conducted in February
2016, unless otherwise stated.
© World Meat Free Day
About the authors
James Murphy is Dissident’s Head of Insight.
He is one of the UK’s most widely respected
social trends analyst and forecasters.
He was formerly Editorial Director at the
Future Foundation (the global consumer trends
analysis and forecasting company), where his
role was to alert senior clients to imminent
shifts in the socio-economic environment and
advise them on how to exploit these trends for
sustainable corporate advantage. He was
co-author of The Big Lie (or interpreting your
global customer’s inner life for profit) – which
won the EMM Marketing Book of the Year
Award in 2014 – and is a regular commentator
on business trends in the national media.
His other professional roles have included
associate director at the Henley Centre for
Forecasting and director of analysis for
First & 42nd, the management consultancy.
Martin Thomas has held senior planning roles
with some of the world’s leading marketing
services agencies. He is the author of two
widely acclaimed business books: Crowdsurfing
and Loose. Much of his work in recent years has
focused on the disruptive force and strategic
application of social media, a subject on which
he has become a highly regarded writer and
commentator. He is course leader on digital
and social media for the Institute of Directors,
non-executive director of Commonwealth
Games Council for England, a former
non-executive director of Sport England,
an advisor to the Courtauld and the Future
Foundation and a Fellow of the RSA.

Introduction
Our aim is to deliver a unique study that
will be digestible to the general public
and the mainstream media, respectful of
and supported by expert opinion across
the food sector and persuasive enough
to jolt manufacturers, distributors,
advertisers, policy-makers and indeed
individual households towards ever
more decisive pro-sustainability
actions. We also want to help stimulate
such a quality of innovation and
entrepreneurship across the food
sector that our national eating habits
progressively reflect much greater
sensitivity to the planet’s wellbeing.
Finally, we hope to energise the national
conversation around the imperative of a
radically altered, sustainability-focused
food culture for the UK by 2025.
Our approach has combined quantitative
and qualitative research, plus a review
of the prevailing scholarship about
the role of foods and food practices
within personal health, life enjoyment
and threats to the planet. We have
also framed our thinking within the
socio-political context for the food/
sustainability agenda over the next few
years; a number of themes have to be
listed here:
• COP21 (the 2015 Paris global climate
deal): its emphasis on food security
rather than eco-sustainability;
• The impact of the UN's Sustainable
Development Goals on political
agendas and policies:
• An emerging clamour (not just in the
UK) for new taxes on ‘bad’ food;
• Falling global food commodity prices
in most sectors;
• The resilient incidence of obesity in
the UK and the non-emergence of a
national strategy to deal with it;
• Weak macro-economic prospects in
Europe and low real income growth
in the UK;
• A deepening expert consensus on
food policy priorities;
• The unabated appetite for cuisine
diversity among the UK public;
• A possibly emerging assumption
that global warming is being brought
under control.
• A growing understanding (within
some quarters) of the impact of
intensive livestock grazing on the
environment.
In shaping this report, we have
undertaken a series of in-depth
interviews with many of the UK’s leading
experts on sustainable eating, including
leading NGOs (see page 4).
We have also engaged a representative
sample of the British public – through
an ICM poll of 2,000 UK residents
over the age of 16 – to analyse primary
perceptions of optimised eating
behaviour, eco-priorities, threats to
wellbeing (however defined), parenting
norms, social opprobriums (the actions
of others that are to be deprecated) and
the specific cultural positioning of meat.
Our forecasts have been framed around
a Central Assumption: the most likely
condition of food-behaviours and
food dynamics in 2025 resulting from
already detectable socio-economic and
cultural trends (see pages 10-13). We
have also offered two variants to this
assumption: alternatives robust enough
to warrant special strategic thinking and
preparation.
This report attempts to envision the culture of sustainability
and its impact on the food that we eat in the UK in 2025. Just how
eco-sensitive, how supportive of personal health and specifically
how meat free will the national dinner-plate be within the decade
to come?
“
”
We hope to energise the
national conversation
around the imperative
of a radically altered,
sustainability-focused
food culture for the UK
by 2025.

Executive Summary
Public opinion is softening in favour of meatlessness and there is early
evidence that generalised (not exclusively vegetarian) anti-meat or
meat-moderation instincts and impulses could be entering social mores.
However, there is no suggestion yet of a seriously accelerated behavioural
change towards increased sustainability in relation to our food choices.
Our analysis shows that there is
plenty of room for optimism when
it comes to the emergence of a more
sustainable food culture in the UK.
The prevailing socio-economic and
cultural trends – plus the results of a
recent ICM poll commissioned as part
of this project – point in the general
direction of reduced meat consumption
and falling social approval for meat. A
significant proportion of the population
will be actively moderating their meat
consumption over the next decade and
beyond. This is primarily driven by health
concerns, though often rationalised
in the context of environmental and
animal welfare sensitivities. If current
levels of pro-sustainability agitation are
maintained, then the journey to a more
attractive sustainability culture should be
smooth, albeit slower than desired by the
environmentalist community.
There is only a limited sense that
environmental sensitivity (damaged by
weak income growth) is an acute national
concern and is engaging majorities in
sustained and well-informed personal
activism. Substantial minorities already
agree that meat is ‘bad for you’ and claim
to recognise the environmental harms
stemming from meat production. But
eating less meat is yet to become a salient
priority for personal action in response
to the perceived threat of global warming
or the public’s general concern for the
planet.
In response to many propositions about
food, wellbeing and environmentalism,
the UK takes a view that is reasonably
consistent across the segments (age,
class etc.). However, women are plainly
more sensitised than men as are, on
occasions, young people. London, as we
have discovered, is often to be regarded
as a different place from much of the
rest of the UK; opinions can be quite
markedly different there, more open to a
more progressive food culture.
Generally, the burden of responsibility
to take measures, enact change,
make the world a healthier, cleaner
place is thought by the British public
to fall much more emphatically on
supermarkets, food celebrities and
regulators, than on individuals or
households.
The core themes that emerged
from our discussions with leading
experts in food and sustainability
were as follows:
The need for realism: sustainability
may be no more than a ‘second tier’
motivation for consumer citizens.
The definition of sustainability can seem
unhelpfully vague and elusive. It is not a
single issue.
The evidence is that eating habits can
be changed. And so, what is available in
stores etc, is a pivotal issue.
The gap between expressed opinion
and actual behaviour remains large:
consumers may talk eco but not act eco.
One should not depend on regulators/
policy makers to provide aggressively
pro sustainability leadership.
Best wisdom lies in creatively mixing
messages: combining planetary
welfare with self-interest (price, taste,
convenience).
The inevitability of a gradualist (but
steady) progress towards a meat free
culture should be accepted, although the
pace of change needs to be accelerated.
Not much can be expected of labelling
schemes as a general agent of positive
change.
Expert Interviews
Stridently lecturing the consumer citizen is not effective.
Only soft and targeted encouragement is likely to work.

The headlines from our ICM poll,
conducted in February 2016, were as
follows:
The public remains pessimistic
about the environment
56% of UK consumers agree that ‘by 2025,
global warming will be as significant a
threat to human beings as it is today’.
Only 19% agree that ‘by 2025, the air we
breathe here in the UK will be cleaner
than it is today’.
Only 12% agree that ‘by 2025, there
will be enough food for the world’s
populations: hunger in the poorer parts
of Africa will be a thing of the past’.
Green instincts are still prominent.
There is a strong desire among the
public (especially young people)
to take personal responsibility for
the environment.
A majority (54%) of adults agree that
‘I believe that there is more that I
personally could do to help protect the
environment’, rising to 61% of 16-24s.
We also have high expectations
of government, food industry and
supermarkets
52% of adults (rising to 62% of 16-24 year
olds) wish that ‘my supermarket would
offer food for my family which has
been produced in ways which respect
the natural world much more than is
currently the case’.
Around 50% are now emphatic that
food companies should be committed to
showing just ‘how much energy it costs
to produce their products’.
There remains, however, a
knowledge gap in relation to
sustainable eating practices…
Only 32% of people ‘generally/usually
know which foods do less damage to
the environment by the way they are
produced’.
… with education (primarily in
schools) seen by the public as the
primary solution
A strong majority (with almost nobody
disagreeing) are firm that ‘Children in
schools should be taught how they can
personally help reduce global warming
by their own actions’ and that ‘Children
should be taught to know which foods do
damage, by the way they are produced,
to the environment’.
A preference for what has
been locally produced – the
environmental benefits of which
are perhaps not as substantial as
people think – has gained traction
with the wider public.
68% of adults agree that ‘it is better for
the environment if the food we all eat is
locally produced and sold’.
Meat is becoming less popular
among a significant proportion
of the population.
40% agree that ‘These days I eat less
meat than I used to do’ – rising to 45% of
women.
33% are ‘actively choosing to eat less
meat’ (39% of women).
28% of 18-24 year olds and 27% of all
women agree that ‘by 2025, my diet will
probably be mostly meat-free’.
An encouraging 37% of males under-24
accept that “eating red meat is bad for
you” – compared to only 14% of men
between 65-74.
We can already detect the
shifting sands of public opinion:
moderation is becoming
mainstream.
A majority (52%) of under-35s agree
that ‘eating a full English breakfast is
bad for you’.
A third of adults (32%) believe that
‘by 2025 good parents will generally
not give hamburgers or sausages to
their children’.
The State Of The Nation
Meat is becoming less popular among a significant proportion
of the population. We can already detect the shifting sands of
public opinion.
“
”
33% of adults are
'actively choosing to
eat less meat'.

The stereotypical link between meat and
masculinity appears to be less relevant
to younger generations. As Figure 1
highlights, the number of 16-19 year olds
agreeing that ‘it is natural for young
men to prefer steak to quiche’ is less than
a third of the figure for people aged 75
and over.
The environmental harms linked
to meat production are widely
accepted
40% of UK consumers agree that ‘it
would be better for the wellbeing of our
countryside if adults in Britain were
generally to eat less meat’ – rising to 44%
among 16-24s.
36% now agree that ‘a meat-free diet or
one where we eat less meat is better for
the environment’ – rising to 48% of 16-19
year olds and 40% of 16-24s.
However, despite claiming to understand
the impact of meat production on
the environment, it is striking how
reduced meat eating is not prominent
in the current inventory of eco-actions
favoured by consumer-citizens
(Figure 2). This response varies little
across age groups, social classes and
regions. In comparison, one can feel
here the relative success over the years
of those campaigns relating to water-
saving, plastic bags, positive recycling,
food miles, etc.
The burden of responsibility for
protecting the environment is seen
to fall on supermarkets and the
government, rather than individuals
(Figure 3).
The State Of The Nation
Despite a widespread recognition that meat production has
damaging ecological consequences, few people believe that
personally eating less meat will make a difference
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
75+65-7455-6445-5435-4425-3416-2416-18
Figure 1: 'It is natural for young men to prefer steak to quiche' (% who agree)
31%
34%
44%
51%
55%
46%
58%
69%
Figure 3: Who or what could do more to protect the environment?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
GovernmentSupermarketsI personally
54%
72% 72%
Figure2:'Whichofthefollowingdoyouthinkarethebestactionsthatanindividualsuch
asyourselfcantaketohelpreduceglobalwarmingandhelpprotecttheenvironment?'
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Buy organicEat fewer
meat dishes
Use
less detergent
Take
fewer ﬂights
abroad
Buy
electric car
Buy locally
produced
food
Use eco setting on
washing machine
/dish washer
Turn oﬀ
tap when
brushing teeth
Use
car less
No plastic bagsRecycle
40%
38%
30%
25%
21%
18%
15% 15%
12%
9%
Rises to
15%
among
16-19s
6%

It is clear that in Britain today the
consumption of meat is generating
new sets of responses and attitudes
among the public. It is no longer simply
a question of being vegetarian, vegan or
flexitarian. To capture the mix of meat-
responsive behaviours we have to talk
about a widening range of meat-related
sensitivities.
We have identified a hardcore, meat-
hostile tribe, that is defined by virtue of
having endorsed (in our opinion research
exercise) each statement relating to
the perceived negative impacts of meat
production and consumption, both to
individual wellbeing and the eco-system.
Our hardcore tend on balance:
e to be female / married
(not necessarily with children);
e to be spread across the age groups
(except the over-65s);
e to be predominantly middle-class;
e to be spread across the professions
/ ranks;
e to be more common in the South
East / London;
e to regard meat as both bad for the
environment and for people;
e to want to know more about the
foods they buy at the supermarket
and the threats they pose;
e to be likely to say that they know
what sustainability means.
Around this meat-hostile community,
other milder (but still significant)
attitude clusters or tribes can be detected
in the answers we received to our range
of questions about meat, wellbeing and
the environment.
We have observed that many people
are already what we might call meat-
occasionals, choosing not to eat meat
products on a daily or consistent basis.
From our research we can also detect a
meat-enlightened or meat-moderating
group, driven primarily by health
concerns but also by a deepening
awareness of the perceived threats that
meat production and consumption is
posing to the world at large. For this
tribe, ordering steak is perhaps no longer
a politically neutral act; it may indeed
seem positively counter-progressive if
ordered too frequently, even worthy of a
passing ‘tut-tut’ in polite society.
Under what conditions can we
expect our tribes to grow in size
and morph in character over the
next decade?
In our view, a rise in meat-related
sensitivity and active meat-moderation
will require continuous, consensual
and consistent messages from food
experts, NGOs and governments. In
addition, such a trend will be influenced
directly by:
• Stable economic growth and rising
incomes: there is a close correlation
between environmental sensitivity
and levels of personal prosperity;
• Ever greater applause from friends
and peers for the social heroism they
embody, i.e. people declaring that
they are 'meat-moderating' will be
seen as super-responsible individuals,
who by their actions reduce threats
both to their personal health (and
the costs to healthcare systems) and
to the planet’s wellbeing:
• An ever-tighter link between a
meatless or less-meat attitude and
personal appeal and attractiveness.
In this way, the moderation of meat
consumption (as is increasingly the
case with alcohol consumption) will
become promoted and accepted as
an index of charm and wisdom.
With this thought in mind, we note
the following:
23% of women ‘wish that my spouse/
partner would eat less processed
meat’, rising to more than a third
(37%) of women aged 16-19.
Almost 1 in 5 (18%) of 18-24 year
olds ‘would never go on a date with
someone who eats meat for every
meal’.
More than a quarter (29%) of 16-19
year olds (31% of 16-19 year old men)
say ‘I find female celebrities such as
Gwyneth Paltrow attractive, because
they have taken a stand against
meat-eating’.
Over a quarter (26%) of 16-19 year old
women say ‘I find male celebrities
such as Brad Pitt attractive, because
they have taken a stand against
meat-eating’.
• A constant flow of (meat-free)
product innovation, strong enough to
ensure that they never get bored at
mealtimes (to the point of recidivism
towards meat as regular mealtime
feature);
• More parents to be specifically
recruited and mobilised to the cause.
On a number of issues highlighted
in our research, parents appear to
be at least slightly more sensitive
The New Spectrum Of Meat Sensitivities
Our research indicates that a hardcore 15% of the
population is already decidedly sensitive to the perceived
negative impacts of meat on all counts, whilst up to 40% of
the population claims to be reducing or moderating their
meat consumption to some extent.

The New Spectrum Of Meat Sensitivities
to environmental and health issues,
suggesting that they will continue
to offer something of a propaganda
target over the years ahead.
For example, 45% of parents of
children under 15 agreed that
'It would be better for the well-
being of our countryside if adults
in Britain were generally to eat
less meat' compared to 40% for the
population as a whole.
• Supermarkets to spot and respond
to the opportunity to meet the needs
of this growing meat-moderating
audience;
52% of adults (rising to 62% of 16-24
year olds) wish that ‘my supermarket
would offer food for my family which
has been produced in ways which
respect the natural world much more
than is currently the case’.
• For the idea of meat-moderation to be
popularised to the point of cultural
mainstreaming: TV food programmes
becoming ever more eco; admired
celebrities openly eschewing meat as
a staple.
85% support the idea of food
programmes on TV which ‘show us
how to cook in ways which respect
the environment’ – rising to 93% of
18-24s.
“
”
85% support the idea
of food programmes on
TV which ‘show us how
to cook in ways which
respect the environment’.

We envisage that this Central
Assumption will be defined
by these outcomes over the
next decade:
• Overall meat consumption is in
steady long-term decline, across
all demographics and geographic
regions.
• People actively moderating their
meat consumption are common,
much more so than vegetarians
were in the middle of the previous
decade and it has become normal for
public figures to declare that they are
choosing to eat less meat.
• The cumulative effect of so many
eat-wisely/eat-sustainably campaigns
has been the principal cause of the
above. Progressive environmental
deterioration has also focused minds.
• The social order promotes and
admires moderation in all human
appetites. Super-personalised
health regimes, underpinned by new
technology such as self-diagnostic
tracking devices, reinforce this.
• Many people who are actively
moderating their meat consumption
are trading-up to better quality meat
for special meal occasions, favouring
the premium or artisan sector over
industrialised meat producers.
• Technological innovation within the
food industry has raced forward.
Many new forms of meat substitute
or alternative protein are now
available.
• The sausage is the new cigarette.
• MasterChef 2025 allows contestants
to prepare only two meat recipes per
series.
We have identified two variants to this central (gradualist) assumption
the first of which could accelerate the adoption of sustainable eating
behaviour and the second of which could impede even the most
gradual progress:
1. Disasters and Deteriorations:
obliging all to eat sustainably
• In 2025, the whole culture of national
cooking-eating has been jolted out of
its traditional habits.
• Severe competition for global food
stocks is driving many families to
re-assess food budgets and meal
choices.
• Kids in school are given a brutally
accurate assessment of just what is
heating the planet, causing floods
and landslides, producing noxious
gases. Endangered cows are now
sponsored by progressive citizens in
the way the Iberian Lynx once was.
• All families have become super eco-
sensitive: meat is rarely consumed,
even by non-vegetarians.
• Moral outrage fuels much virulent
public protest against fast-food.
• The global shortage of animal
protein drives prices higher, making
it difficult for families to afford. Meat
aisles occupy significantly less space
in-store.
2. Three Meals Forward,
Four Meals Back
• In 2025, the food culture has not
changed much.
• The UK economy has not been
growing by more than 2% per annum
since 2021. People in the service
industries still work about 35 hours
per week.
• Treats are a psycho-social necessity.
Money is tight and meat is cheap.
Hamburgers are popular with time-
pressured families. A majority of
Britons still enjoy the emblematic
Sunday Roast.
• Consumers just cannot carry so
many eat-this/but-do-not-eat-that
messages in their heads.
• The impact of COP21 has been to
reduce greenhouse gases. This is a
commonly held perception. Shoppers
think that the green war is largely
over. There is little for them to do.
Our Eating Culture In 2025
Our core forecast or Central Assumption is that the next
decade will witness an Accrued Incremental Improvement in
our National Eating Culture.

A trend by our definition is an empirically
observable movement or tendency within
prevailing socio-economic conditions,
which results in a (potentially sustainable)
alteration of expectation, decision or
behaviour on the part of a significant
number of citizens and/or institutions.
Not all trends will create a confluence,
collectively flowing in the same
direction. Some will mutually overlap
or contradict. Some will be intensified
or reduced in impact by the actions of
social and commercial agents.
The trends that will shape public
attitudes to sustainability and
specifically meat consumption
over the next ten years and
beyond are as follows:
1. The Irresistibility of
Moderation
2. The End of Evasion
3. Responsibility Overload
4. The Treat Imperative
5. The Soft Squeeze
6. Me-Me Living
7. Everyday Diversity
8. Guerrilla Citizenry
1. The Irresistibility of moderation:
sobriety is the new cool
This is a mega-trend, energised by the
interaction of public policy and profound
behavioural and attitudinal changes.
Millions will be influenced.
The social order in the UK is already
heavy with invitations-to-behave. The
costs (personal and institutional) of
excess within lifestyles choices are well
established.
There are so many unavoidable and
specific injunctions against smoking,
over-eating, drinking alcohol, failing to
take exercise. Our recent research has
produced the following league-table
in response to the question: what is it
that is ‘bad for you?’ (Figure 4). Note the
figures for the 16-24 demographic: which
we might choose to label as 'Generation
Moderation'.
We can see in all of this a ratchet
rather than a pendulum: there is no
social motor driving any switchback to
hedonistic indulgence.
The presumption in favour of
moderation is culturally as well as
politically endorsed. Being with a drunk
is not amusing. Obese people are pitied.
To resist indulgence is to keep one’s looks.
The realities of economic growth and
income distribution mean that splurge-
spending is not going to be favoured
by millions (specially the younger
segments) in the years ahead.
Almost half (48%) of adults agree that
‘It would be better for the well-being of
our countryside if adults in Britain were
generally to eat less food’.
A majority (51% and 56% respectively)
agrees that they are ‘actively trying to
cut sugar from their diet and consume
less saturated fat’.
40% of UK adults agree that ‘in the
future unhealthy foods (containing a lot
of sugar/salt/fat) should be heavily taxed
by the Government’.
2. The End of Evasion
This trend will have a widespread
impact. Scientific realities (about
imprudent eating amid ecological
fragility) will become popularised,
inescapable and known to every parent.
The Trends That Matter
We have identified eight socio-economic and cultural
trends that will shape public attitudes to sustainability
and specifically meat consumption (both positively and
negatively) over the next ten years and beyond.
“
”
40% of Britons agree
that ‘unhealthy foods
should be heavily taxed
in the future’.
Figure 4: What is bad for you? (Agree with statement)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Eating white meatDrinking coﬀeeEating red meatEating chocolateEating a full
English breakfast
48%
30%
26% 24%
8%
14%
30%
33%
47%
52%
All adults
16-24s

In the past, there were many different
and competing versions of what was
really good-for-you. Populist news
stories still fuel this phenomenon.
This led to a casual exploitability-
of-uncertainty of the part of the
consumer-citizen. One might think that
red wine was good for the heart, the
full breakfast a benign start to the day,
steak dinners necessary for growing
boys. Elements of a proof for such
ideas, however inadequate, were always
readily available. This is beginning to
change. The science of human wellbeing
is becoming ever more precise, as are
techniques for measuring the impact of
individual lifestyle choices.
It has become impossible for consumer-
citizens to evade scrutiny of how/what
they eat/drink and increasingly difficult
for them to claim (even to themselves)
that a particular choice is a healthy or
socially responsible one when it is not.
A majority of consumers agree that
‘there is more I could personally do to
help protect the environment.’
92% support the idea that ‘children in
schools should be taught how they can
personally help reduce global warming
by their own actions’ and 91% that
‘children should be taught to know
which foods do damage, by the way that
they are produced, to the environment’.
3. Responsibility Overload
This trend has the potential to weaken
the impact of environmental calls to
action. The consumer has his/her limits
and only the sharpest invitations to
behaviour change – based on a consensus
of messages from government, NGOs
and media – will cut through.
How-to-live-the-good-life can become
a very complex and demanding
proposition. Millions are expected to be
super-responsible parents, neighbours,
drivers, shoppers, recyclers, voters,
holiday-makers, citizens. However much
governments and companies do or
deliver, significant responsibilities for
making the world a better place fall to
individuals and families. One can assume
that not only will these not diminish
they will indeed swell over time.
In order to cope many will use their own
filtering mechanisms, thus isolating their
personal priorities for action. A form of
responsibility-economics will be true
for even the most enthusiastically pro-
sustainability individual. One cannot do
everything.
An escalation of creative interactivity
is predictable: retailers, regulators and
consumers will share and transfer
responsibility-burdens. For the consumer
alone will find it ever tougher to be the
perfect citizen without collaboration.
Only 32% of people ‘generally/usually
know which foods do less damage to
the environment by the way they are
produced’.
Nearly half of all Brits ‘wish they
had more time, as they reflect on the
wellbeing of the planet, to study how the
foods they buy are produced’.
Around 75% of the UK thinks that both
supermarkets and governments ‘could be
doing more to protect the environment’.
4. The Treat Imperative
This trend will limit and delay progress
to a perfectly progressive food culture.
There will be those who will not budge
easily from unwholesome treats.
It is impossible to imagine a social order
in which there is universal contentment
with absolute self-abnegation. No
healthy-living campaign has ever been
completely successful.
Even as science becomes ever more
definitive about the dangers of even
slightly immoderate consumption of
wine, doughnuts, sausages, chocolate
bars, treats will still sell. Indeed, it is
natural for people to self-decree that
they have earned / deserved a moment
of reprieve, either because life otherwise
drags or because one has been so
virtuous for so much of the day.
Most consumers will always be at
least occasionally guilty of ‘selective-
inattention’: being purposefully blind to
the dangers and depredations of excess.
The definition of treat will not remain
stable. Time will alter the normative
positioning of certain products: even
meat (for the growing number of meat
-moderating), will be considered a treat,
rather than the default protein in
every meal. But the indulgence itch
will remain.
Only 36% of adults agree that ‘By 2025,
good parents will generally not give
confectionery to their children as a
snack or a reward’.
5. The Soft Squeeze
The trend re-emphasises the perma-
stability of price sensitivity within
all essential expenditure for most
households. But sustainable goods can
respond.
Even as incomes rise so price sensitivity
in the consumer marketplace remains
acute: a permanent paradox.

“Household consumption has been
very slow to recover by historical
standards. Consumption per head of
non-durables (things such as food and
fuel that are bought and consumed
roughly straightaway) was 3.8% lower
in 2014 Q3 than in 2008 Q1. At the
same point after the 1980s and 1990s
recessions, it was 14.4% and 6.4% above
pre-recession levels respectively. This
might reflect households’ perceptions
that their income prospects have been
permanently damaged by the crisis and
that a significant cut to their spending is
therefore required.” IFS 2015
The 21st century contains ever-swelling
invitations to spend, while uncertainty
over the stability of personal/household
income streams is a fixture in millions
of lives. One’s personal commitment to
a sustainability-respecting lifestyle is
naturally constrained by one’s prevailing
effective demand.
Even as the totality of real income grows
in the UK by (say, a roughly on-trend)
40% in real terms in the period 2015-2025,
so even prosperous families will stay
responsive to price relativities (cost of
electricity v. cost of groceries, petrol v.
clothes, holidays v. home insurance).
Few products will ever enjoy perfectly
elastic demand at any price. The
consumption of many sustainability-
subverting goods (e.g. meat) will naturally
rise if/when over-the-counter costs fall.
Around two-thirds of the UK wishes that
the ‘supermarkets would supply food
products at much lower prices than they
do now’.
6. Me-Me Living
The personalisation of living, shopping,
eating and the precision of nutrition-
messaging make for an ineluctable trend
for all. Everyone’s individual carbon
footprint, just like everyone’s individual
nutritional intake, becomes tangible.
Once, many products were made with
only large clusters of end-users in mind:
now, personalisation is increasing
and increasingly feasible. Service-
providers can bring uniquely crafted
communications and offers directly to
named consumer-citizens, whose life-
situations, lifestyle choices and specific
needs and appetites can be thoroughly
known and predicted.
This implies customised and co-created
products (food, fashions, medicines),
made available in all appropriate
contextual and pretextual settings, at
point of sale and at moments of distress.
35% of 16-24s agree that, by 2025, smart
technology will ensure that all the
food we eat is both healthy for us and
produced in environmentally sensitive
ways’.
7. Everyday Diversity
Both social history and the state of
current consumer appetites confirm this
trend: millions are ready to alter their
eating behaviours and occasions. There
is no reason why sustainability messages
cannot conquer at least some of this space.
We live in a multiplicity of contrived
occasions. Cultural diversity naturally
creates new celebrations, festivals, feasts
and our social calendar is accordingly
punctuated.
A collaborative marketing community
delivers new pretexts for drinking
unusual wines, cooking non-traditional
dishes at Christmas, serving special foods
to accompany sports events. Eid, Diwali,
Christmas, Hanukah, Holi, Mothering
Sunday, Valentine’s Day, now compete
with new waves of social innovations:
Gender Reveals, Black Friday, Divorce
Parties, Bucket List Achievements,
National Poetry Day, Meatless Monday
and World Meat Free Day.
All of this creates new opportunities
for a purposeful colonisation of time:
“It’s Monday and I must…” / “It’s Sunday
lunch and it’s time for…”. There is a mix of
asceticism and indulgence at work here.
8. Guerrilla Citizenry
Nobody needs to take-it-or-leave-it any
more. The clamour of complaint will
quite possibly be responding ever more
fiercely to deteriorating eco-conditions
in the years ahead.
In the age of social media, moral outrage
naturally finds new recruits. Powerful
regiments of discontent can gather
around claims and demands over issues
large and small, local and international,
immediate and permanent: the air we
breath, the food we eat, the taxes we pay,
the behaviours we condemn, the public
policies we repudiate, the companies
we dislike.
Often, from subject to subject, there is
no unique authoritative orthodoxy. A
competition for moral righteousness and
intellectual hegemony becomes endemic.
In anti-patriarchal times, many are
suspicious of arguments wearing suits.
Pressure groups multiply, issues flare,
protest organises against the unclean
and the ungodly.
In this culture of complaint, those
who, however mildly, are seen to be
adulterating the business of living in
any theatre can expect to be exposed
and attacked, locally and nationally, over
even micro issues.
61% of 16-24 year olds believe that ‘there

is more that I personally could do to help
protect the environment’.
90% of people support the idea of ‘food
companies being totally honest about
just how much energy (water, electricity,
petrol) it costs to produce their
individual products’.
Over a quarter (26%) of 16-34 year olds
say ‘I wish that my partner would care
about the environment as much as I do’.
How will each of these trends
impact (positively or negatively)
our Central Assumption:
an Accrued Incremental
Improvement in National Eating
Culture? We see the trends in
green as impacting heavily and
positively; light-blue perhaps
neutrally; navy-blue in possible
opposition to the Central
Assumption.
“
”
The clamour of
complaint will quite
possibly be responding
ever more fiercely to
deteriorating
eco-conditions in the
years ahead.
e
High Positive Impact:
The Irresistibility of Moderation
e
High Positive Impact:
The End of Evasion
e Positive Impact: Me-Me Living
e
Positive Impact: Everyday
Diversity
e
Positive Impact: Guerilla
Citizenry
–
Possible Neutral Impact:
The Soft Squeeze
f
Negative Impact:
Responsibility Overload
f
Negative Impact: The Treat
Imperative

As we discussed earlier in this report,
it is striking how reduced meat eating
is not prominent in the current
inventory of eco-actions favoured by
consumer-citizens. Despite a widespread
recognition that meat production has
damaging ecological consequences,
out research shows that few people
believe that personally eating less meat
will make a difference. The relative
success over the years of campaigns
relating to water-saving, recycling
plastic bags, positive recycling and food
miles suggests that the public can be
persuaded to adopt more sustainable
behaviours, but the ‘eat less meat for
the sake of the planet’ message will
require the alignment of the many
pro-sustainability campaigners behind
a common, consistent and simple set
of messages.
Moderation will always be a more
compelling message for the mainstream
population than abstinence. This is
why messages of ‘eat meat as a treat’
or ‘eat less but better quality meat’
are likely to engage and persuade
more effectively than arguments in
favour of a completely vegetarian diet.
The campaigners also need to avoid
taking sustainability messages too
far away from the consumer’s self-
interest or assigning responsibilities
to consumers when they think others
should be shouldering them, especially
government, the food industry and
supermarkets.
The UK government’s recent decision
to impose a sugar tax on soft drinks
suggests that we may be entering an
era of increased legislation, driven by
the public demand that ‘something
should be done’ to address the obesity
crisis. The imposition of a ‘meat tax’,
in recognition of its environmental
harms, would inevitably have an impact
on consumption, although the public
clamour for such a step would need to
intensify considerably over the next
decade for government to take this step.
In our research 17% of the population
agreed that ‘processed meat should be
taxed (adding say 5-10% to the price)’ and
only 7% that ‘fresh meat’ be taxed. This
compares to 35% supporting the idea
of a tax on ‘confectionery items such
as chocolate bars and sweets’ and 37%
for a tax on ‘meals bought in fast food
restaurants’. In the foreseeable future,
food manufactures and supermarkets
– responding to growing consumer
interest in/demand for more sustainable
corporate behavior and their own
corporate social responsibility agendas
– are likely to have a greater impact than
government.
Food celebrities could also have a
significant role to play, as underlined by
Jamie Oliver’s high profile involvement
in the successful sugar tax campaign.
The stage appears to be set for a UK food
celebrity to take the lead in championing
a more sustainable attitude to food and
cooking.
This is a study which has no final
chapter. Britain is beginning to take meat
seriously in all its guises. This is the good
news. Perhaps if we all think more about
the environmental impact of our own
behaviour and do more ourselves, rather
than simply look to government and
business to solve the planet’s problems,
there is even much better news to come.
An Accelerated Future
External socio-economic and cultural trends seem to favour
our Central Assumption of Accrued Incremental Improvements
in our National Eating Culture. This is undoubtedly a positive
outcome, although the pace of change is likely to disappoint
many pro-sustainability activists. They might well ask how
might this gradualist trend be accelerated?
“
”
External socio-economic
and cultural trends
seem to favour our
Central Assumption.

Scientific realities
“The farm animal production sector is
the single largest human user of land,
contributing to soil degradation, water
quality and availability issues, and air
pollution in addition to detrimentally
impacting rural and urban communities,
public health and animal welfare.”
FAO SAFA Guidelines 2014
http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-
assessments-safa/en/
“The overall message is clear : globally we
should eat less meat… We cannot avoid
dangerous climate change unless we eat
less meat.” RIIA 2015
https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/changing-
climate-changing-diets
“A sustainable system provides safe,
healthy and affordable food for all and
does not use natural resources at a
rate that exceeds the capacity of the
earth to replenish them…it is widely
acknowledged that the UK’s current
food system is not sustainable”.
Which? / HMG Office for Science 2015
http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/
Which-GOS-Food-Report-FINAL6.pdf
Perceived inhibitions to progress
“Attitudes to meat-eating are culturally-
embedded…People do not eat meat, they
eat meals.” Eating Better 2015
http://www.eating-better.org/uploads/Documents/
Let'sTalkAboutMeat.pdf
“Information provision and awareness-
raising are important but not usually
sufficient to drive changes in behaviour.”
Eating Better 2015
http://www.eating-better.org/uploads/Documents/
Let'sTalkAboutMeat.pdf
“There is little dispute about the
importance of …the role of a moderate
intake of livestock products;
communicating this to the consumer
should be a priority… (recognising
the power of vested interests in
promulgating contradictory messages).”
HMG Office for Science 2011
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/288329/11-546-future-of-food-and-
farming-report.pdf
“There is no optimal level of meat
consumption…It is important to
remember that much food behaviour
is not based on rational choice… Most
consumers are not motivated
by explicit sustainability messages.”
Defra 2013
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/229537/pb14010-green-food-project-
sustainable-consumption.pdf
Meat under pressure
“How can normal consumers
understand the impacts caused by
their consumption of meat? … Are we
aware of the consequences of industrial
rearing on poverty and hunger, the
displacements of population and
migration, the well-being of animals
and climate change and biodiversity.
At the supermarket, the packets of meat
and sausages expose none of these
preoccupations”. Heinrich Boll Stiftung
(Translation : Dissident Insight)
https://www.boell.de/de/2016/03/01/iss-was-tiere-fleisch-ich
“It is estimated that an astonishing 15,500
liters of water is needed to produce just
one kilo of beef”. United Nations
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st/21_pdf/agriculture_
and_food_the_future_of_sustainability_web.pdf
“Current evidence shows that
the average US diet has a larger
environmental impact in terms of
increased greenhouse gas emissions…
About half of all American adults have
one of more preventable chronic diseases
that are related to poor quality dietary
patterns”. DGAC USA
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-
report/02-executive-summary.asp
“Fast canteen food … can be improved.
More attractive prices can be offered for
dishes of higher nutrition – for example,
fish and vegetables over the traditional
steak-frites”. Department of Health,
France (Translation: Dissident Insight)
http://social-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/PNNS_UK_INDD_V2.pdf
Literature Review

14 Gray’s Inn Rd
London
WC1X 8HN
hello@dissident.biz
www.dissident.biz

We Will Live As We Will Eat

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à We Will Live As We Will Eat

Similaire à We Will Live As We Will Eat (20)

Plus de Dissident

Plus de Dissident (9)

Dernier

Dernier (15)

We Will Live As We Will Eat