Health arguments can increase support for more sustainable food consumption

It is well known that food production causes significant greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to deforestation and biodiversity loss. Animal agriculture alone accounts for approximately 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, corresponding to about 60 percent of the total emissions from the food system. At the same time, unhealthy diets are estimated to cause more than a quarter of all premature deaths worldwide.

“Research shows that we need to reduce our consumption of animal products such as red meat and increase the share of plant-based foods. The problem is that such changes have so far been difficult to achieve,” says political scientist Erik Elwing.

An international study

Together with other researchers, he has examined the level of resistance to different policy measures aimed at promoting more sustainable food consumption. The researchers also investigated whether it matters if policies are justified using climate or health arguments. The analyses are based on a public opinion survey conducted in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Sweden, and India in 2023. In total, just over 10,000 people from the six countries participated in the survey.

Participants were asked to evaluate three policy measures:

• Taxes on unhealthy or high-emission foods, such as candy, soft drinks, and red meat
• Subsidies for healthy and climate-friendly foods such as fruits and vegetables
• Bans on advertising unhealthy or high-emission foods 

People prefer incentives over coercive measures

The results generally show that resistance was higher toward taxes than toward subsidies, which is consistent with previous research.

“Among survey participants, 33 percent opposed taxes on foods with a high climate impact, and 38 percent opposed taxes on unhealthy foods,” says Erik Elwing.

In all six countries except the United States, there was relatively greater acceptance of bans on advertising unhealthy or high-emission foods.

The results also suggest that how measures are framed affects support for policy proposals. When the measures in the survey were justified using health arguments, the difference in opposition between taxes and subsidies was 21 percentage points. When justified using climate arguments, the difference was 13 percentage points.

“For example, a proposal to make fruits and vegetables cheaper may be perceived positively when justified on health grounds, whereas a tax on red meat may face greater resistance because it is seen as limiting people’s freedom to choose what they eat," says Erik Elwing.

Support for cheaper fruits and vegetables in Sweden, but opposition to a meat tax

Comparing countries reveals clear differences. Support for policy measures promoting more sustainable food consumption was generally stronger in Brazil and South Africa than in the wealthier European countries, while skepticism was highest in the United States. The study also shows that political factors, especially ideology, play a greater role in wealthier countries, where climate issues are often more polarized.

Among the six countries, Sweden ranks roughly in the middle. There is some support for measures to make food more sustainable, but Swedes are relatively skeptical of food taxes. As in Germany, subsidies for fruits, vegetables, and other sustainable options receive significantly greater support than measures such as taxes on red meat.

“Regional differences within Sweden are small, and public opinion looks largely the same across the country. Overall, our study shows that both the design of policy measures and how they are framed can play an important role in how they are received by the public,” says Erik Elwing.