Investigating barriers to vegetarianism in developed economies, to determine

the scope of opportunity for policy intervention in shaping pro-environmental

consumption of food

Jessica Currie

Master’s of Science in Environmental SustainabilityInstitute of the Environment

University of Ottawa

Supervisor: Nathan YoungReader: Joshua Ramisch

Abstract

The process of industrial agriculture substantially impacts four planetary boundaries:

climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land-use change and biogeochemical cycles. In an

effort to mitigate environmental impacts associated with livestock agriculture, a shift to more

plant-based diets has been suggested. Despite robust evidence outlining these ecological impacts,

there is a general public neglect and policy void of the environmental benefits of vegetarianism

or environmentally-conscious consumption. Self-proclaimed rates of vegetarianism remain quite

low, at 3 % of the Canadian population. Paying special attention to the role of environmental

impacts, in addition to pro-environmental arguments and logic in research, an integrative

literature review is used to extract possible reasons for the neglect of vegetarianism. Guided by

an inductive coding approach, identification of barriers and bottlenecks to behavioural change

are analyzed. Moreover, policy recommendations are suggested for shaping pro-environmental

behaviour through adoption of vegetarianism. In doing so, this study demonstrates how the

human dimension is crucial in the struggle for earth system balance.

ii

Acknowledgments

I would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr. Nathan Young for his exemplary supervision

and guidance throughout the synthesis of this Major Research Paper. Likewise, I would like to

express my sincere gratitude to Joshua Ramisch for reading and grading my dissertation. I would

also like to thank the Institute of the Environment for accepting me into the Master’s of

Environmental Sustainability program and for giving me the opportunity to complete a Major

Research Topic.

iii

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..……….......ix

Chapter 1: Scope of the Problem…..……………………………………………………….……...…..….1I. Environmental impacts of Industrial Agriculture…………………………………………...…..…….......1

i. Climate Change…………………………………………………………………………………..2

ii. Land-System Change………………………………………………………….…..…..……..…..4

iii. Water Depletion………………………………………………………..…………...…………..5iv. Mitigation Measures………………………………………………………………..………...…

6v. Context……………………………………………………………….

…………………………..7

II. Mitigation of Environmental Impacts Through a Shift to Plant-Based Diets………………………..…..8

i. Environmental Benefits……………………………………………………….……………….....9ii. Limitations…………………………………………………………….……….……………....11ii. Trends, Motivations & Barriers to

Vegetarianism…………………………………………......13

III. Canadian Context……………………………………………………………………..…...…………..15

i. Agricultural Sector………………………………………………………………………...……15

ii. Greenhouse Gas Emissions……………………………..………………………………….......17

iii. Trends in Consumption…………………………..…………………………………...…….....18

Chapter 2: Barriers to Vegetarianism………….…………………………………………………...…..20I. Research Questions & Purpose…………………………………………………………………...

……..20

II. Design & Methodology……………………….……………………………………………………......20i. Why an Integrative Literature Review…...………………………………………………..

….....21ii. Methodological Approach…………………………..…………………………..

……………...22

III. Results……………….…………………….…………………………………………………….........25i. Screening of Results……..……………………………...…………………………………….…

25ii. General Characteristics of Studies……..………………...……………………………...….

….28

iv

iii. Data Extraction….……..…………………………………………………………...

………....29

IV. Discussion……...…….…………………….………………………………………………………….36i. Information Asymmetry………..……………………………………………………………......37ii. Political Economy……………………………………..………………………………….........40iii. Social Influence……………………….…………………………………………...

…………..43iv. Cognitive Dissonance…………………………………………………………………..

……...45v. Autonomy………………………………………..……………………….……………………..47

Chapter 3: Policy Recommendations…...…………………………………………………..…….…......51I. Informative Tools………………………………….………………………………………..……….…..57

i. Raising Awareness………………………………………………………………………………..58ii. ‘Nudge’ Motivation…………...…………………………………………………..…….………..62

II. Market-based……………………………….……………………………………….…………...……..64i. Subsidies………………………………………………………………………..………….…..

….64ii. Meat Taxes………………………………………………………………..………….……..........67

III. Regulations…………………………….…………………………………………..…….……............69

IV. Conclusion……………………………………..…………………………………..……….…………71

List of Figures

Figure 1. Per capita consumption (kg protein consumed) of livestock from 1980-2014. Calculated using data provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (AAFC, 2014)……………………………………..19

Figure 2. Flow diagram of academic literature obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing. ……………………26

Figure 3. Number of academic journal articles assessed for barriers to plant based diets for each of the 15 key search terms in Web of Science and Google Scholar. …………………………………………………27

Figure 4. Flow diagram of public webpages obtained on the basis of the public search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing……………………...27

v

Figure 5. Number of included academic research articles, by year of publication…………………………

28

Figure 6. Total number of primary articles retrieved from academic journal research for each of the 15 key search terms………………………………………………………………………………………………..30

Figure 7. Proportion of codes detected from primary journal articles, contributing to each of the five major themes, regarding barriers to plant-based diets…………………………………………………………….33

Figure 8. Proportion of codes detected from advocacy websites, contributing to each of the five major themes, regarding barriers to plant-based diets…………………………………………………………….33

Figure 9. Number of primary journal articles referencing each of the 7 categories of sociodemographics, that correlate to food consumption behaviour……………………………………………………………36

Figure 10. Schematic of policy instruments comprising information-based, market-based, and regulatory tools, spread along a continuum of authoritative force from autonomy to control (details on these instruments are given in Table 3). …………………………………………………………………………52

Figure 11. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “vegetarian* motivation”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing. …………………………………………………………………….92

Figure 12. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “vegetarian* barrier”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing……………………………………………………………………..93

Figure 13. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “vegetarian* environment”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing……………………………………………………………………..94

Figure 14. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “influence on consumption”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing……………………………………………………………………..95

Figure 15. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “meat consumption”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed

vi

ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing………………………………………………………………….….96

Figure 16. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “promotion of vegetarian*”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing……………………………………………………………………..97

Figure 17. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “environmentally significant consumption”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing……………………………………………..98

Figure 18. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “limit vegetarian*”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing…………………………………………………………………………………….99

Figure 19. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “obstacle vegetarian*”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing…………………………………………………………………....100

Figure 20. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “advertise food”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing…………………………………………………………………………………...101

Figure 21. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “reducing meat consumption + government”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing…………………………………………….102

Figure 22. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “consumer characteristics + government”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing…………………………………………….103

Figure 23. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “sustainable + vegan”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing……………………………………………………………………104

vii

Figure 24. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “vegan barrier”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing…………………………………………………………………………………...105

Figure 25. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “sustainable food consumption policy”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing………………………………………………………106

Figure 26. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of autonomy……………………………………………………………………...107

Figure 27. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of cognitive dissonance…………………………………………………….….…107

Figure 28. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of information asymmetry……………………………………………………..…108

Figure 29. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of social influence………………………………………………………….…….109

Figure 30. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of political economy…………………………………………………….………..111

Figure 31. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) underlying the 6 public webpages assessed for barriers to plant based diets……………………………………………………...112

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Brief description of key themes identified as barriers to adopting a plant-based diet, including data concerning their frequency with respect to categories, codes, and articles or webpages………….....32

Table 2. Summary of policy instruments and recommendations to combat each of the five barriers to adopting a plant-based diet, and effect pro-environmental change………………………………………..55

Table 3. Detailed outline of the codes-categories-concepts methodology uncovered from the 111 academic journal articles assessed for barriers to plant-based diets. The context (implicit; explicit) in which the code was stated, the referenced article, and the source are also included…………………….113

ix

Introduction

Evidence suggests that the increasing demand for animal protein worldwide has negative

impacts on environmental sustainability, in addition to human health and food security (Steinfeld

et al., 2006; Garnett, 2011; Porter et al., 2014; Sabaté & Soret, 2014). Several issues include land

degradation, water use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, among others (Steinfeld et al.,

2006). Animal-based or omnivorous diets are more GHG-intensive than their vegetarian

counterparts (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Soret et al., 2014; Tilman & Clark, 2014) predominantly due

to (i) inefficiencies associated with growing crops for animal feed; and (ii) methane emissions

attributed to the digestive processes of ruminant animals (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Consequently,

the livestock industry alone has major environmental implications that must be addressed.

Advances in research and technological innovation in industrial agriculture are underway

for both mitigation and adaptation to climate change (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Porter et al., 2014).

However, despite these technological advances in commercial agricultural production, adoption

of new technologies may not achieve sufficient mitigation in a timely manner. Thus, in

combination with research and technological innovation, changes in individual consumption

behaviours are more likely to promote substantial reductions in GHGs, especially in developed

countries (Garnett, 2011; Garnett, 2013) that exhibit the highest rates of meat consumption on a

global scale (FAO, 2013).

In Canada, sparse data exists on rates of vegetarianism and trends in consumption. Only

one study has attempted to determine the percentage of vegetarians in Canada, however self-

proclaimed rates of vegetarianism may be exaggerated and the data are substantially outdated,

with the study dating back to 2004 (Ipsos-Reid, 2004). In addition, this study was merely a

x

snapshot in time, and consequently gave no insight into trends associated with vegetarian diets.

Per capita animal protein consumption in Canada is currently (2014) at its lowest point since

1981 (AAFC, 2014), suggesting a shift to plant-based, environmentally-conscious diets may be

somewhat attainable.

Studies have found that factors such as human health and animal welfare are more

commonly cited as motivations for adopting plant-based consumption habits, in comparison to

environmental concern (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Krizmanic, 1992; Rozin et al., 1997; White

et al., 1999; Potts & White, 2008; Fox & Ward, 2008; Hoffman et al., 2013). Most studies

assume the best way to address this problem is to convince more people to change their dietary

habits (ie. motivation). However, the following analysis examines what is actively discouraging

pro-environmental behavioural change. It is important to specify that motivation is the reason a

person behaves in a particular manner; whereas barriers refer to active discouragement that

prevent a person from acting in a specific way. Moreover, motivational success is considered to

be subsequent to the removal of barriers. Motivational attitudes provide only a piece to the

puzzle, and contrary to the theory of reasoned action, attitudes themselves are poor predictors of

behavioural intention (Vermier & Verbeke, 2006). The importance of the following analysis is

timely, considering no comprehensive analysis of barriers to vegetarianism in developed

countries currently exists (Berg, 2012; Graça et al., 2015).

This research addresses three overarching research questions concerning the

environmental impacts associated with the livestock industry: (i) What is the nature and scale of

the environmental impacts associated with animal agriculture, with a particular focus on

Canada?; (ii) What are the barriers to vegetarianism in western societies?; and (iii) What are

potential policy measures that could be implemented to remove barriers to vegetarianism, and

xi

invoke a shift to plant-based diets? In order to enable an effective transition to dietary

sustainability, critical barriers must be identified, to subsequently determine potential points for

policy intervention (Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013).

The overall purpose of this research is to examine barriers to vegetarianism in Canada

and Western economies using inductive coding to extract key themes and commonalities found

in various sources of literature. This research did not narrow its scope to one expected barrier ( ie.

failure to diffuse vegetarianism as a technology, media coverage, behavioural factors that shape

decisions, or the political economy of the meat industry), as it was anticipated that all or some of

these factors could be potential impediments to embracing vegetarianism. To the author’s

knowledge, as a comprehensive analysis of barriers to adopting a plant-based diet remains

uninvestigated as of 2016, it is necessary to acquire a complete representation of the issue.

Likewise, an all-encompassing perspective is warranted, as the anticipated dietary transition

would be on an unprecedented scale, likely encountering dietary bottlenecks from individual to

institutional levels (Friel et al., 2009; Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013). A dietary bottleneck is

considered to be a dietary barrier, a point of blockage, that impedes an individual and population

transition to adopting plant-based diets. Once identified, suggestions for combatting these

impediments in Canada are proposed using policy instruments for the purpose of promoting

behavioural shifts to plant-based diets.

xii

Chapter 1: Scope of Problem

I. Environmental Impacts of Industrial Agriculture

The planetary boundary framework proposed by Rockström et al. (2009), outlines the

intersection of nine biophysical processes and systems that stabilize the earth system upon which

humanity can safely operate. Transgression of planetary boundaries by means of anthropogenic

activity can cause irreversible environmental damages that could inadvertently force the earth

system into an inhospitable state (Rockström et al., 2009). Using this schema, Steffen et al.

(2015) have concluded that human-induced changes to earth system thresholds have surpassed

four out of nine planetary boundaries. Industrial agriculture contributes substantially to all four

of the surpassed boundaries: Climate change, Loss of biosphere integrity, Land-system change

and Biogeochemical flows (WHO, 2005; Steinfeld et al., 2006; Steffen et al., 2015).

Concurrently, transgression of planetary boundaries such as climate change negatively impacts

global food systems (Parry & Ruttan, 1991; Mendelsohn et al., 1994; Easterling et al., 2007),

thus creating a positive feedback that exacerbates the initial push on the ecosystem.

The first goal of the international food system is to feed people effectively on a global

scale, while combatting the wide-ranging environmental problems associated with food

production (Godfray et al., 2010; Garnett, 2013). These are significant challenges. The process

of raising animals for human consumption is fundamentally inefficient, with a progressive loss of

energy throughout the trophic chain (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003), conflicting with the

optimization of food supply. This highlights the significance of human consumption on global

food security and environmental degradation, which are inextricably linked (Garnett, 2011;

Sabaté & Soret, 2014).

1

The global food system is essential to our survival, nevertheless it contributes

significantly to environmental degradation through elevated GHG emissions, deforestation,

biodiversity impacts, water depletion and pollution (WHO, 2005; Steinfeld et al., 2006; Steffen

et al., 2015). For instance, on a worldwide basis, agriculture accounts for nearly a third of all

GHG emissions (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Contribution to environmental damages within the

food system is widespread, from production to processing, packaging, distribution, retail, waste

and consumption (Garnett, 2008; Godfray et al., 2010; Garnett, 2013; Porter et al., 2014). A

whole systems approach is necessary to achieve sufficient mitigation of environmental damage.

However, the greater part of degradation is inherent to the initial production of food commodities

(Garnett, 2011), which is intrinsically driven by consumption patterns of the global population.

Of the two main agricultural divisions (crop and livestock), the livestock sector is under

particular scrutiny. Evidence from an increasing number of studies suggests that the expanding

demand for animal-protein consumption has negative impacts on environmental sustainability

(Steinfeld et al., 2006; Stehast et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2014; Sabaté & Soret, 2014; Steffen et

al., 2015). Steinfeld et al. (2006) cites the livestock sector as one of the most substantial

contributors to severe environmental issues on local and global scales, as a result of GHG

emissions, land degradation, and water use. A common issue tying all three together refers to the

inefficiency of growing crops for animal feed, which also has implications for food security.

i. Climate Change

Anthropogenic climate change is a prevalent issue, caused primarily by the emission of

greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere (IPCC, 1994). Many countries are trying to limit

their environmental footprint by reducing prominent GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) in many

2

sectors. The global food sector contributes significantly to climate change through elevated GHG

emissions, particularly methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) (WHO, 2005). Energy use (CO2)

is a relatively low contributor to agricultural emissions; rather, emissions are dominated by

manure (N2O), fertilizer (N2O), land-use change (CO2), and enteric fermentation (CH4) (Steinfeld

et al., 2006; Stehast et al., 2009).

On a worldwide basis, livestock agriculture accounts for nearly a fifth (18 %) of all GHG

emissions. To put this into perspective, livestock’s contribution to anthropogenic GHG emissions

is greater than the global, energy-intensive transportation sector (Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Moreover, livestock contributes 37 % and 65 % of global CH4 and N2O emissions respectively

(Steinfeld et al., 2006). Ruminants (ie. cattle, sheep) account for a greater share of livestock

emissions in comparison to monogastrics (ie. pigs, poultry) (Crutzen et al., 1986; Stehast et al.,

2009). The contrast in emissions among animals is mainly affected by enteric ecology, energy

expenditure, and body weight, in addition to the quantity and type of feed material necessary for

sustenance (Crutzen et al., 1986; Burke and Lashof, 1989; Kulshreshtha et al., 1999).

In order to combat global warming, it is essential to achieve the national targets identified

(Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) at the United Framework Convention on

Climate Change’s twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21). Globally, it was

agreed that average temperatures must remain below 2°C warming relative to pre-industrial

levels, with efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C (UNFCCC, 2016). Despite having already entered

a zone of uncertainty with respect to the planetary boundary of climate change (Steffen et al.,

2015), CO2 emissions must remain below 450ppm to avoid surpassing global warming of 2°C

(IPCC, 2014). Consequently, the current emissions trajectory must be substantially reduced

(IPCC, 2014). Given that livestock accounts for a fifth of all GHG emissions (Steinfeld et al.,

3

2006), acceleration of technological innovation in the livestock sector is crucial, in combination

with considerable changes in public consumption patterns, to mitigate this significant source of

emissions (Stehast et al., 2009).

ii. Land-System Change

Land-system change is fundamentally linked to CO2 emissions, with roughly 6 – 17 % of

global emissions attributable to agricultural land-system change alone (Bellarby et al., 2008).

Degradation of forests for agricultural conversion not only releases GHG emissions into the

atmosphere, but also reduces the capacity of the earth to uptake CO2, thus impacting the climate

cycle by eliminating an essential carbon sink (Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Livestock agricultural land comprises both grazing land and cropland necessary to

produce feed for livestock respectively (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Accordingly, approximately 25 –

26 % (> 33 million km2) of global ice-free land surface is used solely for livestock grazing

(Asner et al., 2004; Steinfeld et al., 2006; Stehast et al., 2009), with an additional 33 % of total

arable land used for feed crop cultivation to feed livestock (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Consequently,

livestock single-handedly account for the most extensive form of anthropogenic land-use in the

world (Asner et al., 2004; Steinfeld et al., 2006). In terms of agricultural production, 70 % of

total agricultural land is used for animal grazing (Asner et al., 2004; Steinfeld et al., 2006;

Stehast et al., 2009), which could be substantially reduced with a global shift away from animal

consumption.

The degradation of pastures and rangeland occupied by livestock exacerbates the

environmental impacts associated with land-system change. Dependent on geographic location

and associated climatic factors, degradation of land quality varies substantially. Yet, roughly 20

4

% of pastures and rangeland have deteriorated on a global scale (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Thus, the

cumulative impacts of forest eradication and land degradation have resulted in the loss of a

beneficial carbon sink, reducing the global capacity for natural uptake of CO2 (Steinfeld et al.,

2006).

In the United Kingdom, a more centrally focused study found that inclusion of

consumption-induced land-use change increased the environmental footprint of the entire food

system by 50 %. Moreover, roughly 75 % of land-use change emissions in the UK were

attributable to livestock alone (Audsley et al., 2009).

The world has entered into a land-system change planetary boundary of uncertainty, with

substantial reductions in original forest cover (Steffen et al., 2015). Consequently, industrial

livestock agriculture must be reduced to limit further land-system change and degradation, and

provide an opportunity for regrowth of a former naturally occurring CO2 sink. Likewise, a

reduction in livestock agriculture is necessary to achieve the aforementioned targets set forth at

COP21 this past year.

iii. Water Depletion

Water is an integral part of the planet; it forms the basis of social and economic activity,

ecosystems, and life itself. Without water, we cannot survive. Though global freshwater use is

still within its planetary limits (Steffen et al., 2015), there is worry that exponential population

growth coupled with anthropogenic reliance on water, will push the freshwater resource past its

boundary in many regions.

Globally, agriculture consumes 70% of anthropogenic freshwater withdrawals (WWAP,

2012). However, water requirements vary substantially for differing foods, forage crops for

5

livestock, and animal consumption directly. For comparison purposes, production of 1kg of beef

uses 100 times more water than production of 1kg of grain when taking into account forage and

grain production for ruminant consumption (Pimentel & Pimentel, 1996; Pimentel & Pimentel,

2003). Though comparisons differ according to animal protein, size, and associated crop feed

(Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003), it has been suggested ruminants specifically, require exponentially

more water in comparison to various grains, beans, and vegetables (Olson-Sawyer, 2013).

It is estimated that if the world were to continue on its current trajectory of meat

consumption (animal protein constitutes >20% total calories), freshwater resources will be

depleted by 2050 (Jägerskog & Clausen, 2012). Yet, if consumption of animal protein is limited

to 5% of total calories, “there will, however, be just enough water” (Jägerskog & Clausen, 2012)

to remain within the planetary boundary. Furthermore, regional deficits in water can be

overcome with an ethical and organized system of food trade (Jägerskog & Clausen, 2012).

iv. Mitigation Measures

Substantial research is underway to help mitigate the impact of livestock farming on

global warming and other planetary boundaries (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Porter et al., 2014).

Mitigation measures can be broadly classified into five different categories: enhancing carbon

removals, optimizing nutrient use, improving productivity, managing and benefitting from

agricultural outputs, and reducing carbon intensity of fuel inputs (Smith et al., 2007; Garnett,

2011). Likewise, examples of solutions to reduce environmental impacts associated with

agriculture include reforestation, changes in the energy system (Fisher et al., 2007; Metz et al.,

2007; van Vuuren et al., 2007), management of livestock diets (including use of supplements)

(Beauchemin et al., 2007; Porter et al., 2014), fertilizer selection and manipulation (Dobbie &

6

Smith, 2003), and anaerobic digestion biotechnologies (McAllister et al., 1996; Amon et al.,

2006), to name but a few.

However, many issues arise with relying on technological improvements. First,

development and adoption of these technologies could realistically take years, and even then,

will not achieve sufficient mitigation to remain within planetary boundaries. Second, these

efforts are focused on-site (e.g. energy usage), and don’t incorporate a whole system approach

for effective mitigation (Stewart, 2009; Crosson et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2013), including

both onsite and off (Weiske et al., 2006), such as the food chain (Garnett, 2011). Third, present

trends in animal-protein demand are counteracting the improvements of technology, as meat

consumption is increasing on a global scale (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998). Thus, in combination

with research and technological innovation, avoidance of severe agriculture impacts on the

integrity of the earth system are likely only to materialize with changes in individual food

consumption (Garnett, 2011; Garnett, 2013), by means of transitioning to locally sourced, less-

industrialized organic foods, reducing caloric intake and waste, and shifting to plant-based diets

(Duchin, 2005; Foster et al., 2006; FAO, 2010; Reisch et al., 2013). The latter is the focus of this

research, given its greater environmental, but also personal health, social, and resulting economic

benefits (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Stehast et al., 2009; McMichael et al., 2007).

v. Context

Livestock production, and consequently animal protein consumption has been well-

established in the literature, especially since the UN’s FAO publication of Livestock’s Long

Shadow (Steinfeld et al., 2006). However, climate change mitigation policies have focused

predominantly on the energy sector, while the agriculture sector has received considerably less

7

attention despite the relatively undisputed science (Stehfast et al., 2009; van Dooren et al.,

2014). Though Canada has less proportional emissions from the agricultural sector in

comparison to other countries, the lesser fraction is attributed to Canada’s (i) extensive fossil fuel

industry (contributing 26% of total emissions), and (ii) substantial animal product imports,

especially dairy (CDIC, 2015) and red meat (AAFC, 2016), which are not accounted for within

the national emissions breakdown. Thus, changes in consumption could have cross-border

effects in environmental mitigation, while also providing an example for other countries to

follow suit. To further drive the point of dietary benefits home, a global transition to plant-based

diets could reduce the costs of climate change mitigation by 50% in 2050 (Stehfast et al., 2009;

de Boer et al., 2016), and would save more emissions on an individual level than converting to

driving an ultra-efficient hybrid (ie. Prius) (Eshel & Martin, 2005). A more detailed analysis

regarding the bottom up approach of a shift to plant-based diets to mitigate environmental

impacts of agriculture, follows.

II. Mitigation of Environmental Impacts through a Shift to Plant-Based Diets

Evidence suggests that animal-based diets are more environmentally-intensive than their

vegetarian1 counterparts, predominantly attributed to (i) inefficiencies associated with growing

crops for animal feed, and (ii) methane emissions associated with digestive processes of

ruminant animals (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Many studies suggest that dietary change in Western

societies could help to reduce environmental impacts, primarily GHG emissions. Developed

countries exhibit the highest rates of meat intake and overconsumption worldwide (FAO, 2013),

signifying that dietary modification from diets rich in animal products (Garnett, 2011; Garnett,

2013), to more sustainable plant-based diets (Sabaté & Soret, 2014) could mitigate the effects of 1For the purpose of this research, vegetarian encompasses a predominantly plant-based diet. As veganism is considered to be the truest form of vegetarianism, it is also incorporated into this term.

8

climate change from GHGs (Aiking et al., 2006; McMichael et al., 2007), in addition to food

security. Diverting grains from animal intake to direct human consumption would also result in

an increase in total food protein, albeit relatively small (CAST, 1999). Nevertheless, the benefits

of transitioning to a plant-based diet outweigh the environmental and socio-economic costs of

animal-protein consumption. Given the considerable acknowledgement and relatively undisputed

evidence of the contribution of livestock production to global issues, it is surprising policy has

yet to intervene. Mitigation of environmental impacts through a shift to plant-based diets is not

unrealistic; increasing concern for the environment and human health in developed economies

are two compelling, empirically based reasons for dietary transition (Duchin, 2005).

i. Environmental Benefits

Researchers are increasingly finding that vegetarian or restricted-meat diets are

associated with significant reductions in GHGs (Salonen & Helne, 2012; Hallström et al., 2014;

Masset et al., 2014; Berady, 2015). For example, a study by Soret et al. (2014) found that a

vegetarian diet has 29.2% less associated GHG emissions per day than an omnivorous lifestyle.

Scarborough et al. (2014) examined the difference in GHG emissions among vegans,

vegetarians, fish-eaters, and meat-eaters, ages 20-79. Using a standard 2,000kcal diet adjusted

for gender and age, individual GHG emissions (kgCO2e/day) were highest for meat eaters.

Emissions declined with lower levels of meat consumption, and accordingly, were lowest for

vegans. The study concluded that individual GHG emissions were roughly twice as high for

meat-eaters, in comparison to vegans and vegetarians.

If all citizens were to shift their diets, it has been predicted that emissions would be

reduced by 29% simply by adopting global dietary guidelines on healthy eating and responsible

9

energy intake. Moreover, emissions would be reduced by 63% through global acceptance of

vegetarian diets, and by 70% via veganism (Springmann et al., 2016). Though these three

scenarios are not realistic on a worldwide level, they demonstrate the range of environmental

benefits of progressively excluding animal-based foods from human consumption. This analysis

suggests that all animal-based diets are damaging to the environment, and a truly plant-based diet

(vegan) will be needed to most effectively mitigate agriculture’s ecological impacts. However, a

global dietary transition to veganism is improbable. Hence, this Major Research Paper

emphasizes a decrease in livestock consumption through plant-based diets more generally, which

are expected to achieve sizable emissions reductions on both individual and global scales.

Other research suggests that small changes could also have a substantial impact. Masset

et al. (2014) suggest that a decrease in consumption-related GHGs by 20% is realistic without

jeopardizing nutritional quality and affordability. Achieving this goal would simply require

reducing the density and energy intake of meat products, while increasing the volume of plant-

based crops.

Alternatively, Stehfest et al., (2009) used modelling techniques to estimate livestock

impacts on climate change for various circumstances. The study modelled different scenarios of

GHG emissions with respect to population growth, per capita income, and the growing demand

for meat products worldwide. It was concluded that conversion to low-meat or vegetarian diets

would (i) make more land available for carbon uptake by vegetation; and (ii) substantially reduce

CH4 and N2O emissions. In addition to these benefits, it was estimated that low-intensity diets

would simultaneously achieve a 450ppm CO2eq stabilization target (by 2050) at 50% less cost

than mitigation policies such as carbon pricing. Plant-based diets have also been found to have

10

less associated GHG emissions than their omnivorous counterparts in terms of other varying

measures including calories, grams of protein and serving size (Tilman & Clark, 2014).

ii. Limitations

On the basis of a life-cycle assessment, Baroni et al., (2016) discovered a resource impact

reduction of 38% and 62% for a vegetarian and vegan diet, respectively. Likewise, Rejinders &

Soret (2003) suggest that the environmental impact of omnivorous meals are 1.5 - 2 times greater

than vegetarian alternatives, where meat is replaced by plant protein. Lastly, Tom et al., (2015)

also conducted a lifecycle analysis to understand the implications of dietary change for three

differing dietary scenarios within the context of the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines. The latter

analysis found that resource use and emissions per calorie were higher under the recommended

guidelines which incorporated a greater caloric intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood.

The life-cycle analysis by Tom et al. (2015) received viral attention for its contradictory results.

Consequently, the study has been recently scrutinized by other academics stressing the many

challenges in assessing environmental consequences of differing diet regimens, particularly with

respect to quantifiable life-cycle analyses (Cucurachi et al., 2016). Cucurachi et al. (2016) argue

that marginal data and operational tools to quantify marginal impacts are infrequently available,

and additional research is needed to make accurate, quantifiable life-cycle comparisons of

dietary changes. Specific to the study conducted by Tom et al. (2015), Cucurachi et al. (2016)

emphasize issues with respect to the use of meta-analyses, and associated standardization, given

the varying system boundaries of life cycle analyses.

It is noteworthy to add that there are also environmental issues associated with some

plant-based foods. For instance, frozen foods, long-distance air transport of exotic foods

11

(Rejinders & Soret, 2003), or pre-washed highly packaged salad greens (Nereng et al., 2009)

may be more burdensome than consumption of a locally sourced chicken breast. Csutora (2012)

argues that occasionally, when a behavioural change in society is achieved, the resulting

observed ecological effect is not what is anticipated. For instance, he suggests that though

effective communication and policy instruments could invoke behavioural changes in consumers

to adopt plant-based diets, their ecological footprint may not change. Examples include

substitution of meat products for water and GHG-intensive imported and exotic vegan foods by

newly converted vegetarians, which would counteract the shift to vegetarianism. This occurrence

is known as the behaviour-impact gap (BIG) problem. Similarly, Audsley et al. (2009) also states

that environmental impacts will depend greatly upon how consumers compensate for animal-

protein, as some meat-alternatives (e.g. soy) can actually be more environmentally demanding

with respect to the planetary boundary framework. Thus, the shift in consumption to

environmentally conscious, plant-based diets must focus on improving vegetable, cereal, nut, and

seed intake to uphold sustainability, rather than switching to meat alternatives, and should thus

be a consideration when developing policies. Regardless, transitioning from animal-based to

plant-based diets would substantially aid in mitigating environmental impacts of the food

industry.

Elimination of meat and/or dairy products is anticipated to achieve more substantial

reductions in GHG emissions in comparison to reducing food waste, eating seasonally, locally,

decreasing consumption of foods with low nutritional value (Garnett, 2011; Meier et al., 2014),

and reducing overconsumption of calories (IFPRI, 2016). Though examination of all of these

factors are out of the scope of this Major Research Paper, it is important to emphasize that a

12

combination of these practices would likely achieve a more environmentally sustainable

consumption pattern; all of which are dependent upon individual behaviour.

iii. Trends, Motivations & Barriers to Vegetarianism

Despite a recent surge of attention to vegetarianism, the literature base surrounding these

challenges is quite small, and has only recently been explored, specifically with regards to

motivations for vegetarianism, relationships between dietary patterns and environmental

concerns, and barriers to, and potential for behavioural change. Though environmental concern is

a critical catalyst of climate-friendly action, it is infrequently considered as a consumer

motivation for adopting vegetarianism (Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Wakefield et al., 2006).

Surveys conducted in Western countries (USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand) suggest that merely

1-8 % of people become vegetarians based solely upon ecological interest (Beardsworth & Keil,

1991; Krizmanic, 1992; Rozin et al., 1997; White et al., 1999; Potts & White, 2008; Fox &

Ward, 2008; Hoffman et al., 2013). Alternatively, prevalent factors motivating vegetarians

include health, ethics and animal rights.

Similarly, it has been found that people not only differ in their level of environmentally-

conscious food behaviours, but also behaviour type regarding product choice or curtailment in

general (Verain et al., 2015). Vegetarianism currently ranks low on the list of sustainable

practices that individuals participate in, or generally consider for that matter. A study by Griffin

& Sobal (2013) in upstate New York, noted that roughly 9.6% of randomly selected survey

respondents participated in vegetarianism (ie. meat curtailment) as an environmentally-friendly

activity. This percentage, though seemingly high, also significantly correlated with food allergies

and eating disorders, and should thus be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, this figure was

13

low in comparison to other ‘sustainable’ activities including visiting farmer’s markets,

composting, gardening and purchasing organic groceries. Among vegetarian respondents, plant-

based diets were most common among the unmarried, employed, and student populations.

Likewise, based on a population-based longitudinal study of the Swiss Food Panel (Switzerland),

Siegrist et al. (2015) reported that curtailing meat products was at the low end of perceived

environmental benefits of food consumption, with local foods, packaging, import rates, seasonal

produce, and organic groceries ranking higher. Lastly, Solonen & Helne (2012) analyzed Finnish

university students’ views on sustainability activities and reported similar results to the

abovementioned studies. Out of 36 items assessed in terms of environmental, economic, and

social sustainability, respondents ranked vegetarianism as the least important contributor.

Considering the environmental, personal health, economic, and social benefits of adopting a

plant-based diet, this finding is seemingly irrational.

Thus, these preliminary findings suggest that a lack of knowledge concerning the

environmental benefits associated with livestock curtailment has resulted in a lost opportunity.

Evidence suggests that poor supply, habit, and moral disengagement may affect curtailment of

meat consumption based on the few survey-based studies conducted thus far (Zur & Klöckner,

2012; Graça et al., 2014; Mäkiniemi & Vainio, 2014). However, barriers to vegetarianism in

Western economies have not been explicitly and comprehensively researched. Similar to a cost-

benefit analysis, the argument suggests that only when the benefits outweigh the barriers to

change, will a behavioural transition occur (Lea & Worsley, 2003). Thus, to enable an effective

transition to dietary sustainability, critical bottlenecks must be identified, in order to

subsequently identify potential points for policy intervention (Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013).

14

This study examines barriers, broadly construed, rather than specifics, (ie. failure to

diffuse vegetarianism as a technology, media coverage, behavioural factors that shape decisions,

or the political economy of the meat industry) because it is anticipated that some or all of these

factors will reveal themselves as dietary bottlenecks, after extensive analysis of the literature.

Though the topic is broad in scope, it is important to recognize the central research hypothesis

that potentially multiple factors are inhibiting the proposed dietary change. As a comprehensive

analysis of barriers to adopting a plant-based diet remains uninvestigated, it is essential to get a

complete representation of the issue. Future research could then focus on a narrower and more

specific approach to each of the identified bottlenecks uncovered in this integrative literature

review.

III. Canadian Context

i. Agricultural Sector

In Canada, the agriculture sector is composed of roughly 205 000 farms (Beaulieu, 2014),

with Western Canada contributing to the bulk of crop production, and Eastern Canada focusing

primarily on livestock (Kulshreshtha et al., 1999). Despite a complex and integrated supply

chain, agricultural production is the foundation of the agriculture and agri-food system in

Canada, given the direct relationships with the remainder of the industry (AAFC, 2015a).

The agriculture and agri-food system (AAFS) comprises a multifaceted supply chain with

agricultural producers, suppliers, food processors, retailers, and foodservice providers (AAFC,

2015a). Thus, the integrated supply chain contributes directly and indirectly to GDP and

employment rates in Canada (AAFC, 2015a). As an aggregate, the complex industry generated

15

$106.9 billion in 2013, or 6.7% of Canada’s GDP, ranking the AAFS as seventh-largest

contributor to GDP across sectors. Of this contribution, more than 80% of GDP generated by

primary agriculture and food processing was attributed to four provinces: Ontario, Quebec,

Alberta, Saskatchewan (AAFC, 2015a). The agriculture and agri-food industry is an important

economic player, employing over 2.2 million people equaling 12.3% of all Canadian jobs

(AAFC, 2015a). Primary agriculture specifically, accounted for 1.3% of Canada’s GDP and

1.6% of all Canadian jobs in 2013 (AAFC, 2015a).

As of 2013, Canada was the fifth largest exporter of agriculture and agri-food products

globally, following the EU, US, Brazil, and China (AAFC, 2015a). With export sales at $46

billion, Canada maintained a 3.5% share of total world agricultural and agri-food exports. Of the

$46 billion in exports, animal products accounted for 17.9% (AAFC, 2015a). Moreover, on a

volume basis, 65% of hog and pork products, and 46% of cattle and beef products were exported

(AAFC, 2015a). Nevertheless, Canada remains a large importer of agriculture and agri-food

products, with imports amounting to $34.3 billion in 2013 (AAFC, 2015a). Over a quarter

(28.8%) all Canadian agriculture and agri-food imports are attributed to plant-based products,

specifically fruits and vegetables (AAFC, 2015a).

In 2013, provincial and federal government expenditures of $6.2 billion contributed to

31.2% of agricultural GDP (AAFC, 2015a). Total government expenditures vary considerably

across provinces, however program payments, research, and inspection account for the majority

of monetary support across the nation (AAFC, 2015a). Though program support has declined

over the last decade, financial subsidies from both levels of government remain substantial.

16

ii. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In Canada, agriculture accounts for roughly 10 % of national GHG emissions (CO2eq) by

economic sector, contributing 27 % and 70 % of total CH4 and N2O emissions respectively, not

including the use of fossil fuels, land-use change or indirect emissions from activities such as

fertilizer production and imports (Kulshreshtha et al., 1999; AAFC, 2000; O’Mara, 2011;

Environment Canada, 2015;). Likewise, contributing most prominently to total emissions in

decreasing order, include enteric fermentation and agriculture soils, manure management and

fertilizer use (Beauchemin, et al., 2010; Environment Canada, 2015). The GHG intensity of crop

and animal production in Canada dwarfs all other sectors with ratio of 3.1 tonnes of CO2eq /

$1000 production. To put this into perspective oil and gas extraction has a ratio of 1.4 tonnes of

CO2eq / $1000 production (Statistics Canada, 2011). This is mostly attributed to the fact that

agriculture is CH4 and N2O intensive, which have much higher 100 year global warming

potentials (25 and 298 respectively) in comparison to the baseline of CO2 (Soloman et al., 2007).

Though emissions from agricultural production (livestock, crop, and on-site energy

emissions) have increased, reductions in GHGs from land use and land-use change decreased by

a greater amount, yielding an 8.1% reduction in absolute emissions from the agricultural sector

since 1990 (AAFC, 2015a). Improved land management practices have reduced anthropogenic

GHG contributions, while enhancing soil sequestration of carbon. Increasingly, producers are

implementing Environmental Farm Plans (EFP), and adopting Beneficial Management Practices

(BMPs) to strengthen environmentally friendly practices onsite (AAFC, 2015a).

17

iii. Trends in Consumption

Examining trends in consumption is important to develop a sense regarding how

vegetarianism is (or is not) resonating with consumers. Ultimately, it has been found that many

citizens do not exhibit climate-friendly food consumption. As of the last documented study

conducted in Canada, rates of vegetarianism remain quite low, at 3% of the population (Ipsos-

Reid, 2004). As mentioned earlier, however, the study is outdated and reveals no longitudinal

trends that could correlate to the documented increase in attention to environmental issues and

recent influx of publications, documentaries and media outlining the vast array of problems

pertaining to animal agriculture (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). Regardless,

this percentage is too low to combat the environmental issues associated with the agricultural

industry. Given the environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, the greater the proportion of the

population who practices sustainable consumption, the better.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada further provide insight to consumption habits in

Canada through data (1981-present) concerning per capita consumption of animal products

(Figure 1). The amount of animal protein consumed (kg consumption) is currently at an all-time

low despite fluctuations per protein source (AAFC, 2014), suggesting a further decrease in

animal-protein consumption may be obtainable. Since 1980, reductions in beef (-32%) and pork

(-36%) have counteracted the increase in consumption of poultry (+34%). Reductions are

predominantly due to an aging population, concerned with the health impacts of red meat, and

increased prices for both beef and pork (Conference Board of Canada, 2015). Despite this trend

in consumption, however, demand for animal products is considered to be on the rise, suggesting

a strong willingness to pay under certain conditions (FCC, 2015), ultimately contradicting the

apparent shift to lower meat consumption.

18

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Chicken Beef Pork Total Livestock

Year

Prot

ein C

onsu

med

(kg)

Figure 1. Per capita consumption (kg protein consumed) of livestock from 1980-2014. Calculated using data provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (AAFC, 2014).

Canadian household expenditures on food and non-alcoholic beverages averaged $7,738,

26% of which was attributable to animal products. Total agricultural sales increased in all

commodities from 2003-2013 (AAFC, 2015a). Nevertheless, the share of market receipts from

red meat, dairy, and poultry and eggs declined by 8.2%, 3.9%, and 0.9% respectively over the

same time frame, mostly due to a substantial increase in the commodity share of grains and

oilseeds (AAFC, 2015a).

In conclusion, consumption trends from data provided by AAFC, help to summarize the

state of the industrial livestock agricultural problem in Canada. Given the declining trend of

animal protein consumption in Canada, coercive policy reductions may be accepted by the

general public. Currently, however, the livestock industry remains robust.

19

Chapter 2: Barriers to Vegetarianism

I. Research Questions & Purpose

Chapters two and three focus on the latter research questions of dietary transition: (i)

What are the barriers to vegetarianism in Canada?; and (ii) What are potential policy measures

that could be implemented to remove the barriers to vegetarianism, and invoke a shift to plant-

based diets?

The primary purpose of this research is to fill a gap (Berg, 2012; Graça et al., 2015) in

the literature with respect to barriers to vegetarianism, with a policy emphasis on Canada. This

research aims to examine the bottlenecks to vegetarianism in Canada and Western societies using

an a posteriori inductive coding scheme to extract key themes and commonalities found

throughout various sources of research. The inductive coding approach is useful to determine the

frequency and prevalence of dietary bottlenecks unveiled throughout the literature. The

quantitative component of analyzing the frequency of barriers, contributes a concrete analysis for

comparison, while improving replicability and limiting subjectivity of the study, in comparison

to a solely qualitative approach. The study concludes with recommendations of potential policy

measures that could be implemented to overcome the identified barriers and promote behavioural

change to more environmentally-conscious diets.

II. Design & Methodology

This research combined the results of multiple studies to appropriately identify barriers to

vegetarianism in Canada and Western economies, in an environmental context. Methodology for

this study consisted of a rigorous integrative literature review, as outlined by Torraco (2005).

20

This approach offered a rigorous analysis of the literature, synthesizing findings across studies

with the goal of producing novel results.

i. Why an Integrative Literature Review?

An integrative literature review is a form of research that reviews and organizes a wide

array of information in a coherent manner, to distill data and generate novel outcomes. A

comprehensive literature review is of relevance for identifying barriers to vegetarianism for a

number of reasons (Torraco, 2005). First, barriers to vegetarianism in Western societies are

poorly examined, given the question is essentially uninvestigated and research has yet to

systematically consider all available literature relating to consumer dietary behaviour.

Consequently, as a new topic, the research area could profit from a holistic conceptualization and

integration of literature to date (Torraco, 2005). Second, the need for policy intervention, and the

potential for policy development is considerable if sufficient and integrated evidence is provided.

Third, the complexity and broadness of the research question requires a more comprehensive

approach. Last, addressing this question is essential for the future direction of prospective

research.

Integrative literature reviews are useful for compiling data to more appropriately grasp

general conclusions. Single studies, although highly valuable and designed with more inferential

power, may not portray the full breadth of the issue. Rather, by examining a number of studies,

covering a large geographical area, time span and population, synthesized outcomes can be more

advantageous (Patausso, 2013). In addition, because of its transparent nature, inclusion and

exclusion of citations are made explicit. Rigorous, integrative literature reviews are highly

valuable, in providing a critical analysis of existing research, and formulating novel knowledge

21

(Torraco, 2005). However, qualitative methods sometimes lack social acceptance in research,

predominantly due to a lack of systematic methodology that can bridge qualitative and

quantitative realms (Boyatzis, 1998). This integrative literature review uses inductive coding to

demonstrate logical consistency, a high degree of clarity, and rigorous thematic evaluation in its

approach, while bridging qualitative and quantitative realms via frequency analysis. Likewise,

thematic inductive coding was applied to minimize subjectivity and facilitate replicability of

results, through organization of the data to develop themes (Boyatzis, 1998) of barriers to plant-

based diets.

However, like most studies, reviews are vulnerable to methodological biases (Petticrew

& Roberts, 2006). Inexorably, reviews are reflective of the biases and issues of the incorporated

information (Crowther & Cook, 2007). The integrative literature review may miss out on

important insights, simply by means of the inclusion criteria, or the exclusion of novel

unpublished data. Despite considerable effort to maintain objectivity, it is likely reviewer bias

will be incorporated.

ii. Methodological Approach

Search Protocol

Academic Search Protocol

Database searches were conducted in February, 2016 to retrieve relevant research

articles. The comprehensive approach included the following 15 key search terms: vegetarian*

motivation, vegetarian* barrier, vegetarian* environment*, promotion of vegetarian*, influences

on consumption, meat consumption, environmentally significant consumption, limit vegetarian*,

22

obstacle vegetarian*, advertise* food, reducing meat consumption + government, consumer

characteristics + vegetarian*, sustainable + vegan*, vegan* barrier, and sustainable food

consumption policy. Identical search terms were not used for vegetarian* and vegan in an effort

to reduce redundancy, as both search terms generated identical articles. Literature was accessed

through Web of Science for the former 14 key search terms, and Google Scholar for “sustainable

food consumption policy”, given the policy basis of the latter search criteria. Retrieved research

articles included primary, secondary and conceptual works. Retrieved articles were from a

diverse array of (i) sources, including journal articles, and conference proceedings; and (ii)

fields, namely science, sociology, psychology and policy. Reference lists of relevant articles

were also examined, determining additional highly relevant and useful articles for inclusion.

In an effort to minimize the potential for extensive contribution of irrelevant literature

through Web of Science only the first 50 items (per search term) were examined for relevance to

the topic. Likewise, only the first 20 items (per search term) were examined for relevance

through Google Scholar, as a saturation point was reached, in which further reading did not lead

to new information. Consequently, it was anticipated that the search would yield 770 articles for

examination. Though 770 articles are considered to be lesser in comparison to other studies, a

limitation was needed given the two-month timeline for the current research. In addition, many

of the search terms generated few articles and thus, the quota was not considered to limit the

outcomes of the analysis.

As the search fell short of the aforementioned quotas, the key search terms generated

only 460 articles for examination. It was assumed that these boundaries fully encompassed the

scope of the question at hand, and without altering study outcomes. Furthermore, it is believed

that a saturation point was reached, in which further reading would not have led to new

23

information. Further acknowledged research constraints include consideration of items only

conducted in western countries that were available online, and in English.

Throughout this review, both explicit and implicit barriers to plant-based diets were

examined. Explicit (manifest-level) barriers are defined as dietary hurdles that were clearly

stated from the literature (Boyatzis, 1998). Alternatively, implicit (latent-level) barriers are

considered to be obstacles that were underlying the literature, but not clearly stated (Boyatzis,

1998).

Public Search Protocol

Database searches in Google Chrome strived to give a sense of publicly available

information, beyond the scholarly literature. Searches were conducted in an incognito format, to

eliminate the use of cookies, browsing, and downloading history that could hinder replicability

of the study methods. Unfortunately, use of the aforementioned key search terms did not yield

useful information. As a result, only two key search terms were considered for the non-academic

search protocol: vegetarian motivation and vegetarian barrier. For each of these key search

terms, the first 30 webpages were examined for relevance to the topic, resulting in a total of 60

webpages with the potential to be incorporated into the literature review. However, the search

yielded only 6 articles of use, including advocacy and news webpages.

The public search protocol also incorporated two phrases to acquire a general

understanding of what curious citizens may discover if they were to look to the internet for

answers regarding vegetarianism. The two catch phrases comprised: “vegetarian [vegan] diet

better for the environment”, and “why should I eat a plant-based diet”. For each search phrase,

the first 50 webpages were examined for trends.

24

III. Results

i. Screening of Results

The initial literature search yielded 520 articles from the database searches including 460

journal articles from Web of Science (n = 440) and Google Scholar (n = 20) (Figure 2), in

addition to advocacy websites from Google Chrome (n = 60) (Figure 4). After screening the title,

key words and abstract of retrieved articles according to date (1980 - 2016), language (English),

source (reputable organization, journal articles, etc.), location of study (exclusion of developing

countries) and relevance of topic (consumer dietary behaviour and influences), 129 academic

journal articles required full text review, in addition to 10 advocacy websites. Following the full

text review, 27 academic journal articles and 4 advocacy websites were excluded as a result of

irrelevance and duplication, yet 9 supplementary academic journal articles were added from

reference lists of the identified articles. Out of the initial 520 articles, 117 were used in the

literature review analysis, 111 of which derived from academic journal articles, with 6 from

advocacy websites. The inclusion and exclusion of articles from the literature review are

summarized below for academic research articles (Figure 2), and the corresponding number of

articles assessed for each key search term (Figure 3), in addition to advocacy websites (Figure 4).

See Appendix 1 for flow diagrams pertaining to each of the individual search terms.

25

Figure 2. Flow diagram of academic literature obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

26

Vegetarian MotivationVegetarian Barrier

Vegetarian EnvironmentInfluence on Consumption

Meat ConsumptionPromotion of Vegetarian

Environmentally Significant ConsumptionLimit Vegetarian

Obstacle VegetarianAdvertise Food

Reducing Meat Consumption + GovernmentConsumer Characteristics + Vegetarian

Sustainability VeganVegan Barrier

Sustainable Food Consumption Policy

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Number of Academic Articles Assessed

Figure 3. Number of academic journal articles assessed for barriers to plant based diets for each of the 15 key search terms in Web of Science and Google Scholar.

Figure 4. Flow diagram of public webpages obtained on the basis of the public search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

27

ii. General Characteristics of Studies

There was considerable variation among the included academic research in terms of

source, year, and context of potential dietary bottlenecks. Journal articles included predominantly

research articles (n = 84), in addition to syntheses (n = 25), symposiums (n = 2), case studies (n =

1), and commentaries (n = 1). Few studies regarding dietary consumption behaviour, and barriers

to plant-based diets were conducted in the 1990s, and early 2000s (Figure 5). However, the

number of studies investigating consumption patterns has increased substantially in the past 5

years, as plant-based consumption research has become highly topical, given the environmental

benefits of a dietary shift.

In addition, studies contained explicit and/or implicit barriers to plant-based diets, or

more generally, changes in dietary behaviour. As such, the framework of the studies was not

evaluated, but rather the context of the coded material in each study was examined. Overall, 370

codes were considered to be explicitly stated, whilst 172 were implicitly inferred from the

literature.

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

02468

1012141618

Year

Cou

nt

Figure 5. Number of included academic research articles, by year of publication.

28

iii. Data Extraction

Gathered information was evaluated using a posteriori inductive coding scheme to

identify key themes and commonalities within the literature that explicitly and/or implicitly

suggested possible barriers to plant-based diets, as an outcome of the aforementioned search and

screening criteria including both primary and grey literature. This conceptual classification of

constructs was used to uncover core themes evident in the literature and facilitate clear outcomes

in relation to the research questions (Thomas, 2006), creating the foundation for novel

theorization (Doty & Glick, 1994). Individual themes constituted the unit of analysis for this

literature review. Thus, a code was assigned to an excerpt of text of ranging from an entire

article, to a paragraph or phrase, representing the expression of an idea as a theme (Minichiello et

al., 1990; Zhang & Wildemuth, 2010). The coding method followed the three-step codes-

categories-concepts strategy (Lichtman, 2013); sources were first read to generate a large

number of differing content codes (n = 213), from a total of 542 coded items (Figure 6). Second,

these codes were sorted into categories (n = 20) by eliminating overlap and redundancy. Third,

the categories were themselves arranged into concepts or what are henceforth referred to as

overarching themes (n = 5) relevant to the research questions, namely “Autonomy”, “Cognitive

Dissonance”, “Information Asymmetry”, “Political Economy”, and “Social Influences” (Table

1). Consequently, themes were inductively identified by combining codes, and subsequently

categories in a logical and organic fashion. This a posteriori inductive coding technique aimed to

uncover limitations that may not have been prevalent in the initial literature review (see IV.

Discussion for further description and analysis). It should be noted that there was some overlap

of codes fitting into multiple categories, given their context in the literature. However, the

overlapping code-category pairs were eventually incorporated into the same theme.

29

Advertise FoodConsumer Characteristics + Vegetarian

Environmentally Significant ConsumptionInfluence on Consumption

Limit VegetarianMeat Consumption

Obstacle VegetarianPromotion of Vegetarian

Reducing Meat Consumption + GovernmentSustainability Vegan

Sustainable Food Consumption PolicyVegetarian Barrier

Vegetarian EnvironmentVegetarian Motivation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Count

Figure 6. Total number of primary articles retrieved from academic journal research for each of the 15 key search terms.

Using the methodological framework of inductive coding (Thomas, 2006), the process of

data analysis evolved through constant comparative examination. This methodical approach to

the literature review was meant to minimize subjectivity, aid in accurate classification, and

ensure replicability of the research. In summary, the inductive coding approach organized the

data into digestible parts for simplification and extraction of important concepts (Thomas, 2006).

A visual representation of the codes-categories-concepts framework is documented in Appendix

2. A detailed outline of the three-step codes-categories-themes strategy uncovered from the 111

academic journal articles assessed for barriers to plant-based diets is documented in Appendix 3

(Table 3). The context (implicit; explicit) in which the code is stated, the referenced article, and

the source are also included.

Academic journal articles contained between 1 and 18 codes (average 4.88 +/- standard

deviation of 3.82), which grouped into an average of 2.19 themes (+/-1.23). Five articles

30

(Beverland, 2014; Graça et al., 2015; Hirschler, 2011; Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Vinnari & Vinnari,

2013) contained all five of the identified themes, while 45 had codes contributed to merely a

single theme. “Information Asymmetry” was the most frequently observed theme (n = 68

articles), which covered issues related to lack of education or information, judgmental heuristics

(see IV. Discussion for further description), and flawed perceptions of plant-based diets. The

other themes were “Political Economy” (n=58), and “Social Influence” (n=55), with

“Autonomy” (n=30) and “Cognitive Dissonance” (n=32) the least frequent themes. Of the 19

categories, the most frequently observed were judgmental heuristics (n=99), marketing (n=55),

social desirability (n = 37), moral disengagement (n=36), and intrinsic motivation (n=27).

31

Table 1. Brief description of key themes identified as barriers to adopting a plant-based diet, including data concerning their frequency with respect to categories, codes, and articles.

Theme Description Explanation Categories Codes ArticlesAutonomy[Individual]

A theoretical concept that promotes self-determined choice, and regulation of one’s self (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

Unwillingness to change diet

Intrinsic values representing an affective connection towards meat

2 12 30

Cognitive Dissonance[Individual]

Contradictory and inconsistent thoughts and actions, as relating to behavioural decisions (Festinger, 1957).

Inconsistent thoughts and actions for the environment, animal welfare, and meat consumption; represented through moral disengagement, denial, and dementalization

3 22 32

Information Asymmetry[Social]

The influence of unbalanced information on sub-optimal decision making, with respect to the environmental and socioeconomic considerations of food selection for consumption (Dompere, 2014).

Lack of knowledge concerning the consequences of meat consumption

Lack of information regarding nutritional necessity, and the costs of a plant-based diet; ill-informed perceptions

Judgmental heuristics that result in sub-optimal decision-making

5 55 68

Political Economy[Social]

The relationship between individuals and society as influenced by the interplay among politics and the economics of the agricultural industry (Jevons, 1871; Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016).

Lack of political action in guiding sustainable consumption patterns

Lack of industry action in promoting plant-based alternatives; asymmetric marketing; industry lock-in

5 81 58

Social Influence[Social]

The effect of others on one’s emotions, and resulting behavioural actions, as influenced through peer pressure, and conformity (Asch, 1961; Latané, 1981).

Social norms and expectations to consume to meat

Social criticism and alienation of vegetarians

5 39 55

32

Differences in themes were prevalent among the academic literature (Figure 7), and

public databases (Figure 8). Though political economy was considered to be a significant barrier

to vegetarianism in the academic literature (27.9%), it was not mentioned at all in the public

realm based upon examination of webpages using the aforementioned key search terms.

Likewise, as information asymmetry was considered to be the greatest obstacle from both

sources, it occupies a greater proportion of the dietary bottlenecks discovered in the public realm

(57.7%) in comparison to the academic literature (34.7%), given the absence of discussion on the

political economy. Like the academic literature, public webpages also considered autonomy

(7.0%; 7.7% respectively), social influence (19.2%; 19.2%), and cognitive dissonance (11.3%;

15.4%) as being barriers to vegetarianism.

7%

11%

35%28%

19%Autonomy

Cognitive Dis-sonance

Information Asymmetry

Political Economy

Social Influence

8% 15%

58%

19%

Figure 7. Proportion of codes detected from primary journal articles, contributing to each of the five major themes, regarding barriers to plant-based diets.

Figure 8. Proportion of codes detected from advocacy websites, contributing to each of the five major themes, regarding barriers to plant-based diets.

33

The first phrase investigated in Google Chrome was: “vegetarian [vegan] diet better for

the environment”. Interestingly, use of the words vegetarian and vegan yielded the same

websites for further analysis. This search generated highly contradictory information, despite the

consensus of the academic world that plant-based diets are better for the environment, human

health, and food security. Roughly 56% of the first 50 webpages contradicted the conventional

wisdom that a vegetarian, or vegan diet is generally better for the environment than a

westernized meat-based diet. The contradictory information predominantly stemmed from one

recent study (Tom et al., 2015), that newspapers, bloggers, and meat advocates have grabbed

onto. The principal catchphrase that went viral, was: “lettuce is three times worse in greenhouse

gas emissions than eating bacon”. This comparison is not actually stated in Tom et al. (2015),

rather the media misrepresented the study’s analyses. The misinformation stems from the

questionable analysis (Cucurachi et al., 2016) by Tom et al. (2015), and their questionable use of

dietary resource use and emissions compared on a per calorie basis. Given that fruits, and

vegetables have considerably less calories than beef or pork, these findings are unsurprising.

However, the viral misrepresentation of the study in the media deceived ecological arguments,

and was highly unconstructive in promoting environmental choices.

The second phrase investigated in Google Chrome was “why should I eat a plant-based

diet”. Though the second exploration yielded more positive information than the aforementioned

search phrase, only a handful of webpages were considered to be from trusted sources (ie. World

Health Organization, Harvard), while the majority originated from news articles, blogposts, and

advocacy groups. Interestingly, the search produced no government articles, emphasizing the

political disconnect from influencing consumption behaviour of individuals, despite the health,

environmental, and resulting economic benefits in doing so.

34

The effect of sociodemographics or household characteristics, on dietary behaviour were

mentioned by many academic journal articles (Figure 9). For instance, evidence suggest that

food preferences differ dependent upon age, income, education, family type, and job status

(Reisch et al., 2013; Ponzio et al., 2015). A higher level of income is positively correlated with

better quality diets (Kearney, 2010), namely vegetarianism (Jabs et al., 1999) in the US, and

allows consumers to be more consciously selective in their purchasing behaviour. Furthermore,

there is a common myth, and frequently noted perceived barrier that vegetarian diets are more

expensive in comparison to their animal-based counterparts (Mäkiniemi & Vainio, 2014). This

claim, however, is false as animal protein is considerably more expensive than plant based

protein alternatives (ie. lentils, nuts, and seeds). Education level is also positively correlated with

vegetarianism, according to multiple studies (Netherlands, Hoek et al., 2004; Italy, Ponzio et al.,

2015)

Nevertheless, these household characteristics were not considered to be barriers to

adopting plant-based diets for the purpose of this research. Household characteristics and

sociodemographics are difficult to manipulate for the purpose of adopting plant-based diets.

Already, there are a number of policies in place to increase education and income, while limiting

the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes. Furthermore, the characteristic of ‘age’ cannot be

overcome, it is inevitable. Consequently, this information was alternatively considered to be

opportunistic for targeted campaigns and policy selection to invoke greater behavioural dietary

changes amongst different populations. Thus, information campaigns could focus on targeting

people with lower levels of education, to inform them of the benefits of plant-based diets.

35

Age

Alcohol Consumption

Education Level

Income

Job Status

Marriage Status

Smokers

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Count

Figure 9. Number of primary journal articles referencing each of the 7 categories of sociodemographics, that correlate to food consumption behaviour.

Gender was not included within the umbrella of sociodemographics, given its strong ties

to social influences. Gender itself, is not a barrier to plant-based consumption, but rather the

social aspects associated with one’s gender, are likely to influence consumption patterns. Hence,

gender was considered to be a code that ultimately contributed to the theme of social influence

(see IV. Discussion: Social Influences).

IV. Discussion

The purchasing and consumption patterns of individuals and households are known to be

complex, reflecting a range of motivations and preferences (Arnould & Thompson, 2005;

Beverland, 2014). For instance, evidence supporting the environmental, health, and ethical

reasons for vegetarianism is robust and rarely questioned, yet only a small fraction of the

population in developed nations have chosen follow plant-based diets (Saxena, 2011; Beverland,

2014). There appears to be an innate sense of familiarity associated with animal-based products,

with consumers valuing taste and status of meat consumption (Lusk & Norwood, 2009;

Beverland, 2014).

36

This study has investigated bottlenecks and opportunities of sustainable food choices in

the form of a rigorous integrative literature review, from an individual to institutional level. The

academic literature search formed the basis of this analysis, with supplementary material from

public webpages. The five key barriers to plant-based diets, developed using the a posteriori

coding strategy include: Autonomy, Cognitive dissonance, Information asymmetry, Political

economy, and Social influence. As shaping pro-environmental behaviour is dependent upon a

number of influences, including attitudinal factors (ie. values), personal resources (ie.

knowledge), and contextual dynamics (ie. social influences, policy) (Stern, 2000; Makiniemi &

Vainio, 2013), the barriers uncovered in this study, are similar to the obstacles that have emerged

regarding behavioural engagement with climate change, generally (Lorenzoni et al., 2007).

An in-depth discussion for each of the five barriers, in addition to theories arguing these

outcomes, follows. It should be noted that theories are not guiding the identification of themes,

but rather were considered post-analysis for interpretation of results.

i. Information Asymmetry

Information asymmetry was the most dominant theme uncovered in the literature (n =

68), encompassing the influence of unbalanced information, resulting in sub-optimal decision-

making (Dompere, 2014). Three major Categories contribute to information asymmetry as a

barrier to plant-based consumption habits: judgmental heuristics, flawed perception, and an

associated lack of knowledge (Appendix 2; Figure 28). Though judgmental heuristics, broadly

construed, is the most prominent dietary bottleneck implicitly discovered and synthesized in the

literature review, it has not previously been considered as an overarching barrier to sustainable

dietary transition. Time, pressure, and limitations to cognitive capacity encumber the decision-

37

making ability of individuals (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014). Consequently, individuals rely on a

variety of judgmental heuristics to enable quick decisions that resemble normative expectations

(Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014; Dietz, 2014). As behavioural rules, heuristics break down complex

decisions into simple considerations, facilitating the decision-making process of everyday life

(Dietz, 2014). Judgmental heuristics influencing the consumption of animal-protein include time,

convenience, habit, familiarity, and taste, hunger and food cravings (Neumark-Sztainer et al.,

1999; Vermier & Verbeke, 2006; Hoek et al., 2011; Beverland, 2014; Pohjolarinen, 2014; de

Boer et al., 2016). Because of this reliance on routine judgmental heuristics to facilitate

individual decision making, information in the form of brands or labels, could similarly function

as heuristics to reduce the complex array of considerations in selecting food for consumption

(Vermier & Verbeke, 2006). Recognizable informational heuristics (point-of-purchase

information) could therefore balance the asymmetric forces supporting current habits (de Boer et

al., 2016) of meat consumption.

Perceptions regarding the financial cost of a plant-based diet, in addition to nutritional

concerns, facilitate poorly-informed decision making with respect to dietary practices. For

instance, high price is considered to be a perceived barrier to adopting a vegetarian diet

(Mäkiniemi & Vainio, 2014). However, the cost of animal protein is considerably more

expensive than plant-based protein alternatives, such as lentils, nuts, and seeds. Alternatively,

inaccurate perceptions concerning the ramifications of a plant-based diet, hinder widespread

adoption. Some people believe that animal protein is of nutritional necessity (Hirschler, 2011;

Beverland, 2014; Pohjolarinen, 2014; Wilson et al., 2014;), yet this is not the case. A vegetarian

diet is less likely to have nutritional deficiencies in comparison its omnivorous counterpart

(Sabaté, 2001; Palaniswamy, 2003). Similarly, there is a public belief that vegetarianism causes

38

eating disorders, as a plant-based diet is often associated with inhibitory control. Though patients

with eating disorders exhibit greater rates of vegetarianism, vegetarianism often emerges after

the onset of the eating disorder (Bardone-Cone et al., 2012), and is used as an excuse to mask

dieting behaviour (Klopp et al., 2003; Forestell et al., 2012).

Despite a decade of research and media buzz since the United Nations’ publication of

Livestock’s Long Shadow (Steinfeld et al., 2006), many consumers still underestimate the

environmental ramifications of animal production (Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Laestadius et al.,

2013b). In more recent studies, a perceived lack of knowledge regarding the benefits of pro-

environmental change (Lorenzoni et al., 2007), specifically vegetarianism, was considered a

barrier to adopting a plant-based diet (Lea et al., 2006b; Mäkiniemi && Vainio, 2014).

Likewise, it is anticipated that skepticism in the effects of food consumption on climate, limits

the dietary selection of plant-based foods (Mäkiniemi & Vainio, 2014). Perceived lack of

knowledge about purchasing and preparing vegetarian meals (Lea & Worsley, 2003;

Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Pohjolarinen, 2014), including soy (Schyver & Smith, 2005; Gobert &

Duncan, 2009), tofu (Wansink et al., 2014) and less-intensive plant-based proteins (ie. legumes)

is also troublesome. Unfamiliarity of meat substitutes and their integration into meals greatly

contributes to judgmental heuristics, and negatively influences plant-based selection (Hoek et al.,

2011).

The Theory of Information Asymmetry is an economic model (Alkerlof, 1970 ; Spence

1973; Stiglitz & Rothschild, 1976); however, its concepts are useful for arguing this thematic

barrier to eliminating meat consumption. As its title suggests, information asymmetry

encompasses the influence of unbalanced information, resulting in sub-optimal decision-making

(Dompere, 2014). In economics, this imbalance of power in market transactions can lead to

39

inefficient outcomes; a market failure as worst case (Alkerlof, 1970 ; Spence 1973; Stiglitz &

Rothschild, 1976). In relation to consumption, the imbalance of information impedes one’s

ability to make optimal decisions with respect to the environmental, and socioeconomic

considerations of food selection, similarly leading to inefficient outcomes. Information

asymmetry is correlational to the barrier of the political economy of agriculture, as perfect

information is often misguided by industry and government.

ii. Political Economy

For the purposes of this research, political economy encompasses the relationship

between individuals and society, as influenced by the interplay among the politics and economics

of the agricultural industry (Jevons, 1871; Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016). The political

economy of meat production is an important consideration within this analysis, implicitly and

explicitly uncovered throughout the academic literature (Appendix 2; Figure 30). The dietary

bottleneck suggests that issues associated with animal agriculture have little to do with individual

choices, but rather are inherent in the technical, structural, and political organization of the

agricultural industry. Consumers are largely locked-in to dietary patterns due to imperfect supply

adjustment, imperfect choice, and the influence of marketing (Hansen & Schrader, 1997; Curran

& de Sharbinin, 2004; Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Wahlen et al., 2012).

In Canada, the political economy of the food system actively supports the livestock

agricultural sector given its robust capacity of influence through lobbying, campaign donations,

and simply its source of food supply for public consumption. Likewise, the industrial livestock

sector maintains considerable sway in terms of political agenda-setting. In addition, the livestock

industry is supported both financially, and by means of academic research in many differing

40

fields of study (McKenna, 2013; AAFC, 2015b). Plant-based protein alternatives, however, lack

the same quality of government assistance. Accordingly, meat-reduction strategies such as plant-

based public procurement policies, and sustainable changes to national dietary guidelines have

yet to acquire agenda-setting status in Canada.

An alternative perspective suggests that farmers have a right to generate profits from the

conventional food system in which they have invested; contributing an ethical and equitable

aspect associated with meat production (Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013). Likewise, there is an

undeniable concern that a shift in dietary practices, and hence demand, would have substantial

repercussions for the economic welfare of stakeholders in the agro-industry (Vinnari & Vinnari,

2013). In addition, there are agro-ecological arguments that could justify why certain production

systems are most suitable for given locations. Governments have a responsibility to balance

sustainability with autonomy and prosperity of the industry that serves to supply food for public

consumption, in a local and increasingly environmentally conscious manner (Duchin, 2005).

However, government support does not have to subsidize the livestock industry, but rather

provide support through alternative mechanisms.

From an industry perspective, food retailers are increasingly concentrated into fewer and

larger retail chains carrying significant market power over the agricultural industry (Reisch et al.,

2013). Retailers hold a considerable stake in the agro-industry, influencing consumers through

behavioural nudge mechanisms such as food availability, manipulation of placement, sales, and

promotion (Vukmirovic, 2015; Jahns et al., 2016). This influence on demand subsequently

impacts production from agricultural producers. Considered ‘supply chain bottlenecks’, retailers

are central to the economic underpinnings of the industry (Reisch et al., 2013). Thus, a challenge

41

of vegetarianism lies in the process of being incorporated into the economic foundation of the

conventional food system (Bearsdworth & Keil, 1993).

Likewise, media and advertisements (TV; social; magazines) act as market-place barriers

to dietary selection that centers on plant-based foods (Nestle, 1999). In consideration of

prevalently advertised brands, such as McDonalds, Burger King (Sutherland et al., 2015), and

KFC (Kearney, 2010), there is an obvious lack of vegetarian restaurants of similar scale.

Furthermore, these prevailing brands are built on the centrality of animal protein which has been

marketed in relation to nutritional necessity, masculinity, and patriotism (Beverland, 2014).

Interestingly, though sustainability has provided a novel marketing niche of considerable benefit,

diet has generally been disregarded thus far (Beverland, 2014).

This barrier is argued using a Political Economy (Jevons, 1871) of Agriculture Theory.

Political economy is the intersection of politics and economics that form the basis of the

agricultural industry. The complexity of this interaction is circular. It is anticipated that

governments are interested in promoting high-intensity livestock agriculture, because not only

are farmers a key constituency in the Canadian economy, but also provide a generous source of

economic benefits. However, the asymmetric focus on animal protein in comparison to plant-

based alternatives has implications for consumption behaviour. Thus, the interrelated factors of

the Canadian government and the livestock agricultural sector, impact the demand and supply of

animal-based products for individual consumption, fundamentally influencing dietary habits. The

emphasis of political support of the livestock industry and coinciding lack of political action

towards promoting sustainable consumption may be why dietary change has yet to be embraced

by consumers (Reisch et al., 2013).

42

iii. Social Influence

The barrier of social influence is defined as the effect of others on one’s emotions, and

resulting behavioural actions, as influenced through conformity (Asch, 1961; Latané, 1981).

Three categories feed into the theme of social influence (Appendix 2; Figure 29), as a barrier to

plant-based diets: the influence of family and friends, social desirability, and social difficulties.

The majority (72 %) of food consumption in a household is controlled by the ‘nutritional

gatekeeper’; the person who conducts the majority of purchasing and preparation of food

(Wansink, 2006). Consequently, parental influence (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999) and exposure

play significant roles on the dietary patterns of individuals within a household, particularly

children (Hill, 2002; Yuan et al., 2016). This biological predisposition in children to follow

certain dietary patterns (ie. meat consumption or vegetarianism) as a result of availability (Hill,

2002), places the cognitive burden, and barrier to change on independent individuals who

purchase and prepare foods themselves. However, as early adolescence also generates a shift in

social support from parents to peers (Hill, 2002), social conformity similarly becomes an

obstacle to plant-based consumption (Jabs et al., 2010). Analogously, an unwillingness for a

family member (ie. spouse; children) to adopt a plant-based diet, presents a bottleneck to

individual consumption (Lea & Worsley, 2003).

As vegetarian foods are commonly defined as being weak or feminine, meat consumption

is typically higher among men, in a psychological effort to display their masculinity

(Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Rothgerber, 2013; Ruby, 2012). Likewise, males generally have

more negative attitudes towards vegetarians (Ruby et al., 2016). A study conducted by

Rothgerber (2013) found that males endorse pro-meat attitudes through justification strategies.

43

The research highlighted masculine norms of dominance, emotional restriction, and toughness to

demonstrate a positive correlation between consumption and masculinity.

Though individuals may feel an impulse to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, they are unlikely

to pursue the dietary change without the support of family and friends (Hirschler, 2011).

Typically viewed as unorthodox, vegetarians are often subject to considerable scrutiny

(Beardsworth & Keil, 1993). Concern regarding criticism and alienation from family and friends

as a result of dietary choices has been expressed by both vegetarians (Janda & Trocchia, 2001;

Hirschler, 2011), and omnivores (Lea & Worsley, 2002). Behavioural-related stereotypes,

including those with respect to varying levels of meat consumption, are empirically supported

(Sadalla & Burroughs, 1981). These stereotypes have led to victimization of vegetarians, with

judicial treatment spread along a continuum from mild teasing to antagonistic behaviour (Chin et

al., 2002). The fear of negative social repercussions on professional and personal relationships

has resulted in a barrier not only to adopting a plant-based diet (Janda & Trocchia, 2001; Chin et

al., 2002; Hirschler, 2011), but also to continuation (Barr & Chapman, 2002; Cheery, 2015). It

should be noted, however, that the barrier of family opposition, may actually be considered an

opportunity for some individuals. For instance, individuals seeking to make an explicit statement

of self-definition in opposition to their family’s (or community’s) dominant values, may choose

to adopt a plant-based diet (Willetts, 1997). Regardless, the former is considered to be a common

barrier to dietary transition for a greater majority of the population.

Regardless of acceptance however, social gatherings centered on food (ie. holidays), are

typically mentally straining for vegetarians, creating tension and discomfort (Beardsworth &

Keil, 1991), likely due to constant justification. Poor selection in restaurants was also commonly

noted as a difficulty to selecting a plant-based meal. Some restaurants have few, if any plant-

44

based options; vegetarian entrees are often described as bland, tasteless, or of inadequate

nutrition, for restaurants that do have alternative options (Janda & Trocchia, 2001) on the menu.

Based on the above conceptual schema, this barrier to adopting plant-based diets is

explored using Social Impact Theory. Social impact is a phenomenon in which people influence

one another in social settings (Latané, 1981), whether it be intentionally or unintentionally. Three

factors affect the response of social influence: strength, immediacy, and number (Latané, 1981).

In reference to a vegetarian lifestyle, social influence is considered to be a barrier to change, as

strength, immediacy, and number favor meat consumption. For instance, strength refers to the

importance of the influencing group (Latané, 1981). As mentioned previously, friends and family

are not only an important influencing group, but are also barriers to pro-environmental change.

Immediacy refers to the proximity of the group in time and space, at the time of an influencing

attempt (Latané, 1981). Given that people in Canada typically consume three meals a day,

alongside family at home, or with friends in the workplace, immediacy is considered to be a

heightened obstacle. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, rates of vegetarianism remain quite

low, and thus the large population conforming to an omnivorous diet speaks to the number

affecting social influence. Intuitively, the effect of social influence is most powerful, when the

majority conform to the same actions (Latané, 1981). Thus, the barrier of social influence, as

argued through Social Impact Theory, is considered to be a robust limitation to transitioning to a

plant-based diet.

iv. Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance describes having contradictory and inconsistent thoughts and

actions, as relating to behavioural decisions (Festinger, 1957). Three Categories contribute to the

45

theme of cognitive dissonance (Appendix 2; Figure 27), as a barrier to adopting plant-based

diets: anthropocentric views, intentional ignorance, and moral disengagement. Despite

recognition of the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, in addition to animal ethics, and

health, individuals lack motivation to commit to a plant-based diet; behaviour is often not

representative of individual concerns (Bilewicz et al., 2011; Graça et al., 2014).

Consumers often resort to moral disengagement strategies when asked to consider the

impacts of their consumption practices (Bastian et al., 2012; Rothgerber, 2013; Graça et al.,

2014), resulting in a barrier to behavioural change. Graça et al. (2014) note four prominent moral

disengagement strategies including reconstrual of harmful conduct (“yes, but…”), obscuring

personal responsibility, disregard for the negative consequences associated with current meat

production and consumption, and active avoidance and dissociation. By engaging in these

psychological justifications, consumers morally dissociate from the harmful effects of the

industrial agricultural sector. Through suppressions of moral concern, people reduce the

unpleasantness associated with meat consumption in an effort to reduce dissonance of their

ambivalent and contrasting attitudes (Rothgerber, 2013; Graça et al., 2014). The literature on

cognitive dissonance is more prevalent with respect to moral concern for animals, in an attempt

to deny their capacity to suffer (Bilewicz et al., 2011; Bratanova et al., 2011; Bastian et al.,

2012; Rothgerber, 2013; Loughnan et al., 2010). Moreover, Rothgerber (2014) suggests that

simply reading about animal agriculture or vegetarianism, can trigger a series of dissonance

reduction strategies to compensate for a guilty conscience.

Accordingly, this barrier can be emphasized using the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

(Festinger, 1957) in relation to livestock consumption. According to Festinger’s (1957)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory, individuals have an innate desire to hold attitudes and beliefs in

46

harmony, and avoid dissonance. The principle of cognitive consistency is an important factor

fundamental to the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957). The theory suggests that

cognitive dissonance acts as an influential motive to overcome inconsistent cognitions, which

can result in irrational and maladaptive behaviour (Festinger, 1957). Likewise, empirical studies

frame this imbalance in terms of the “meat paradox”, a relatively common phenomenon that falls

under the umbrella of cognitive dissonance (Graça et al., 2014). The meat paradox captures the

cognition that people exhibit concern for the environment and animal welfare, yet enjoy

consumption of animal protein, despite its consequences (Loughnan et al., 2010).

Cognitive dissonance has not been publically recognized as a perceived barrier to

adopting a plant-based diet, given the intrinsic, psychological nature of the concept. However,

the behavioural literature emphasizes that the meat paradox must be overcome, as the resolution

of dissonance processes is central to facilitating change (Bastian et al., 2012).

v. Autonomy

Autonomy is a theoretical concept that promotes self-determined choice, and regulation

of one’s self (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Two Categories feed into the theme of autonomy (Appendix

2; Figure 26) as a barrier to plant-based diets: apathy and intrinsic motivation. Apathy

encompasses a lack of interest or concern, resulting in an unwillingness to change behaviour.

Studies suggest that some people are simply unwilling to change their dietary pattern, regardless

of the perceived or known benefits of plant-based consumption (Lea & Worsley, 2002; Lea et

al., 2006a; Lea et al., 2006b; Vanhonacker et al., 2013). An unwillingness to change is

considered to be the main perceived barrier that survey respondents commonly cite in Australian

research (Lea & Worsley, 2002; Lea et al., 2006a; Lea et al., 2006b). Evidence suggests that

47

respondents who are unwilling to change their behavior, also fail to recognize the benefits of a

plant-based diet including well-being, weight, health, convenience, and finances (Lea et al.,

2006a). Regardless of this perspective, Lea et al. (2006a, 2006b) note that 42% of respondents

were either considering (behavioural intention), or actively maintaining a plant-based diet. Thus,

there is a discrepancy between perceived barriers, and behavioural intention of vegetarianism.

Such a discrepancy emphasizes the importance of the broad nature of the current research; as the

handful of studies that have investigated perceived barriers to vegetarianism are not

representative of behavioural intention, nor institutional factors that may be subconsciously

affecting dietary choice. Nevertheless, a lack of concern, and subsequent hedonistic

unwillingness to change, remains a dietary bottleneck for some individuals.

In developed economies, consumption patterns are more generally representative of one’s

identity, rather than satisfying basic needs (Beverland, 2014; Fox & Ward, 2008). Intrinsic

motivation encompasses individual values, attitudes, and identity. Though intrinsic motivation is

considered a motivational tool, values, attitudes, and identity can likewise act as barriers to

change. For instance, ethically motivated vegetarians are more likely to stick to plant-based diets

in comparison to individuals motivated by personal health reasons (Hoffman et al., 2013; de

Backers & Hudders, 2014). The divergence in intrinsically motivated behaviour can ultimately

affect the choices, and success of individuals (Beardsworth & Keil, 2002; Vermier & Verbeke,

2006; Graça et al., 2015), with limitations to pro-environmental behaviour. In juxtaposition,

attitudes in isolation are a poor predictor of behavioural intention (Vermier & Verbeke, 2006).

Many individuals may truly value animals and the environment, however, their actions are not

reflective of their values. Termed an attitude-behavioural gap, the incongruity between values

48

and intention is influenced by other extrinsic factors, such as the ancillary barriers uncovered in

this analysis.

An affective connection towards meat has been frequently documented (Rozin et al.,

1997; Graça et al., 2015), and thus plays a central role in the decision-making process (Vermier

& Verbeke, 2006). For example, meat consumption is considered a form of national identity or

patriotism, especially in countries with a long history of farming traditions (Ruby, 2012). This

innate cultural affinity, and nationalist support for farming traditions consequently outweighs

concern about negative environmental impacts undermines ecological concern (Lusk &

Norwood, 2009; Beverland, 2014). However, with heightened diffusion in the concept of a

‘responsible consumer’ or ‘conscious consumerism’, entrenched values are slowly transitioning

to those of environmental and ethical consideration in developed economies (Beverland, 2014).

Consequently, the barrier of autonomy, may be of less significance in the grand scheme of things

than the a posteriori coding strategy suggests.

This dietary bottleneck can be argued through a fundamental meta-theory of motivation

in psychology: Self-Determination Theory (SDT). According to SDT, individuals have three

innate psychological desires: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000;

Gagne and Deci, 2005) that must be satisfied to ensure individual welfare. Encompassing both

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, SDT distinguishes between behavioural action for inherent

self-satisfaction and instrumental value, respectively (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The values

influencing animal-protein consumption are considered to be intrinsically motivated, suggesting

people gain internal pleasure from eating meat.

As satisfaction of the three aforementioned psychological needs are required for the well-

being of individuals (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the barrier of autonomy cannot simply be overlooked

49

or disregarded. Consequently, in order to overcome this intrinsic barrier, extrinsic motivation in

the form of political intervention, must focus on autonomous forms of regulation, rather than

controlled behaviour (Gagne and Deci, 2005; Silva et al., 2014). Research has continually

demonstrated that autonomous motivation is correlated to positive outcomes, and greater

performance. Thus, autonomous control would likely satisfy the psychological requirement of

autonomy, while simultaneously promoting pro-environmental behaviour.

In conclusion, the barriers uncovered in this analysis are considered to be established

from an individual to institutional level. The diversity and complexity of the identified barriers

suggests there are many possibilities and a considerable scope for intervention (Vermier &

Verbeke, 2006; Allodi et al., 2015) via policy measures. Thus, in order to achieve a substantial

transition to plant-based diets, barriers must be overcome via effective framing and subsequent

implementation of policy instruments.

50

Chapter 3: Policy Recommendations

Policy has yet to assume a proactive role, despite the aforementioned increasing scientific

evidence emphasizing environmental and socioeconomic co-benefits associated with plant-based

diets worldwide (Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013; Springmann et al., 2016). Recent evidence

suggests that the public may actually be receptive to policies aimed at reducing meat intake

(Dagevos & Voorduow, 2011). However, individuals are unlikely to change their consumption

habits independently in advance of an economic or ecological crisis, without a behavioural

nudge, or policy framework encouraging them to do so (Beverland, 2014), hence the need for

policy intervention. Unfortunately, however, people are prevented from acting rationally, given

the barriers that currently distort incentives to follow plant-based diets. For instance, evidence

supporting the environmental, health, and ethical reasons for vegetarianism is robust, and rarely

questioned, yet only a fraction of the population in developed nations follow plant-based diets

(Saxena, 2011; Beverland, 2014). Moreover, there is more at ‘steak’ than simply than concerns

about cost, with judgmental heuristics equally affecting decisions (Arnould & Thompson, 2005;

Beverland, 2014). Thus, policy instruments are needed to help remove barriers distorting

decisions, and make choices more rational in the context of ecological, health, and ethical

arguments. As outlined in the integrative literature review, institutional, informational,

infrastructural, and behavioural barriers to sustainable food consumption are prevalent. Likewise,

policies are needed to internalize the environmental and social externalities associated with

industrial livestock agriculture in order to obtain these benefits.

In summary, policy interventions must take irrational consumer behaviour into

consideration, in order to properly frame the issue at hand. More importantly, governments and

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) need to use informative tools in order to properly

51

educate the public to avoid adverse and unintended impacts from intervention. The government

has at its disposal, policy instruments comprising regulations, economic incentives, and

informative tools, spread along a continuum of authoritative force; persuasion (autonomy) to

legislation (control), respectively (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Bravo et al., 2013; Joyce et al., 2014)

(Figure 10). Likewise, the perceived acceptability of policy instruments in the public realm is

anticipated to be relatively high for autonomous instruments, and low for control. In contrast

however, policy instruments of high authoritative force, may be more effective in producing

desirable outcomes.

Figure 10. Schematic of policy instruments comprising information-based, market-based, and regulatory tools, spread along a continuum of authoritative force from autonomy to control (details on these instruments are given in Table 3).

Identification of barriers to sustainable consumption is essential to determine policy

options that could be implemented to overcome said obstacles. There is currently little available

52

literature specifying ideal policies to achieve the stated objective of achieving a shift to more

plant-based diets. Moreover, it is unknown as to what form of policy would be politically viable,

given the sensitive topic of regulating individual consumption (Joyce et al., 2014). With any

policy, it is crucial to understand the political framework of the government to determine how

actors can influence policy shaping, form agenda-making, and identify barriers to government

action on sustainable consumption (Joyce et al., 2014). It is also important to emphasize that

governments currently overestimate the risk of public backlash. Soft, and voluntary measures are

likely to be well-received by the public, and though more stringent approaches risk public

resistance, interventions are necessary to curb unsustainable practices. If the policy rationale is

well-framed and well-understood by the general public, resistance would likely be minimized

and short-lived (Wellesley et al., 2015). Evidently, the most prominent backlash would stem

from industry (ie. Alberta beef, Quebec dairy, Atlantic fisheries, etc), specifically from rural

areas where livelihoods are dependent upon fisheries and agricultural production. In order to

ensure secure livelihoods for farmers and fishers who would be most affected by advocating for

a dietary transition away from animal products, government would need to subsidize the

industry, encouraging a shift to plant-based food production. Alternatively, arguments could be

made to retain these local, diversified agro-ecological systems. Thus, highly specific products

such as Alberta beef or Atlantic fisheries could be subsidized to continue production, and

marketed as socially-acceptable given their particular niches, while other industries across

Canadian could be encouraged to switch to local plant-based production (discussed further

below).

The government of Canada recognizes that plant-based diets are safe and healthy

alternatives to the mainstream omnivorous way of life (Beverland, 2014). However, the federal

53

government has yet to politically intervene and promote plant-based consumption. Key

governance options that the government could implement to combat each of the five barriers

uncovered through the integrative literature review include a combination of information-based,

market-based, and regulatory policy instruments (Table 2). Ultimately, empowering consumers

towards sustainable consumption will require policies that reduce external constraints

(Thøgersen, 2005; Wahlen et al., 2012).

54

Table 2. Summary of policy instruments and recommendations to combat each of the five barriers to adopting a plant-based diet, and effect pro-environmental change.

Barrier Information-Based Market-Based RegulatoryAutonomy Awareness campaigns (e.g. NGO-led

campaigns; meatless Mondays)

Nudge framework (e.g. greater proportion of plant-based sales; hybrid products; increased availability of plant-based products, promotions, manipulation of products on shelves)

Less likely to respond to market-based instruments

Unlikely to respond well to regulatory instruments

Cognitive Dissonance

Nudge framework (e.g. greater proportion of plant-based sales; hybrid products; increased availability of plant-based products, promotions, manipulation of products on shelves)

Greater exposure to negative consequences (e.g. introduce carbon labelling)

Tax foods with higher emissions (e.g. meat tax)

Introduce tax on animal product imports

Public procurement regulations and policies (e.g. meatless procurement for schools, hospitals, prisons)

Carbon-labelling as a form of command and control

Information Asymmetry

Awareness campaigns (e.g. NGO-led campaigns; meatless Mondays)

Alterations to the Canadian Food Guide

Public initiatives (e.g. urban gardening)

Retail Initiatives (e.g. Food demonstrations of plant-based protein, greater proportion of plant-based sales; carbon-labelling)

Nudge framework (e.g. greater proportion of plant-based sales; hybrid products; increased availability of plant-based products, promotions, manipulation of products on shelves)

Marketing meat alternatives; support brands and increase availability

Coupon discounts for plant-based products

Tax foods with higher emissions (e.g. meat tax)

Introduce tax on animal product imports

Public procurement regulations and policies (e.g. meatless procurement for schools, hospitals, prisons)

Regulations of advertisement of unhealthy, and unsustainable products

Carbon-labelling as a form of command and control

55

Barrier Information-Based Market-Based Regulatory

Political Economy

Retail Initiatives (e.g. Food demonstrations of plant-based protein, greater proportion of plant-based sales; carbon-labelling)

Alterations to the Canadian Food GuideAwareness campaigns (e.g public schools)

Nudge framework (e.g. greater proportion of plant-based sales; hybrid products; increased availability of plant-based products, promotions, manipulation of products on shelves)

Retail Initiatives (e.g. Food demonstrations of plant-based protein, greater proportion of plant-based sales; carbon-labelling)

Tax foods with higher emissions (e.g. meat tax)

Revenue generated by ‘meat tax’ to be invested in support of R&D of clean technologies for the agriculture

Implement tradable emissions quotas (e.g. cap-and-trade)

Reduction of subsidies for animal-sourced foods and subsequent investment in plant-based foods

Introduce tax on animal product imports

Coupon discounts for plant-based products

Implement production quotas on meat and animal products (e.g. cap on cattle)

Develop an emissions cap from the agricultural sector

Phase out subsidies, or even the playing field

Public procurement regulations and policies (e.g. meatless procurement for schools, hospitals, prisons)

Limit size and scale of agriculture, to reduce industrialization and promote local

Carbon-labelling as a form of command and control

Social Influence

Awareness campaigns (e.g. NGO-led campaigns; meatless Mondays)

Vegetarian discount cards for restaurants

Restaurant regulations to increase vegetarian & vegan options

As policy measures are cross-cutting between the five recognized barriers to dietary transition, they are listed below in terms of

informative tools, economic incentives, and regulations.

56

I. Information-Based

Review of the literature pertaining to policy recommendations for reducing diet-related

GHG emissions found large inconsistencies throughout the small compilation (ie. 21 primary

journal articles) of research (Joyce et al., 2014). The recommended approaches are inconsistent

across studies, possibly due to differences in spatial and temporal distribution, in addition to

socio-political and food system contexts. More importantly, however, the 21 studies generally

make considerable assumptions regarding community and political support for possible actions,

where there is little empirical evidence supporting the recommendations. Thus, before

intervening, it is essential to properly frame the issues associated with industrial animal

agriculture and associated meat-consumption behaviours, to garner community and political

support through promotion and advertisement (Glanz & Yaroch, 2004) before implementing

policy instruments (Beverland, 2014; Joyce et al., 2014). The case for government intervention

needs to be built in a compelling and evidence-based manner.

It is anticipated that global transition to a low-meat diet would likely be more accepted by

the general public if recommended for reasons other than, or in combination with climate change

(Wellesley et al., 2015), given greater public concern for human health (Kickert et al., 1997;

Macdiarmid et al., 2012; Hendrie et al., 2014; Joyce et al., 2014), price, food safety (Wellesley

et al., 2015), and/or animal ethics. In doing so, promotional advertisement could focus on

broadening the message to include the health benefits of meat reduction, or decreased

susceptibility of infectious agents (McMichael et al., 2007), and the resulting reduction in

healthcare costs. In order to overcome confusion generated by ever-changing nutritional

messages, however, government must advocate for health benefits of meat reduction, to act as a

leader. Public confusion may be limited if the message is coming from a principal and

57

trustworthy source. Cooperation between environmental and health officials may produce

effective measures to generate a shift away from meat-based diets, effectively ‘killing two birds

with one stone’ in terms of environmental conservation and prevention of consumption-related

health issues (obesity, cardiovascular disease, etc.) (McMichael et al., 2007; Wellesley et al.,

2015).

Beyond the issue of which concerns to prioritize in such promotions, motivational

framing is clearly important. Students at the University of Western Ontario (King’s University

College) were more likely to eat vegetarian-based diets or reduce meat consumption in response

to framing emphasizing the ethical implications of industrial livestock agriculture, in comparison

to an alternative framing of health (Duchene, 2014). However, framing of students’ autonomy in

taking charge of this shift towards plant-based diets (ie. self-determined; promotion of choice)

was more important than contexts that emphasized political control (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

Likewise, positive outcomes associated with autonomous forms of motivation are continually

demonstrated in SDT-based research (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Silvia et al., 2014). The latter

finding is crucial for policy, as regulation of behaviour varies along a continuum, with policies

functioning to (i) support autonomy, towards (ii) pressure to achieve specific outcomes by means

of controlling individual behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1987).

i. Raising Awareness

The first step in promoting a shift to plant based diets, is bridging the awareness gap with

respect to dietary selection, and the resulting environmental (or health, social) consequences

(Wellesley et al., 2015). Though awareness is not the solution to effect large-scale individual

dietary changes, it is essential to set the stage for policy intervention. Awareness is intricately

58

linked to framing and together, must be well executed to bolster public support. Building upon

the abovementioned considerations for framing both the topics and the motivations, raising

awareness must also encompass a simple message, disseminated by trusted sources (Wellesley et

al., 2015). Information-based, or education tools are currently the most dominant policy

instruments regarding behavioural consumption patterns (Reisch et al., 2013), yet public

understanding of the environmental impacts associated with climate change remains relatively

low (Wellesley et al., 2015). Despite the intricacies and complexity associated with sustainable

consumption, the main message is clear; meat consumption must be reduced (Wellesley et al.,

2015).

This research recognizes the historical agro-ecological and nutritional logic in the

selection of nutrient dense foods (ie. protein, sugars, and fats). However, given the rate of obesity

in developed economies as a result of energy dense food (including meat), this logic may need to

be reassessed well into the 21st century (Saxena, 2011; Beverland, 2014). Moreover, despite

increasing awareness of the environmental, health, and social consequences associated with meat

consumption, eating animal products has remained socially acceptable (Dagevos & Voordouw,

2013). As eating meat has become sign of affluence and modernity in developed countries

(Fiddes, 1994), a shift to plant-based diets will require persuasion strategies via targeted and

well-planned awareness campaigns. Conceivably, policies targeted at reducing meat

consumption (ie. meatless Mondays or tofu Tuesdays) would be more attractive than vegetarian

endorsement or out-right animal product bans, given the carnivorous food culture in developed

economies. This approach would also tailor to the autonomy of individuals, likely encouraging

its receptiveness (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013; Duchene, 2014) as a starting

point to increase public acceptance for more stringent and effective policies later on (Dagevos &

59

Voordouw, 2013; Joyce et al., 2014). In addition to, and perhaps more importantly, agencies

need to stop promoting consumption of animal products (McApline et al., 2009).

Given the lack of industry and government action, another potential avenue to encourage

plant-based consumption is through non-governmental organizations (NGOs). NGOs are well-

positioned to invoke behavioural change, with experience in direct action, lobbying, and public

education (Cox, 2013; Laestadius et al., 2013b). The role of NGOs is central in meat-reduction

information campaigns (Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013; Laestadius et al., 2013), such as the

support of meat-free days (de Bakker & Dagevos, 2012). Yet, few NGOs have adopted formal

campaigns to promote national policies regarding the consumption of animal products

(Laestadius et al., 2013; Laestadius et al., 2014). As awareness increases through NGO-led

campaigns and messages build support for public policy, a pathway opens for public policies to

influence motivational change towards sustainable dietary practices (Dagevos & Voordouw,

2013).

Individuals that exhibit higher sensitivity to environmental issues will likely be most

influenced by environmental awareness campaigns (Bravo et al., 2013). However, these

individuals are likely already displaying pro-environmental consumption to some degree and

thus, the potential effect of dietary change is likely smaller than individuals with low

environmental preference (Bravo et al., 2013). Bravo et al., (2013) found that policies targeted

specifically at individuals with low environmental concern led to substantial behavioural changes

in dietary consumption.

Other informative approaches could include changes to national dietary guidelines

(Messina et al., 2003) to expand the concept of protein and calcium beyond that of animal

products. Experts agree that dietary guidelines should be based on both nutritional and ecological

60

science (Simopoulos et al., 2011; van Dooren et al., 2014). Likewise, after years of analyzing the

health and ecological impacts of the average Dutch diet, the Netherlands recently changed their

national dietary guidelines, issuing a recommendation that individuals consume no more than

two servings of meat per week (Voedingscentrum, 2016). The UK also released a new nutritional

guideline suggesting replacement of animal protein with plant-based alternatives, namely pulses

(Eatwell Guide, 2016). Alternatively, the Canadian Food Guide recommends at least two

servings of fish each week, suggesting a lack of concern for vegetarian consumers. In addition,

meat and dairy encompass two of the four food categories; representative of how animal

products are engrained in Canadian culture (Canada’s Food Guide, 2012). The Dairy industry in

North America insists milk is needed for adequate nutrition of calcium and protein (Globe and

Mail, 2015), and have gone lengths to promote dairy consumption. However, there are other

sources of food to obtain these vital nutrients. Moreover, 25% individuals on the Food Guide

Advisory Committee were employed by corporations that would affect, and bias the Canadian

food recommendations including the nutrition education manager for the BC Dairy Foundation

(Globe and Mail, 2015)

According to Health Canada, the Canadian Food Guide is currently under review, namely

to combat issues associated with rising obesity rates (CBC, 2016). It is unknown as to whether

environmentally-sustainable consumption will be incorporated into the new recommendations,

however ‘Canadians deserve an evidence-based guide’ (Globe and Mail, 2015). Ideally,

alterations to the current national dietary guidelines, or rather a supplementary guide for

vegetarians should be implemented and taught at an early age, with protein options geared at

products such as quinoa, instead of steak.

61

ii. ‘Nudge’ Motivation

Given the stronger influence of autonomy on dietary behavioural changes, a nudge

framework may be the most influential mechanism to promote a shift to plant-based diets in

Canada, and other developed nations (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014; Wellesley et al., 2015).

Promotional campaigns can only incentivize people who are unaware of the environmental

impacts associated with animal agriculture, and want to make the necessary lifestyle changes to

mitigate environmental degradation. However, extensive literature suggests that information, and

public awareness is limited in its effectiveness to facilitate behavioural change (Stern, 1999;

Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014). Thus, a relatively new approach to motivating pro-environmental

behaviours has recently been investigated: nudges. The underlying principles of a nudge, stems

from the observation that in complex information settings (such as dietary selection) individuals

rarely make decisions based on their long-term best interest, but rather are influenced by shorter-

term judgmental heuristics that can be exploited by means of choice architecture to yield

desirable outcomes (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014). Nudges delicately push consumers to make

choices that are both individually and socially desirable (Thaler & Sustein, 2003).

The literature offers a general consensus that there is a positive correlation between food

advertisement and dietary selection (Bargh & Morsella, 2008), both in adults (Vukmirovic,

2015) and children (Kim et al., 2016b). Customers are nudged to purchase certain foods in a

grocery store via brand advertisement, food availability, manipulation of placement, sales, and

promotion (ie. in-store demonstrations and coupon discounts). These forms of point-of-purchase

information are useful marketing tools to influence purchasing behaviour of individuals (Glanz

& Yaroch, 2004; Vukmirovic, 2015; Jahns et al., 2016). However, they currently act as barriers

to adopting plant-based diets, as they favour animal protein over plant-based alternatives (Jahns

62

et al., 2016). This imbalance in marketing, has limited the concept of protein to animal

derivatives (Grace et al., 2015). As the demand for labelling products is growing (Abrams et al.,

2010; Lusk, 2011), point-of-purchase information could help incentivize sustainable

consumption patterns (Glanz & Yaroch, 2004).

Asymmetric interventions (nudges) can be effective tools to motivate individual

behaviour (Thaler & Sustein, 2003; Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014). For example, simply changing

the default menu to present appealing meat-free options in a campus dining hall increased the

probability that individuals would choose vegetarian meal options. The provision of information

on the menu remained unchanged, however, the default-based intervention of making the menu

more appealing was an important tool in motivating pro-environmental behaviour (Campbell-

Arvai et al., 2014). Likewise, choice architecture interventions can influence consumption, such

as strategic placement of fruits and vegetables in a cafeteria (Kongsbak et al., 2016). Another

example of a ‘sustainability by stealth’ nudge framework could include hybrid products, with

plant semi-manufactures incorporated into sausages or hamburgers, ultimately reducing the

quantity of meat required. Advertised as lean, or containing less fat, these products seem more

appealing from a health perspective, but are not advertised as vegetarian options, thus, appealing

to a larger population (de Bakker & Dagevos, 2012). A final example of a nudge framework is

the redesign of grocery stores to promote sales of plant-based products by having fruits and

vegetables in the most accessible areas, with design inspired by colorful, creative décor and

signage. Alternatively, meat products would be moved to more distant locations, with less

enticing store design. In summary, given the stealth and voluntary behaviour of the nudge

framework, nudges are considered to be more effective in tailoring to the autonomy of

individuals in comparison to command-and-control approaches (Reisch et al., 2013).

63

II. Market-based

Evidence suggests that consumers change their food purchasing behaviour with respect to

price. Thus, price can be seen both as a barrier to vegetarianism and as an opportunity for policy

intervention. However, price elasticities for demand vary considerably dependent on the category

of food. For instance, Andreyeva et al. (2010) found that price elasticities were relatively highest

for soft drinks, juice, meats, vegetables, and fruit. From an intervention perspective, more elastic

demand is encouraging for policies, given the greater opportunity to change behaviour. These

findings have important policy implications, suggesting that higher meat prices may deter the

public from purchasing environmentally unsustainable meat. Alternatively, lower protein

alternatives, fruit and vegetable costs could influence higher purchasing behaviour of plant-based

products.

i. Subsidies

Rationally, one would assume that reductions, or rather, elimination of government

subsidies would be a good policy approach (McMichael et al., 2007; McAlpine et al., 2009;

Popkin, 2009; Joyce et al., 2014; Wellesley et al., 2015). Yet, this approach would likely lead to

substantial backlash from industries within Canada, and be difficult to implement, given its

policy-making network consisting of individuals, coalitions, and organizations. In this view,

elimination of subsidies would theoretically be favoured by tax-payers, produce farmers,

climate-enthusiasts, and perhaps even health officials. Yet, elimination of farm subsidies would

be greatly opposed by livestock suppliers, particularly poultry, egg, and dairy producers in

Canada, who benefit most prominently (McKenna, 2013; AAFC, 2015b). Nevertheless, given the

64

significant and immediate transition needed with respect to individual consumption, phasing out

subsidies would be a useful approach (Reisch et al., 2013).

Government subsidies totalled $6.9 Billion in 2011 to protect the aforementioned main

beneficiaries from foreign competition by exorbitantly high tariffs (McKenna, 2013; AAFC,

2015b). However, other risk management programs are also in place to protect the agriculture

industry against issues that are out of their control, namely disease, bad weather, and high feed

costs (McKenna, 2013). Removal of these subsidies could result in a consumer shift to

purchasing imported from other countries, given their competitive advantage in price (Audsley et

al., 2009). In this perspective, emissions may decrease in Canada, but the global inventory would

remain the same. Consumers would maintain the same level of consumption, but shift their

purchasing behaviour to cheaper exports, rather than products within national borders (Audsley

et al., 2009).

There are, in fact, agro-ecological arguments that could justify why certain production

systems are most suitable for given locations. The following are arguments for the Alberta beef

and Atlantic fisheries industries, as examples of the suitability of some production systems. Two

conclusions can be drawn from these examples. We should either (i) support the industry for its

localized supply, benefitting many rural communities, or (ii) we should encourage plant-based

consumption, and support these industries to adjust according (via a transition to grain, or kelp

aquaculture, for example).

Commercial-capture fisheries in Atlantic Canada generate the largest quantity, and value

of the four major Canadian ecoregions (Atlantic, Arctic, Central-Great Lakes, Pacific),

predominantly harvesting lobster, shrimp, and crab (Campbell et al., 2014). For instance, the

American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery is the most profitable single-species fishery on

65

the East Coast of North America (Wahle, 2004), and lobster abundance has recently increased to

levels never previously experienced (DFO, 2015). Considered small fishing communities, many

areas in the Atlantic provinces depend on the localized fishing industry (Poetschke, 1984) for

income. The industry provides locally-sourced food to Atlantic Canadians, aligning with the

ecological argument of low ‘food miles’. However, the industry also has substantial national and

international export rates.

Contrary to the historical and culturally significant lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada,

Alberta beef has only recently emerged as a regional identity post-BSE (bovine spongiform

encephalopathy) in 2003 (Blue, 2008). Through national promotion and support, Alberta beef

has transformed the province, and is now recognizable as a symbol of cultural identity (Blue,

2008). Industry support is contrary to the previous trend of health, ethical and environmental

concerns associated with beef, and has encouraged Canadians to maintain a relatively stable

consumption of livestock post-BSE (AAFC, 2014), in comparison to the UK who saw a more

substantial drop in beef consumption (Blue, 2008). Alberta beef is now a Canadian staple,

highlighted as a local food commodity, encompassing regional identit,y and speaking to national

unity following the BSE crisis (Blue, 2008). As provincial and federal governments have

embraced neoliberal policies throughout Canada, the agricultural sector has intensified,

highlighting industrialization and corporate investment (Davidson et al., 2016). Likewise, 90%

of national livestock production is dominated by a few global corporations. The majority of this

production is exported to the US, and Asia (Davidson et al., 2016), counteracting the former

argument of local consumption. However, with climate change increasingly affecting global

livelihood, action must be taken. There are going to be winners from a shift to a low-carbon

society, and there will also be losers. Maybe it is time to lump the livestock sector in with

66

employees from the fossil fuel industry, and recognize that change must be embraced.

Governments have a responsibility to balance sustainability with autonomy and prosperity of the

industry that serves to supply food for public consumption, in a local and increasingly

environmentally conscious manner (Duchin, 2005). However, government support does not have

to subsidize the livestock industry explicitly, but rather provide support through alternative,

transitional mechanisms.

Reduction of subsidies for animal-sourced foods, and subsequent investment in plant-

based foods are commonly suggested (Sabaté & Rajaram, 2000; ADA, 2003; McMichael et al.,

2007; McAlpine et al., 2009; Popkin, 2009; Joyce et al., 2014; Wellesley et al., 2015). This

approach would lower the cost to consumers, and theoretically create financial incentives to

influence consumer purchasing behaviour towards plant-based products (Riesch et al., 2013),

while maintaining Canadian purchases.

ii. Meat Taxes

A Pigovian tax is a well-known economic instrument used to combat negative

externalities (Arthur Pigou, 1920). The underlying principal suggests implementing a tax on

meat products, to account for the full social cost of production. The price of animal products

would consequently increase, theoretically leading to a reduction in the quantity of meat that is

purchased; ultimately reducing demand and supply (Lusk, 2011). Thus, a ‘meat-tax’ follows the

basic principles of a carbon tax (Wellesley et al., 2015), however, instead of alleviating the

negative externalities imposed by CO2, a meat tax would focus primarily on CH4 and NO2

emissions.

67

However, a Pigovian tax also has noteworthy limitations. Unless the tax incorporated is

substantial, and fully encompasses the social cost of industrial animal agriculture production, it is

unlikely a meat-tax would lead to substantial reductions in purchasing behaviour by consumers

(Lusk, 2011). Hence, the quantity of animal products would remain relatively stagnant. Estimates

suggest that a 1% price increase for animal products, would result in less than a 1% decrease in

purchasing behaviour (Gallet, 2010; Lusk, 2011), and thus, a high tax must be implemented to

achieve a significant shift in extrinsically motivated purchasing behaviour.

In addition, it is important to emphasize that price elasticity of demand, and the

associated opportunity for pricing mechanisms to change individual extrinsic behaviour, could

actually lead to unpredicted, and negative consequences that were not intended (Andreyeva et

al., 2010). For example, if all meat products were to be taxed by 10%, the general public may

shift their purchasing behaviour from chicken towards processed meats, or hamburger, given the

comparatively low costs associated with the latter. This shift would actually be worse from an

environmental perspective, given the higher environmental footprint associated with ruminant

agriculture in comparison to poultry products (Andreyeva et al., 2010).

However, the government revenue generated by the tax (double dividend) could be used

to invest in clean technologies within the industry, or support research and development, similar

to that of comparative climate policies. As meat taxes are considered to be undesirable,

especially by marginalized populations, the revenue generated from the tax could be used to

decrease the price of plant-based products in grocery stores. In this manner, distortionary prices

for healthier, more environmentally sustainable foods would become more affordable, especially

for low-income families (Andreyeva et al., 2010; Joyce et al., 2014), which would help alleviate

the undesirability of a meat tax. Some policies have actually been implemented (ie. taxes on junk

68

food, soda) (Nicholls et al., 2011) and/or are under consideration in many regions, specifically

with respect to boosting the consumption of fruits and vegetables (Andreyeva et al., 2010).

Based on the aforementioned high elasticity of demand for these products, a 10% reduction in

price could increase purchases by 7% for fruits, and 5.8% for vegetables (Andreyeva et al.,

2010).

III. Regulatory

Livestock agriculture could also be capped (quota-based) to prevent unsustainable

harvesting (Reisch et al., 2013), similar to the conceptual schema of a sustainable fishery. A cap

or quota would also raise the price of animal products, as influenced by the interaction of supply

and demand. The increased price would dissuade customers from purchasing high quantities of

animal products, meanwhile the cap would ensure an emissions reduction from the livestock

sector.

Furthermore, the livestock sector could be contracted and retained to grassland that is

inefficient for crop production (Audsley et al., 2009). This retention could release arable land for

crops which would compensate for an influx in produce demand (Audsley et al., 2009; Gill et al.,

2009), given a shift to plant-based diets. In this instance, more land would not be required to

compensate for dietary changes. Likewise, urban gardening and self-sustaining produce

production could be encouraged to limit the need for arable land and dangerous overexpansion of

crop agriculture; effectively restraining potential consequential effects for dietary transition.

Command and control is considered to be a last resort because of the contentious issues

surrounding regulation of public consumption trends. Likewise, voluntary agreements are more

common (Reisch et al., 2013). Nevertheless, command-and-control approaches have been

69

suggested, namely emissions standards. If an industrial agricultural farm is over the emissions

standard target or cap, then it will not be able to continue its production, unless it put in place

measures to mitigate onsite emissions. In this regard, regulatory policies such as labelling,

certification, inspection, and standardization could be used to facilitate informed decision

making by consumers (Eberle et al., 2011; Reisch et al., 2013). In fact, from a health

perspective, regulatory policies (food labelling) have reduced fat content of products, ultimately

achieving public health benefits (Friel et al., 2009; Ratnayake et al., 2009). Likewise,

environmentally-conscious labelling could focus on GHG emissions (ie. carbon labelling)

(Reisch et al., 2013), to influence purchasing behaviour.

Lastly, public procurement regulations and policies could also promote sustainable

consumption in public organizations (Reisch et al., 2013; Wellesley et al., 2015). Procurement

regulations for catering occasions, and cafeterias in schools, hospitals, prisons, and the public

sector could emphasize plant-based meals, while reducing meat-based options (Wahlen et al.,

2012; Reisch et al., 2013). The goal would be to foster support in the public sector, from a wide

array of organizations, age groups, and income levels. However, in order to be effective, public

procurement regulations must be adequately stringent, closely monitored, and well enforced

(Dalmeny & Jackson, 2010; Reisch et al., 2013). Thus, public procurement strategies may be

effective with governments portraying role models to facilitate consumer transition of demand

and supply for meat-based products (Mikkelsen et al., 2006; Reisch et al., 2013; Wellesley et al.,

2015).

70

IV. Conclusion

Given the robust evidence-base regarding the negative environmental impacts associated

with increasing demand for animal protein worldwide (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Porter et al., 2014;

Sabaté & Soret, 2014), a shift to plant-based diets has been increasingly suggested (Garnett,

2011; Garnett, 2013). However, perceived and real bottlenecks to sustainable consumption are

prevalent, likely hindering widespread adoption of vegetarianism. Active discouragement of pro-

environmental behavioural change is established from an individual to institutional level, with

five key themes unveiled throughout the integrative literature review. In increasing order of

prevalence (frequency), Autonomy, Cognitive dissonance, Social influence, Political economy,

and Information asymmetry act as barriers to adopting a plant-based diet. Identification of these

barriers is important, to further establish targeted policy options to overcome each of the dietary

bottlenecks respectively.

Though each of the aforementioned policy instruments have the potential to intrinsically

and extrinsically motivate purchasing behaviour and consumption, the appropriate level of

change may not be achieved. Hence, a coherent framework using a combination of policy

mechanisms is likely to be the most effective in motivating behaviour: price changes, public

education, nudges, and other regulations (Andreyeva et al., 2010; de Bakker & Dageovs, 2012).

In addition, Bravo et al., (2013) emphasize that though taxation schemes and information

campaigns orient individual consumption in the desired direction of environmental sustainability,

policy mechanisms should be carefully calibrated. In order to produce significant effects, while

maintaining cost-effectiveness, the target and intensity of policy instruments should be

cautiously analyzed (Bravo et al., 2013).

71

In addition, coordinated inter-sectoral cooperation and action between agricultural,

environmental, health organizations, in addition to support from governments and NGOs, are

needed to push effective change (Friel et al., 2009). Cooperation among may sectors will

facilitate solutions to provide effective, affordable, healthy, and low-emissions diets in developed

nations (Friel et al., 2009; Joyce et al., 2014). Thus, given consumption behaviour is morally

complex, and driven by many factors (de Bakker & Dagevos, 2012), a combination of

approaches would help to address more than one factor. By tackling different routes of change, a

wider population can be reached to transform behaviour towards sustainable consumption (de

Bakker & Dageovs, 2012).

Reducing meat consumption seems inescapable in order to mitigate the impacts

associated with industrial animal agriculture. Climate change necessitates radical action

(McMichael et al., 2007), and governments need to reconsider previous assumptions that support

of meat reduction is too risky and unviable (Wellesley et al., 2015). Government capacity to

overcome the synthesized barriers and influence public dietary choices is actually growing, given

the increasing concern of obesity and heart disease in developed countries, in addition to

environmental considerations associated with industrial livestock agriculture (Wellesley et al.,

2015).

72

References

Abrams, K.M., Meyers, C.A., Irani, T.A. 2010. Naturally confused: Consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products. Agriculture and Human Values. 27: 365-374.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 2000. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian agriculture. Options report prepared by the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Climate Change Table. Publication no. 2028/E. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 72 pages.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 2014. Per capita consumption. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, Ontario Retrieved January, 2016 from: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/statistics-and-market-information/by-product-sector/poultry-and-eggs/poultry-and-egg-market-information/industry-indicators/per-capita-consumption/?id=1384971854413.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 2015a. An overview of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food system 2015. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, Ontario Retrieved March, 2016 from: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/publications/economic-publications/alphabetical-listing/an-overview-of-the-canadian-agriculture-and-agri-food-system-2015/?id=1428439111783. Ottawa, Ontario.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 2015b. Supply management 101. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, Ontario Retrieved March, 2016 from: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/agri-food-trade-policy/current-negotiations/bilateral-and-regional-negotiations-and-initiatives/trans-pacific-partnership/supply-management-101/?id=1443191400607. Ottawa, Ontario.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 2016. Red meat and market livestock information – Canadian industry. Retrieved May, 2016 from: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/statistics-and-market-information/by-product-sector/red-meat-and-livestock/red-meat-and-livestock-market-information/?id=1415860000001. Ottawa, Ontario. Government of Canada.

Aiking, H., de Boer, J., Vereijken, J. (eds). 2006. Sustainable protein production and consumption: pigs or peas? Springer, Dordrecht.

Akerlof, G.A. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 84(3): 488-500.

Allodi, M., Chikobava, D., Lappalainen, J., Tarhonen, N. 2015. Towards sustainable diets: Decreasing meat consumption. Thesis. Helsingin Yliopisto.

American Diabetic Association (ADA). 2003. Position of the American dietetic association and dieticians of Canada: vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 103(6): 748-764.

Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Moitzi, G., Amon, T. 2006. Greenhouse has and ammonia emission abatement by slurry treatment. International Congress Series. 1293: 295-298.

Andersen, K., Kuhn, K., A.U.M. 2014. Films & Media (Organization),, & First Spark Media,. Cowspiracy: The sustainability secret.

73

Andreyeva, T., Long, M.W., Brownell, K.D. 2010. The impact of food prices on consumption: A systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. American Journal of Public Health. 100(2): 216-222.

Arnould, E.J., Thompson, C.J. 2005. Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Consumer Research. 31(4): 868-882.

Asch, S.E. 1961. Issues in the study of social influences on judgment (pp. 143-158). In Berg, I.A., Bass, B.M. 1961. Conformity and deviation. New York, US: Harper and Brothers. pp. 449.

Asner, G.P., Elmore, A.J., Olander, L.P., Martin, R.E., Harris, A.T. 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem response and global change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 29: 261-299.

Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., Williams, A. 2009. How long can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope to reduce them by 2050. Food Climate Research Network & WWF. London, UK.

Bardone-Cone, A.M., Fitzsimmons-Craft, E.E., Harney, M.B., Maldonado, C.R., Lawson, M.A., Smith, R., Robinson, P. 2012. The inter-relationships between vegetarianism and eating disorders among females. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 112: 1247-1252.

Bargh, J.A., Morsella, E. 2008. The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 3: 73-79.

Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., Berati, M. 2007. Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 61: 279-286.

Barr, S.I, Chapman, G.E. 2002. Perceptions and practices of self-defined current vegetarian, former vegetarian, and nonvegetarian women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 102: 354-260.

Batison, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Radke, H.R.M. 2012. Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38(2): 247-256. Beardsworth, A., Keil, T. 1991. Health-related beliefs and dietary practices among vegetarians and vegans: A qualitative study. Health Education journal. 50(1): 38-42.

Beardsworth, A.D., Keil, E.T. 1993. Contemporary vegetarianism in the UK: Challenge and incorporation? Appetite. 20: 229-234E

Beardsworth, A., Keil, T. 2002. Sociology on the menu: An invitation to the Study of Food and Society. Routledge. 288 pages.

Beauchemin, K.A., Janzen, H.H., Little, S.M., McAllister, T.A., McGinn, S.M. 2010. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: A case study. Agricultural Systems. 103: 371-379.

Beauchemin, K.A., McGinn, S.M., Petit, H.V. 2007. Methane abatement strategies for cattle: Lipid supplementation of diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 87: 431-440.

Beaulieu, M.S. 2014. Demographic changes in Canadian agriculture. In Canadian agriculture at a glance. 96-325-X. Statistics Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.

74

Bellarby, J., Foereid, B., Hastings, A., Smith, P. 2008. Cool farming: Climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential. Greenpeace, Amsterdam.

Berady, A. 2015. Finding the future of food: Sustainable consumption lessons from and for veganism. Thesis Dissertation. Arizona State University. 172 pages.

Berg, A. 2012. The multiple faces of a sustainability strategy: Analyzing Findlands’s programme to promote sustainable consumption and production. Dissertations of the National Consumer Research Centre 6. Tampere University Press, Tampere.

Beverland, M.B. 2014. Sustainable eating: Mainstreaming plant-based diets in developed economies. Journal of Macromarketing. 34(3): 369-382.

Bilewicz, M., Imhoff, R., Drogosz, M. 2011. The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. European Journal of Social Psychology. 41(2): 201-209. Bobić, J., Cvijetić, S., Brić, I.C., Šatalić, Z. 2012. Personality traits, motivation and bone health in vegetarians. Collegium Antropologicum. 36(3): 795-800.

Blue, G. 2008. If it ain’t Alberta, it ain’t beef: local food, regional identity, (inter)national politics. Food, Culture & Society. 11(1): 69-85

Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications Inc. 200 pages.

Boyland, E.J., Nolan, S., Kelly, B., Trudur-Smith, C., Jones, A., Halford, J.C.G., Robinson, E. 2016. Advertising as a cue to consumer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and non-alcoholic beverage advertising on intake in children and adults. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 103: 519-533.

Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., Bastian, B. 2011. The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite. 57(1): 193-196.

Bravo, G., Vallino, E., Cerutti, A.K., Pairotti, M.B. 2013. Alternative scenarios of green consumption in Itlay: An empirically grounded model. Environmental Modelling & Software. 47: 225-234.

Brinkman, B.G., Khan, A., Edner, B., Rosén, L.A. 2014. Self-objection, feminist activism and conformity to feminine norms among female vegetarians, semi-vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Eating Behaviours. 15: 171-174.

Bugge, A.B. 2016. Food advertising towards children and young people in Norway. Appetite. 98: 12-18.

Burke, L., Lashof, D. 1989. Greenhouse gas emissions related to agricultural and land use practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Agronomy Society of America, Anaheim, California.

Campbell, I.D., Durant, D.G., Hunter, K.L., Hyatt, K.D. 2014. Food production. In Warren, F.J., Lemmen, D.S.2014. Canada in a changing climate: Sector perspectives on impacts and adaptation. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario: 99-134.

Campbell-Arvai, V., Arvai, J., Kalof, L. 2014. Motivating sustainable food choices: The role of nudges, value orientation, and information provision. Environment and Behaviour. 46(4): 453-475.

75

Canadian Dairy Information Center (CDIC). 2015. Dairy facts and figures. Retrieved May, 2016 from: http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=imp-exp&s3=imp. Ottawa, Ontario. Government of Canada.

Canadian Food Guide. 2012. Retrieved May 2016 from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/food-guide-aliment/view_eatwell_vue_bienmang-eng.pdf. Health Canada, Canada.

Caracciolo, F., Cicia, G., Guidice, T.D., Cembalo, L., Krystallic, A., Grunert, K.G., Lombardi, P. 2016. Human values and preferences for cleaner livestock production. Journal of Cleaner Production. 112: 121-130.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A. 1998. Climate change and dietary choices – how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced. Food Policy. 23: 277-293.

CBC. 2016. Health Canada reviewing food guide, critics demand drastic changes now. Retrieved May, 2016 from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/health-canada-food-guide-1.3501318. Harris, S. of CBC News, Canada.

Chekima, B., Chekima, S., Wafa, S.A.W.S.K., Igau, O.A., Sondoh Jr., S.L. 2016. Sustainable consumption: the effects of knowledge, cultural values, environmental advertising, and demographics. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 23(2): 210-220.

Cherry, E. 2015. I was a teenage vegan: Motivation and maintenance of lifestyle movements. Sociological Inquiry. 85(1): 55-74.

Chin, M.G., Fiask Jr., B., Sims, V.K. 2002. Development of the attitudes toward vegetarians scale. Anthrozoös. 15(4): 332-342.

Cho, S.H., Chang, K-L., Yeo, J., Head, L.W., Zastrow, M., Zdorovtsov, C., Skjonsberg, L., Stluka, S. 2015. Comparison of fruit and vegetable consumption among Native and non-Native American populations in rural communities. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 39: 67-73.

Choi, H., Reid, L.N. 2015. Differential impact of message appeals, food healthiness, and poverty status on evaluative responses to nutrient-content claimed food advertisements. Journal of Health Communication. 20: 1355-1365.

Clarys, P., Deliens, T., Huybrechts, I., Deriemaeker, P., Vanaelst, B., De Keyzer, W., Hebbelinck, M., Mullie, P. 2014. Comparison of nutritional quality of the vegan, vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and omnivorous diet. Nutrients. 6: 1318-1332.

Classen, H.L., Schwean, K.V. 1998. Perspective from western Canada and the Canadian meat industry. Symposium: Partnerships in poultry science – perspectives of change. Poultry Science 77(2): 220-225.

Conference Board of Canada. 2015. Canada’s food manufacturing industry: Industrial outlook summer 2015. The Conference Board of Canada. 15 pages.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Task Force Report no. 135. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Iowa, USA.

76

Crosson, P., Shalloo, L., O’Brien, D., Lanigan, G.J., Foley, P.A., Boland, T.M., Kenny, D.A. 2011. A review of whole farm systems modes of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 166: 29-45.

Crowther, M.A., Cook, D.J. 2007. Trials and tribulations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. American Society of Hematology Education Program Book. pp. 493-497.

Crutzen, P.J., Aselmann, I., Seiler, W. 1986. Methane production by domestic animals, wild ruminants, other herbivorous fauna and humans. Tellus. 38B: 271-294.

Csutora, M. 2012. One more awareness gap? The behaviour-impact gap problem. Journal of Consumer Policy. 35: 145-163.

Cucurachi, S., Yang, Y., Bergesen, J.D., Qin, Y., Suh, S. 2016. Challenges in assessing the environmental consequences of dietary challenges. Environment Systems and Decisions. 36: 217-219.

Curran, S.R., de Sherbinin, A. 2004. Completing the picture: The challenges of bringing ‘consumption’ into the population-environment equation. Population and Environment. 26(2): 107-131.

Dagevos, H., Voordouw, J. 2013. Sustainability and meat consumption: Is reduction realistic? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy. 9(2): 60-69.

Dalmeny, K., Jackson, A. 2010. Yet more hospital food failure: The bill rises to $54 Million and still counting…Updated evidence on over ten years of failed voluntary initiatives to improve hospital food. London: Sustain.

Davidson, D.J., Jones, K.E., Parkins, J.R. 2016. Food safety risks, disruptive events and alternative beef production: a case study of agricultural transition in Alberta. Agricultural Human Values. 33: 359-371

de Backer, C., Hudders, L. 2014. From meatless Mondays to meatless Sundays: Motivations for meat reduction among vegetarians and semi-vegetarians who mildly or significantly reduce their meat intake. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 53: 639-657.

de Bakker, E., Dagevos., H. 2012. Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: Questioning the citizen-consumer gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 25: 877-894.

de Boer, J., de Witt, A., Aiking, H. 2016. Help the climate, change your diet: A cross-sectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low carbon society. Appetite. 98: 19-27.

Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53(6): 1024-1037. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 2015. Lobster. Retrieved July, 2016 from: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/sustainable-durable/fisheries-peches/lobster-homard-eng.htm. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Dietz, T. 2014. Understanding environmentally significant consumption. PNAS 111(14): 5067-5068.

Dobbie, K.E., Smith, K.A. 2003. Impact of different forms of N fertilizer on N2O emissions from intensive grassland. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 67: 37-46.

77

Dompere, K.K. 2014. Social goal-objective formation, democracy and national interest: A theory of political economy under fuzzy rationality. Springer Science & Business Media. 223 pages.

Doty, D.H., Glock, W.H. 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review. 19(2): 230-251.

Duchene, T.N. 2014. The effects of motivation framing and content domain on intentions to eat plant-based foods. Honors Thesis. King’s University College at The University of Western Ontario.

Duchin, F. 2005. Sustainable consumption of food: A framework for analyzing scenarios about changes in diets. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 9: 99-114.

Easterling, W.E., Aggarwal. P.K., Batima, P., Brander, K.M., Erder, L., Howden, S.M., Kirilenko, A., Morton, J., SOussana, J.F., Schmidhuber, J., Tubiello, F.N. 2007. Food, fibre and forest products. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.E., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

Eatwell Guide. 2016. Retrieved May, 2016 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510363/UPDATED_Eatwell_guide_2016_FINAL_MAR23.pdf. Public Health England, UK.

Eberle, U., Spiller, A., Becker, T., Heissenhuber, A., Leonhäuser, I., Sundrum, A. 2011. Political strategy for food labelling. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Food. Agriculture and Consumer Protection.Encyclopedia Britannica. 2016. Political economy. Retrieved May, 2016 from: http://www.britannica.com/topic/political-economy. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.

Environment Canada. 2015. National Inventory Report 1990-2013: Greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada – Executive summary.

Erinosho, T.O., Pinard, C.A., Nebeling, L.C., Moser, R.P., Shaikh, A.R., Resnicow, K., Oh, A.Y., Yaroch, A.L. 2015. Development and implementation of the National Cancer Institue’s food attitudes and behaviours survey to assess correlates of fruit and vegetable intake in adults. PLoS One. 10(2): e0115017, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115017.

Eshel, G., Martin, P.A. Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth interactions. 10(9): 1-17.

Farm Credit Canada (FCC). 2015. The 2015 beef sector report. Retrieved May, 2016 from: https://www.fcc-fac.ca/fcc/about-fcc/corporate-profile/reports/beef-sector/beef-sector-report-2015.pdf. 16 pages.

Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press.

Fiddes, N. 1994. Social aspects of meat eating. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 53: 271-280.

Fisher, B., Nakicenovic, N., Alfsen, K., Corfee Morlot, J., de la Chesnaye, F., Hourcade, J-C., Jiang, K., Kainuma, M., La Rovere, E., Matysek, A., Rana, A., Riahi, K., Richels, R., Rose, S., van Vuuren, D.P., Warren, R., Ambrosi, P., Birol, F., Bouille, D., Clapp, C., Eickhout, B., Hanaoka, T., Mastrandrea, M.D., Matsuoko, Y., O’Neill, B., Pitcher, H., Rao, S., Toth, F. 2007. Issues related to mitigation in the long-

78

term context. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O., Bosch P,, Dave. R,, Meyer, L. (eds) Climate change 2007. Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 169–250.

Fleming, S., Kelleher, C., O’Connor, M. 1997. Eating patterns and factors influencing likely change in the workplace in Ireland. Health Promotion International. 12(3): 187-196.

Flynn, M.A.T., O’Brien, C.M., Faulkner, G., Flynn, C.A., Gajownik, M., Burke, S.J. 2011. Revision of food-based dietary guidelines for Ireland, Phase 1: Evaluation of Ireland’s food guide. Public Health Nutrition. 15(3): 518-526.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nationshan. 2010. Sustainable diets and biodiversity: Directions and solutions for policy, research and action. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium. Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger. Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. 2013. Current worldwide annual meat consumption per capita: Livestock and fish primary equivalent. Rome.

Forestell, C.A., Spaeth, A.M., Kane, S.A. 2012. To eat or not to eat red meat. A closer look at the relationship between restrained eating and vegetarianism in college females. Appetite. 58: 319-325.

Fox, N., Ward, K. 2008. Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations. Appetite. 50: 422-429.

Fransson, N., Gärling, T. 1999. Environmental concern. Conceptual definitions, measurement methods and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 19: 369-382.

Friel, S., Barosh, L.J., Lawrence, M. 2013. Towards healthy and sustainable food consumption: an Australian case study. Public Health Nutrition. 17(5): 1156-1166.

Friel, S., Dangour, A.D., Garnett, T., Lock, K., Chalabi, Z., Roberts, I., Butler, A., Butler, C.D., Waage, J., McMichael, A.J., Haines, A. 2009. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: food and agriculture. Health & Climate Change 4. 374: 2016-2025.

Gagné, M., Deci, E.E.L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 26(4): 331-362.

Gallet, C.A. 2010. Meat meets meta: A quantitative review of the price elasticity of meat. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 92: 258-272.

Garnett, T. 2008. Cooking up a storm. Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our changing climate. Food Climate Research Network. Guildford, UK.

Garnett, T. 2011. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy. 36: 523-532.

Garnett, T. 2013. Food sustainability: Problems, perspectives and solutions. In: Conference on Future food and health. Symposium I: Sustainability and food security. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 72: 29-39.

79

Gill, M., Smith, P., Wilkinson, J.M. 2010. Mitigating climate change: The role of domestic livestock. Animal. 4(3): 323-333.

Glanz, K., Yaroch, A.L. 2004. Strategies for increasing fruit and vegetable intake in grocery stores and communities: policy, pricing, and environmental change. Preventive Medicine. 39: S75-S80.

Globe and Mail. (2015). Freedhoff, Y. Canada’s Food Guide is broken – and no one wants to fix it. Retrieved July, 2016 from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health-advisor/canadas-food-guide-is-broken-and-no-one-wants-to-fix-it/article24111642/. The Globe and Mail.

Gobert, C.P., Duncan, A.M. 2009. Consumption, perceptions and knowledge of soy among adults with Type 2 diabetes. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 28(2): 203-218.

Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C. 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science. 327 (5967): 812-818.

Golding, C., Cade, J., Kirk, S., Lawton, C., Greenwood, D. 2003. Comparison of low and high fat consumers in the UK women’s cohort study. Nutrition research. 23: 377-388.

Grabs, J. 2014. The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism. A microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behaviour. Ecological Economics. 116: 270-279.

Graça, J., Calheiros, M.M., Oliveira, A. 2014. Moral disengagement in harmful but cherished food practices? An exploration into the case of meat. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. 27: 749-765.

Graça, J., Oliveria, A., Calheiros, M.M. 2015. Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven hypothesis for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite. 90: 80-90.

Graça, J., Calheiros, M.M., Oliveira, A. 2016. Situating moral disengagement: Motivated reasoning in meat consumption and substitution. Personality and Individual Differences. 90: 353-364.

Griffin, M.K., Sobal, J. 2013. Sustainable food activities among consumers: A community study. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition. 8: 379-396.

Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Börjesson, P. 2014. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 91: 1-11.

Hansen, U., Schrader, U. 1997. A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy. 20: 443-468.

Haverstock, K., Forgays, D.K. 2012. To eat or not to eat. A comparison of current and former animal product limiters. Appetite. 58: 1030-1036.

Hendrie, G.A., Ridoutt, B.G., Wiedmann, T.O., Noakes, M. 2014. Greenhouse gas emissions and the Australian diet – comparing dietary recommendations with average intakes. Nutrients. 6(1): 289-303.

Hill, A.J. 2002. Developmental issues in attitudes to food and diet. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 61: 259-266.

80

Hirschler, C.A. 2011. “What pushed me over the edge was a deer hunter”: Being vegan in North America. Society and Animals. 19: 156-174.

Hoek, A.C., Luning, P.A., Stafleu, A., de Graff, C. 2004. Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers. Appetite. 42: 265-272.

Hoek, A.C., Luning, P.A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F.J., de Graaf, C. 2011. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetitie. 56: 662-673.

Hoffman, S.R., Stallings, S.F., Bessinger, R.C., Brooks. 2013. Differences between health and ethical vegetarians. Strength of conviction, nutrition knowledge, dietary restriction and duration of adherence. Appetite. 65: 139-144.

Hopkins, P.D. 2015. Cultured meat in western media: The disproportionate coverage of vegetarian reactions, demographic realties and implications for cultured meat marketing. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 14(2): 264-272.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2016. 2016 global food policy report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. pp. 153.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1994. Radiative forcing of climate change. The 1994 Report of Scientific Assessment. Working Group of IPCC WMO. UNEP. pp 1-28.

Ipsos-Reid. 2004. Consumer perceptions of food safety and quality. Prepared for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ipsos-Reid Corporation. Winnipeg, Manitoba. 98 pages.

Jabs, J., Sobal, J., Devine, C.M. 2000. Managing vegetarianism: Identities, norms and interactions. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 39: 375-394.

Jahns, L., Scheett, A.J., Johnson, L.K., Krebs-Smith, S.M., Payne, C.R., Whigham, L.D., Hoverson, B.S. 2016. Diet quality of items advertised in the supermarket sales circulars compared to diets of the US population, as assessed by the healthy eating index-2010. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 116(1): 115-123.

Jägerskog, A., Clausen, T.J. 2012. Feeding a thirsty world – challenges and opportunities for a water and food secure future. Stockholm International Waster Institution (SIWI). Stockholm.

Janda, S., Trocchia, P.J. 2001. Vegetarianism: Toward a greater understanding. Psychology and Marketing. 18(12): 1205-1240.

Jeong, E., Jang, S. 2016. Imagine yourself being healthy: The mental simulation effect of advertisements on healthy menu promotion. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 53: 81-93.

Jevons, W.S. 1871.The theory of political economy. Macmillan and Co. London.

Jones, J.L., Krummel, D.A., Wheeler, K., Forbes, B., Fitch, C. 2004. The prevalence of heart-healthy menu items in West Virginia restaurants. American Journal of Health Behaviour. 28(4): 328-334.

81

Joyce, A.W., Hallett, J.D., Hannelly, T., Carey, G. 2014. The impact of nutritional choices on global warming and policy implications: examining the link between dietary choices and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy and Emission Control Technologies. 2: 33-43.

Katcher, H.I., Ferdowsian, H.R., Hoover, V.J., Cohen, J.L., Barnard, N.D. 2010. A worksite vegan nutrition program is well-accepted and improves health-related quality of life and work productivity. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 56: 245-252.

Kearney, J. 2010. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 365: 2793-2807.

Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E., Koppenjan, J.F.M. 1997. Management perspective on policy networks. In: Walter, J.M., Kickert, E.H., Koppenjan, J.F.M, editors. Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London, Sage. 224.

Kim, H., Lee, D., Hong, Y., Ahn, J., Lee, K-Y. 2016a. A content analysis of television food advertising to children: Comparing low and general-nutrition food. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 40: 201-210.

Kim, E.H.J., Schroeder, K.M., Houser, R.F., Dwyer, J.T. 1999. Two small surveys, 25 years apart, investigating motivations of dietary choice in 2 groups of vegetarians in the Boston area. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 99(5): 596-601.

Kim, K.K., Williams, J.D., Wilcox, G.B. 2016b. ‘Kid-tested, mother approved’: The relationship between advertising expenditures and ‘most-loved’ brands. International Journal of Advertising. 35(1): 42-60.

Klopp, S.A., Heiss, C.J., Smith, H.S. 2003. Self-reported vegetarianism may be a marker for college women at risk for disordered eating. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 103(6): 745-747.

Kongsback, I., Skov, L.R., Nielsen, B.K., Ahlmann, F.K., Schaldemose, H., Atkinson, L., Wichmann, M., Pérez-Cueto. 2016. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake among male university students in an ad libitum buffet setting: A choice architectural nudge intervention. Food Quality and Preference. 49: 183-188.

Kouvari, M., Tyrovolas, S., Panagiotakos, D.B. 2016. Red meat consumption and healthy ageing: A review. Maturitas. 84: 17-24.

Krizmanic, J. 1992. Here’s who we are. Vegetarian Times. 182(72-76): 78-80.

Kulshreshtha, S.N., Bonneau, M., Boehm, M., Giraldez, J.C. 1999. Canadian economic and emissions model for agriculture (CEEMA Version 1.0): Report 1 model description. Ottawa: Policy Branch, Agri-culture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

Laestadius, L., Neff, R., Barry, C., Frattaroli, S. 2013. Meat consumption and climate change: the role of non-governmental organizations. Climate Change. 120: 25-38.

Laestadius, L.I., Neff, R.A., Barry, C.L., Frattaroli, S. 2014. “we don’t tell people water to do”: An examination of the factors influencing NGO decisions to campaign for reduced meat consumption in light of climate change. Global Environmental Change. 29: 32-40.

82

Larsson, C.L., Klock, K., Åstrøm, A.N., Haugejorden, O., Johansson, G. 2002. Lifestycle-related characteristics of young low-meat consumers and omnivores in Sweden and Norway. Journal of adolescent health. 31: 190-198.

Latané, B. 1981. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist. 36: 343-356.

Lea, E.J., Crawford, D., Worsley, A. 2006a. Consumers’ readiness to eat a plant-based diet. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 60: 342-351.

Lea, E.J., Crawford, D., Worsley, A. 2006b. 60: 828-837. Public views of the benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet.

Lea, E., Worsley, A. 2002. The cognitive contexts of beliefs about the healthiness of meat. Public Health nutrition 5(1): 37-45.

Lea, E., Worsley, A. 2003. Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in Australia. Public Health Nutrition. 6(5): 505-511.

Leitzmann, C. 2005. Vegetarian diets: What are the advantages. Forum of Nutrition. 57: 147-156

Leitzmann, C. 2014. Vegetarian nutrition: past, present, future. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 100: 496S-502S

Lerner, H., Algers, B., Gunnarsson, S., Nordgren, A. 2013. Stakeholders on meat production, meat consumption and mitigation of climate change: Sweden as a case. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. 26: 663-678.

Leroy, F., Praet, I. 2015. Meat traditions. The co-evolution of humans and meat. Appetite. 20: 200-211.

Lorenzoni, L., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L. 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK. Global Environmental Change. 17: 445-459.

Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Bastian, B. 2010. The role of meat consumption in the denial or moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite. 55(1): 156-159.

Lusk, J.L. 2011. The market for animal welfare. Agriculture and Human Values. 28: 561-575.

Lusk, J.L., Norwood, F.B. 2009. Some economic benefits and costs of vegetarianism. Agricultural and Resources Economics Review. 38(2): 109-124.

Macdiarmid, J.I., Kyle, J., Horgan, G.W., Loe, J., Fyfe, C., Johnstone, A., McNeill, G.. 2012. Sustainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 96(3): 632-639.

Mäkiniemi, J-P., Vainio, A. 2014. Barriers to climate-friendly food choices among young adults in Finland. Appetite. 74: 12-19.

Marlow, H.J., Hayes, W.K., Soret, S., Carter, R.L., Schwab, E.R., Sabaté, J. 2009. Diet and the environment: Does what you eat matter? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 89(suppl): 1699S-703S.

83

Masset, G., Vieux, F., Verger, E.O., Soler, L-G., Touazi, D., Darmon, N. 2014. Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: a study based on self-selected diets in French adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 99: 1460-1469.

McAllister, T.A., Okine, E.K., Mathison, G.W., Cheng, K.J. 1996. Dietary, environmental and microbiological aspects of methane production in ruminants. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 76: 231-243.

McAlpine, C.A., Etter, A., Fearnside, P.M., Seabrook, L., Laurance, W.F. 2009. Increasing world consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global change: A call for policy action based on evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia, and Brazil. Global Environmental Change. 19: 21-33.

McKenna, B. 2013. Taxpayers oblivious to the cost of farm subsidies. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March, 2016 from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/taxpayers-oblivious-to-the-cost-of-farm-subsidies/article13055078/. Ottawa, Ontario.

McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Butler, C.D., Uauy, R. 2007. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change and health. Lancet. 370: 1253-263.

Meier, T., Christen, O., Semler, E., Jahries, G., Voget-Klechin, L., Schrode, A., Artmann, M. 2014. Balancing virtual land imports by a shift in the diet. Using a land balance approach to assess the sustainability of food consumption. Germany as an example. Appetite. 74: 20-34.

Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W.D., Shaw, D. 1994. The impact of global warming on agriculture: A ricardian analysis. The American Economic Review. 84(4): 753-771.

Messina, V., Melina, V., Mangels, A.R. 2003. A new food guide for North American vegetarians. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research. 64(2): 82-86.

Metz, B., Davidson, O., Bosch, P., Dave, R., Meyer, L. (eds). 2007. Climate change 2007. Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Mikkelsen, B., Kristensen, N., Nielsen, T. 2006. Innovation processes in large-scale public foodservice-case findings from the implementation of organic foods in a Danish country. Journal of Foodservice Business Research. 8(2): 87-105.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., Alexander, L. 1990. In-depth interviewing: Researching people. Hong Kong. Longman Cheshire.

Missbach, B., Weber, A., Huber, E.M., König, J.S. 2015. Inverting the pyramid! Extent and quality of food advertised on Austrian television. BMC Public Health. 15: 910-920.

Neacsu, M., Fyfe, C., Horgan, G., Johnstone, A.M. 2014. Appetite control and biomarkers of satiety with vegetarian (soy) and meat-based high-protein diets for weight loss in obese men: a randomized crossover trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 100: 548-558.

Nederkoorn C., Guerrieri, R., Havermans, R.C., Roefs, A., Jansen, A. 2009. The interactive effect of hunger and impulsivity on food intake and purchase in a virtual supermarket. International Journal of Obesity. 33: 905-912.

84

Nestle, M. 1999. Animal v. plant foods in human diets and health: Is the historical record unequivocal? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 58: 211-218.

Nereng, G. Samini, M., Romsdal, A., Brekke, A. 2009. Can innovations in the supply chain lead to reduction of GHG emissions from food products? A framework. Proceedings of the Conference on Joint Actions on Climate Change. 22 pages.

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Perry, C., Casey, M.A. 1999. Factors influencing food choices of adolescents: Findings from focus-group discussions with adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 99: 929-934.

Nguyen, T.T.H. Doreau, M., Eugène, M., Corson, M.S., Garcia-Launay, F., Chesneau, G., van der Werf, H.M.G. 2013. Effect of farming practices for greenhouse gas mitigation and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems. Animal. 7(5): 860-869.

Nicholls, S., Gwordz, W., Riesch, L., Voigt, K. 2011. Fiscal food policy: Equity and practice. Public Health Perspectives. 131(4): 157-158.

Ogden, J., Karim, L., Choudry, A., Brown, K. 2007. Understanding successful behaviour change: The role of intentions, attitudes to the target and motivations and the example of diet. Health Education Research. 22(3): 397-405.

Olson-Sawyer, K. 2013. Meat’s large water footprint: why raising livestock and poultry for meat is so resource-intensive. Foodtank. Retrieved March, 2016 from: http://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources.

O’Mara, F.P. 2011. The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse emissions today and in the near future. Animal Feed and Science Technology. 166: 7-15.

Palaniswamy, U.R. 2003. Vegetarianism and human health. Horticultural Technology. 13(2): 243-251

Parry, M.L., Ruttan, V.W. 1991. Climate change and world agriculture. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 33(6): 25-29.

Pautasso, M. 2013. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology. 9(7): e1003149.

Petticrew, M., Roberts, H. 2008. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons. 352 pages.

Piccoli, G.B., Clari, R., Vigotti, F.N., Leone, F., Attini, R., Cabiddu, G., Mauro, G., Castelluccia, N., Colombi, N., Capizzi, I., Pani, A., Todros, T., Avagnina, P. 2015. Vegan-vegetarian diets in pregnancy: danger of panacea? A systematic narrative review. An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) 122:623-633.

Pimentel D, Pimentel M. 1996. Food, energy and society. Niwot, CO: Colorado University Press.

Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M. 2001. Agricultural production. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Nature Publishing Group. 7 pages.

85

Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M. 2003. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 78: 660S-663S.

Pistollato, F., Cano, S.S., Elio, I., Vergaea, M.M., Giampieri, F., Battino, M. 2015. Plant-based and plant-rich diet patterns during gestation: Beneficial effects and possible shortcomings. Advances in Nutrition. 6: 581-591.

Poetschke, T. 1984. Community dependence on fishing in the Atlantic provinces. The Canadian Journal of Regional Science. 7(2): 211-226.

Pohjolainen, P., Vinnari, M., Jokinen, P. 2014. Consumers’ perceived barriers to following a plant-based diet. British Food Journal. 117(3): 1150-1167.

Pollard, J., Greenwood, D., Kirk, S., Cade, J. 2001. Lifestyle factors affecting fruit and vegetable consumption in the UK women’s cohort study. Appetite. 37: 71-79.

Ponzio, E., Mazzarini, G., Gasperi, G., Bottoni, M.C., Vallorani, S. 2015. The vegetarian habit in Italy: Prevalence and characteristics of consumers. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 54: 370-379.

Popkin, B.M. 2009. Reducing meat consumption has multiple benefits for the world’s health. Archives of Internal Medicine. 169(6): 543-545.

Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S.M., Iqbal, M.M., Lobell, D.B., Travasso, M.I. 2014. Food security and food production systems. In: Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrendrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485-533.

Potts, A., White, M. 2008. New Zealand Vegetarians: At odds with their nation. Society and Animals. 16: 336-353.

Ratnayake, W.M., L’Abbe, M.R., Mozaffarian, D. 2009. Nationwide product reformulations to reduce trans fatty acids in Canada: when trans fat goes out, what goes in? European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 63: 808-811.

Reisch, L., Eberle, U., Lorek, S. 2013. Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy. 9(2): 7-25.

Rejinders, L., Soret, S. 2003. Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 78: 6645-6685.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Joachim, S., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanze, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Kalberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 461: 472-475.

86

Rothgerber, H. 2013. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 14(4): 363-375.

Rozin, P., Markwith, M., Stoess, C. 1997. Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science. 8(2): 67-73.

Ruby, M.B. 2012. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite. 58: 141-150.

Ruby, M.B., Alvarenga, M.S., Rozin, P., Kirby, T.A., Richer, E., Rutsztein, G. 2016. Attitudes toward beef and vegetarians in Argentina, Brazil, France, and the USA. Appetite. 96: 546-554.

Ruby, M.B., Heine, S.J. 2011. Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite. 56: 447-450.

Ruby, M.B., Heine, S.J., Kamble, S., Cheng, T.K., Waddar, M. 2013. Compassion and contamination. Cultural differences in vegetarianism. Appetite. 71: 340-348.

Ryan, M.R., Deci, E. 2000. Self-determination theory and facilitation of intrinsic motivation. American Psychologist. 55(1): 68-78.

Sabaté, J. 2001. Vegetarian nutrition. The CRC Press Modern Nutrition Series. CRC Press. 576 pages.

Sabaté, J., Rajaram, S. 2000. Health benefits of a vegetarian diet. Nutrition. 16(7): 531-533.

Sabaté, J., Soret, S. 2014. Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 100: 476S-482S.

Sadalla, E., Burroughs, J. 1981. Profiles on eating: Sexy vegetarians and other diet-based stereotypes. Psychology Today. 15: 51-57.

Salonen, A.O., Helne, T.T. 2012. Vegetarian diets: A way towards a sustainable society. Journal of Sustainable Development. 5(6): 10-24.

Saxena, A.D. 2011. The vegetarian imperative. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., Key, T.J. 2014. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change. 125: 179-192.

Schyver, T., Smith, C. 2005. Reported attitudes and beliefs toward soy food consumption of soy consumers versus nonconsumers in natural foods or mainstream grocery stores. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour. 37: 292-299.

Seyfang, G. 2005. Shopping for sustainability: Can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship? Environmental Politics. 14(2): 290-306.

Seyfang, G., Smith, A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics. 16(4): 584-603.

Siergist, M., Visschers, V.H.M., Hartmann, C. 2015. Factors influencing changes in sustainability perception of various food behaviours: Results of a longitudinal study. Food Quality and Preference. 46: 33-39.

87

Silva, M.N., Marques, M.M., Teixeira, P.J. 2014. Testing theory in practice: The example of self-determination theory-based interventions. The European Health Psychologist. 16(5): 171-180.

Simopoulos, A.P., Fargeman, O., Bourner, P.G. 2011. Action plan for a healthy agriculture, healthy nutrition, healthy people. Journal of Nutrigenet. Nutrigen. 4: 65-68.

Soldateli, B., Vigo, A., Glugliani, E.R.J. 2016. Effect of pattern and duration of breastfeeding on the consumption of fruits and vegetables among preschool children. PLoS One. 11(2): e0148357. doi: 10.137/journal.pone.0148357.

Soloman, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. 2007. Global warming potentials and other metrics for comparing different emissions. In: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Sonntag, D., Schnieder, S., Mdege, N., Ali, S., Schmidt. 2015. Beyond food promotion: A systematic review on the influence of the food industry on obesity-related dietary behaviour among children. Nutrients. 7: 8565-8576.

Soret, S., Mejia, A., Batech, M., Jaceldo-Siegl, K., Harwatt, H., Sabaté, J. 2014. Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary patterns in real-life settings throughout North America. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 100(suppl): 490S-495S.

Spaargaren, G. 2003. Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and environmental policy perspective. Society and Natural Resources. 16: 687-701.

Spence, M. 1973. Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 87(3): 355-374.

Springmann, M., Godfray, H.C.J., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P. 2016. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. PNAS. 113(15): 4146-4151.

Statistics Canada. 2011. Energy and greenhouse gas intensity by industry, Canada, 2004: Primary sector. In Human Activity and the Environment: Annual Statistics. Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 16-201-X.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin, S. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. 347(6223): 1259855-1-10.

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. ISBN 978-92-5-105571-7.

Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, M.G.J., Eickhout, B., Kabat, P. 2009. Climate benefits of changing diet. Climate Change. 95: 83-102.

Stern, P.C. 1999. Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Policy. 22: 461-478.

88

Stewart, A.A., Little, S.M., Ominski, K.H., Wittenberg, K.M., Janzen, H.H. 2009. Evaluating greenhouse gas mitigation practices in livestock systems: an illustration of a whole-farm approach. Journal of Agricultural Science. 147: 367-382.

Stiglitz, J.E., Rothschild, M. 1976. Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: An essay on the economics of imperfect information. Quarterly Journal of Economics 90: 629-649.

Tan, H.S.G., Fischer, A.R.H., van Trijp, H.C.M., Steiger, M. 2016. Tasty but nasty? Exploring the role of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Quality and Preference. 48: 293-302.

Temme, E.H.M., van der Voet, H., Thissen, J.T.N.M., Verkaik-Kloosterman, J., van Dankersgoed, G., Nonhebel, S. 2013. Replacement of meat and dairy by plant-derived foods: Estimated effects on land use, iron and SFA intakes in young Dutch adult females. Public Health Nutrition. 16(10): 1900-1907.

Thaler, R.H., Sustein, C.R. 2003. Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review. 93: 175-179.

Thøgersen J. 2005. How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles. Journal of Consumer Policy. 28(2): 143-177.

Thomas, D.R. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation. 27(2): 237-246.

Thompson, R.L., Margetts, B.M., Speller, V.M., McVey, D. 1999. The health education authority’s health and lifestyle survey 1993: who are the low fruit and vegetable consumers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 53: 294-299.

Tilman, D., Clark, M. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 515: 518-524.

Tom, M.S., Fischbeck, P.S., Hendrickson, C.T. 2015. Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US. Environment Systems and Decisions. 36(1): 92-103.

Torraco, R.J. 2005. Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review. 4(3): 356-367.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2016. Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties. In: Conference of the Parties. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bonn, Germany.

van Dooren, C., Marinussen, M., Blonk, H., Aiking, H., Vellinga, P. 2014. Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: A comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy. 44: 36-46.

Vanhonacker, F., Loo, E.J.V., Gellynck, X, Verbeke, W. 2013. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite. 62: 7-16.

van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, M., Lucas, P., Eickhout, B., Strengers, B., van Ruijven, B., Wonink, S., van Houdt, R. 2007. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climate Change. 81:119–159.

89

Verain, M.C.D., Dagevos, H., Antonides, G. Sustainable food consumption. Product choice or curtailment? Appetite. 91: 375-384.

Verbeke, W., Sans, P., Loo, E.J.V. 2015. Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 14(2): 285-294.

Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M., Ingram, J.S.I. 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 37: 195-222.

Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude-behavioural intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 19: 169-194.

Vinnari, M., Vinnari, E. 2013. A framework for sustainability transition: The case of plant-based diets. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. 27: 369-396.

Voedingscentrum. 2016. Healthy eating with the pyramid. Retrieved May 2016 from: http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/gezond-eten-met-de-schijf-van-vijf.aspx. Voedingscentrum, Netherlands.

Vukmirovic, M. 2015. The effect of food advertising on food-related behaviours and perceptions in adults: A review. Food Research International. 75: 13-19.

Wahlen, S., Heiskanen, E., Aalto, K. 2012. Endorsing sustainable food consumption prospects from public catering. Journal of Consumer Policy. 35(1): 7-21.

Wakefield, S., Elliot, S., Eyles, J., Cole, D. 2006. Taking environmental action. The role of local composition, context and collective. Environmental Management. 37: 40-53.

Wansink, B. 2006. Nutritional gatekeepers and the 72% solution. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 106: 1324-1326.

Weiske, A., Vabitsch, A., Olesen, J.E., Schedle, K., Michel, J., Friedrich, R., Kaltschmitt, M. 2006. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in European conventional and organic dairy farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 112: 221-232.

Wellesley, L., Happer, C., Froggatt, A. 2015. Changing climate, changing diets: Pathways to lower meat consumption. Chatham House Reports. The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Great Britain.

White, J.B., Schmitt, M.T., Langer, E.J. 2006. Horizontal hostility: Multiple minority groups and differentiation from the mainstream. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 9(3): 339-358.

White, R.F., Seymour, J., Frank, E. 1999. Vegetarianism among US women physicians. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 99(5): 595-598.

Whitfield, S., Benton, T.G., Dallimer, M., Firbank, L.G., Poppy, G.M., Sallu, S.M., Stringer, L.C. 2015. Sustainability spaces for complex agri-food systems. Food Security. 7: 1291-1297.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Health Synthesis: A report of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Geneva: World Health Organization.

90

Willetts, A. (1997). Chapter 6: ‘Bacon sandwiches got the better of me’: Meat-eating and vegetarianism in South East London. In Caplan, P. (1997). Food, health, and identity. Psychology Press. 280 pages.

Wilson, M.S., Weatherall, A., Butler, C. 2004. A rhetorical approach to discussions about health and vegetarianism. Journal of Health Psychology. 9(4): 567-581.

Worsley, A. 2007. Lay people’s views of the school food supply. British food journal. 109(6): 429-442.

Worsley, A., Skrzypiec, G. 1998. Teenage vegetarianism: Beauty or beast? Nutrition Research. 17: 391-404.

World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). 2012. The United Nations world water development report 4: Managing water under uncertainty and risk. Paris, UNESCO.

Yuan, W.L., Rigal, N., Monnery-Patris, S., Chabanet, C., Forhan, A., Charles, M-A, de Lauzon-Guillain, B. 2016. Early determinants of food liking among 5y-old children: A longitudinal study from the EDEN mother-child cohort. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition. 13: 20-30.

Zhang, Y.M, Wildemuth, B.M. 2010. Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library. pp. 1-12.

Zur, I., Klöckner, C.A. 2012. Individual motivations for limiting meat consumption. British Food Journal. 116(4): 629-642.

91

Appendix 1

Figure 11. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “vegetarian* motivation”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

92

Figure 12. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “vegetarian* barrier”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

93

Figure 13. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “vegetarian* environment”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

94

Figure 14. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “influence on consumption”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

95

Figure 15. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “meat consumption”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

96

Figure 16. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “promotion of vegetarian*”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

97

Figure 17. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “environmentally significant consumption”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

98

Figure 18. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “limit vegetarian*”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

99

Figure 19. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “obstacle vegetarian*”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

100

Figure 20. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “advertise food”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

101

Figure 21. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “reducing meat consumption + government”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

102

Figure 22. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “consumer characteristics + government”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

103

Figure 23. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “sustainable + vegan”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

104

Figure 24. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “vegan barrier”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

105

Figure 25. Flow diagram of academic literature using the key search term “sustainable food consumption policy”, obtained on the basis of the academic search protocol. The - character, symbolizes articles that were deemed ineligible on the basis of the exclusion criteria, while the + character, symbolizes additional articles that were included from cross-referencing.

106

Appendix 2

Codes Categories Themes

Figure 26. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of autonomy.

Codes Categories Themes

Figure 27. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of cognitive dissonance.

107

Codes Categories Themes

Figure 28. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of information asymmetry.

108

Codes Categories Themes

Figure 29. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of social influence.

109

Codes Categories Themes

Codes Categories Themes

110

Figure 30. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) of academic journal articles influencing the theme of political economy.

111

Codes Categories Themes

Figure 31. A posteriori inductive coding scheme (codes-categories-themes) underlying the 6 public webpages assessed for barriers to plant based diets.

112

Appendix 3

Table 3. Detailed outline of the codes-categories-concepts methodology uncovered from the 111 academic journal articles assessed for barriers to plant-based diets. The context (implicit; explicit) in which the code was stated, the referenced article, and the source are also included.

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Not Health Conscious Apathy Autonomy Explicit Hoek et al., 2004 Primary

Not Health Conscious Apathy Autonomy Explicit Ponzio et al., 2015 Primary

Not Health Conscious Apathy Autonomy Implicit Nederkoorn et al., 2009 Primary

Not Health Conscious Apathy Autonomy Explicit Ruby & Heine, 2011 Primary

Unwilling to Change Apathy Autonomy Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Unwilling to Change Apathy Autonomy Explicit Ogden et al., 2007 Primary

Unwilling to Change Apathy Autonomy Explicit Lea & Worsley, 2003 Primary

Unwilling to Change Apathy Autonomy Explicit Lea et al., 2006 Primary

Unwilling to Change Apathy Autonomy Explicit Pohjolainen et al., 2014 Primary

Unwilling to Change Apathy Autonomy Explicit Caracciolo et al., 2016 Primary

Unwilling to Change Apathy Autonomy Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Attitude Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Attitude Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Ogden et al., 2007 Primary

Hedonism Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Thompson et al., 1999 Primary

Hedonism Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Jeong & Jang, 2016 Primary

Hedonism Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Identity Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Cherry, 2015 Primary

Identity Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Identity Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Identity Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Wilson et al., 2004 Synthesis

Identity Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Identity Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

Individual Values Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014 Primary

113

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Individual Values Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Caracciolo et al., 2016 Primary

Individual Values Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Tan et al., 2016 Primary

Individual Values Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Worsley, 2007 Primary

Individual Values Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Curran & Sherbinin, 2004 Synthesis

Individual Values Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Individual Values Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Individual Values Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Insufficient Inhibitory Control Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Nederkoorn et al., 2009 Primary

Low Self-Efficacy Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Not Dedicated, Lack Control Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Jabs et al., 2000 Primary

Poor Restraint Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Worsley & Skrzypiec, 1998 Primary

Poor Restraint Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Nederkoorn et al., 2009 Primary

Poor Restraint Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Katcher et al., 2010 Primary

Psychological Makeup Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Implicit Curran & Sherbinin, 2004 Synthesis

Resistant to Change Intrinsic Motivation Autonomy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Dehumanization Anthropocentric Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Bratanova et al., 2011 Primary

Dehumanization Anthropocentric Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Loughnan et al., 2010 Primary

Dehumanization Anthropocentric Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Hierarchy Anthropocentric Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Hierarchy Anthropocentric Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Bilewicz et al., 2011 Primary

Hierarchy Anthropocentric Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Hierarchy Anthropocentric Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

Hierarchy Anthropocentric Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Ruby et al., 2013 Primary

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Batison et al., 2012 Primary

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Bilewicz et al., 2011 Primary

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Bratanova et al., 2011 Primary

114

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Loughnan et al., 2010 Primary

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Denial Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Disbelief Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Disregard for Negative Consequences Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Graca et al., 2014 Primary

Ignorance Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Loughnan et al., 2010 Primary

Lack of Concern Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Other Concerns More Important Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Reconstrual of Harmful Conduct Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Graca et al., 2014 Primary

Repressed Morals/Thoughts Intentional Ignorance Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Active Avoidance and Dissociation Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Graca et al., 2014 Primary

Active Avoidance and Dissociation Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Active Avoidance and Dissociation Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Bratanova et al., 2011 Primary

Active Avoidance and Dissociation Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Consequences Removed in Space & Time Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Dementalization Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Ruby et al., 2013 Primary

Dementalization Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Batison et al., 2012 Primary

Dementalization Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Desensitization Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Detachment from Industry Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

Meat Paradox Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Loughnan et al., 2010 Primary

Meat Paradox Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Moral Disengagement Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Moral Justification Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Moral Justification Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Worsley & Skrzypiec, 1998 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Fox & Ward, 2008 Primary

115

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Janda & Trocchia, 2001 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Beardsworth & Keil, 1993 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit de Backer & Hudders, 2014 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Lea & Worsley, 2002 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Bratanova et al., 2011 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Caracciolo et al., 2016 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Ruby & Heine, 2011 Primary

Morals Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Leitzmann, 2014 Synthesis

Obscuring Personal Responsibility Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Graca et al., 2014 Primary

Recognition of Benefits Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Lea & Worsley, 2003 Primary

Recognition of Benefits Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Lea et al., 2006 Primary

Recognition of Benefits Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Pohjolainen et al., 2014 Primary

Recognition of Benefits Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Chekima et al., 2016 Primary

Recognition of Benefits Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Implicit Kongsback, 2016 Primary

Self-Exonerations Moral Disengagement Cognitive Dissonance Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Bone Density Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Bobic et al., 2012 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 PrimaryDeficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Barr & Chapman, 2002 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Wilson et al., 2004 Synthesis

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Jabs et al., 2000 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Lea et al., 2006 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

116

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Pistollato et al., 2015 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Temme et al., 2013 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Larsson et al., 2002 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Clarys et al., 2014 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Leitzmann, 2014 Synthesis

Deficiencies Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Leitzmann, 2005 Synthesis

Eating Disorder Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Bardon-Cone et al., 2012 Primary

Eating Disorder Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Brinkman et al., 2014 Primary

Eating Disorder Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Forestell et al., 2012 Primary

Eating Disorder Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Eating Disorder Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Larsson et al., 2002 Primary

Health Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Health Impact on Newborns Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Pistollato et al., 2015 Primary

Nutritional Density Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Nutritional Density Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Kouvari et al., 2016 Synthesis

Nutritional Density Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Clarys et al., 2014 Primary

Nutritional Necessity Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

Nutritional Necessity Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Pregnancy-Related Issues Health Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Pistollato et al., 2015 Primary

Pregnancy-Related Issues Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Pregnancy-Related Issues Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Piccoli et al., 2015 Synthesis

Slow Growth in Children Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Weight/Diet Myth Health Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit de Backer & Hudders, 2014 Primary

Attachment Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Centrality Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

117

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Centrality Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Centrality Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Centrality Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Convenience Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Hoek et al., 2011 Primary

Convenience Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Convenience Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Cravings Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Cravings Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Cravings Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Leroy & Praet, 2015 Synthesis

Cravings Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Lea & Worsley, 2003 Primary

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Pohjolainen et al., 2014 Primary

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Leroy & Praet, 2015 Synthesis

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Batison et al., 2012 Primary

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998 Primary

Culture Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Difficult Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Enjoyment Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Lea & Worsley, 2003 Primary

Enjoyment Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Leroy & Praet, 2015 Synthesis

Enjoyment Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Food Appropriateness Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Tan et al., 2016 Primary

Habit Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Habit Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Habit Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Habit Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

118

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Hunger Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Neacsu et al., 2014 Primary

Hunger Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Hunger Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Nederkoorn et al., 2009 Primary

Hunger Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Katcher et al., 2010 Primary

Imperfect Choice Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Wahlen et al., 2012 Primary

Impractical Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Cherry, 2015 Primary

Individual Helplessness Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Individual Helplessness Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Lazy, passive Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Worsley & Skrzypiec, 1998 Primary

Lazy, passive Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Loss Aversion Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014 Primary

Mood Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Non-Reflective Activity Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Pragmatism Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Janda & Trocchia, 2001 Primary

Preparation Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Gobert & Duncan, 2009 Primary

Preparation Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Barr & Chapman, 2002 Primary

Quality of Meat Alternatives Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Routine Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Routine Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Routine Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Wahlen et al., 2012 Primary

Stress Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit de Backer & Hudders, 2014 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Gobert & Duncan, 2009 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Hoek et al., 2011 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Barr & Chapman, 2002 Primary

119

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Pohjolainen et al., 2014 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Schyver & Smith, 2005 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Wnsink et al., 2014 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Leroy & Praet, 2015 Synthesis

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit de Boer et al., 2016 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Caracciolo et al., 2016 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Kouvari et al., 2016 Synthesis

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Tan et al., 2016 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Thompson et al., 1999 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Jeong & Jang, 2016 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998 Primary

Taste Preferences Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Texture/Appearance Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Gobert & Duncan, 2009 Primary

Texture/Appearance Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Hoek et al., 2011 Primary

Time Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Time Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Time Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Time Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Time Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Worsley, 2007 Primary

Time Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Curran & Sherbinin, 2004 Synthesis

Time Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Traditional Views Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Worsley & Skrzypiec, 1998 Primary

120

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Traditional Views Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Leroy & Praet, 2015 Synthesis

Traditional Views Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

Traditional Views Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Caracciolo et al., 2016 Primary

Traditional Views Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Unfamiliar Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Forestell et al., 2012 Primary

Unfamiliar Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Tan et al., 2016 Primary

Unfamiliar Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Implicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Unfamiliar Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Hoek et al., 2011 Primary

Unfamiliar Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Unfamiliar Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Unfamiliar Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Unfamiliar Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Work Schedule Judgmental Heuristics Information Asymmetry Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Climate Change Deniers Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Controversial Topic Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Food Preparation Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Gobert & Duncan, 2009 Primary

Food Preparation Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Food Preparation Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Pohjolainen et al., 2014 Primary

Food Preparation Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Schyver & Smith, 2005 Primary

Food Preparation Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Wnsink et al., 2014 Primary

Food Preparation Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Food Preparation Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Implicit Worsley, 2007 Primary

Food Preparation Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Hidden Nature of Food Production Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Labelling Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Implicit Caracciolo et al., 2016 Primary

Labelling Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Lerner et al., 2013 Primary

Lack of Options Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Learning/Sharing Cooking Skills Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Implicit Cherry, 2015 Primary

121

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Misconceptions Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Implicit Tan et al., 2016 Primary

No Definition of Optimal Diet Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Poor Education/Promotion Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Poor Engagement Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Relatively New Topic Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Romantic Images Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Implicit Cherry, 2015 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Implicit Beardsworth & Keil, 1993 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Implicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Gobert & Duncan, 2009 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Barr & Chapman, 2002 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Lea & Worsley, 2003 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Lea et al., 2006 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Pohjolainen et al., 2014 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit de Boer et al., 2016 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Friel et al., 2013 Synthesis

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Lerner et al., 2013 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Vanhonacker et al., 2013 Primary

Unaware Lack of Education/Learning/Info Information Asymmetry Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Gobert & Duncan, 2009 Primary

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Wnsink et al., 2014 Primary

122

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Grabs, 2014 Primary

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Rose, 2010 Symposium

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit de Boer et al., 2016 Primary

Cost Myth Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Caracciolo et al., 2016 Primary

Discrepancy in Views Perception Information Asymmetry Implicit Worsley, 2007 Primary

Discrepancy in Views Perception Information Asymmetry Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Reliance on Judgmental Heuristics Suboptimal Decision Making Information Asymmetry Explicit Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014 Primary

Reliance on Judgmental Heuristics Suboptimal Decision Making Information Asymmetry Implicit Dietz, 2014 Commentary

Reliance on Judgmental Heuristics Suboptimal Decision Making Information Asymmetry Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Reliance on Judgmental Heuristics Suboptimal Decision Making Information Asymmetry Explicit Spaargaren, 2003 Primary

Balance in Government Responsibility Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Duchin, 2005 Synthesis

Economic Underpinnings of Food System Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Beardsworth & Keil, 1993 Primary

Economic Underpinnings of Food System Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Economic Welfare of Industry Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

Funding for Climate Change Mitigation Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Classen & Schwean, 1998 Symposium

Funding for Community/Sustainability Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Seyfang & Smith, 2007 Synthesis

Increased Frequency of Eating Out Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Lower Price for More Intensive Meat Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Lerner et al., 2013 Primary

Market Liberalization Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Pricing & Promotion Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Jahns et al., 2016 Primary

Pricing & Promotion Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Jeong & Jang, 2016 Primary

Subsidies to Industry Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Classen & Schwean, 1998 Symposium

Supermarket Sales Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Jahns et al., 2016 Primary

Supermarket Sales Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Sonntag et al., 2015 Synthesis

Supermarket Sales Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Vukmirovic, 2015 Synthesis

Supply Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Threat to Industry Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Implicit Chin et al., 2002 Primary

123

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Trade Policies Economic Underpinnings Political Economy Explicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Asymmetric Intervention by Industry Industry Influence Political Economy Implicit Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Beardsworth & Keil, 1993 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Gobert & Duncan, 2009 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Barr & Chapman, 2002 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Fleming et al., 1997 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Schyver & Smith, 2005 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Implicit Rose, 2010 Symposium

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Katcher et al., 2010 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Implicit Whitfield et al., 2015 Case Study

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Implicit Jahns et al., 2016 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Availability Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Campaign Donations Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Categorization as Food Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Bratanova et al., 2011 Primary

Categorization as Food Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Fast Food Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Food Overexposure Industry Influence Political Economy Implicit Nederkoorn et al., 2009 Primary

Framing Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Government/Medical Endorsement Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Imperfect Supply Adjustment Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Wahlen et al., 2012 Primary

Industry Objections Industry Influence Political Economy Implicit Nestle, 1999 Synthesis

Institutional Norms Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

124

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Institutional Norms Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Lack of Green Provisioning Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Spaargaren, 2003 Primary

Poor Diversity Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Teachers Industry Influence Political Economy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Choice ArchitectureLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Kongsback, 2016 Primary

Committees on National GuidelinesLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Contradictory InformationLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Contradictory InformationLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Distortion of Recommendations & Advertisements

Lack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Misbach et al., 2015 Primary

Distortion of Food Recommendations & Advertisements

Lack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Sonntag et al., 2015 Synthesis

Externalizing Responsibility/BlameLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Food GuideLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Jones et al., 2004 Primary

Food GuideLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Katcher et al., 2010 Primary

Food GuideLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Messine et al., 2003 Primary

Food GuideLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Food GuideLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Flynn et al., 2011 Primary

Food GuideLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit van Dooren et al., 2014 Primary

Lack of Credibility with Respect to Sustainability Claims

Lack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Lack of Industry ActionLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Lack of Political Action/ PolicyLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Lack of Political Action/ PolicyLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Lerner et al., 2013 Primary

Lack of Political Action/ PolicyLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Lack of Political Action/ Policy Lack of Government/Industry Political Economy Explicit Wahlen et al., 2012 Primary

125

Code Category Theme Context Reference SourceLeadership

Lack of Political Action/ PolicyLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Spaargaren, 2003 Primary

Lack of Political Action/ PolicyLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Lack of Political Action/ PolicyLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Seyfang & Smith, 2007 Synthesis

Lack of Political Action/ PolicyLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Lack of Political WillLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Lock-InLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Curran & Sherbinin, 2004 Synthesis

Lock-InLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Seyfang & Smith, 2007 Synthesis

Market InstrumentsLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Seyfang, 2005 Synthesis

No Definition of Optimal DietLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Nutritional InformationLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Fleming et al., 1997 Primary

Public InvolvementLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Verbeke et al., 2015 Primary

Public ProcurementLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Wahlen et al., 2012 Primary

Public ProcurementLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

School LunchesLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

School LunchesLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Worsley, 2007 Primary

School LunchesLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Sonntag et al., 2015 Synthesis

Trust in Science, Policy & SocietyLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Implicit Verbeke et al., 2015 Primary

Uncertainty/Skepticism/DistrustLack of Government/Industry Leadership Political Economy Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Action, Lobbying and Education by NGOs Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Explicit Laestadius et al., 2013 Primary

Action, Lobbying and Education by NGOs Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Implicit Seyfang & Smith, 2007 Synthesis

Community Action Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Implicit Seyfang & Smith, 2007 Synthesis

Few Formal NGO Campaigns Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Explicit Laestadius et al., 2013 Primary

126

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Few Formal NGO Campaigns Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Few Formal NGO Campaigns Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Few NGOs Promoting national Policies Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Explicit Laestadius et al., 2013 Primary

Few NGOs Promoting national Policies Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Message Consistency Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Explicit Laestadius et al., 2013 Primary

NGOs Funded by Government, Industry Limited Effort by NGOs Political Economy Explicit Laestadius et al., 2014 Synthesis

Advertising Marketing Political Economy Explicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Advertising Marketing Political Economy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Advertising Marketing Political Economy Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Advertising Marketing Political Economy Implicit Chekima et al., 2016 Primary

Advertising Marketing Political Economy Implicit Boyland et al., 2016 Synthesis

Advertising Marketing Political Economy Implicit Bugge, 2016 Synthesis

Advertising Marketing Political Economy Explicit Vukmirovic, 2015 Synthesis

Advocacy Websites Marketing Political Economy Implicit Hopkins, 2015 Synthesis

Brand Familiarity Marketing Political Economy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Campaigns Marketing Political Economy Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Celebrities Marketing Political Economy Explicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Communication Technology Marketing Political Economy Implicit Kim et al., 1999 Primary

Disproportionate Advertising Marketing Political Economy Explicit Nestle, 1999 Synthesis

Fast Food Marketing Political Economy Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Fast Food Marketing Political Economy Explicit Sonntag et al., 2015 Synthesis

Frequency of Advertisements Marketing Political Economy Explicit Misbach et al., 2015 Primary

Geography of Food Marketing Political Economy Implicit Rose, 2010 Symposium

Green Washing/ Nutrient-Washing Marketing Political Economy Implicit Choi & Reid, 2015 Primary

Industry Marketing Marketing Political Economy Explicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Influence of Shelf Space Marketing Political Economy Implicit Rose, 2010 Symposium

Lack of Vegetarian Brands Marketing Political Economy Implicit Kim et al., 2016b Primary

Magazines Marketing Political Economy Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

127

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Magazines Marketing Political Economy Implicit Hopkins, 2015 Synthesis

Magazines Marketing Political Economy Implicit Bugge, 2016 Synthesis

Marketing Marketing Political Economy Explicit Schyver & Smith, 2005 Primary

Marketing Marketing Political Economy Implicit Jones et al., 2004 Primary

Marketing Marketing Political Economy Implicit Worsley, 2007 Primary

Marketing Marketing Political Economy Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Marketing Marketing Political Economy Explicit Wahlen et al., 2012 Primary

Marketing Marketing Political Economy Explicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Marketing Marketing Political Economy Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Implicit Hopkins, 2015 Synthesis

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Implicit Verbeke et al., 2015 Primary

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Explicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Implicit Bugge, 2016 Synthesis

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Implicit Choi & Reid, 2015 Primary

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Implicit Kim et al., 2016b Primary

Media (TV; Social) Marketing Political Economy Explicit Sonntag et al., 2015 Synthesis

Media Messages Marketing Political Economy Implicit Hopkins, 2015 Synthesis

Packaging Marketing Political Economy Implicit Bugge, 2016 Synthesis

Point of Purchase Information Marketing Political Economy Implicit Jones et al., 2004 Primary

Point of Purchase Information Marketing Political Economy Implicit Jahns et al., 2016 Primary

Point of Purchase Information Marketing Political Economy Implicit Jeong & Jang, 2016 Primary

Point of Purchase Information Marketing Political Economy Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Product Packaging Marketing Political Economy Explicit Sonntag et al., 2015 Synthesis

Product Placement Marketing Political Economy Implicit Bugge, 2016 Synthesis

Product Placement/ Brand Affinity Marketing Political Economy Implicit Kim et al., 2016b Primary

Promotion/Advertisements Marketing Political Economy Explicit Misbach et al., 2015 Primary

128

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Retail Marketing Political Economy Explicit Kearney, 2010 Synthesis

Targeted Advertisement Marketing Political Economy Explicit Kim et al., 2016b Primary

Targeted Advertisement Marketing Political Economy Implicit Kim et al., 2016a Synthesis

Tenure of Media Coverage Marketing Political Economy Implicit Hopkins, 2015 Synthesis

Variety & Placement of Items Marketing Political Economy Implicit Jahns et al., 2016 Primary

Geographic Location Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Friends/Family Modelling Social Influence Implicit Janda & Trocchia, 2001 Primary

Parental Behaviour Modelling Social Influence Explicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Parental Behaviour Modelling Social Influence Explicit Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999 Primary

Parental Behaviour Modelling Social Influence Explicit Yuan et al., 2016 Primary

Parental Behaviour Modelling Social Influence Explicit Reisch et al., 2013 Synthesis

Annoyance Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Conformity Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Friends/Family Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Makiniemi & Vinio, 2014 Primary

Friends/Family Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Bobic et al., 2012 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Worsley & Skrzypiec, 1998 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Fleming et al., 1997 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Jabs et al., 2000 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Lea & Worsley, 2002 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Leroy & Praet, 2015 Synthesis

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Nederkoorn et al., 2009 Primary

129

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Larsson et al., 2002 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Thompson et al., 1999 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Chekima et al., 2016 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Kongsback, 2016 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Hoek et al., 2004 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Ponzio et al., 2015 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Ruby & Heine, 2011 Primary

Gender Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Meier et al., 2014 Primary

Modelling Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Bugge, 2016 Synthesis

Social Acceptability Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Social Norms Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Social Norms Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Vinnari & Vinnari, 2013 Primary

Social Norms Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Tan et al., 2016 Primary

Social Norms Social Desirability Social Influence Implicit Larsson et al., 2002 Primary

Social Support Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit de Boer et al., 2016 Primary

Stereotyped Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Lea & Worsley, 2002 Primary

Stereotyped Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Lea et al., 2006 Primary

Stereotyped Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Status Quo Bias Social Desirability Social Influence Explicit Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014 Primary

Change in Living Situation Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Collective Action Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Cherry, 2015 Primary

Comparison Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Critical Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Chin et al., 2002 Primary

Friends/Family Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Cherry, 2015 Primary

Friends/Family Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Chin et al., 2002 Primary

Friends/Family Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Jabs et al., 2000 Primary

Friends/Family Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Lea & Worsley, 2003 Primary

130

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Friends/Family Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Lea et al., 2006 Primary

Judicial Treatment Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Chin et al., 2002 Primary

Justification Requirement Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Wilson et al., 2004 Synthesis

Justification Requirement Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Poor Goal Orientation Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Cherry, 2015 Primary

Poor Social Organization Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Cherry, 2015 Primary

Potential Alienation Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Janda & Trocchia, 2001 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Jones et al., 2004 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Katcher et al., 2010 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Chin et al., 2002 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Beardsworth & Keil, 1993 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Janda & Trocchia, 2001 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Lea et al., 2006 Primary

Restaurant Difficulty Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Pohjolainen et al., 2014 Primary

Social Acceptability Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Jabs et al., 2000 Primary

Social Accommodation Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Social Norms Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Lorenzoni et al., 2007 Primary

Social Support Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Erinosho et al., 2015 Primary

Social Support Social Difficulties Social Influence Implicit Haverstock & Forgays, 2012 Primary

Strained Relationships Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Hirschler, 2011 Primary

Teasing/Hostility Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Chin et al., 2002 Primary

Unorthodox Social Difficulties Social Influence Explicit Chin et al., 2002 Primary

Behaviour-Attitude Gap Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Breastfeeding Duration Social Influence Social Influence Implicit Soldateli et al., 2016 Primary

Change in Living Situation Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Barr & Chapman, 2002 Primary

Change in Living Situation Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

131

Code Category Theme Context Reference Source

Early Exposure Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Early Exposure Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Yuan et al., 2016 Primary

Early Exposure Social Influence Social Influence Implicit Thompson et al., 1999 Primary

Exclusion by Plant-Based Eaters Social Influence Social Influence Implicit White et al., 2006 Primary

Fad Diets Social Influence Social Influence Implicit Palaniswamy, 2003 Synthesis

Friends/Family Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Hoek et al., 2011 Primary

Friends/Family Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Fleming et al., 1997 Primary

Friends/Family Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Pohjolainen et al., 2014 Primary

Friends/Family Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Wnsink et al., 2014 Primary

Friends/Family Social Influence Social Influence Implicit Cho et al., 2015 Primary

Geographic Location Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Hoek et al., 2004 Primary

Life-Course Trajectory Social Influence Social Influence Implicit Fox & Ward, 2008 Primary

Over-Control Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Hill, 2002 Synthesis

Prenatal Exposure Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Yuan et al., 2016 Primary

Reliance on Others Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Religious Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Rothgerber, 2013 Primary

Reward-Related Impulsivity Social Influence Social Influence Implicit Nederkoorn et al., 2009 Primary

Social Norms Social Influence Social Influence Explicit Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006 Primary

Social Relations Social Influence Social Influence Implicit Curran & Sherbinin, 2004 Synthesis

Luxury/Power Image Status Social Influence Explicit Hoek et al., 2011 Primary

Luxury/Power Image Status Social Influence Implicit Ruby, 2012 Synthesis

Luxury/Power Image Status Social Influence Explicit Beverland, 2014 Synthesis

Luxury/Power Image Status Social Influence Explicit Ruby et al., 2016 Primary

Luxury/Power Image Status Social Influence Explicit Grace et al., 2016 Primary

Luxury/Power Image Status Social Influence Explicit Graca et al., 2015 Primary

132