Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-5 (section)

==== 5.5.2.2 Role of dietary preferences ====

<div id="section-5-5-2-2-role-of-dietary-preferences-block-1"></div>

Food preference is an inherently cultural dimension that can ease or hinder transformations to food systems that contribute to climate change mitigation. Consumer choice and dietary preferences are guided by social, cultural, environmental, and traditional factors as well as economic growth. The food consumed by a given group conveys cultural significance about social hierarchy, social systems and human-environment relationships (Herforth and Ahmed 2015).

As suggested by Springmann et al. (2018a), per capita dietary emissions will translate into different realised diets, according to regional contexts including cultural and gendered norms (e.g., among some groups, eating meat is perceived as more masculine (Ruby and Heine 2011). In some cases, women and men have different preferences in terms of food, with women reporting eating healthier food (Imamura et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r879|879]]</sup> ; Kiefer et al. 2005 <sup>[[#fn:r880|880]]</sup> ; Fagerli and Wandel 1999 <sup>[[#fn:r881|881]]</sup> ): these studies found that men tend to eat more meat, while women eat more vegetables, fruits and dairy products (Kanter and Caballero 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r882|882]]</sup> ).

Food preferences can change over time, with the nutrition transition from traditional diets to high-meat, high-sugar, high-saturated fat diets being a clear example of significant changes occurring in a short period of time. Meat consumption per capita consistently responds to income with a saturating trend at high income levels (Sans and Combris 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r883|883]]</sup> ; Vranken et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r884|884]]</sup> ). Some emerging economies have rapidly increased demand for beef, leading to pressure on natural resources (Bowles et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r885|885]]</sup> ). In another example, by reducing beef consumption between 2005 and 2014, Americans avoided approximately 271 million metric tonnes of emissions (CO <sub>2</sub> -eq) (NRDC 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r886|886]]</sup> ). Attending farmers markets or buying directly from local producers has been shown to change worldviews (Kerton and Sinclair 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r887|887]]</sup> ), and food habits towards healthier diets (Pascucci et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r888|888]]</sup> ) can be advanced through active learning (Milestad et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r889|889]]</sup> ).

Regarding the options to reduce meat intake in developed countries, research shows that there is an apparent sympathy of consumers for meat reduction due to environmental impacts (Dagevos and Voordouw 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r890|890]]</sup> ), which has not been exploited. Social factors that influence reducing meat consumption in New Zealand include the need for better education or information dispersal regarding perceived barriers to producing meat-reduced/less meals; ensuring there is sensory or aesthetic appeal; and placing emphasis on human health or nutritional benefits (Tucker 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r891|891]]</sup> ).

Different and complementary strategies can be used in parallel for different consumer’s profiles to facilitate step-by-step changes in the amounts and the sources of protein consumed. In the Netherlands, a nationwide sample of 1083 consumers were used to study their dietary choices toward smaller portions of meat, smaller portions using meat raised in a more sustainable manner, smaller portions and eating more vegetable protein, and meatless meals with or without meat substitutes. Results showed that strategies to change meat eating frequencies and meat portion sizes appeared to overlap and that these strategies can be applied to address consumers in terms of their own preferences (de Boer et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r892|892]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-5-5-2-3-uncertainties-in-demand-side-mitigation-potential"></div>

<span id="uncertainties-in-demand-side-mitigation-potential"></span>