1. Introduction
In recent decades, meat consumption has been increasingly scrutinized from an environmental perspective, particularly regarding the significant contribution of livestock farming to climate change, air pollution, the degradation of land, soil, water, and oceans, and the reduction in biodiversity [1,2,3,4]. Although there is growing evidence on how reducing meat consumption can improve the environment, human health, and animal welfare, meat consumption remains high in high-income countries, exceeding dietary recommendations by two to four times [5], while it is increasing in developing countries [1,6].
The consumption of meat has often been problematized also in terms of human health. Along this line, meat has been questioned for several reasons: the excessive use of hormones and antibiotics [7,8,9,10], the contamination with bacteria and viruses, the role it plays in the development of chronic diseases [11]. In recent years, the European Public Health Association, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN/FAO), and the EAT-Lancet Commission have advocated a reduction in meat consumption and a more plant-based diet [12,13,14]. Therefore, excessive meat consumption is on the agenda of European and global health and agricultural authorities [13,14].
However, the transition to healthier and more sustainable food systems cannot happen without strong consumer support [15]. As most people still consider their regular meat consumption to be natural, normal, necessary, and nice [16], it is particularly difficult to persuade consumers to reduce meat consumption and adopt a more plant-based diet [16,17,18,19,20]. Consumers are generally unwilling to reduce meat consumption and are skeptical of plant-based protein sources [21,22] and even more so of other alternatives such as insects or in vitro meat [23,24,25,26,27,28]. However, studies have identified a particular group of meat reducers, also known as flexitarians, who are changing their meat consumption-related dietary behavior. Flexitarians are a group of consumers who reduce their meat consumption on a part-time basis or follow a plant-based diet with a low meat content [29]. A flexitarian “abstains from eating meat occasionally without abandoning meat totally—in contrast to vegetarians who follow a meat-free diet and vegans who follow a strict plant-based diet and abstain from consuming all animal-based foods” [30].
Until recently, flexitarians were poorly researched [31], but they are now receiving more attention [32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. However, research on flexitarians has been conducted primarily in a limited number of developed countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, and some northwest European countries. According to a study published by the European Consumer Organization, central and eastern European (CEE) consumers differ from those in northwest European countries mainly in being less willing to give up red meat and adopt protein alternatives [28]. They attach less importance to environmental factors when purchasing food and to meat reduction as a part of a healthy sustainable diet than northwest European countries [27,39]. The difference between the two regions is also evident in the actual meat consumption. In Slovenia, one of the biggest challenges is not only high meat consumption, which exceeds the European Union (EU) average by 30%, but also the high consumption of processed meat [40], which also applies to young adults in Slovenia [23].
In addition, studies on flexitarianism are mostly quantitative with a focus on general populations, which often only provides a limited insight into the complexity of dietary choices in the flexitarian group. Qualitative studies on flexitarianism, especially those focusing on young people, are rare but equally important for generating an in-depth insight into the identities, practices, and beliefs of flexitarians. So far, qualitative studies have proven that interview-based research provides insightful results that reveal facilitators and barriers to reducing meat consumption [41]. Based on data obtained with focus groups and less frequently with in-depth interviews, qualitative studies focus on consumers’ motivations, strategies, and experiences in meat reduction [42,43,44], attitudes towards changing meat consumption [45,46], capabilities and opportunities for meat reduction [41], and strategies and experiences in the implementation of meat reduction [42,47]. Few qualitative studies explicitly address young people’s attitudes and motivational strategies towards a more plant-based diet [43,46].
The decision to focus on young adults, who have so far been rather neglected in studies of flexitarianism, stems from the fact that previous studies have shown that a greater hope for changing unhealthy and unsustainable dietary habits is placed on the younger generations, with evidence suggesting that young adults are the largest group adopting a flexitarian diet [43,48]. Dietary patterns and habits change remarkably slowly as they are an important part of an individual’s identity and membership of a group [49]. However, young adults are a social cohort of people who are still forming their identity and are transitioning to adulthood, where they need to rethink existing habits and form new ones, including eating habits [50].
Theoretical Framework: The COM-B Model of Behavior
This study is informed by the COM-B model of behavior [51,52]. The COM-B model of behavior is used to identify what needs to change for a behavior change intervention to be effective. It identifies three factors that need to be present for any behavior, including food consumption behavior, to occur: capability, opportunity, and motivation [53]. Capability is defined as the individual’s psychological and physical capacity to perform the activity in question, and includes the domains of knowledge, cognitive and interpersonal skills, memory, attention and decision-making processes, and behavioral regulation. It also includes physical dispositions as well as the knowledge and skills necessary to implement the focused behavior, in the case of this article, meat reduction. Motivation is defined as all brain processes that stimulate and control behavior, not just goals and conscious decisions. This includes habitual processes, emotional reactions, and analytical decisions. Opportunity is defined as all factors external to the individual that enable or trigger behavior [51,52].
Within the three components that elicit specific behavior, further subdivisions can be made that contain important distinctions. With capability, a distinction is made between physical and psychological capability. Psychological capability is the capacity to engage in the necessary thought processes and the ability to acquire knowledge and information about nutrition and to have the skills to implement the desired dietary pattern. Physical capability refers to the person having the necessary physical capabilities to perform the desired behavior, i.e., meat reduction. With opportunity, we distinguish between the physical opportunity offered by the physical environment, such as the accessibility of resources when reducing meat consumption, and the social opportunity offered by the social context and cultural milieu that determines the way we perceive things and implement the desired change. Motivation refers to the internal reflexive and automatic processes that drive behavior. Reflexive motivation is related to beliefs about the consequences of the desired behavior (effects of meat reduction on health, animals, and the environment), while automatic processes include emotions, impulses, and habits that drive behavior [51,52,54].
Graça, Godinho, and Truninger [54] point out that each target behavior in each component (capability, opportunity, motivation) may have a specific set of barriers (variables that prevent people from engaging in the behavior) and enablers (i.e., variables that move people closer to the behavior), which have been identified and will be presented in the next sections.
So far, most studies examining the motivations related to meat reduction have relied on quantitative data and mainly focused on motives [54]. Qualitative insights and insights in capabilities and opportunities have rarely been provided, even in studies adopting the COM-B model [54]. Therefore, more studies on all three components of the COM-B model are needed [54,55]. One exception is the study by Sijtsema et al. [41]; however, it focuses exclusively on Dutch consumers. Moreover, most studies following the COM-B model have focused on the general population, while evidence has shown that barriers and enablers can differ between age groups, gender, and place of living and depend on life course transitions [55].
This study therefore addresses three gaps in the studies on flexitarians and meat reduction: first, the gap related to the lack of research in the CEE region; second, the gap related to an in-depth study of young flexitarians as a specific demographic category; third, the gap related to qualitative approaches in studying flexitarians.
Therefore, this study aims to provide a qualitative insight into the enabling factors and barriers for meat reduction based on all three components of the COM-B model: motivations, capabilities, and opportunities. It focuses on researching young flexitarians (18–35 age group) in Slovenia (YFS) using the method of semi-structured in-depth interviews with flexitarians living in urban and rural areas in Slovenia.
It aims to consider a specific demographic of young flexitarian consumers in CEE and fill the gap in the literature related to the study of meat reduction in this geographical area. This study also aims to gain new insights into the multidimensionality of the three COM-B model categories, which can inspire further research developing survey questionnaires, theoretical models, and quantitative and qualitative approaches for studying meat reduction. Moreover, this study aims to develop concrete recommendations for the industry and policy and decision makers to consider when planning and developing structural solutions and creating encouraging environments in supporting flexitarians in their behavioral goal of reducing their meat consumption.
For this study, two research questions were posed:
What are the perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations of YFS to follow a flexitarian diet?
What are the relevant barriers and facilitating factors related to the motives, opportunities, and capabilities to reduce meat consumption among YFS?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Selection Procedure and Sampling
In this exploratory study, we focus on YFS. Participants in the age group 18–35 were recruited via an invitation to participate in the study and completed a recruitment questionnaire. The invitation was posted on social media in spring 2021 (the Facebook profile of the Center for Social Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Facebook profile of Focus: Association for Sustainable Development). A total of 53 potential participants met the sampling criteria (46 women and 7 men), of which we purposely selected 15 study participants with different demographic characteristics. Further details can be found in Table 1. In the recruitment questionnaire, the participants were asked to provide their contact details, which were then used to arrange the interviews.
The results of the study were based on in-depth interviews with participants who had intentionally reduced their meat consumption (including fish) in the 12 months prior to the study. We used a purposive sample of 15 participants with as different demographic characteristics as possible (social status, place of residence, gender, education, occupation, and type of household) to ensure the heterogeneity of the selected sample of YFS. In other studies, these categories have most often been found to be relevant for exploring consumers’ meat reduction practices [54,55].
To determine an appropriate sample size, we relied on the recommended number of interviews for studies examining detailed accounts of participants’ experiences with a particular practice or phenomenon [56], as well as the guidelines for thematic analysis [57]. We also considered the parameters of Hennink, Kaiser, and Marconi [58] that influence saturation in terms of codes and meanings and used the information power criteria elaborated by Malterud et al. [59], which state that the more information the sample contains that is relevant to the actual study, the smaller the number of participants needed [60]. This study deals with a narrow phenomenon and concerns a very specific and relatively rare experience that can be mediated by relatively small samples. Furthermore, due to the relatively sparse demographic characteristics of the participants, the selected sample had high informational power, which was enhanced by the quality of the dialogue between the researcher and participants. As such, it was large enough to gain relevant insights about the studied group [59].
Among the recruited participants, five were male and ten were female. The youngest participant was born in 2001 and the oldest in 1988. At the time of the interviews, which took place in June, August, and September 2021, they were all in the age group of 18- to 35-year-olds. In terms of education, three participants had graduated from high school, nine had graduated from college or university, and three had graduated from their postgraduate studies or PhD. Five participants were still studying, nine were employed full-time, and one was employed part-time. Six participants lived in urban areas in Slovenia, one in an urban area in the UK, and eight in rural areas, suburban areas, or small towns in Slovenia. Three participants lived in a single household, three lived with one other person (housemate, partner), five participants lived with two other people (housemates, partner and child, parents, siblings), two participants shared their household with three other people (parents and siblings, mother and father-in-law), and two participants shared their household with four or more people (parents and siblings, partner, father and mother-in-law).
2.2. Data Collection
During the COVID-19 protective measures, the interviews were conducted via the Zoom platform in Slovenian and lasted between 1 h and 30 min and 3 h. The average duration of the interviews was 2 h and 20 min. All interviews were recorded on audio and transcribed verbatim. The names of the participants were anonymized to ensure confidentiality. All the participants signed an informed consent form before the interview was conducted. At all stages of the research process, we followed the Code of Ethics for Researchers of the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences [61].
During the interview, the participants were asked to share their views and experiences on the following topics: flexitarian identity, attitudes towards and the consumption of meat alternatives, meat reduction, meat consumption, meal planning, eating out, preparing meals at home, the influence of significant others on meat consumption, motivations for meat reduction, ethical eating, and the influence of COVID-19 on meat consumption. The questions in the interview guide were developed specifically for this study (see the interview guide in the Supplementary Material).
2.3. Data Analysis
The collected data were analyzed in Slovenian using the MaxQDA2020 software. We followed the steps of the inductive thematic analysis as suggested by Braun and Clarke [57]. First, the data were read, and notes were taken for a familiarization with the data. Second, initial codes for the entire dataset were created. Third, the codes were summarized into potential themes. Fourth, the themes were reviewed in relation to the coded excerpts and the dataset. Fifth, the codes were refined, similar codes merged, and names for the themes created. Finally, the material was recoded by dividing the initial codes among the six categories (reflective and automatic motivation, social and physical opportunity, and psychological and physical capability), and each of the six categories were then further divided into barriers and facilitators [54].
3. Results
The results are divided into six categories following the COM-B model of behavior (psychological capability, physical capability, social opportunity, physical opportunity, reflective motivation, automatic motivation). In all the categories, facilitators and barriers for the desired behavior, i.e., meat reduction, were analyzed, as suggested by previous research [54]. The results are summarized in Table 2.
3.1. Psychological Capability
The participants demonstrated that knowledge and information gathering are critical to successful meat reduction. A well-informed approach facilitated the transition to a balanced diet, especially when it came to nutritional issues. For one of the participants, for example, understanding the need for supplements such as B12 and iron was crucial to making an informed decision about his diet: “Maybe at the beginning, you need to do a bit more research in this area, like more about recipes and all those micronutrients that you need to consume. And also, which vitamin was it, B12, right? You need to take it as a supplement and stuff” (Leon). Knowledge based on nutritional research empowered the participants to effectively replace meat in their diet. Conversely, a lack of solid nutritional information resulted in feelings of disempowerment in following behavioral dietary change and hindered progress: “I had a really negative experience with this [meat reduction], because I didn’t have information about it/…/Back then I learned that you need to approach this maybe a bit more systematically and do a bit more research. So, I started a more balanced diet, with more legumes, more proteins, and I also started supplementing with B12 and iron” (Tara).
The participants rated their ability to assess the quality of plant-based foods by reading nutrition labels as an important factor in their successful meat reduction. Reading labels and recognizing organic ingredients was cited as essential: “I pay attention to the quality of proteins because I think that’s quite important. If something only has 5 grams of protein, I won’t take it because it doesn’t replace meat” (Leon). This competence allowed participants to select suitable meat alternatives and improve their overall experience of meat reduction. However, one obstacle was a lack of knowledge about nutrition and meal planning: “I was afraid to suddenly cut it [meat] out without doing more research and without adjusting my lifestyle to it. I feel like I’m already doing a lot better now because I’m adding various seeds and things to my meals that I wouldn’t have before” (Pia).
Cooking skills were crucial to meat reduction, particularly when it came to preparing and seasoning meat alternatives effectively. The participants noted that plant-based dishes can resemble traditional meat dishes when properly seasoned: “I have the impression that no matter what you prepare, if you use spices similar to what you used for meat, you don’t even notice that there is no meat in it” (Inja). Inja also emphasized the importance of having the ability to prepare plant-based meat alternatives from scratch: “So, at home I make things with peas, for example, patties, but in the end they become regular patties. They’re not like a Beyond Burger or anything like that” (Inja).
For some participants, the inability to prepare meat effectively contributed to their decision to reduce their meat consumption. The lack of experience and skill in preparing meat made plant-based options more appealing: “Maybe it’s also a factor that I don’t have that much experience in preparing beef myself./…/Maybe that also played a role [in meat reduction]. And besides, I just like the taste [of vegetables] better” (Nika). A lack of familiarity with meat preparation techniques also led to a preference for vegetables: “I have tried meat, which I would say was delicious. But I never knew how to prepare it myself. I didn’t even bother with it because I just find vegetables much tastier” (Ana).
To support their meat reduction efforts, the participants were able to learn from various sources of information, including by attending nutrition workshops, reading scientific literature and food blogs, watching documentaries, and sourcing recipes on social media. Among the most influential were documentary movies declared to be triggering meat reduction: “Oh, and then there were two documentaries, Cowspiracy and Seaspiracy, of course. After I saw Cowspiracy, I almost went vegan” (Tara). Similarly, Nika said, “I also stopped eating fish after I saw the documentary Seaspiracy”. The influence of bloggers’ activist content was also significant: “When I first saw the video [by activist Gary Yourofsky], I decided that one day I would become vegan. I started following various sites, different people eating vegan and raising awareness about veganism for environmental reasons, for ethical reasons and so on. And that’s how I gathered information” (Liza). Documentaries advocating veganism were particularly influential: “Yeah, and I’ve also seen a documentary/…/about veganism that was kind of eye-opening in the sense that it really shows [meat] is not such a necessary part of the diet” (Ana). Social media platforms such as TikTok provided information and inspiration that led to a greater awareness and a rethinking of dietary habits. Inja shared, “On TikTok there was this fitness influencer/…/who was quite popular. She focused mainly on fitness videos, but also on nutrition/... She was more on the vegetarian and vegan side./…/So on TikTok it felt like everyone was vegan./…/I thought: ‘Well, that looks good, maybe I’ll try that too’”.
While documentaries and social media were often perceived as trustworthy, the participants had a more nuanced relationship with advertising. They often relied more on personal recommendations from friends than on commercial advertising for plant-based meat analogs (processed plant-based products that sensorially resemble meat), which they viewed with skepticism, but which Nika still found informative when promoting new foods. Nika explained, “I try to resist the influence of advertising and consumerism, especially because I work in this business. But if advertising influences me, it’s especially when it comes to food, because there’s not much variety, and I have to look for new options to spice up my diet”. Leon said: “I don’t really pay attention to advertisements and promotions because I try to buy as little as possible on that basis. I rely more on recommendations, which I follow more often”.
3.2. Physical Capability
The participants often noted that their decision to abstain from meat was influenced by the health issues that they experienced after eating meat compared to plant-based meals. The participants often reported that physical discomfort and fatigue after eating meat were important factors in their decision to reduce their meat consumption. Svit noted, “If there is a chance that I will feel a bit uncomfortable or tired after eating meat, it is probably much lower if I eat meatless options”. Another participant elaborated on this experience: “I don’t know, but with meat I often have a stronger and longer-lasting feeling of heaviness and fullness, which slows me down a bit. On the other hand, plant-based foods are generally easier to digest and give more energy” (Ana). These physical responses illustrate how the improved digestion and energy from plant-based foods supported the participants’ capability to reduce their meat consumption.
In addition, health problems and weight control plans were found to be important factors in the participants’ capacity to reduce their meat consumption. Dealing with health problems influenced their dietary changes. Nika described her change due to celiac disease: “Okay, my parents always ate dry salami and sausages, but since I have celiac disease,/…/I kind of stopped eating that”. Terezija explained her change in diet with holistic health aspects: “Well, I started thinking about my diet because I was going through a really hard depressive phase and/…/I started changing my life overall because I was feeling really unhealthy. I was also having health issues, and then I kind of came across. It all started when I read about holistic approaches to health care/…/I read about acidification of the body and how it can make you feel really bad. So I started to change my diet, because meat is acidic”. Mia noted that her weight was the reason she wanted to cut down on meat: “All the fast food made me put on weight again and I wanted to bring healthier food into my life. I always felt that meat, well, I never saw meat as healthy”. Nika had also noticed improvements in her health as a result of her reduced meat consumption: “Before, when I ate more meat, I often had to have iron infusions, but now I haven’t needed any for a few years, even though I eat less meat now”.
Health problems can also be a barrier to reducing meat consumption and affect the participants’ capability to stick to their dietary choices. Inja described how her celiac disease initially caused her to rely more on meat: “It’s true though that in the beginning when I changed my diet, i.e., from gluten-containing to gluten-free, I relied more on meat. Because that was really the only thing I could eat”. Tara recounted her experience with malnutrition in relation to her early efforts to cut down on meat: “When I started cutting back on meat when I was about twelve, it looked like I just wasn’t going to eat meat at all. And like I said, my parents didn’t always have the time to deal with me. So sometimes my lunch just looked like their lunch, only without meat. So a lot less food and no proteins or nutrients, you know? I was really malnourished”. Ana also mentioned how her pregnancy affected her eating habits: “I don’t need it [meat], I really don’t need it now. But when I was pregnant, as I said, I didn’t dare to go against the doctor’s advice. I don’t know, I didn’t dare to contradict them and say that I would give up meat”.
3.3. Social Opportunity
Social interactions and support networks played an important role in shaping the participants’ ability to reduce their meat consumption. The participants described moving out of the parental home as an important opportunity to reduce their meat consumption. As they transitioned into independent living, they gained more control over their diet, moving away from traditional meat-heavy meals. Mark, for example, said, “I started reducing [meat consumption] when I moved into student accommodation. That’s when I left home and started cooking for myself”. This move allowed the participants to make dietary choices that differed from the traditional Slovenian diet, which is characterized by meals with meat as a central component, as consumed by their parents: “When I was growing up, there was always a meal with meat, a steak, then a side dish and salad. A typical Slovenian/…/I usually have different types of meals./…Just something that is different from this kind of meal with meat and a side dish” (Pia).
Once they had set up their own household, the participants were mainly influenced by their peers, partners, and housemates in their decision to reduce their meat consumption. For the most part, these people were already engaged in a reduced-meat or vegan diet and provided a supportive environment that encouraged similar dietary choices and trying new foods. Liza noted, “As I started to become aware of the issues with meat and other animal products, especially through my cousin who was vegan, I gradually started to try different things myself… various vegetables and things I had never eaten before. I started incorporating them and getting my palate used to these foods without even knowing it”. The participants reported that they found it easier to reduce their meat consumption when they lived with people who were already reducing their meat consumption or were vegetarian/vegan. This was particularly true for their partners, siblings, and roommates once they had set up their own household. Ana emphasized, “The main motivation was that my partner changed his diet. This allowed me to better consider my own tastes and preferences, and we started to choose meat-free dishes more often”. Bine said, “It always helped me who I lived with. So if I had vegetarians or at least flexitarians as roommates, I also stuck to it”.
Social occasions such as family dinners and gatherings were often challenging for the participants who wanted to reduce their meat consumption. Many felt pressured to adhere to the norms of meat consumption to avoid conflict or inconvenience to their hosts. Svit mentioned that it was sometimes easy to consume meat to make social situations more comfortable: “It is necessary to eat some meat to make it easier for the host./…/I have found that it is often less of a problem”. Terezija highlighted the challenge of maintaining her eating habits when she visited her parents: “At home, they were not very pleased because I started eating ‘bird food’ and they said: ‘Now you are picky, you grew up eating this food [meat] and there was nothing wrong with you. Do we have to cook extra for you now?’ Well, I mean, I never said that I wouldn’t eat meat at home or anything./…/And of course it annoys me when I come home and have to eat this food for two or three days”. The pressure to conform was particularly pronounced at family gatherings, where the rejection of meat could lead to family disapproval or misunderstandings: “At family gatherings,/…/sometimes there’s a situation where you have no choice but to eat this piece of meat, whether it’s to finally get grandma off your back or something” (Bine).
Although social gatherings with family were often challenging, some participants experienced support from their families who adapted meals to their dietary habits. This supportive dynamic was crucial to maintaining a reduced meat consumption, as family members often prepared alternative dishes or incorporated meat substitutes. Bine said, “For family dinner on Sunday/…/I told my mother that she didn’t have to prepare anything special for me./…/That I would eat whatever was suitable for me./…/But she went to great lengths to find and buy meat substitutes for me so that I could try them out/…/She also tried to make sure that most of the meal didn’t consist of meat”. In contrast, the lack of such support, particularly from close relationships, could hinder efforts to reduce meat consumption. Tara noted, “But back then I didn’t have anyone, um…, I don’t know, it wasn’t normal [avoiding meat] and I didn’t know anyone who was vegetarian besides myself. I didn’t grow up in a city, I think that’s the reason”.
3.4. Physical Opportunity
The physical opportunities that influence the dietary choices of YFS relate specifically to the availability and convenience of meat analogs and meat alternatives. In the interviews, meat alternatives and meat analogs were used as two different terms. The first refers to highly processed meat alternatives that are intended to replace meat in sensory terms. The second term refers to all alternatives to meat that the participants considered to be meat substitutes. These could be meat analogs, but also less processed foods such as tofu, tempeh, and soy chunks. The participants often indicated that the availability of tofu, tempeh, and soy chunks was the deciding factor in their dietary choices, while meat analogs did not appear to be attractive. However, easy access to meat alternatives in general, and their preparation, shelf life, and price, were key factors that made it easier or more difficult to give up meat.
Meat alternatives were more readily available in urban centers, leading to a discrepancy between urban and rural areas. For example, Inja commented, “here in Sevnica it’s more of a small town, and we have a more limited choice. It’s completely different if you go to Ljubljana or, you know, Maribor. There are a lot of these products there”. Similarly, Bine highlighted the challenge of eating out in the countryside: “In Ljubljana there are/…/better options to get away from meat because you have more choice of what you can eat if you decide not to eat meat. I think that even in rural areas it might be easier for someone to give up meat if there are good alternatives”. Nika illustrated how the lack of the availability of meat alternatives in rural restaurants made her eat meat: “When I go out to eat, like I said, there are often no meat-free options, right? So I eat meat”. However, when reducing their meat consumption, the rural flexitarians relied more on home-grown vegetables than processed meat alternatives. As Pia explained, “Our family always eats a lot of vegetables because we have a garden”.
The longer shelf life of meat analogs and meat alternatives compared to fresh meat was perceived as an advantage, as they are more convenient and cause less food waste. Overall, plant-based meat alternatives were valued for their convenience. Tara appreciated the simplicity: “I like that with meat substitutes everything is prepared faster and there’s no prep work like pounding meat or anything like that. Above all, it’s much easier, quicker and more convenient”. Ana said, “The preparation method, yes, I really like it because it’s generally very quick and easy to prepare.” In contrast, some participants continued to consume meat for practical reasons; as Mia explained: “I eat meat because it’s easier and more practical”, and this may be a barrier to reducing meat consumption. In addition to the preparation, the participants also emphasized the safety aspect of meat alternatives: “Also, there’s no risk of something being undercooked or contaminated, because spoiled meat can still, I mean, it can have a negative impact on health, right? But I wouldn’t necessarily say that you can get food poisoning from a [plant based] patty that’s undercooked”. Ana also noted the longer shelf life of plant-based alternatives: “Also, the shelf life seems to be longer overall; it’s not, well, it’s really longer for some things, but also in general it seems to be longer than, say, some meat if you buy it”, which made meat alternatives more attractive compared to meat.
The price of meat alternatives and analogs affected the participants’ decisions differently. Some felt that high prices prevented wider adoption, as Ana mentioned: “But I think it’s a shame that the [meat analogs] have such high prices, because that discourages a part of the population from switching to this type of diet [plant-based]”. Others noted that, although they could afford these products, the cost did not justify their frequent consumption. Inja expressed this opinion: “Ummm, these (vegan) sausages are expensive/…/I see that all these substitutes are really expensive./…/Not that I couldn’t afford them, but I don’t see the point in paying so much for something when I could buy something else with that money”. Svit added, “I think they are [meat analogs] more expensive, at least in my experience, or maybe comparable. But in general they are more expensive [compared to meat], and that’s also one of the reasons why I don’t consume them”.
3.5. Reflective Motivation
Reflective motivation, encompassing environmental concerns, health considerations, and ethical standpoints on animal welfare, plays a crucial role in reducing meat consumption. A significant number of the participants cited environmental issues as the main motivation for reducing their meat consumption. They expressed concern about the impact of livestock farming on greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of natural resources. Bine emphasized the environmental footprint of livestock farming, stating, “Livestock farming, especially cattle farming, plays an important role in greenhouse gas emissions and the consumption of natural resources for its production—such as the amount of land used for agriculture to sustain livestock farming. It is frightening how large parts of South America are turning into a desert due to soy cultivation, primarily for cattle feed and not for tofu production. For this reason, red meat was the first thing that had to go. Occasionally I still treat myself to some poultry because it has a smaller footprint”. Bine continued, “Yes, for me the main motivation was definitely the overarching goal of reducing my ecological footprint. I wanted to contribute to a more sustainable use of natural resources within my means”.
However, some meat analogs were also considered unsustainable due to their production and packaging processes. Max said, “I pay relatively little attention [to meat substitutes] because, as mentioned before, I prefer fresh food or minimally processed food, and these substitutes do not fit into that category. They require a lot of energy to produce and package, which is a similar problem to meat. Nevertheless, they are probably less harmful to the environment than meat, so I use them occasionally. I probably use tofu in particular the most”.
In addition to environmental motives, health concerns were the main reason for many participants to reduce their meat consumption. If these individuals were well informed about the nutritional aspects of their food, they were less knowledgeable about the environmental impact of meat. Max expressed some skepticism: “I doubt it would make much difference to the environment to just give up meat, as there are much bigger problems elsewhere”. The health-conscious participants emphasized the benefits of a diet rich in vegetables and other healthy foods over meat. Mia commented, “I have thought about the fact that meat is not a healthy food for me. If I reduce my consumption of this unhealthy food, I would eat more healthy foods such as vegetables etc. I have the feeling that this would not only improve my health, but also my quality of life”.
Ethical concerns about animal welfare also played a role in some participants’ decision to reconsider their meat consumption. Max emphasized the importance of animal welfare: “Another point to do with meat is to reduce unnecessary suffering and improve the quality of life of animals. I think it’s worth paying a bit more to make sure a chicken can live three decent years rather than three years in hell”. However, the animal welfare motive was not the most important among the participants of this study. The participants who still consumed meat occasionally found it difficult to take a purely ethical stance against meat consumption. However, Leon mentioned a growing ethical awareness: “When I stopped eating red meat at the end of high school, it was mainly for environmental reasons. But now, especially with red meat, there’s also the ethical aspect. When I think of meat now, I think of animals, sentient beings. This change has taken place in the last year or two”. Similarly, Pia explained that animal welfare was not her main concern: “But I have the impression that I am not yet at the point where I respect the rights of all animals to the extent that I would not eat meat. I would be lying if I said that, because if I really did, I wouldn’t eat meat or use leather./…/I am more concerned about the environment than ethical reasons for animals”.
Inja was a little more nuanced: “I am not saying I do not like animals, but I have never really thought of a cow as a sentient being. Not that it doesn’t have feelings or isn’t a living being, but I had this belief, a separation between pets and animals you can eat. So I agree with the idea of animal rights, especially considering how these animals are raised. Whether I would refrain from killing them depends on their purpose. If an animal is bred for that purpose, I think, ‘Okay’. But it’s hard to argue with this because when I think about it, a cow has feelings and is a living being. But when I have a steak on my plate, I think: ‘Okay, this is food’“. The argumentation surrounding animal welfare was complex. Mia explained her lack of empathy towards animals as follows: “I’m not overcome with sadness or anything like that. Even if I associate it with an animal that has died so that we have something to eat, it doesn’t really affect me. My upbringing has taught me that it’s something completely natural and commonplace”. In rural areas, similar beliefs were significant due to strong traditional beliefs about the necessity of meat in the diet: “It seems that in rural areas there is still this more traditional way of thinking that they probably have from their upbringing—that meat is absolutely necessary./…/my parents and especially my grandparents often tell me that they don’t understand my diet, because for them meat was/…/almost a delicacy because they didn’t have as much access to it back then. And I guess that’s where this mentality came from/…/and this’s why they absolutely don’t understand why someone would refuse meat” (Tara).
While the participants were often very critical of conventional mass meat production, they found meat from small local farms less ethically problematic. Nika reflected on the conditions in which animals are raised and thought that humane practices might mitigate her concerns: “Hum … I think it’s a bit hypocritical to say this, considering I eat meat, but yeah,/…/I would not mind eating meat if the animals were raised the way they were before the industrial age. But what’s happening now, with these cramped barns where animals are crammed together without adequate water, food, space, or a meaningful life as an animal, is very disturbing. They are only there to be consumed by us, which seems highly problematic”.
3.6. Automatic Motivation
Automatic motivations for reducing meat consumption among young Slovenian flexitarians are closely intertwined with sensory experiences, emotional reactions, and habits. Automatic motivations, such as guilt and discomfort, as well as sensory preferences, contribute to their dietary decisions.
Guilt and discomfort after eating meat were found to be important automatic motivators for reducing meat consumption. Tara recounted, “There were times/…/when I craved a burger. I remember eating one once, but I felt so awful afterwards. I don’t know, it felt like I had no control, and the negative feelings after eating the burger were so strong that I just didn’t want to eat it anymore”. Tara’s emotional reaction to witnessing the slaughter of farm animals also contributed to her decision to stop eating meat: “I felt really sorry for the animals/…/I come from a more rural area, and my neighbors had,/…/some rabbits and chickens at home, and it was a big event in the village when these animals were slaughtered. And that always made me feel very uncomfortable. I watched this scene from my window and at some point I just couldn’t take it anymore, so I begged my parents not to eat meat anymore”.
The participants also described a growing discomfort with handling raw meat. Liza noted, “It’s becoming more and more strange and uncomfortable for me to see it or handle it”. Some participants reported that they were disgusted by certain types of meat. Svit said, “I remember eating a goat recently and the smell and taste were so strong that I/…/felt like I was going to throw up”. Ana also expressed her discomfort and said, “I find it a bit disgusting/…/… It’s a bit … unpleasant and disgusting”.
Sensory experiences, both positive and negative, played a role in the decision to eat meat. Some participants enjoyed plant-based alternatives and found them tastier than meat. Ana commented, “Some plant-based burgers, or let’s call them patties if you add some spices and they are made from vegetables, actually taste much better to me than a steak”. Conversely, some found the taste and texture of meat less appealing. Pia noted, “It even has a… I mean, a bad taste, a strange taste”. On the other hand, the participants believed meat analogs were not appealing in terms of taste. Max explained, “If I want to eat meat, then I eat meat. I don’t have to eat an imitation”.
In addition, habitual behavior had a significant impact on the ability to reduce meat consumption. The participants who were used to eating meat had more difficulty changing their eating habits than those for whom meat consumption was less ingrained. Ana explained, “Um, like I said, I’ve never really liked meat ever since I was a kid/…/I would eat a meat dish without the meat, you know? Like goulash without the meat bits, just the sauce./…/I always had a kind of an aversion to meat. And I always found some alternatives”.
Liza pointed out the difficulty of breaking away from established meat-eating habits: “But I think that any reduction is very, very positive and that people should be encouraged to do so, because it’s really hard to change eating habits. I see this with my friend who is used to eating dried sausages and things like that, and it’s hard. Especially when you’ve had a certain eating pattern since childhood”. Mia reflected on ingrained eating habits: “But like I said, it’s hard to break out of what you’ve grown up with or what you’ve always thought, isn’t it? I don’t think you can just change your mind or your beliefs overnight, because like I said, I grew up in an environment where it [killing animals] was completely natural and commonplace. Nobody ever questioned it. For me to suddenly change my mind and for that to be the reason for not eating meat anymore seems very unlikely”.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. Interpretation and Comparison of the Results
The aim of this study was to investigate what motivations, capabilities, and opportunities play a role in facilitating and preventing meat reduction among YFS. Environmental, animal welfare, and health concerns are the main motivations for meat reduction among the YFS as well as in northwest Europe, New Zealand, and Australia [32,33,39,54,55,62,63]. Two types of meat reducers were identified among the YFS: those whose main motives for meat reduction were related to environmental concerns and those whose main motive was related to health. The first group proved to be very well informed about the environmental impact of meat production. Their psychological capability was reflected in their ability to gather information and knowledge on this topic and was decisive for their reduced meat consumption. This is in line with the results of other studies showing that the lack of nutritional knowledge, food related information, and cooking skills is a barrier to plant-based diets, especially when participants question the nutritional value of a vegetarian/vegan diet [41,54]. The YFS obtained their food-related information mainly from Netflix documentaries, social media influencers, and YouTube bloggers, which shows that these media are seen as reliable sources of information and knowledge about food systems and diets. The popularity of documentaries was also evident in a survey of YFS, who stated that their meat reduction was mainly influenced by documentaries and series offered on streaming services [23], as well as in a recent study by Rini et al., which found that social media play a major role in informing consumers and their beliefs, attitudes, and intentions towards meat reduction [64].
The group of flexitarians, whose motives for cutting down on meat were primarily to improve personal health and weight control, showed that they were well versed in nutrition, paying particular attention to macronutrients, avoiding fats, and prioritizing proteins, with some of them using supplements to provide micronutrients. Similar results were presented by Apostolidis and McLeay [65], particularly in the group of so-called “healthy eaters”, i.e., people who avoid meat for health reasons. Those young flexitarians who cited health motives as their main motivation for cutting down on meat often contextualized their dietary change with a healthier diet in general, which was again the case for UK consumers [42].
In terms of psychological capability, other studies have shown that information on packaging is an important resource for food choice and an important factor in the purchase of meat substitutes instead of meat [66]. Advertisements for plant-based meat alternatives have been reported to facilitate both their consumption and meat reduction [41]. However, the YFS were very skeptical towards meat alternatives, especially meat analogs, primarily due to their highly processed form and potential unhealthiness as well as their lack of sensorial appeal. Furthermore, a lack of trust in the labels and ingredients of meat analogs bothered them, which has also been demonstrated in other studies [42,67]. Instead, the YFS relied more on whole foods and less processed meat alternatives (tofu, tempeh) when replacing meat, which was previously demonstrated by a study conducted on Slovenian consumers [28]. The reason that the YFS preferred less processed meat alternatives was due to their physical capacity to reduce meat, which was most often related to health predispositions that hindered or facilitated the decision to reduce meat and eat healthier in general. The participants most often emphasized that eating meat, especially red meat, caused digestive discomfort and a loss of energy and fatigue, which led them to turn away from meat and aim for a more plant-based diet. Similar results were presented in a case of Danish consumers [68]. In addition, it was a challenge for some of the Slovenian participants to reduce their meat consumption because they already suffered from health problems such as eating disorders and celiac disease, which had already limited their food choices. Another reason for the YFS’ preference for unprocessed and minimally processed plant-based alternatives was their attachment to the countryside. Due to strong rootedness in rural ethos in Slovenian history, households have always had access to fresh local produce such as home-grown vegetables and fruit as well as meat sourced from their families and relatives.
Hence, the motive of reducing meat consumption in relation to animal welfare was not a priority for the Slovenian flexitarians. This is not surprising, as other studies have reported that animal welfare is a stronger motive for meat reduction among vegans than among flexitarians [62]. When thinking about animal welfare, the flexitarians in this study mostly experienced meat-related cognitive dissonance [69]. To avoid this dissonance, the flexitarians were apologetic about their meat eating but also tried to normalize their meat-eating behavior in rural contexts. They expressed concern about the welfare of animals raised on large farms but saw the rearing of animals on small farms in the countryside as more ethical and in line with the tradition in which they had grown up with.
Previous studies have found that meat eaters are significantly influenced by the sensory aspects of food [21], with different dietary groups having different perceptions of how meat substitutes should taste. In the case of the YFS, sensory aspects were important, but the participants relied mainly on their psychological capability to prepare a plant-based dish tastefully, which required cooking skills. Other studies have shown that a lack of cooking skills hinders the preparation of meatless dishes [70], which could be an important factor in meat reduction, but this was not perceived as a barrier among the YFS. The reason might be that this fieldwork was conducted during lockdown, when the YFS had more time to acquire new skills.
Some participants’ automatic motivation was reflected in their strong negative emotional reactions and sensory experiences related to eating meat. Negative emotions such as guilt, sadness, discomfort, and disgust were associated with episodes of meat consumption in the Slovenian flexitarians, causing them to question their meat consumption. As Graça, Godinho, and Truninger [54] have shown, the presence of general negative feelings towards meat consumption is associated with lower meat consumption and a willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet. Our participants had different sensory experiences when they tasted meat. Some ate it occasionally because they liked the taste, while others tended to reduce their meat consumption because they liked the taste of plants better and were disgusted by meat.
Studies on vegans have shown that the sensory aspects of meat alternatives are not decisive for this dietary group [66], as they claim the taste of meat puts them off. This was confirmed in this study, where some participants stated that meat alternatives are often too similar to the taste of meat, which could be off-putting. However, this result contrasts with what others have found about flexitarians. Michel, Hartmann, and Siegrist [71] and Hoek et al. [21] found that flexitarian consumers prefer a meat substitute to be similar to meat. On the contrary, the YFS often emphasized that meat analogs do not make sense because they would rather eat meat when they crave a meaty taste. This could be because meat analogs that mimic the taste of meat are not yet hugely accessible on the Slovenian market but also due to the abovementioned preferences the YFS had for wholesome foods.
Another important automatic motivation has been shown to be related to habits. Eating behavior is directly predicted by eating habits because eating patterns are highly repetitive and are therefore most likely a routine behavior [72,73]. Therefore, the young Slovenian flexitarians who grew up in a meat-eating environment developed the habit of eating meat, which reportedly hindered their meat reduction. On the other hand, those who had grown up in an environment that allowed them to avoid meat had less difficulty giving up meat. Previous studies have found that routine meat consumption is an important barrier to meat reduction [74]. Our data also showed that the habit of eating a lot of vegetables since childhood facilitated meat reduction.
Furthermore, habit was found to be strongly related to the social opportunities the participants had to reduce meat properly. These proved to be the decisive factors facilitating or hindering meat reduction [54]. When considering social opportunities, we should emphasize that most of the YFS were at a particular stage in their lives at the time of the study, moving from the parental household to an independent household, with some moving back home during the pandemic. The parental dietary habits were mainly based on the traditional Slovenian meat-based eating culture, which clashed with the young flexitarians’ goal of eating less meat. So far, several studies have investigated the role of culture and social environment as barriers and facilitators of food choices. Factors such as meat reduction, consideration of lifestyle, social norms, and social environment influences meat consumption and meat reduction [55,62,66,75]. Similarly to other studies [43,55], this study showed that moving out of the parental home provided an opportunity for meat reduction, while visiting parents on weekends and socializing with them over food was a barrier to meat reduction. In previous studies, the perception of normative behavior by socially connected peers and family members was perceived as both a barrier and an opportunity for meat reduction [62,63,76]. This study confirmed this by finding out how parents influence meat reduction. Our data showed that those whose parents disapproved of meat reduction mostly adapted and consumed meat to avoid potential social conflict with their parents. However, some parents were more accepting of their children’s eating habits and more cooperative in adapting meals and finding meat alternatives to incorporate into dishes to make our participants feel included in the ongoing social situation [77].
In addition, other studies [44,71,78] have observed social conformity as the main barrier to meat reduction in flexitarians. Continued meat consumption is mainly driven by the need to compromise at social gatherings [43]. As other research has shown [73], restricting meat consumption in such social contexts can be seen as a symbolic rejection of belonging to a collective and can marginalize people within social groups. Therefore, family support is crucial when a person reduces their meat consumption [63]. In addition, this study showed that the influence of the roommates and partners with whom the participants lived proved to be important for the consistency of meat reduction after the transition to an independent household. This once again confirms that social relationships with housemates and partners who eat less meat or are vegetarian/vegan facilitate the goal of meat reduction [74]. This is consistent with other studies claiming that life course changes associated with moving house reduce respondents’ meat consumption, with a change in social environment and greater independence often cited as reasons for this change, particularly when encouraged by others such as housemates, partners, and peers [43,55].
In terms of physical options, the cost and convenience of meat alternatives were the main drivers for meat reduction. Although most of the participants expressed at least some level of skepticism towards meat alternatives, primarily because they reported not trusting processed foods that contain unhealthy and environmentally unsustainable ingredients, they said that the physical options of accessing a less processed meat alternative (tofu, tempeh, soy chunks, etc.) that is also convenient and inexpensive is key to meat reduction, as other studies have shown [43]. However, since the YFS were eating meat analogs only occasionally, the high price of these products did not particularly affect their meat reduction.
4.2. Importance and Implications of the Results
This study offers a detailed insight into flexitarians in a little-researched region: central and eastern Europe. Focusing on a country outside the northwest European region provides a unique and valuable insight into a country with a predominantly meat-eating behavior and strong connections to rural traditions. In contrast to studies conducted primarily in northwest Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, which have focused on reducing meat consumption, the studied YFS were characterized primarily by a close connection to the rural environment and the influences that this environment imparted. This was particularly evident in the YFS’s criticism of the food industry, which included both the meat industry and the production of meat substitutes, especially highly processed meat analogs. The YFS generally preferred whole, unprocessed foods, and they did not necessarily miss or seek out analogs or meat replacement. There was also a strong belief among the YFS that locally produced, home-grown food is of the highest quality and should be favored over highly processed and imported meat alternatives.
Another reason the YFS did not rely on substitutes is due to the limited availability of these alternatives outside urban centers, coupled with inadequate information on meat reduction, which they primarily obtained from documentary films and social media channels promoting veganism, a lifestyle for which they were not prepared. Moreover, the YFS often faced social pressure from meat-eating parents. During social events with their parents, they remained flexible, as they did not wish to jeopardize their relationships with significant others. Instead, they preferred to reduce their meat consumption when they were cooking independently and had the support of peers with synergistic dietary preferences.
In Slovenia, culinary traditions are deeply ingrained and predominantly centered around meat, a practice that flexitarians often resist primarily for health and environmental reasons. While health motives are inherently personal, the environmental concerns of YFS may be influenced by popular trends and media exposure, suggesting that their environmental awareness is shaped by external sources rather than intrinsic beliefs. For the future reduction in meat consumption in Slovenia, key factors would include access to high-quality information sources, the availability of meat alternatives, and strong social support.
These findings can be translated into the following recommendations for consumers, the industry, the Slovenian government, relevant ministries, and NGOs.
Firstly, the industry should develop GMO-free meat analogs along the lines of affordable “clean label” products [79] that contain few and recognizable ingredients with locally/regionally sourced ingredients such as soy and peas, ideally organically grown. The industry and retailers should also increase the availability of meat alternatives, especially minimally processed products in out-of-city stores.
Secondly, the industry, government, and relevant ministries should increase the development of the local sector focusing on the production and distribution of meat alternatives. This is important because YFS appreciate locally produced food more than imported brands.
Thirdly, communication campaigns promoting meat alternatives via social media, especially Instagram, Tik Tok, and YouTube, should be promoted to younger consumers via influencers who have sufficient knowledge of healthy eating and environmental challenges. The production of popular and attractive educational spots and documentaries should be produced by non-governmental and governmental organizations in collaboration with experts in the field to avoid one-sided information which might trigger skepticism and confusion among consumers. Communicative appeals that propagate animal suffering are not best suited for the flexitarian population as they might put the consumer in a cognitive dissonance; therefore, positive messages should be conveyed.
Fourthly, the government and relevant ministries should focus on developing social media campaigns that promote the consumption of healthy and environmentally friendly foods that are wholesome, high in protein, and locally produced in order to socially normalize a plant-based diet.
Fifthly, both the industry and government should work together to develop content for social media and offer courses to strengthen consumers’ cooking skills and thus broaden their culinary horizons. Attractive content that educates the public about healthy, sustainable eating through practical cooking tips and video recipes and in vivo opportunities to try these out would help the younger population acquire cooking skills and help further popularize the meat reduction trend and foster a sense of collective action.
4.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study was originally conceived as a qualitative empirical study of flexitarianism, which is emerging as a new phenomenon among young people in Slovenia. As such, it has similar limitations to other qualitative studies. It included a limited number of participants who expressed interest in the collaboration and were already engaged in sustainable healthy eating. Therefore, the sample was not fully balanced in terms of gender and education and all demographic groups were not equally represented. This study may thus be more reflective of women’s experiences of flexitarianism than men’s and of those with higher levels of education and fixed incomes than those with lower levels of education and low incomes. Another limitation of this study is that it has not developed any new theoretical advances in relation to the COM-B model. However, it did fill a gap pointed out in previous studies by examining the capabilities and opportunities in addition to the motives of the COM-B model [54]. An insight into all three categories is key to making informed decisions about the transition to healthy, sustainable diets and may also help in the development of new qualitative and quantitative tools, particularly those being developed for the CEE region. Future research should focus on exploring and developing interventions at micro (consumers), mezzo (retailers, industry, NGOs), and macro (government, ministries) levels to change the environment to facilitate meat reduction. In future research, the results of this study should be combined with the results of a quantitative study on YFS to show what this issue looks like in other demographic groups and to consider the relationships between the COM-B categories.
Conceptualization, A.V., methodology, A.V. and T.K., validation, A.V., analysis, A.V., investigation, A.V., resources, A.V., data curation, A.V., supervision, A.V., writing—original draft preparation, A.V., writing—review and editing, A.V. and T.K., project administration, A.V. and T.K., funding acquisition, T.K. and A.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study has received consent from the Ethical Committee of The University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences (No. 801-2024-014/TD).
Informed consent was obtained in written form from all subjects involved in the study. All the consent forms are retained by the corresponding author.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/
The authors of this article would like to thank Tomaž Pušnik for his valuable contribution to the fieldwork, particularly in conducting interviews. The authors would also like to thank the three reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Participant overview.
| Category | n |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 5 |
| Female | 10 |
| Education | |
| High school degree | 3 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 9 |
| Postgraduate or PhD | 3 |
| Employment | |
| Student | 5 |
| Employed | 10 |
| Place of living | |
| Urban | 7 |
| Rural, suburban or small town | 8 |
| Sharing household with | |
| Nobody/lives alone | 3 |
| With one other | 3 |
| With two | 5 |
| With three or more | 4 |
Barriers and facilitators for meat reduction based on motives, capabilities, and opportunities.
| Facilitators | Barriers | |
|---|---|---|
| Psychological capability | Ability to gather knowledge and information on the consequences of meat reduction for one’s health. | Inability to access information on the health consequences of meat reduction. |
| Physical Capability | Having health issues after consuming meat. | Needing to consume meat due to health problems (celiac disease, malnutrition). |
| Social opportunity | Moving out of parents’ home and establishing an independent household. | Eating at parents’ house when visiting. |
| Physical opportunity | Availability of meat alternatives in urban areas. | Unavailability of meat alternatives outside urban areas. |
| Reflective motivation | Believing meat is environmentally unsustainable. | Believing meat analogs are environmentally unsustainable. |
| Automatic motivation | Experiencing guilt and discomfort when consuming meat. | Sensorially disliking meat analogs. |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.D.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006; ISBN 978-92-5-105571-7
2. Webster, J.; D’Silva, J. The Meat Crisis; 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 978-1-136-53124-8
3. Campbell, B.M.; Beare, D.J.; Bennett, E.M.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Ingram, J.S.I.; Jaramillo, F.; Ortiz, R.; Ramankutty, N.; Sayer, J.A.; Shindell, D. Agriculture Production as a Major Driver of the Earth System Exceeding Planetary Boundaries. Ecol. Soc.; 2017; 22, art8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408]
4. Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers. Science; 2018; 360, pp. 987-992. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29853680]
5. Commission Staff Working Document: Drivers of Food Security; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2023; 137.
6. Slingo, J.M.; Challinor, A.J.; Hoskins, B.J.; Wheeler, T.R. Introduction: Food Crops in a Changing Climate. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.; 2005; 360, pp. 1983-1989. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1755] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16433087]
7. Rohrmann, S.; Overvad, K.; Bueno-de-Mesquita, H.B.; Jakobsen, M.U.; Egeberg, R.; Tjønneland, A.; Nailler, L.; Boutron-Ruault, M.-C.; Clavel-Chapelon, F.; Krogh, V. et al. Meat Consumption and Mortality—Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Med.; 2013; 11, 63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-63] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497300]
8. Bouvard, V.; Loomis, D.; Guyton, K.Z.; Grosse, Y.; Ghissassi, F.E.; Benbrahim-Tallaa, L.; Guha, N.; Mattock, H.; Straif, K. Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat. Lancet Oncol.; 2015; 16, pp. 1599-1600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1]
9. Rohrmann, S.; Linseisen, J. Processed Meat: The Real Villain?. Proc. Nutr. Soc.; 2016; 75, pp. 233-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665115004255]
10. Clonan, A.; Roberts, K.E.; Holdsworth, M. Socioeconomic and Demographic Drivers of Red and Processed Meat Consumption: Implications for Health and Environmental Sustainability. Proc. Nutr. Soc.; 2016; 75, pp. 367-373. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000100]
11. Larsson, S.C.; Orsini, N. Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol.; 2014; 179, pp. 282-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt261]
12. Healthy and Sustainable Diets for European Countries 2017. Available online: https://www.ucviden.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/102971094/SustDiet_report_final_EUPHA_190517.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2024).
13. World Health OrganizationFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Sustainable Healthy Diets: Guiding Principles; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 978-92-4-151664-8
14. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Lancet; 2019; 393, pp. 447-492. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4]
15. Mason, P.; Lang, T. Sustainable Diets: How Ecological Nutrition Can Transform Consumption and the Food System; 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-315-80293-0
16. Piazza, J.; Ruby, M.B.; Loughnan, S.; Luong, M.; Kulik, J.; Watkins, H.M.; Seigerman, M. Rationalizing Meat Consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite; 2015; 91, pp. 114-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011]
17. Graça, J.; Calheiros, M.M.; Oliveira, A. Moral Disengagement in Harmful but Cherished Food Practices? An Exploration into the Case of Meat. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics; 2014; 27, pp. 749-765. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9488-9]
18. Graça, J.; Oliveira, A.; Calheiros, M.M. Meat, beyond the Plate. Data-Driven Hypotheses for Understanding Consumer Willingness to Adopt a More Plant-Based Diet. Appetite; 2015; 90, pp. 80-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.037] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25747854]
19. Campbell, J.; Macdiarmid, J.I.; Douglas, F. Young People’s Perception of the Environmental Impact of Food and Their Willingness to Eat Less Meat for the Sake of the Environment: A Qualitative Study. Proc. Nutr. Soc.; 2016; 75, E224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116002391]
20. De Bakker, E.; Dagevos, H. Reducing Meat Consumption in Today’s Consumer Society: Questioning the Citizen-Consumer Gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics; 2012; 25, pp. 877-894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9345-z]
21. Hoek, A.C.; Van Boekel, M.A.J.S.; Voordouw, J.; Luning, P.A. Identification of New Food Alternatives: How Do Consumers Categorize Meat and Meat Substitutes?. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2011; 22, pp. 371-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.01.008]
22. Wansink, B.; Sonka, S.; Goldsmith, P.; Chiriboga, J.; Eren, N. Increasing the Acceptance of Soy-Based Foods. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark.; 2005; 17, pp. 35-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J047v17n01_03]
23. Kamin, T.; Andreja, V.; Nataša, V.; Dora, M.; Irena, B. Eating Habits of Young People in Slovenia: Research Report; University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences: Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia, 2022; 131.
24. Weinrich, R.; Strack, M.; Neugebauer, F. Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany. Meat Sci.; 2020; 162, 107924. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107924]
25. Bryant, C.; Barnett, J. Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: A Systematic Review. Meat Sci.; 2018; 143, pp. 8-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008]
26. Wilks, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Attitudes to in Vitro Meat: A Survey of Potential Consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE; 2017; 12, e0171904. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171904]
27. Special Eurobarometer 505: Making Our Food Fit for the Future—Citizens’ Expectations 2020.
28. BEUC: The European Consumer Organization. One Bite at a Time: Consumers and the Transition to Sustainable Food: Analysis of a Survey of European Consumers on Attitudes towards Sustainable Food; BEUC: The European Consumer Organization: Bruxells, Belgium, 2020; 43.
29. Exploring Flexitarianism: Meat Reduction in a Meat-Centred Food Culture. Practice, Progress, and Proficiency in Sustainability; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 233-243.
30. Dagevos, H. Finding Flexitarians: Current Studies on Meat Eaters and Meat Reducers. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2021; 114, pp. 530-539. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.06.021]
31. Dagevos, H.; Voordouw, J. Sustainability and Meat Consumption: Is Reduction Realistic?. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy; 2013; 9, pp. 60-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908115]
32. Verain, M.C.D.; Dagevos, H.; Jaspers, P. Flexitarianism in the Netherlands in the 2010 Decade: Shifts, Consumer Segments and Motives. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2022; 96, 104445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104445]
33. Malek, L.; Umberger, W.J. How Flexible Are Flexitarians? Examining Diversity in Dietary Patterns, Motivations and Future Intentions. Clean. Responsible Consum.; 2021; 3, 100038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100038]
34. Malek, L.; Umberger, W.J. Distinguishing Meat Reducers from Unrestricted Omnivores, Vegetarians and Vegans: A Comprehensive Comparison of Australian Consumers. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2021; 88, 104081. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104081]
35. De Gavelle, E.; Davidenko, O.; Fouillet, H.; Delarue, J.; Darcel, N.; Huneau, J.-F.; Mariotti, F. Self-Declared Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding Protein Sources Are a Good Prediction of the Degree of Transition to a Low-Meat Diet in France. Appetite; 2019; 142, 104345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104345]
36. Rosenfeld, D.L.; Rothgerber, H.; Janet Tomiyama, A. From Mostly Vegetarian to Fully Vegetarian: Meat Avoidance and the Expression of Social Identity. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2020; 85, 103963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103963]
37. Raphaely, T.; Marinova, D. Impact of Meat Consumption on Health and Environmental Sustainability. Practice, Progress, and Proficiency in Sustainability; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4666-9553-5
38. Dagevos, H.; Verbeke, W. Meat Consumption and Flexitarianism in the Low Countries. Meat Sci.; 2022; 192, 108894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108894]
39. De Boer, J.; Aiking, H. Do EU Consumers Think about Meat Reduction When Considering to Eat a Healthy, Sustainable Diet and to Have a Role in Food System Change?. Appetite; 2022; 170, 105880. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105880]
40. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia 2024. Available online: https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/sl/Data/Data/1563501S.px/ (accessed on 14 July 2024).
41. Sijtsema, S.J.; Dagevos, H.; Nassar, G.; Van Haaster De Winter, M.; Snoek, H.M. Capabilities and Opportunities of Flexitarians to Become Food Innovators for a Healthy Planet: Two Explorative Studies. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 11135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132011135]
42. Mylan, J. Sustainable Consumption in Everyday Life: A Qualitative Study of UK Consumer Experiences of Meat Reduction. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 2307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10072307]
43. Kemper, J.A.; White, S.K. Young Adults’ Experiences with Flexitarianism: The 4Cs. Appetite; 2021; 160, 105073. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105073] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33359236]
44. Kemper, J.A. Motivations, Barriers, and Strategies for Meat Reduction at Different Family Lifecycle Stages. Appetite; 2020; 150, 104644. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104644] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32109523]
45. Sanchez-Sabate, R.; Sabaté, J. Consumer Attitudes Towards Environmental Concerns of Meat Consumption: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 1220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071220] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30959755]
46. McInnes, C.; Carstairs, S.A.; Cecil, J.E. A Qualitative Study of Young Peoples’ Thoughts and Attitudes to Follow a More Plant-Based Diet. Front. Psychol.; 2023; 14, 1196142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1196142] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37727744]
47. Wendler, M.; Halkier, B. Dietary Transition Requires Work: Exploring the Practice-Transition Processes of Young Danish Meat Reducers. Food Cult. Soc.; 2023; 32, pp. 142-162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2023.2193501]
48. Bayer. The Bayer Food Focus Project; Bayer: Whippany, NJ, USA, 2019; 29.
49. Fischler, C. Food, Self and Identity. Soc. Sci. Inf.; 1988; 27, pp. 275-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901888027002005]
50. Poobalan, A.S.; Aucott, L.S.; Clarke, A.; Smith, W.C.S. Diet Behaviour among Young People in Transition to Adulthood (18–25 Year Olds): A Mixed Method Study. Health Psychol. Behav. Med.; 2014; 2, pp. 909-928. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2014.931232]
51. Michie, S.; Atkins, L.; Gainforth, H.L. Changing Behaviour to Improve Clinical Practice and Policy. Novos Desafios, Novas Competências: Contributos Atuais da Psicologia; Dias, P.C.; Gonçalves, A.; Azevedo, Â.; Lobo, F. Axioma—Publicações da Faculdade de Filosofia Aletheia—Associação Científica e Cultural: Braga, Portugal, 2016; pp. 41-60. ISBN 978-972-697-267-9
52. Michie, S.; Van Stralen, M.M.; West, R. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions. Implement. Sci.; 2011; 6, 42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42]
53. West, R.; Michie, S. A Brief Introduction to the COM-B Model of Behaviour and the PRIME Theory of Motivation. Qeios; 2020; WW04E6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32388/WW04E6.2]
54. Graça, J.; Godinho, C.A.; Truninger, M. Reducing Meat Consumption and Following Plant-Based Diets: Current Evidence and Future Directions to Inform Integrated Transitions. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2019; 91, pp. 380-390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.046]
55. Van Den Berg, S.W.; Van Den Brink, A.C.; Wagemakers, A.; Den Broeder, L. Reducing Meat Consumption: The Influence of Life Course Transitions, Barriers and Enablers, and Effective Strategies According to Young Dutch Adults. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2022; 100, 104623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104623]
56. Starks, H.; Brown Trinidad, S. Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory. Qual. Health Res.; 2007; 17, pp. 1372-1380. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307031] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18000076]
57. Clarke, V.; Braun, V. Teaching Thematic Analysis. Psychologist; 2013; 26, pp. 120-123.
58. Hennink, M.M.; Kaiser, B.N.; Marconi, V.C. Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough?. Qual. Health Res.; 2017; 27, pp. 591-608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27670770]
59. Malterud, K.; Siersma, V.D.; Guassora, A.D. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual. Health Res.; 2016; 26, pp. 1753-1760. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444]
60. Kamin, T.; Perger, N.; Debevec, L.; Tivadar, B. Alone in a Time of Pandemic: Solo-Living Women Coping with Physical Isolation. Qual. Health Res.; 2021; 31, pp. 203-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732320971603]
61. Etični Kodeks za Raziskovalce Univerze v Ljubljani 2014. Available online: https://www.uni-lj.si/assets/Sluzba-za-raziskovalno-dejavnost/Etika-in-integriteta/Eticni-kodeks-za-raziskovalce-UL.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2024).
62. Cheah, I.; Sadat Shimul, A.; Liang, J.; Phau, I. Drivers and Barriers toward Reducing Meat Consumption. Appetite; 2020; 149, 104636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104636]
63. Hielkema, M.H.; Lund, T.B. Reducing Meat Consumption in Meat-Loving Denmark: Exploring Willingness, Behavior, Barriers and Drivers. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2021; 93, 104257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104257]
64. Rini, L.; Bayudan, S.; Faber, I.; Jietse Schouteten, J.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Bechtold, K.-B.; Gellynck, X.; Bom Frøst, M.; De Steur, H. The Role of Social Media in Driving Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions of Meat Reduction towards Plant-Based Meat Behavioral Intentions. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2024; 113, 105059. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.105059]
65. Apostolidis, C.; McLeay, F. Should We Stop Meating like This? Reducing Meat Consumption through Substitution. Food Policy; 2016; 65, pp. 74-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.002]
66. Kerslake, E.; Kemper, J.A.; Conroy, D. What’s Your Beef with Meat Substitutes? Exploring Barriers and Facilitators for Meat Substitutes in Omnivores, Vegetarians, and Vegans. Appetite; 2022; 170, 105864. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105864] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34920050]
67. Clark, L.F.; Bogdan, A.-M. The Role of Plant-Based Foods in Canadian Diets: A Survey Examining Food Choices, Motivations and Dietary Identity. J. Food Prod. Mark.; 2019; 25, pp. 355-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2019.1566806]
68. Holm, L.; Møhl, M. The Role of Meat in Everyday Food Culture: An Analysis of an Interview Study in Copenhagen. Appetite; 2000; 34, pp. 277-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0324] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10888291]
69. Rothgerber, H. Meat-Related Cognitive Dissonance: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding How Meat Eaters Reduce Negative Arousal from Eating Animals. Appetite; 2020; 146, 104511. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31707073]
70. Schösler, H.; Boer, J.D.; Boersema, J.J. Can We Cut out the Meat of the Dish? Constructing Consumer-Oriented Pathways towards Meat Substitution. Appetite; 2012; 58, pp. 39-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.009]
71. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ Associations, Perceptions and Acceptance of Meat and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2021; 87, 104063. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063]
72. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.; 1991; 50, pp. 179-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T]
73. Happer, C.; Wellesley, L. Meat Consumption, Behaviour and the Media Environment: A Focus Group Analysis across Four Countries. Food Secur.; 2019; 11, pp. 123-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0877-1]
74. Halkier, B.; Lund, T.B. Exploring Everyday Life Dynamics in Meat Reduction—A Cluster Analysis of Flexitarians in Denmark. Appetite; 2023; 183, 106487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106487]
75. Elzerman, J.E.; Van Boekel, M.A.J.S.; Luning, P.A. Exploring Meat Substitutes: Consumer Experiences and Contextual Factors. Br. Food J.; 2013; 115, pp. 700-710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701311331490]
76. Lea, E.; Worsley, A. Influences on Meat Consumption in Australia. Appetite; 2001; 36, pp. 127-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0386] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11237348]
77. Nath, J.; Prideaux, D. The Civilised Burger: Meat Alternatives as a Conversion Aid and Social Instrument for Australian Vegetarians and Vegans. Aust. Humanit. Rev.; 2011; 51, pp. 135-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22459/AHR.51.2011.09]
78. Lacroix, K.; Gifford, R. Reducing Meat Consumption: Identifying Group-Specific Inhibitors Using Latent Profile Analysis. Appetite; 2019; 138, pp. 233-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.002] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30965045]
79. Inguglia, E.S.; Song, Z.; Kerry, J.P.; O’Sullivan, M.G.; Hamill, R.M. Addressing Clean Label Trends in Commercial Meat Processing: Strategies, Challenges and Insights from Consumer Perspectives. Foods; 2023; 12, 2062. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12102062]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
In recent decades, meat consumption has faced growing scrutiny from an environmental, health, and animal welfare perspective. As a result, reducing meat consumption has emerged as an important strategy to mitigate its negative effects. Flexitarians, a growing group of meat reducers, have attracted attention for potentially shaping future dietary trends. This study uses a qualitative approach and draws on 15 in-depth interviews with young flexitarians in Slovenia (YFS) to identify the main facilitators and barriers to meat reduction by exploring their motivations, capabilities, and opportunities as described in the COM-B behavioral model. This study fills the gap in studies on flexitarians using the COM-B model by looking at capabilities and opportunities, not solely motives. In addition, it fills the gap in qualitative in-depth studies on all three COM-B categories, as well as a gap in studies conducted outside northwest Europe and other primarily western geographical contexts. This study highlights important findings for the central and eastern European context that industry and governments should consider when developing behavior change strategies for healthy, sustainable diets. This study shows that strong rural family ties and limited access to meat alternatives are the major barriers to meat reduction in Slovenia. The YFS preferred whole, unprocessed foods (legumes, vegetables, grains) over processed meat alternatives and reduced their meat consumption primarily for health and environmental reasons, relying on social support from peers and information from popular documentaries and social media influencers.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
