Health Benefits of Plant-Based Diets: A More Persuasive Argument Than Environmental Concerns

Using a representative sample of this French population (N = 715), we assessed average knowledge about the relative benefits of plant-based diets for different dimensions. We show that people on average have a good understanding of the relatively low environmental impact of plant-based diets (greenhouse gases, land use), but that they considerably underestimate their health benefits.

We also find that people significantly underestimate the prevalence of intensive agriculture and, therefore, the animal welfare benefits of adopting a plant-based diet.

Our results thus seem to indicate that society is mainly divided into two groups: those who have a positive view of plant-based diets across the board, and those who see fewer benefits in plant-based diets across the board.

This work opens up a promising avenue for reflection on the role of information campaigns in changing individual eating habits.

Knowledge that does not seem to trigger changes in behavior

Climate change and global ecological issues are now among the main concerns of the French population. Our study confirms that the public is well informed about the deleterious impact of meat consumption, both on the environment and on animal welfare.

Our results show in particular that the people questioned have a fairly precise idea of ​​the orders of magnitude involved, and know, for example, that producing the same quantity of protein with beef can generate 100 times more carbon than with peas. However, this knowledge, far from triggering a massive change in behavior, above all causes individual discomfort. Informed, yes; concerned, certainly… but little or not ready to modify the contents of their plate.

Perhaps more troubling, our study reveals that discussing the impact of cattle farming on the climate or denouncing animal abuse in industrial farms can go so far as to provoke a form of rejection: faced with these sensitive subjects, some choose, for example, to avoid seeking further information.

In this context, it seems unrealistic to hope that large-scale changes are based on individual behavioral developments, when the problems (ethical or ecological) linked to our eating behaviors are above all a matter of societal choices – and therefore a collective responsibility, of which individuals may feel dispossessed.

Our work draws up effective communication strategies, focused in particular on individual benefits, to encourage concrete changes at the individual level, starting with the issue of food.

Can awareness of the impact on health change the situation?

Faced with the mixed success of ecological and ethical arguments – beef consumption has decreased by 6% in twenty years, but overall meat consumption has experienced a sort of plateau in recent years at 85 kg per year per person – our research highlights the low representation of information discussing the benefits for individual health of a more plant-based diet, even though this subject seems particularly important in the eyes of the French.

However, the scientific recommendations are clear. In 2019, a study carried out by 37 researchers and published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet had already put forward proposals to be able to feed the entire growing world population more healthily. These scientists therefore recommended a maximum of one serving of red meat per week and two weekly servings of poultry and fish, resulting in a 20% reduction in adult mortality.

On its general public site Eat Movethe official French Public Health agency also recalls the protective role of fruits and vegetables in preventing pathologies such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, or even against obesity. Finally, recent research also emphasizes the fact that the consumption of foods of plant origin is associated with better cardiovascular health, if they are of good nutritional quality and little or not industrially processed.

Coordinate public action in health, ecology and agriculture to promote plant-based foods

Ultimately, our results suggest that the lack of decline in meat consumption nationally is largely based on the medically false but widely held belief that a low-meat diet is always healthier than an entirely plant-based diet. This work therefore opens up a new, more effective angle of attack for converting populations to plant-based food, by first advocating the health argument rather than the ecological argument.

Transforming meat consumption habits requires coordinated action by the ministries of health, agriculture and ecology. But, to really convince, it is also about communicating to the population by adopting an effective strategy. Highlighting the benefits for individual health is in this regard an essential communication aspect to take into account. Other stakeholders are also interesting to mobilize in this context, such as the medical profession and any other possible prescriber in terms of nutrition.

The transition to a plant-based diet will depend not only on information, but also on the way in which it is reformulated: less moralism, more tangible evidence, better targeting of individual issues, and above all coordinated public action (health, ecology, agriculture).