Big and small steps. A mixed-methods investigation of meat reduction among different groups of consumers in Denmark

Big and small steps. A mixed-methods investigation of meat reduction among different groups of consumers in Denmark | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Big and small steps. A mixed-methods investigation of meat reduction among different groups of consumers in Denmark Kia Ditlevsen, Sigrid Denver, Thomas Skelly, Tove Christensen This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7858394/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 01 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Organic Agriculture → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract To what extent are consumers willing to change their dietary habits due to concerns over the ongoing climate crisis? What do those who state that they reduce meat in their private household change? These questions are investigated here with a focus on different groups of organic food consumers in Denmark, some of whom are expected to be front-runners in the green transition in terms of diet. The study uses a mixed-methods design and combines results from a representative quantitative survey with results from qualitative focus groups. The results show that the status of meat consumption as ‘normality’ poses a major problem for the green transition because many consumers view meat reduction and replacement as big steps to take. Our results show that the group of consumers with the highest share of organic food intake stand out; they are more concerned about the climate impact of the food they purchase and state a higher willingness to reduce their meat consumption and make many dietary changes compared to consumers with lower shares of organic food purchases. However, even consumers in this group found that reducing meat consumption is a big step. The results also suggest that socio-economic background factors (gender, age, education, region) are reflected in consumer willingness to change practices. For some consumers, changes in food practices seem to come before changes in attitudes, which reinforces our suggestion that the normalisation of meat reduction and replacement is a promising tool to drive food practices towards greener consumption practices. Organic food meat reduction food consumption green transition Introduction In light of the current climate crisis, attention is increasingly directed towards the negative impact of food production and consumption on the environment. The need for political and structural changes at societal and global levels is clear, yet much of the public attention is directed towards food consumption in private households. The consumption of meat is a particularly contested issue, both because it has a special place in food cultures across the world, and because red meat in particular has a high climate impact. It has been argued that meat is the most universally valued food item (Beardsworth and Keil, 1997; O’Doherty Jensen, 2009 ), as evidenced by meat-based dish names across national cuisines and its continued prevalent role in hot meals (Holm et al., 2019 ). The role of meat in Western food culture can be outlined by two general themes. Firstly, meat is integral to meal conventions. In sociological food research, the central role of meat in Western meal formats (Niva and Mäkelä, 2019) has been demonstrated by the high frequency of meals in which meat is the central component. Despite some variation, the high frequency can be seen across decades and countries (Holm et al., 2019 ; Yates and Warde, 2015). A “proper” meal, i.e. a satisfactory meal with culturally acceptable components, has in Nordic and British contexts commonly been associated with a meal that contains meat (Bugge and Almås, 2006; Charles and Kerr, 1988; Micheelsen, Holm, and O’Doherty Jensen, 2013). Secondly, consumers perceive meat products as “basic foods” (Holm and Møhl, 2000), meat consumption as “normal” (Piazza et al., 2015 ), and meat abstinence as normatively problematic (Markowski and Roxburgh, 2019 ; Skelly and Ditlevsen, 2024). The latter means that many people see the absence of meat as ‘not normal’ and perceive people who do not eat meat as differentiating themselves from social groups. While meals containing meat remain a norm in Western food culture, many consumers express a willingness to consume less meat (Denver, Nordström, and Christensen, 2022 ). In practice, a willingness to consume less meat often translates to the strategies of meat reduction and replacement (Halkier and Lund 2023; Kemper 2020 ). Reduction refers to the amount or frequency of meat-based meals, while replacement refers to substituting specific meats (typically red meat) with less carbon-intensive meats (e.g. poultry or fish) or substituting meat with plant-based proteins. In practice, these two strategies overlap in consumers’ food conduct. The research literature shows a growing interest in understanding meat reduction in private households over the last decade. Much research has found a rising awareness of the climate impact of meat consumption and an increasing willingness to reduce meat intake (de Boer and Aiking 2022; Hielkema and Lund 2021; Jürkenbeck, Spiller, and Schulze 2021; Pohjolainen et al. 2016 ). However, it is often not clear from these studies what consumers mean when they state that they are willing to make dietary changes to reduce climate impact, i.e. what kind of changes are they willing to make? This question is of great importance for the green transition of food consumption, not least when taking into consideration that the production and consumption of meat in Europe is relatively steady despite a rising awareness among consumers (Eurostat 2023 ; Otte 2023 ). In this article, we investigate what kind of changes consumers are willing to make due to climate concerns. We use a mixed-methods design, combining a quantitative survey that provides an overview of the distribution of different attitudes and practices across a representative sample of a population with qualitative focus groups, which provide nuanced knowledge about sense-making and negotiations among groups of consumers. Our focus is on consumers in Denmark who prioritise organic food purchases to varying degrees. In Denmark, most people eat meat relatively often and being carnivore is considered normal (Fagt, Mathiassen, and Biltoft-Jensen 2018). Denmark has one of the highest shares of organic food consumption in the world (Willer et al. 2024 ). The preference for organic food is relevant to take into consideration here, because consumers of organic foods are known to be more concerned about food quality as well as the externalities of food consumption (e.g. in terms of environmental and climate impact) (Denver et al. 2022 ; Ditlevsen et al. 2020 ; Leonidou et al. 2022 ; Nordström and Denver 2024; Van Doorn and Verhoef 2015). As such, organic food consumers can be expected to be frontrunners in a green transition of food in private households and are an interesting case to investigate to gain knowledge about what is needed to support meat reduction. In this paper, we will therefore investigate the extent to which consumers are willing to make dietary changes due to climate concerns, and whether there are differences related to the extent to which consumers prioritise organic food. Methods and materials To investigate Danish consumers’ readiness to make changes to their food consumption, we employed data generated as part of the mixed-methods research project SO-FOOD. In this paper, we draw on findings from six qualitative focus groups and a quantitative survey conducted in 2022. The study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Science and Health at the University of Copenhagen (case no 504 − 0214/25-7000 and case no 504 − 0440/23-5000). Qualitative focus groups To create knowledge about negotiations and reasonings related to meat reduction in private households, we used focus group discussions to investigate consumer perspectives. The focus group method generates data on social negotiations in a group setting because participants query and explain themselves to each other, thus enabling observations of similarities and differences among participants’ reasonings (Morgan 1996 , 2018 ). This method is therefore useful for examining what people consider socially appropriate and contested in terms of their food habits. Between August and September 2022 we conducted six focus groups with 35 participants in total (see Table 1 ). The first author of this article moderated the discussions. The participants did not know each other in advance and were recruited through a professional bureau (Norstat). One advantage of focus groups with people who have not previously met is that group discussions reveal what individual participants take for granted (David and Sutton 2011 ). Participants were sampled according to sociodemographic variation in geographical region, educational level, gender, and age. We designed the recruitment process so as to generate three consumer segments with different attitudes to organic food: convinced organic consumers (when purchasing food, the most important aspect is whether it is organic); other organic consumers (when purchasing food, it matters that it is organic – but taste, practicalities, or price are more important); conventional consumers (when purchasing food, it is not important to buy organic). These segments have been shown to have different understandings and negotiations of food consumption (Ditlevsen, Sandøe, and Lassen 2019). Table 1 Focus groups and participants. Focus group # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Age range 24–52 23–61 27–64 23–60 34–63 28–60 Level of education* Short: 2 Medium: 2 Long: 3 No: 3 Short: 2 Medium: 2 Student: 1 Short: 1 Medium: 1 Long: 3 Student: 1 Medium: 2 Long: 2 Student: 2 Short: 1 Medium: 3 Short: 2 Long: 3 Student: 1 Gender 2 men 5 women 4 men 3 women 3 men 3 women 3 men 3 women 2 men 2 women 3 men 2 women Number of participants 7 7 6 6 4 5 *No = No tertiary education; Short = Short-cycle higher education; Medium = Medium-cycle higher education; Long = Long-cycle higher education. The focus groups were transcribed verbatim. All participants agreed to participate based on informed consent and pseudonyms have been used in the reporting of this article. Quantitative survey The survey was carried out during the first half of September 2022 and included 2,000 respondents in the adult population representatively recruited according to gender, age, and region. Data were collected via an online survey in a large consumer panel by a professional bureau (Norstat). Norstat collected and handled the informed consent according to national requirements. The response rate was 26% and data were received by authors in pseudonymised form. The questionnaire elicited data regarding attitudes to food production and consumption, as well as food-based behaviour related to animal- and plant-based food. Stated organic consumption was included as an explanatory variable in order to investigate the relationship between organic consumption on the one hand, and attitudes and willingness to change behaviour on the other. We grouped the respondents in accordance with their stated organic consumption following the approach used in Christensen et al. (2020). Specifically, the following two questions were used: ‘ Think of the last year. 1) How many servings of vegetables that you ate were organic? 2) How many servings of beef that you ate were organic? We know it’s hard to rate, but we’re asking you to make your best assessment. ’ The response categories were: 0 out of 10; 1 out of 10; 2 out of 10; 3 out of 10; 4 out of 10; 5 out of 10; 6 out of 10; 7 out of 10; 8 out of 10; 9 out of 10; 10 out of 10; don’t know. Responses were coded as numerical scores from 0–10 (with the value 0 assigned to the category ‘0 out of 10’, the value 1 assigned to the category ‘1 out of 10’, and so on). The frequency of organic purchasing for the two products was aggregated into a single average frequency that was used to create the following four user groups: light users (organic frequencies up to 10%), medium users (organic frequencies of 11 to 40%, inclusive), heavy users (organic frequencies of 41 to 60%, inclusive) and super users (organic frequencies above 60%) 1 . The share of respondents across the different consumer groups are as follows: light users 16.6%, medium users 39.40%, heavy users 20.30%, super users 20.75%. The organic share was not reported by 2.95% of the sampled consumers. A logistic regression model (e.g. Hosmer et al., 2013) was used to investigate the relationship between organic consumption and willingness to make dietary adjustments. We used a multinomial logistic regression model in which the dependent variable \(\:{y}_{I}\) was a five-dimensional vector representing the five potential answers to the following question regarding dietary habits: ‘ Would you be willing to choose other food products than those you prefer the most in order to reduce your carbon footprint?’ . The response categories included: Not relevant, I prefer foods with a low climate impact; No, not at all; Yes, I would replace individual food items; Yes, I would replace many food items; Don’t know. The group of respondents who answered ‘No, not at all’ was used as reference so the odds ratios for the other groups were all estimated relative to this group. The equation below describes the model. $$\:Model:\:\text{log\:}\frac{P\left({y}_{I}=j|x\right)}{P\left({y}_{I}=5|x\right)}\:=\:{\beta\:}_{0}+{\beta\:}_{1}{x}_{1}+{\beta\:}_{2}{x}_{2}\:\:\:\:\:\:j=\text{1,2},\text{3,4}.$$ We assumed a linear relationship between the explanatory variables and the log odds of a respondent belonging to a specific group. In particular, \(\:{\beta\:}_{0}\) is a constant, and \(\:{\beta\:}_{1}\:\text{a}\text{n}\text{d}\:{\beta\:}_{2}\) are parameters to be estimated in relation to the vectors of explanatory variables \(\:{x}_{1}\:and\:{x}_{2}\) . The first vector of explanatory variables \(\:{x}_{1}\) represents the organic user groups. The other vector of dummy variables, \(\:{x}_{2}\) , was used to identify potential systematic sociodemographic differences related to respondents’ gender (female versus other), region (living in the Capital Region versus living elsewhere), education (having a higher education of five years or more versus other education) and age (18–34, 35–49, 50–64, 65– 74). With respect to the explanatory variables, the reference respondent was a light user who had another gender identity than female, lived outside the Capital Region, did not have a higher education of five years or more, and was in the age group 65–74 years. The estimation was performed using the software SAS 9.4. Findings Consumers and climate concerns What’s most important to me is to take care of myself and my surroundings. My family, of course, but also to a large extent animals and the planet. (Randi, focus group 1, convinced organic consumer) During focus group discussions, the climate impact of food was addressed unprompted by only a minority of the participants. Most of them did not mention climate as a major concern influencing food provisioning or eating. In contrast, price 2 , taste, appearance, organic production, environmental concerns, purity, healthiness, animal welfare, and habits were aspects often mentioned as concerns influencing food provisioning. In the quote above, Randi explicitly mentions wanting to take care of the planet as an important factor in her food consumption. During discussions in the six focus groups, taking care of the planet was mainly linked to a fear of local environmental and bodily pollution rather than climate impact. However, the quote shows how Randi (and some others along with her) did in fact consider the impact of food production on the surroundings (externalities of food production) and did use altruistic reasoning when explaining what they did – and did not – purchase. The fact that climate impact was rarely mentioned unprompted in the discussions does not necessarily mean that the participants do not care about the climate or do not link food to climate impact, but rather shows that climate is not their main priority or focus in relation to food. Even though concern for the climate was not a dominant preoccupation among participants, the link between climate and food consumption was not contested as a relevant issue when brought up by the moderator: participants were aware of this as a critical issue, accepted its relevance and had, in general, a basic knowledge about the climate impact of meat and sustainability in terms of foods (see Skelly & Ditlevsen, 2024 for a discussion of the complexities related to knowledge in the focus groups). The qualitative results therefore indicate an awareness of – but not necessarily much engagement with – climate concerns in relation to food consumption. This is echoed in the quantitative representative survey, in which 34.9% of all respondents stated that they (completely or partially) try to choose a diet with a small negative climate impact. This indicates that quite a large share of the population is aware of climate impact as a factor in their food provisioning (see Table 2 ). Table 2 Distribution of consumers (%) according to whether they try to choose diets with lower climate impact and their level of organic consumption. ‘I try to choose a diet with a lower climate impact’ Completely agree Partially agree Neither agree nor disagree Partially disagree Completely disagree Do not know Light users 1.81 12.65 35.54 14.16 30.72 5.12 Medium users 4.19 23.35 41.88 17.89 7.99 4.70 Heavy users 7.14 34.24 37.68 9.61 7.14 4.19 Super users 20.96 40.48 26.51 6.02 2.41 3.61 Total 7.80 27.10 36.45 13.00 10.55 5.10 N = 2,000. Question: ‘Think about your everyday life. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your climate impact. I try to choose a diet with lower climate impact’. In total, 59 respondents did not report their organic consumption. Responses among respondents in this group are not shown individually in the table. The problematic meat Asked about what a climate-friendly diet could include, the majority of respondents in the survey (62.95%) saw a diet that includes a lot of beef as the opposite of a climate-friendly diet, while only 4.85% stated that a climate-friendly diet could include a lot of beef (these figures are not shown in a table). At the same time, only 9.36% ate a vegetarian or a mainly vegetarian (flexitarian) diet (see Table 3 ). Table 3 Distribution of consumers (%) according to eating habits and organic consumption. I eat neither meat nor fish I eat mainly vegetarian food and occasionally eat meat or fish I often eat meat or fish, but I also have meat-free days I eat meat or fish for the vast majority of my meals Do not know Light users 0.30 3.01 26.51 69.88 0.30 Medium users 0.38 4.70 36.29 58.38 0.25 Heavy users 1.97 7.14 49.75 40.89 0.25 Super users 5.78 17.59 46.51 29.88 0.24 Total 1.80 7.55 39.25 51.05 0.35 N = 2000. Question: ‘How would you describe your eating habits? Tick the statement that best applies to you’. In total, 59 respondents did not report their organic consumption. Responses among respondents in this group are not shown individually in the table. We found no previous studies that specified how drastic a change consumers were willing to make in their food habits to benefit the climate. In the survey, we therefore asked respondents if they would be willing to choose other food items than the ones they preferred in order to reduce their climate impact. The majority (58.5%) of consumers were willing to replace some food items to benefit the climate, while only 13.25% were willing to replace many food items. These results indicate that dietary changes in private households aiming to reduce the climate impact of consumed foods are not drastic, despite a stated intention to buy food with low climate impact (as shown in Table 2 ) and a general knowledge about the negative climate impact of consuming certain types of food, notably red meat. Looking to the focus groups for a deeper understanding of this apparent paradox, we found that participants in all six groups agreed that shifting to a vegan or vegetarian diet would be one of the most effective steps a person could take to lower the climate impact of their food consumption (cf. Skelly & Ditlevsen, 2024). However, it was not always seen as the most attractive or feasible step to take in one’s own household. The quotes below give some examples of how participants negotiate their own status as carnivores in light of the common consensus that meat poses a problem in terms of climate impact: Ina: I don’t eat climate-friendly [food] at home, unfortunately! I try, but I have a partner who is fighting against it. He wants some meat! (Focus group 2) ----------------------------- Moderator: What would you implement in your household? Mia: Replace meat with vegetables. Martin: I REALLY like meat, so for me it would be to replace beef with poultry. Beate: I think that option would be feasible for more people. (Focus group 3) In the quotes above, we see both how meat consumption is recognised as a problem in terms of climate, but also that meat reduction and/or replacement is considered a problematic step to take. Some participants, like Ina, referred to difficulties in persuading other household members to consume less meat, while others like Martin referred to their own preference for meat. Others again referred to the practical and social problems of reducing or replacing meat. Table 4 below presents different arguments for and against reducing meat consumption brought up in the focus groups. All explanations were given by one or more participants during the discussions in the groups. Table 4 Focus group participants’ accounts of meat reduction Explanations of why not to reduce meat consumption among participants Explanations of meat reductions among participants Other household members (children, partners) do not want to reduce meat consumption Other household members want to reduce their meat consumption The taste of meat is preferred over alternatives Sampled delicious vegetarian food (e.g. in canteens) Eating meat is natural for humans It is healthier for the human body to eat less meat/no meat/no red meat Vegan diets lack protein and vitamins Bodily wellbeing Vegan diets require too much effort Wanted to experiment and try new recipes Cooking vegan dishes is too time consuming Lost the desire to eat meat/red meat As a vegan or vegetarian, one is excluded from social communities Animal welfare concerns Plant-based meat substitutes are highly processed and unnatural Increasing food prices have made meat reduction necessary in households Plant-based meat substitutes are no better for the climate than meat Eating a vegetarian/vegan/flexitarian diet lowers the climate imprint of food consumption Replacing meat feels like a loss It is cheaper A change of food habits requires reflection and mental surplus Lack of sufficient knowledge about the food system It is not possible for individual consumers to impact the climate footprint of the food system The focus group discussions revealed a certain discomfort and reluctance to talk about meat reduction and replacement, supporting the stronghold of meat as a centrepiece in Western food cultures, as reported in earlier research (Niva and Mäkelä, 2019; Holm et al., 2019 ; Yates and Warde, 2015), and meat consumption as the normality from which it may be difficult to deviate (Markowski and Roxburgh, 2019 ; Piazza et al., 2015 ). In general, there was a tendency for the participants to discuss meat reduction as a question of either a) continuing the status quo or b) abstaining from meat altogether when they talked about it as part of their daily lives (as reported in Skelly & Ditlevsen, 2024). As a result, the discussions centred more around vegan diets than flexitarian diets or other more moderate kinds of diet change, even though some groups also debated meat reduction strategies, such as replacing beef with fish or chicken, or replacing some meat dishes with vegetarian dishes each week. We saw an example of this in focus group 4 (other organic consumers), where a couple of participants were already actively engaged in reducing the climate impact of their food consumption: Josephine: Well, I’m not going vegan! [other participants laugh] Filip: Me neither. Ron: I think I could become a vegetarian. Josephine: …but I could eat more fish or poultry and such [instead of beef]. I would have no problem with that. Simone: I am actually trying to replace beef with poultry. I started because my brother told me that beef is the worst meat you can eat – and I don’t think that the taste of beef is that superior compared to the other options. Ron: I have done that for a year now. It works fine. […] Otto: We have done that for over five years now. Interviewer: How come? Otto: Easier, faster, cheaper. Ron: And better for you! In the extract above, we see an example of how becoming vegan is recurrently seen as a radical and slightly ridiculous suggestion to most of the participants – here exemplified by Josephine’s immediate response and the other participants’ laughter. Yet we also see how the reasoning is drawn towards feasible meat-reduction tactics in the examples provided by the climate-engaged participants, as well as Otto’s pragmatic reasoning about the benefits of replacing red meat with less climate-heavy proteins ( “Easier, faster, cheaper” ). By creating a situation where meat reduction and replacements are presented as ‘normal’ and common, it becomes difficult to dismiss the idea as radical and slightly ridiculous, as Josephine initially did. Pathways towards meat reduction Table 4 shows the reasons for reducing or replacing meat stated in the focus group discussions. It is notable that several of these reasons counter the explanations against reducing meat, meaning oppositional claims were made, e.g. ‘eating meat is natural for humans’ and ‘not eating meat is better for the human body’. Furthermore, a recurrent theme was ‘normalisation’, ‘routinisation’, and the impact from social contexts (cf. Christensen et al., 2023 ; Fuentes and Fuentes, 2022 ; Lund and Halkier, 2024). The focus groups revealed how participants feel inclined to change their food habits when they become aware of others changing their dietary habits, when vegetarian options become available, or when discovering delicious meat-free food. Changes in the surroundings (e.g. increasing food prices or availability) appear to make adjustments in food practices seem more realistic to the focus group participants. Furthermore, it appears that trying meat-free foods could trigger changes in tastes and bodily experiences of wellbeing, thus motivating further adjustments. It is notable that a change in practices sometimes preceded changes in values according to some of the discussions and narratives presented in the focus groups. Reaffirming the social acceptability of meat In the social context of the focus groups, several verbal interactions about meat reduction or skipping meat entirely centred around assuring each other that it was acceptable not to make drastic changes in one’s meat consumption. Furthermore, participants who were vegan or vegetarian 3 joined in on these frequently occurring interactions reaffirming the social acceptability of meat consumption. These vegans and vegetarians also challenged some of the excuses for not reducing meat made by other participants. In this extract, Dennis states that replacing meat is not feasible in his household, while Ida, a vegan, and Pia, a vegetarian, intervene: Ida: Would it be a no-go to replace the meat with fried chickpeas or a lentil stew? Dennis: I have to go home and test it on my 4-year-old and 8-year-old [everybody laughs]. It is not that simple. Ida: You could make stuffing. It’s just an idea, right? Dennis: Yes, yes. Pia: They love such plant-based stuffing, really, they won’t notice it. Dennis: No, that’s the most obvious way – to make a good old spaghetti bolo with plant-based meat. Pia: Exactly, they will love it. It tastes great. (Focus group 1) Differences among consumer segments Re-examining Tables 2 and 3 highlights differences among segments of consumers: the more organic food consumers eat, the more likely it is that they also try to eat a climate-friendly diet and that they are vegetarian or mainly vegetarian (flexitarian). As an example, 61.44% of the super organic users try to choose climate-friendly foods and 23.37% are vegetarian or mainly vegetarian, compared to 14.46% and 3.31% of the light users. We also see the same gradient in terms of awareness of the negative climate impact of continued beef consumption – we found that super users are more likely than other users to view beef consumption as inconsistent with a climate-friendly diet (70.36%). Our findings thus support earlier research showing that consumers who are engaged in organic food consumption are more inclined to consider the climate impact of their food consumption (Denver, Nordström, and Christensen 2023). Furthermore, they are also more likely to eat less meat than the average consumer. However, even among this group, meat consumption is more common than vegetarian diets, and an intention to reduce climate impact is not always translated into a marked meat reduction. Regarding the willingness to change diet, we see the same trend as above: the consumer segments who purchase most organic foods are more likely to be willing to replace climate-heavy food items with less climate-heavy options compared to consumer segments who purchase less organic food products. Only 3.31% of the light users are willing to make many changes compared to 27.53% of super users. These results show that there is a relationship between the degree of organic consumption and a willingness to consider a food’s climate impact in dietary decisions and food habits, e.g. eating a vegetarian/flexitarian diet. The segment we have labelled super users particularly stands out in this regard. Using a logistic regression model, we looked at the underlying factors present in the relationship between organic consumption and a willingness to change dietary habits to benefit the climate. The regression shows that the consumer segments are significant parameters, but background factors like gender and age are also significant factors. Women are more likely than other genders to express a willingness to change habits. Younger adults (18–34) are much more likely than older people to be willing to replace many food items. Table 5 Consumers’ willingness to change behaviour explained by organic consumption and sociodemographic factors using a logistic regression model (odds-ratio point estimates). Variables Not relevant, I prefer foods with a low climate impact (2.05%) Yes, I would replace individual food items (58.5%) Yes, I would replace many food items (13.25%) Don’t know (5.55%) Organic user group (vs. light users) Medium users 1.76 3.49* 7.03* 1.90* Heavy users 2.09 5.52* 14.68* 3.28* Super users 7.94* 6.03* 38.84* 4.02* Sociodemographic factors Female vs. other respondents 3.24* 1.68* 2.91* 1.99* 18–34 years vs. 65 + years 0.94 2.04* 4.35* 1.28 35–49 years vs. 65 + years 0.68 1.33 1.96* 0.56 50–64 years vs. 65 + years 1.17 0.89 1.16 1.41 Living in the Capital region vs. living in another region 1.43 1.26 1.32 0.98 Higher education vs. other education 0.96 1.13 1.49 0.45 N = 2,000. Question : ‘ Would you be willing to choose other food products than those you prefer the most in order to reduce your carbon footprint?’ Parameter estimates for the 59 respondents who did not report their organic consumption are not shown individually in the table. For each of the four models, the reference group is consumers answering ‘No, not at all’ (20.65% of sample). * represents statistical significance at 5% significance level. Who are the super users of organic foods? We found that respondents in the super-user segment were more likely to live in the Capital Region of Denmark and less likely to live in North Jutland than those in other segments (see Table 6 ). There is a slight overrepresentation of women in the super-user segment (56.87%), which is roughly the same as in the heavy-user segment (57.88% women). The other segments had an equal gender distribution. In terms of educational background, respondents in the super-user segment were more likely to have attained a Master’s degree or equivalent (i.e. long tertiary education; 20.72%), compared to the overall average for all participants of 14.80%. Table 6 Distribution (%) of sociodemographic characteristics of the consumer segments. Light Medium Heavy Super All respondents Group size 16.60 39.40 20.30 20.75 100 Female 50.30 50.76 57.88 56.87 53.35 Other gender identity than female 49.70 49.24 42.12 43.13 46.65 18–34 years 21.99 27.79 30.3 27.95 27.40 35–49 years 22.29 22.34 23.15 20.48 22.00 50–64 years 29.22 26.65 23.15 26.51 26.35 65 years or more 26.51 23.22 23.4 25.06 24.25 Living in the Capital Region 22.29 26.14 33.25 37.59 29.60 Living in another region 77.71 73.86 66.75 62.41 70.40 Higher education 7.83 14.85 15.52 20.72 14.80 Other education 92.17 85.15 84.48 79.28 85.20 N = 2,000. In total, 59 respondents (corresponding to 2.95% of the sample) did not report their organic consumption. Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents in this group are not shown individually in the table. Conclusion and discussion In this study, we found that meat consumption is recognised as a climate problem by a large proportion of the sampled Danish consumers, but also that reduction and replacement of meat would be a big step to take for many of them. Our results show that while approximately a third of all respondents stated that they strive to eat a diet with a small negative climate impact, only 13% were willing to replace many food items to benefit the climate. One group of sampled consumers stood out as being more concerned about the climate impact of the food they purchased and more willing to reduce their meat consumption and make many dietary changes: the super users of organic foods, i.e. the group with the highest share of organic food consumption. We show in this paper that organic consumer segments are significant parameters, but socio-economic background factors such as gender, age, education, and living in the Capital Region also explain consumer practices. Our results reflect the importance and perceived ‘normality’ of meat in Western food cultures, exemplified by the recurrent notion of veganism as radical and even ridiculous. We also found that participants in the focus groups supported each other in reassuring themselves and others that continued meat consumption was socially acceptable, despite also showing an awareness of its negative climate consequences. On the other hand, the data also reveal insights into pathways towards meat reduction and replacement among participants in the focus groups. Some of the participants in the focus groups who had reduced their meat consumption referred to changes in their surroundings as important factors (i.e. canteens started serving vegetarian dishes, increased food prices, other members of the household changed their diets). As such, a normalisation of meat reduction and replacement in the social context surrounding participants appears to pull food practices towards greener consumption practices. Organic super users and their relevance to the green transition Consumers who purchase many organic food products are also more likely to express their climate concerns, to state that they aim to change their consumption habits to reduce their negative climate impact, and to be willing to replace many food items to do so. Furthermore, they are already more likely to eat diets with little to no meat. Thereby, being invested in the quality and characteristics of the food you eat, as earlier studies have shown that organic consumers are, appears to foster further involvement in ethical aspects of food consumption. It should be noted that the group of consumers who purchased the largest share of organic food products, the super users, comprised 20% of the sampled consumers. This segment is also a relatively privileged group who are more likely to have a long tertiary education and live in the capital area in Denmark compared to the other consumer segments. Individuals in this group are likely to have the financial resources to allow for a lot of flexibility in their consumption habits and thereby a relatively large degree of freedom of choice. Not all consumers are in a position to invest much time and money in their food consumption, or in a situation where food consumption is a product of choice rather than necessity (Brannen, O’Connell, and Ditlevsen 2024; Cappellini, Marilli, and Parsons 2014; Daniel 2020 ; Ditlevsen, Halkier, and Holm 2022). Taking this aspect into consideration, one should be careful not to rely solely on individual consumer choice as a strategy towards a green transition in terms of food consumption. Another important aspect that should be highlighted here is the pace and degree of individual consumer transitions. These transitions are often not very drastic and not as fast as needed in light of the ongoing climate crisis – even among the segment we found to be most engaged in green consumption practices, the super users of organic food (cf. Willett et al., 2019 ). Declarations Author Contribution All authors made substantial contributions to the design of the work submitted. K.D. and T.S. analyzed the qualitative data, S.D. and T.C. analyzed the quantitative data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of data. K.D. wrote the draft of the main manuscript and S.D., T.S. and T.C. made substantial revisions to it. All authors reviewed the final manuscript. Acknowledgement The research reported in this paper was conducted as part of the SO-FOOD project. SO-FOOD is part of the Organic RDD 6 programme, which is coordinated by the International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS). It has received grants from the Green Growth and Development programme (GUDP) under the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food. Project number: 34009-20-1705. Data Availability The authors do not have permission to share the data. References Beardsworth, Alan, and Teresa Keil. 1997. Sociology on the Menu: An Invitation to the Study of Food and Society . London: Routledge. de Boer, Joop, and Harry Aiking. 2022. “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 170:105880. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105880 . Brannen, Julia, Rebecca O’Connell, and Kia Ditlevsen. 2024. “Feeding the Family With a Disability or Long-Term Health Condition: Lone-Parent Families at Risk of Food Insecurity in England and Denmark.” Pp. 39–65 in Consumers and Consumption in Comparison . Vol. 37, Comparative Social Research , edited by E. Jacobsen, P. Strandbakken, A. Dulsrud, and S. E. Skuland. Emerald Publishing Limited. Bugge, Annechen Bahr, and Reidar Almås. 2006. “Domestic Dinner: Representations and Practices of a Proper Meal among Young Suburban Mothers.” Journal of Consumer Culture 6(2):203–28. doi: 10.1177/1469540506064744 . Cappellini, Benedetta, Alessandra Marilli, and Elizabeth Parsons. 2014. “The Hidden Work of Coping: Gender and the Micro-Politics of Household Consumption in Times of Austerity.” Journal of Marketing Management 30(15–16):1597–1624. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2014.929164 . Charles, Nickie, and Marion Kerr. 1988. Women, Food, and Families . Manchester University Press. Christensen, Toke Haunstrup, Bente Halkier, Kirsten Gram-Hanssen, Malene Freudendal-Pedersen, and Amanda Krog Juvik. 2023. “Exploring Routinization and Reflexivity in Change and Reproduction of Consumption towards Lower Climate Impact.” Journal of Consumer Culture 14695405231207599. doi: 10.1177/14695405231207599 . Daniel, Caitlin. 2020. “Is Healthy Eating Too Expensive?: How Low-Income Parents Evaluate the Cost of Food.” Social Science & Medicine 248:112823. doi: 10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2020.112823 . David, Matthew, and Carole D. Sutton. 2011. Social Research: An Introduction . SAGE. Denver, S., J. Nordström, and T. Christensen. 2022. “57. Reduced Beef Consumption among Different Organic Consumer Groups – Drivers and Substitution Patterns.” Pp. 371–74 in Transforming food systems: ethics, innovation and responsibility . Wageningen Academic. Denver, Sigrid, Tove Christensen, Jonas Nordström, Kia Ditlevsen, Jørgen Dejgård Jensen, and Peter Sandøe. 2022. “Dietary Priorities and Consumers’ Views of the Healthiness of Organic Food: Purity or Flexibility?” Organic Agriculture . doi: 10.1007/s13165-022-00396-0 . Denver, Sigrid, Jonas Nordström, and Tove Christensen. 2023. “Plant-Based Food – Purchasing Intentions, Barriers and Drivers among Different Organic Consumer Groups in Denmark.” Journal of Cleaner Production 419:138256. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138256 . Ditlevsen, Kia, Sigrid Denver, Tove Christensen, and Jesper Lassen. 2020. “A Taste for Locally Produced Food - Values, Opinions and Sociodemographic Differences among ‘Organic’ and ‘Conventional’ Consumers.” Appetite 147:104544. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104544 . Ditlevsen, Kia, Bente Halkier, and Lotte Holm. 2022. “Pathways of Less Healthy Diets. An Investigation of the Everyday Food Practices of Men and Women in Low Income Households.” Critical Public Health 1–14. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2022.2101917 . Ditlevsen, Kia, Peter Sandøe, and Jesper Lassen. 2019. “Healthy Food Is Nutritious, but Organic Food Is Healthy Because It Is Pure: The Negotiation of Healthy Food Choices by Danish Consumers of Organic Food.” Food Quality and Preference 71:46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.001 . Eurostat. 2023. “Agricultural Production - Livestock and Meat.” Fagt, Sisse;, Jeppe Mathiassen, and Anja Biltoft-Jensen. 2018. “Hvor meget kød spiser danskerne? – data fra statistikker og kostundersøgelser.” Fuentes, Maria, and Christian Fuentes. 2022. “Reconfiguring Food Materialities: Plant-Based Food Consumption Practices in Antagonistic Landscapes.” Food, Culture & Society 25(3):520–39. doi: 10.1080/15528014.2021.1903716 . Halkier, Bente, and Thomas Bøker Lund. 2023. “Exploring Everyday Life Dynamics in Meat Reduction - A Cluster Analysis of Flexitarians in Denmark.” Appetite 183:106487. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2023.106487 . Hielkema, Marijke Hiltje, and Thomas Bøker Lund. 2021. “Reducing Meat Consumption in Meat-Loving Denmark: Exploring Willingness, Behavior, Barriers and Drivers.” Food Quality and Preference 93:104257. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104257 . Holm, L., and M. Møhl. 2000. “The Role of Meat in Everyday Food Culture: An Analysis of an Interview Study in Copenhagen.” Appetite 34(3):277–83. doi: 10.1006/appe.2000.0324 . Holm, Lotte, Drude Lauridsen, Jukka Gronow, Nina Kahma, Unni Kjaernes, Thomas Lund, Johanna Mäkelä, and Mari Niva. 2019. “The Food We Eat.” Jürkenbeck, Kristin, Achim Spiller, and Maureen Schulze. 2021. “Climate Change Awareness of the Young Generation and Its Impact on Their Diet.” Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 3:100041. doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100041 . Kemper, Joya A. 2020. “Motivations, Barriers, and Strategies for Meat Reduction at Different Family Lifecycle Stages.” Appetite 150:104644. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104644 . Leonidou, Leonidas C., Pantelitsa P. Eteokleous, Anna-Maria Christofi, and Nikolaos Korfiatis. 2022. “Drivers, Outcomes, and Moderators of Consumer Intention to Buy Organic Goods: Meta-Analysis, Implications, and Future Agenda.” Journal of Business Research 151:339–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.027 . Lund, Thomas Bøker, and Bente Halkier. 2024. “Social Network Research and Meat Reduction – An Overview of Research Directions and Results from a Study in Denmark.” Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 14:100203. doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2024.100203 . Markowski, K. L., and S. Roxburgh. 2019. “‘If I Became a Vegan, My Family and Friends Would Hate Me:’ Anticipating Vegan Stigma as a Barrier to Plant-Based Diets.” Appetite 135:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040 . Micheelsen, Arun, Lotte Holm, and Katherine O’Doherty Jensen. 2013. “Consumer Acceptance of the New Nordic Diet. An Exploratory Study.” Appetite 70:14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.06.081 . Morgan, David L. 1996. “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology 22(1):129–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 . Morgan, David L. 2018. Basic and Advanced Focus Groups . SAGE Publications. Niva, Mari, and Johanna Mäkelä. 2019. “Meals in Western Eating and Drinking.” Pp. 1–14 in Handbook of Eating and Drinking: Interdisciplinary Perspectives , edited by H. L. Meiselman. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Nordström, Jonas, and Sigrid Denver. 2024. “The Impact of Voluntary Sustainability Adjustments on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Food Consumption – The Case of Denmark.” Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12:100164. doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100164 . O’Doherty Jensen, K. 2009. “Sociological Aspects of Meat in Meals. Cultural Impacts and Meal Patterns.” in Proceedings from the 55th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology (ICoMST) (pp. 1626–1631) . Otte, Henning. 2023. “Udviklingen i Verdens Kødforbrug.” Fødevaremagasinet . Piazza, J., M. B. Ruby, S. Loughnan, M. Luong, J. Kulik, H. M. Watkins, and M. Seigerman. 2015. “Rationalizing Meat Consumption. The 4Ns.” Appetite 91:114–28. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011 . Pohjolainen, Pasi, Petri Tapio, Markus Vinnari, Pekka Jokinen, and Pekka Räsänen. 2016. “Consumer Consciousness on Meat and the Environment — Exploring Differences.” Appetite 101:37–45. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.012 . Skelly, Thomas A. M., and Kia Ditlevsen. 2024. “Bad Avocados, Culinary Standards, and Knowable Knowledge. Culturally Appropriate Rejections of Meat Reduction.” Journal of Consumer Culture 14695405241243199. doi: 10.1177/14695405241243199 . Van Doorn, Jenny, and Peter C. Verhoef. 2015. “Drivers of and Barriers to Organic Purchase Behavior.” Journal of Retailing 91(3):436–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.003 . Willer, Helga, Bernhard Schlatter, Jan Trávníček and Diana Schaack. 2024. Organic Farming and Market Development in Europe and the European Union. In Willer, Helga, Jan Trávníček and Bernhard Schlatter (Eds.) (2024): The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2024. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, and IFOAM – Organics International, Bonn. Online Version accessed 12 February 2025. Willett, Walter, Johan Rockström, Brent Loken, Marco Springmann, Tim Lang, Sonja Vermeulen, Tara Garnett, David Tilman, Fabrice DeClerck, Amanda Wood, Malin Jonell, Michael Clark, Line J. Gordon, Jessica Fanzo, Corinna Hawkes, Rami Zurayk, Juan A. Rivera, Wim De Vries, Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, Ashkan Afshin, Abhishek Chaudhary, Mario Herrero, Rina Agustina, Francesco Branca, Anna Lartey, Shenggen Fan, Beatrice Crona, Elizabeth Fox, Victoria Bignet, Max Troell, Therese Lindahl, Sudhvir Singh, Sarah E. Cornell, K. Srinath Reddy, Sunita Narain, Sania Nishtar, and Christopher J. L. Murray. 2019. “Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.” The Lancet 393(10170):447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 . Yates, Luke, and Alan Warde. 2015. “The Evolving Content of Meals in Great Britain. Results of a Survey in 2012 in Comparison with the 1950s.” Appetite 84:299–308. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.017 . Footnotes If a respondent did not specify the frequency for one of the products (e.g. because the respondent did not eat beef or answered ‘don’t know’), the overall frequency was based on the other product. Respondents who did not specify their organic consumption of either of the products were placed in a fifth group referred to as ‘organic not reported’. The focus groups were conducted during a period of food price inflation, and the participants directly addressed this in the discussions. Several said that price had to be their main priority now, in contrast to earlier. Of the 35 participants, two identified as vegan and three identified as vegetarian. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 01 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Organic Agriculture → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 22 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 22 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Dec, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 30 Nov, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 15 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 15 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 14 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7858394","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":554475058,"identity":"5f5b815f-33be-4725-8796-22f0ffc1444a","order_by":0,"name":"Kia Ditlevsen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Copenhagen","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kia","middleName":"","lastName":"Ditlevsen","suffix":""},{"id":554475059,"identity":"2c8bd65a-52e9-43b9-aac6-9d47dfd3415a","order_by":1,"name":"Sigrid Denver","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Copenhagen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sigrid","middleName":"","lastName":"Denver","suffix":""},{"id":554475060,"identity":"b6c2e8bc-0ce1-4af4-9401-d70ff8947232","order_by":2,"name":"Thomas Skelly","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Copenhagen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thomas","middleName":"","lastName":"Skelly","suffix":""},{"id":554475061,"identity":"d66230b0-2ead-4dcd-b3dc-b12fdb5079b2","order_by":3,"name":"Tove Christensen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Copenhagen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tove","middleName":"","lastName":"Christensen","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-14 12:08:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7858394/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7858394/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-026-00552-w","type":"published","date":"2026-04-01T15:59:19+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":97371470,"identity":"7432129d-f4e7-46fb-9ea3-16eb183f978d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-03 16:29:01","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":116724,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Finalmanuscript..docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7858394/v1/a4f59e238968dbeae2478aed.docx"},{"id":97359042,"identity":"a06d2556-fb48-4fc2-895f-f75cfde99078","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-03 14:17:24","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"14330af72521482b8236240cbba68db1.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7858394/v1/f15692450a3d823b047a9944.json"},{"id":97371485,"identity":"133ce32d-12da-4208-bdbb-009ce02c8d0b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-03 16:29:02","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":127555,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"14330af72521482b8236240cbba68db11enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7858394/v1/cb0dead96a6ca80f08f8cd31.xml"},{"id":97359040,"identity":"b138e51f-c335-4eea-97cd-bef28d668d01","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-03 14:17:24","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":122722,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"14330af72521482b8236240cbba68db11structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7858394/v1/c2e56ff1af63773f7b69170a.xml"},{"id":97359044,"identity":"21533438-457c-4388-8f74-d4673d4fefe1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-03 14:17:24","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":134252,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7858394/v1/348d062781d3509d99b53102.html"},{"id":106345240,"identity":"2377632e-7ba8-491c-b5c1-46fd137cd496","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-07 16:18:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1001166,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7858394/v1/b10c3ea1-2204-4eb6-aebd-9756bf4b1b85.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Big and small steps. A mixed-methods investigation of meat reduction among different groups of consumers in Denmark","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn light of the current climate crisis, attention is increasingly directed towards the negative impact of food production and consumption on the environment. The need for political and structural changes at societal and global levels is clear, yet much of the public attention is directed towards food consumption in private households. The consumption of meat is a particularly contested issue, both because it has a special place in food cultures across the world, and because red meat in particular has a high climate impact. It has been argued that meat is the most universally valued food item (Beardsworth and Keil, 1997; O’Doherty Jensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), as evidenced by meat-based dish names across national cuisines and its continued prevalent role in hot meals (Holm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The role of meat in Western food culture can be outlined by two general themes. Firstly, meat is integral to meal conventions. In sociological food research, the central role of meat in Western meal formats (Niva and Mäkelä, 2019) has been demonstrated by the high frequency of meals in which meat is the central component. Despite some variation, the high frequency can be seen across decades and countries (Holm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Yates and Warde, 2015). A “proper” meal, i.e. a satisfactory meal with culturally acceptable components, has in Nordic and British contexts commonly been associated with a meal that contains meat (Bugge and Almås, 2006; Charles and Kerr, 1988; Micheelsen, Holm, and O’Doherty Jensen, 2013). Secondly, consumers perceive meat products as “basic foods” (Holm and Møhl, 2000), meat consumption as “normal” (Piazza et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and meat abstinence as normatively problematic (Markowski and Roxburgh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Skelly and Ditlevsen, 2024). The latter means that many people see the absence of meat as ‘not normal’ and perceive people who do not eat meat as differentiating themselves from social groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile meals containing meat remain a norm in Western food culture, many consumers express a willingness to consume less meat (Denver, Nordström, and Christensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In practice, a willingness to consume less meat often translates to the strategies of meat \u003cem\u003ereduction\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ereplacement\u003c/em\u003e (Halkier and Lund 2023; Kemper \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Reduction refers to the amount or frequency of meat-based meals, while replacement refers to substituting specific meats (typically red meat) with less carbon-intensive meats (e.g. poultry or fish) or substituting meat with plant-based proteins. In practice, these two strategies overlap in consumers’ food conduct.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research literature shows a growing interest in understanding meat reduction in private households over the last decade. Much research has found a rising awareness of the climate impact of meat consumption and an increasing willingness to reduce meat intake (de Boer and Aiking 2022; Hielkema and Lund 2021; Jürkenbeck, Spiller, and Schulze 2021; Pohjolainen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is often not clear from these studies what consumers mean when they state that they are willing to make dietary changes to reduce climate impact, i.e. what kind of changes are they willing to make? This question is of great importance for the green transition of food consumption, not least when taking into consideration that the production and consumption of meat in Europe is relatively steady despite a rising awareness among consumers (Eurostat \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Otte \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this article, we investigate what kind of changes consumers are willing to make due to climate concerns. We use a mixed-methods design, combining a quantitative survey that provides an overview of the distribution of different attitudes and practices across a representative sample of a population with qualitative focus groups, which provide nuanced knowledge about sense-making and negotiations among groups of consumers. Our focus is on consumers in Denmark who prioritise organic food purchases to varying degrees. In Denmark, most people eat meat relatively often and being carnivore is considered normal (Fagt, Mathiassen, and Biltoft-Jensen 2018). Denmark has one of the highest shares of organic food consumption in the world (Willer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The preference for organic food is relevant to take into consideration here, because consumers of organic foods are known to be more concerned about food quality as well as the externalities of food consumption (e.g. in terms of environmental and climate impact) (Denver et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ditlevsen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Leonidou et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Nordström and Denver 2024; Van Doorn and Verhoef 2015). As such, organic food consumers can be expected to be frontrunners in a green transition of food in private households and are an interesting case to investigate to gain knowledge about what is needed to support meat reduction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we will therefore investigate \u003cem\u003ethe extent to which consumers are willing to make dietary changes due to climate concerns, and whether there are differences related to the extent to which consumers prioritise organic food.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods and materials","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo investigate Danish consumers’ readiness to make changes to their food consumption, we employed data generated as part of the mixed-methods research project SO-FOOD. In this paper, we draw on findings from six qualitative focus groups and a quantitative survey conducted in 2022. The study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Science and Health at the University of Copenhagen (case no 504 − 0214/25-7000 and case no 504 − 0440/23-5000).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative focus groups\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo create knowledge about negotiations and reasonings related to meat reduction in private households, we used focus group discussions to investigate consumer perspectives. The focus group method generates data on social negotiations in a group setting because participants query and explain themselves to each other, thus enabling observations of similarities and differences among participants’ reasonings (Morgan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This method is therefore useful for examining what people consider socially appropriate and contested in terms of their food habits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBetween August and September 2022 we conducted six focus groups with 35 participants in total (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The first author of this article moderated the discussions. The participants did not know each other in advance and were recruited through a professional bureau (Norstat). One advantage of focus groups with people who have not previously met is that group discussions reveal what individual participants take for granted (David and Sutton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Participants were sampled according to sociodemographic variation in geographical region, educational level, gender, and age. We designed the recruitment process so as to generate three consumer segments with different attitudes to organic food: convinced organic consumers (when purchasing food, the most important aspect is whether it is organic); other organic consumers (when purchasing food, it matters that it is organic – but taste, practicalities, or price are more important); conventional consumers (when purchasing food, it is not important to buy organic). These segments have been shown to have different understandings and negotiations of food consumption (Ditlevsen, Sandøe, and Lassen 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFocus groups and participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFocus group #\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge range\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24–52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23–61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27–64\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23–60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34–63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28–60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLevel of education*\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShort: 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium: 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLong: 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo: 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShort: 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium: 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent: 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShort: 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium: 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLong: 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent: 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium: 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLong: 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent: 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShort: 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium: 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShort: 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLong: 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent: 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 men\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 men\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 men\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 men\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 men\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 men\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 women\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNumber of participants\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e*No = No tertiary education; Short = Short-cycle higher education; Medium = Medium-cycle higher education; Long = Long-cycle higher education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe focus groups were transcribed verbatim. All participants agreed to participate based on informed consent and pseudonyms have been used in the reporting of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative survey\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey was carried out during the first half of September 2022 and included 2,000 respondents in the adult population representatively recruited according to gender, age, and region. Data were collected via an online survey in a large consumer panel by a professional bureau (Norstat). Norstat collected and handled the informed consent according to national requirements. The response rate was 26% and data were received by authors in pseudonymised form.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire elicited data regarding attitudes to food production and consumption, as well as food-based behaviour related to animal- and plant-based food. Stated organic consumption was included as an explanatory variable in order to investigate the relationship between organic consumption on the one hand, and attitudes and willingness to change behaviour on the other. We grouped the respondents in accordance with their stated organic consumption following the approach used in Christensen et al. (2020). Specifically, the following two questions were used:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e‘\u003cem\u003eThink of the last year. 1) How many servings of vegetables that you ate were organic? 2) How many servings of beef that you ate were organic? We know it’s hard to rate, but we’re asking you to make your best assessment.\u003c/em\u003e’\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe response categories were: 0 out of 10; 1 out of 10; 2 out of 10; 3 out of 10; 4 out of 10; 5 out of 10; 6 out of 10; 7 out of 10; 8 out of 10; 9 out of 10; 10 out of 10; don’t know. Responses were coded as numerical scores from 0–10 (with the value 0 assigned to the category ‘0 out of 10’, the value 1 assigned to the category ‘1 out of 10’, and so on). The frequency of organic purchasing for the two products was aggregated into a single average frequency that was used to create the following four user groups: light users (organic frequencies up to 10%), medium users (organic frequencies of 11 to 40%, inclusive), heavy users (organic frequencies of 41 to 60%, inclusive) and super users (organic frequencies above 60%)\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe share of respondents across the different consumer groups are as follows: light users 16.6%, medium users 39.40%, heavy users 20.30%, super users 20.75%. The organic share was not reported by 2.95% of the sampled consumers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA logistic regression model (e.g. Hosmer et al., 2013) was used to investigate the relationship between organic consumption and willingness to make dietary adjustments. We used a multinomial logistic regression model in which the dependent variable \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{y}_{I}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e was a five-dimensional vector representing the five potential answers to the following question regarding dietary habits: ‘\u003cem\u003eWould you be willing to choose other food products than those you prefer the most in order to reduce your carbon footprint?’\u003c/em\u003e. The response categories included: Not relevant, I prefer foods with a low climate impact; No, not at all; Yes, I would replace individual food items; Yes, I would replace many food items; Don’t know. The group of respondents who answered ‘No, not at all’ was used as reference so the odds ratios for the other groups were all estimated relative to this group. The equation below describes the model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:Model:\\:\\text{log\\:}\\frac{P\\left({y}_{I}=j|x\\right)}{P\\left({y}_{I}=5|x\\right)}\\:=\\:{\\beta\\:}_{0}+{\\beta\\:}_{1}{x}_{1}+{\\beta\\:}_{2}{x}_{2}\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:j=\\text{1,2},\\text{3,4}.$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe assumed a linear relationship between the explanatory variables and the log odds of a respondent belonging to a specific group. In particular, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\beta\\:}_{0}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is a constant, and \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\beta\\:}_{1}\\:\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{d}\\:{\\beta\\:}_{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e are parameters to be estimated in relation to the vectors of explanatory variables \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{x}_{1}\\:and\\:{x}_{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. The first vector of explanatory variables \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{x}_{1}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e represents the organic user groups. The other vector of dummy variables, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{x}_{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, was used to identify potential systematic sociodemographic differences related to respondents’ gender (female versus other), region (living in the Capital Region versus living elsewhere), education (having a higher education of five years or more versus other education) and age (18–34, 35–49, 50–64, 65– 74).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith respect to the explanatory variables, the reference respondent was a light user who had another gender identity than female, lived outside the Capital Region, did not have a higher education of five years or more, and was in the age group 65–74 years. The estimation was performed using the software SAS 9.4.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eConsumers and climate concerns\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat’s most important to me is to take care of myself and my surroundings. My family, of course, but also to a large extent animals and the planet.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Randi, focus group 1, convinced organic consumer)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring focus group discussions, the climate impact of food was addressed unprompted by only a minority of the participants. Most of them did not mention climate as a major concern influencing food provisioning or eating. In contrast, price\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, taste, appearance, organic production, environmental concerns, purity, healthiness, animal welfare, and habits were aspects often mentioned as concerns influencing food provisioning. In the quote above, Randi explicitly mentions wanting to take care of the planet as an important factor in her food consumption. During discussions in the six focus groups, taking care of the planet was mainly linked to a fear of local environmental and bodily pollution rather than climate impact. However, the quote shows how Randi (and some others along with her) did in fact consider the impact of food production on the surroundings (externalities of food production) and did use altruistic reasoning when explaining what they did – and did not – purchase. The fact that climate impact was rarely mentioned unprompted in the discussions does not necessarily mean that the participants do not care about the climate or do not link food to climate impact, but rather shows that climate is not their main priority or focus in relation to food. Even though concern for the climate was not a dominant preoccupation among participants, the link between climate and food consumption was not contested as a relevant issue when brought up by the moderator: participants were aware of this as a critical issue, accepted its relevance and had, in general, a basic knowledge about the climate impact of meat and sustainability in terms of foods (see Skelly \u0026amp; Ditlevsen, 2024 for a discussion of the complexities related to knowledge in the focus groups).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe qualitative results therefore indicate an awareness of – but not necessarily much engagement with – climate concerns in relation to food consumption. This is echoed in the quantitative representative survey, in which 34.9% of all respondents stated that they (completely or partially) try to choose a diet with a small negative climate impact. This indicates that quite a large share of the population is aware of climate impact as a factor in their food provisioning (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistribution of consumers (%) according to whether they try to choose diets with lower climate impact and their level of organic consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e‘I try to choose a diet with a lower climate impact’\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompletely agree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePartially agree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNeither agree nor disagree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePartially disagree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompletely disagree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDo not know\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLight users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMedium users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHeavy users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37.68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSuper users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7.80\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e27.10\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e36.45\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e13.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e10.55\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5.10\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN = 2,000. Question: ‘Think about your everyday life. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your climate impact. I try to choose a diet with lower climate impact’. In total, 59 respondents did not report their organic consumption. Responses among respondents in this group are not shown individually in the table.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe problematic meat\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsked about what a climate-friendly diet could include, the majority of respondents in the survey (62.95%) saw a diet that includes a lot of beef as the opposite of a climate-friendly diet, while only 4.85% stated that a climate-friendly diet could include a lot of beef (these figures are not shown in a table). At the same time, only 9.36% ate a vegetarian or a mainly vegetarian (flexitarian) diet (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistribution of consumers (%) according to eating habits and organic consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI eat neither meat nor fish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI eat mainly vegetarian food and occasionally eat meat or fish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI often eat meat or fish, but I also have meat-free days\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI eat meat or fish for the vast majority of my meals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDo not know\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLight users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMedium users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHeavy users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.97\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSuper users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17.59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1.80\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7.55\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e39.25\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e51.05\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.35\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN = 2000. \u003cem\u003eQuestion: ‘How would you describe your eating habits? Tick the statement that best applies to you’. In total, 59 respondents did not report their organic consumption. Responses among respondents in this group are not shown individually in the table.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe found no previous studies that specified how drastic a change consumers were willing to make in their food habits to benefit the climate. In the survey, we therefore asked respondents if they would be willing to choose other food items than the ones they preferred in order to reduce their climate impact. The majority (58.5%) of consumers were willing to replace some food items to benefit the climate, while only 13.25% were willing to replace many food items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese results indicate that dietary changes in private households aiming to reduce the climate impact of consumed foods are not drastic, despite a stated intention to buy food with low climate impact (as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) and a general knowledge about the negative climate impact of consuming certain types of food, notably red meat.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLooking to the focus groups for a deeper understanding of this apparent paradox, we found that participants in all six groups agreed that shifting to a vegan or vegetarian diet would be one of the most effective steps a person could take to lower the climate impact of their food consumption (cf. Skelly \u0026amp; Ditlevsen, 2024). However, it was not always seen as the most attractive or feasible step to take in one’s own household. The quotes below give some examples of how participants negotiate their own status as carnivores in light of the common consensus that meat poses a problem in terms of climate impact:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIna: I don’t eat climate-friendly [food] at home, unfortunately! I try, but I have a partner who is fighting against it. He wants some meat! (Focus group 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e-----------------------------\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eModerator: What would you implement in your household?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMia: Replace meat with vegetables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMartin: I REALLY like meat, so for me it would be to replace beef with poultry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeate: I think that option would be feasible for more people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Focus group 3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the quotes above, we see both how meat consumption is recognised as a problem in terms of climate, but also that meat reduction and/or replacement is considered a problematic step to take. Some participants, like Ina, referred to difficulties in persuading other household members to consume less meat, while others like Martin referred to their own preference for meat. Others again referred to the practical and social problems of reducing or replacing meat.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e below presents different arguments for and against reducing meat consumption brought up in the focus groups. All explanations were given by one or more participants during the discussions in the groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFocus group participants’ accounts of meat reduction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplanations of why not to reduce meat consumption among participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplanations of meat reductions among participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther household members (children, partners) do not want to reduce meat consumption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther household members want to reduce their meat consumption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe taste of meat is preferred over alternatives\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSampled delicious vegetarian food (e.g. in canteens)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEating meat is natural for humans\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is healthier for the human body to eat less meat/no meat/no red meat\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVegan diets lack protein and vitamins\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBodily wellbeing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVegan diets require too much effort\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWanted to experiment and try new recipes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCooking vegan dishes is too time consuming\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLost the desire to eat meat/red meat\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a vegan or vegetarian, one is excluded from social communities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnimal welfare concerns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlant-based meat substitutes are highly processed and unnatural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreasing food prices have made meat reduction necessary in households\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlant-based meat substitutes are no better for the climate than meat\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEating a vegetarian/vegan/flexitarian diet lowers the climate imprint of food consumption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReplacing meat feels like a loss\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is cheaper\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA change of food habits requires reflection and mental surplus\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of sufficient knowledge about the food system\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is not possible for individual consumers to impact the climate footprint of the food system\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe focus group discussions revealed a certain discomfort and reluctance to talk about meat reduction and replacement, supporting the stronghold of meat as a centrepiece in Western food cultures, as reported in earlier research (Niva and Mäkelä, 2019; Holm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Yates and Warde, 2015), and meat consumption as the normality from which it may be difficult to deviate (Markowski and Roxburgh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Piazza et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn general, there was a tendency for the participants to discuss meat reduction as a question of either a) continuing the status quo or b) abstaining from meat altogether when they talked about it as part of their daily lives (as reported in Skelly \u0026amp; Ditlevsen, 2024). As a result, the discussions centred more around vegan diets than flexitarian diets or other more moderate kinds of diet change, even though some groups also debated meat reduction strategies, such as replacing beef with fish or chicken, or replacing some meat dishes with vegetarian dishes each week. We saw an example of this in focus group 4 (other organic consumers), where a couple of participants were already actively engaged in reducing the climate impact of their food consumption:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJosephine: Well, I’m not going vegan! [other participants laugh]\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFilip: Me neither.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRon: I think I could become a vegetarian.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJosephine: …but I could eat more fish or poultry and such [instead of beef]. I would have no problem with that.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimone: I am actually trying to replace beef with poultry. I started because my brother told me that beef is the worst meat you can eat – and I don’t think that the taste of beef is that superior compared to the other options.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRon: I have done that for a year now. It works fine. […]\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOtto: We have done that for over five years now.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterviewer: How come?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOtto: Easier, faster, cheaper.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRon: And better for you!\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the extract above, we see an example of how becoming vegan is recurrently seen as a radical and slightly ridiculous suggestion to most of the participants – here exemplified by Josephine’s immediate response and the other participants’ laughter. Yet we also see how the reasoning is drawn towards feasible meat-reduction tactics in the examples provided by the climate-engaged participants, as well as Otto’s pragmatic reasoning about the benefits of replacing red meat with less climate-heavy proteins (\u003cem\u003e“Easier, faster, cheaper”\u003c/em\u003e). By creating a situation where meat reduction and replacements are presented as ‘normal’ and common, it becomes difficult to dismiss the idea as radical and slightly ridiculous, as Josephine initially did.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePathways towards meat reduction\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e shows the reasons for reducing or replacing meat stated in the focus group discussions. It is notable that several of these reasons counter the explanations against reducing meat, meaning oppositional claims were made, e.g. ‘eating meat is natural for humans’ and ‘not eating meat is better for the human body’.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, a recurrent theme was ‘normalisation’, ‘routinisation’, and the impact from social contexts (cf. Christensen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Fuentes and Fuentes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lund and Halkier, 2024). The focus groups revealed how participants feel inclined to change their food habits when they become aware of others changing their dietary habits, when vegetarian options become available, or when discovering delicious meat-free food. Changes in the surroundings (e.g. increasing food prices or availability) appear to make adjustments in food practices seem more realistic to the focus group participants. Furthermore, it appears that trying meat-free foods could trigger changes in tastes and bodily experiences of wellbeing, thus motivating further adjustments. It is notable that a change in practices sometimes preceded changes in values according to some of the discussions and narratives presented in the focus groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReaffirming the social acceptability of meat\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e In the social context of the focus groups, several verbal interactions about meat reduction or skipping meat entirely centred around assuring each other that it was acceptable not to make drastic changes in one’s meat consumption. Furthermore, participants who were vegan or vegetarian\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e joined in on these frequently occurring interactions reaffirming the social acceptability of meat consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e These vegans and vegetarians also challenged some of the excuses for not reducing meat made by other participants. In this extract, Dennis states that replacing meat is not feasible in his household, while Ida, a vegan, and Pia, a vegetarian, intervene:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIda: Would it be a no-go to replace the meat with fried chickpeas or a lentil stew?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDennis: I have to go home and test it on my 4-year-old and 8-year-old [everybody laughs]. It is not that simple.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIda: You could make stuffing. It’s just an idea, right?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDennis: Yes, yes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePia: They love such plant-based stuffing, really, they won’t notice it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDennis: No, that’s the most obvious way – to make a good old spaghetti bolo with plant-based meat.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePia: Exactly, they will love it. It tastes great.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Focus group 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDifferences among consumer segments\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRe-examining Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e highlights differences among segments of consumers: the more organic food consumers eat, the more likely it is that they also try to eat a climate-friendly diet and that they are vegetarian or mainly vegetarian (flexitarian). As an example, 61.44% of the super organic users try to choose climate-friendly foods and 23.37% are vegetarian or mainly vegetarian, compared to 14.46% and 3.31% of the light users. We also see the same gradient in terms of awareness of the negative climate impact of continued beef consumption – we found that super users are more likely than other users to view beef consumption as inconsistent with a climate-friendly diet (70.36%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings thus support earlier research showing that consumers who are engaged in organic food consumption are more inclined to consider the climate impact of their food consumption (Denver, Nordström, and Christensen 2023). Furthermore, they are also more likely to eat less meat than the average consumer. However, even among this group, meat consumption is more common than vegetarian diets, and an intention to reduce climate impact is not always translated into a marked meat reduction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding the willingness to change diet, we see the same trend as above: the consumer segments who purchase most organic foods are more likely to be willing to replace climate-heavy food items with less climate-heavy options compared to consumer segments who purchase less organic food products. Only 3.31% of the light users are willing to make many changes compared to 27.53% of super users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese results show that there is a relationship between the degree of organic consumption and a willingness to consider a food’s climate impact in dietary decisions and food habits, e.g. eating a vegetarian/flexitarian diet. The segment we have labelled super users particularly stands out in this regard.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing a logistic regression model, we looked at the underlying factors present in the relationship between organic consumption and a willingness to change dietary habits to benefit the climate. The regression shows that the consumer segments are significant parameters, but background factors like gender and age are also significant factors. Women are more likely than other genders to express a willingness to change habits. Younger adults (18–34) are much more likely than older people to be willing to replace many food items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsumers’ willingness to change behaviour explained by organic consumption and sociodemographic factors using a logistic regression model (odds-ratio point estimates).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot relevant, I prefer foods with a low climate impact\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(2.05%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes, I would replace individual food items\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(58.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes, I would replace many food items\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(13.25%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDon’t know\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(5.55%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganic user group (vs. light users)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium users\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.49*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.03*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.90*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeavy users\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.52*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.68*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.28*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSuper users\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.94*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.03*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38.84*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.02*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSociodemographic factors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale vs. other respondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.24*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.68*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.91*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.99*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18–34 years vs. 65 + years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.04*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.35*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35–49 years vs. 65 + years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.96*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50–64 years vs. 65 + years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiving in the Capital region vs. living in another region\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.32\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigher education vs. other education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN = 2,000. \u003cem\u003eQuestion\u003c/em\u003e: ‘\u003cem\u003eWould you be willing to choose other food products than those you prefer the most in order to reduce your carbon footprint?’ Parameter estimates for the 59 respondents who did not report their organic consumption are not shown individually in the table. For each of the four models, the reference group is consumers answering ‘No, not at all’ (20.65% of sample). * represents statistical significance at 5% significance level.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWho are the super users of organic foods?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe found that respondents in the super-user segment were more likely to live in the Capital Region of Denmark and less likely to live in North Jutland than those in other segments (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). There is a slight overrepresentation of women in the super-user segment (56.87%), which is roughly the same as in the heavy-user segment (57.88% women). The other segments had an equal gender distribution. In terms of educational background, respondents in the super-user segment were more likely to have attained a Master’s degree or equivalent (i.e. long tertiary education; 20.72%), compared to the overall average for all participants of 14.80%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistribution (%) of sociodemographic characteristics of the consumer segments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLight\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeavy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSuper\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll respondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup size\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther gender identity than female\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49.70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18–34 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35–49 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50–64 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65 years or more\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiving in the Capital Region\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37.59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiving in another region\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77.71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e73.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigher education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.83\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther education\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e92.17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e85.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e85.20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN = 2,000. \u003cem\u003eIn total, 59 respondents (corresponding to 2.95% of the sample) did not report their organic consumption. Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents in this group are not shown individually in the table.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we found that meat consumption is recognised as a climate problem by a large proportion of the sampled Danish consumers, but also that reduction and replacement of meat would be a big step to take for many of them. Our results show that while approximately a third of all respondents stated that they strive to eat a diet with a small negative climate impact, only 13% were willing to replace many food items to benefit the climate. One group of sampled consumers stood out as being more concerned about the climate impact of the food they purchased and more willing to reduce their meat consumption and make many dietary changes: the super users of organic foods, i.e. the group with the highest share of organic food consumption. We show in this paper that organic consumer segments are significant parameters, but socio-economic background factors such as gender, age, education, and living in the Capital Region also explain consumer practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results reflect the importance and perceived ‘normality’ of meat in Western food cultures, exemplified by the recurrent notion of veganism as radical and even ridiculous. We also found that participants in the focus groups supported each other in reassuring themselves and others that continued meat consumption was socially acceptable, despite also showing an awareness of its negative climate consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e On the other hand, the data also reveal insights into pathways towards meat reduction and replacement among participants in the focus groups. Some of the participants in the focus groups who had reduced their meat consumption referred to changes in their surroundings as important factors (i.e. canteens started serving vegetarian dishes, increased food prices, other members of the household changed their diets). As such, a normalisation of meat reduction and replacement in the social context surrounding participants appears to pull food practices towards greener consumption practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganic super users and their relevance to the green transition\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsumers who purchase many organic food products are also more likely to express their climate concerns, to state that they aim to change their consumption habits to reduce their negative climate impact, and to be willing to replace many food items to do so. Furthermore, they are already more likely to eat diets with little to no meat. Thereby, being invested in the quality and characteristics of the food you eat, as earlier studies have shown that organic consumers are, appears to foster further involvement in ethical aspects of food consumption. It should be noted that the group of consumers who purchased the largest share of organic food products, the super users, comprised 20% of the sampled consumers. This segment is also a relatively privileged group who are more likely to have a long tertiary education and live in the capital area in Denmark compared to the other consumer segments. Individuals in this group are likely to have the financial resources to allow for a lot of flexibility in their consumption habits and thereby a relatively large degree of freedom of choice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot all consumers are in a position to invest much time and money in their food consumption, or in a situation where food consumption is a product of choice rather than necessity (Brannen, O’Connell, and Ditlevsen 2024; Cappellini, Marilli, and Parsons 2014; Daniel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Ditlevsen, Halkier, and Holm 2022). Taking this aspect into consideration, one should be careful not to rely solely on individual consumer choice as a strategy towards a green transition in terms of food consumption. Another important aspect that should be highlighted here is the pace and degree of individual consumer transitions. These transitions are often not very drastic and not as fast as needed in light of the ongoing climate crisis – even among the segment we found to be most engaged in green consumption practices, the super users of organic food (cf. Willett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors made substantial contributions to the design of the work submitted. K.D. and T.S. analyzed the qualitative data, S.D. and T.C. analyzed the quantitative data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of data. K.D. wrote the draft of the main manuscript and S.D., T.S. and T.C. made substantial revisions to it. All authors reviewed the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research reported in this paper was conducted as part of the SO-FOOD project. SO-FOOD is part of the Organic RDD 6 programme, which is coordinated by the International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS). It has received grants from the Green Growth and Development programme (GUDP) under the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food. Project number: 34009-20-1705.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors do not have permission to share the data.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeardsworth, Alan, and Teresa Keil. 1997. \u003cem\u003eSociology on the Menu: An Invitation to the Study of Food and Society\u003c/em\u003e. London: Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Boer, Joop, and Harry Aiking. 2022. \u0026ldquo;Do EU Consumers Think about Meat Reduction When Considering to Eat a Healthy, Sustainable Diet and to Have a Role in Food System Change?\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 170:105880. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2021.105880\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2021.105880\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrannen, Julia, Rebecca O\u0026rsquo;Connell, and Kia Ditlevsen. 2024. \u0026ldquo;Feeding the Family With a Disability or Long-Term Health Condition: Lone-Parent Families at Risk of Food Insecurity in England and Denmark.\u0026rdquo; Pp. 39\u0026ndash;65 in \u003cem\u003eConsumers and Consumption in Comparison\u003c/em\u003e. Vol. 37, \u003cem\u003eComparative Social Research\u003c/em\u003e, edited by E. Jacobsen, P. Strandbakken, A. Dulsrud, and S. E. Skuland. Emerald Publishing Limited.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBugge, Annechen Bahr, and Reidar Alm\u0026aring;s. 2006. \u0026ldquo;Domestic Dinner: Representations and Practices of a Proper Meal among Young Suburban Mothers.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Culture\u003c/em\u003e 6(2):203\u0026ndash;28. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/1469540506064744\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1469540506064744\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCappellini, Benedetta, Alessandra Marilli, and Elizabeth Parsons. 2014. \u0026ldquo;The Hidden Work of Coping: Gender and the Micro-Politics of Household Consumption in Times of Austerity.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Management\u003c/em\u003e 30(15\u0026ndash;16):1597\u0026ndash;1624. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/0267257X.2014.929164\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0267257X.2014.929164\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCharles, Nickie, and Marion Kerr. 1988. \u003cem\u003eWomen, Food, and Families\u003c/em\u003e. Manchester University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChristensen, Toke Haunstrup, Bente Halkier, Kirsten Gram-Hanssen, Malene Freudendal-Pedersen, and Amanda Krog Juvik. 2023. \u0026ldquo;Exploring Routinization and Reflexivity in Change and Reproduction of Consumption towards Lower Climate Impact.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Culture\u003c/em\u003e 14695405231207599. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/14695405231207599\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/14695405231207599\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaniel, Caitlin. 2020. \u0026ldquo;Is Healthy Eating Too Expensive?: How Low-Income Parents Evaluate the Cost of Food.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eSocial Science \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e 248:112823. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2020.112823\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2020.112823\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavid, Matthew, and Carole D. Sutton. 2011. \u003cem\u003eSocial Research: An Introduction\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDenver, S., J. Nordstr\u0026ouml;m, and T. Christensen. 2022. \u0026ldquo;57. Reduced Beef Consumption among Different Organic Consumer Groups \u0026ndash; Drivers and Substitution Patterns.\u0026rdquo; Pp. 371\u0026ndash;74 in \u003cem\u003eTransforming food systems: ethics, innovation and responsibility\u003c/em\u003e. Wageningen Academic.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDenver, Sigrid, Tove Christensen, Jonas Nordstr\u0026ouml;m, Kia Ditlevsen, J\u0026oslash;rgen Dejg\u0026aring;rd Jensen, and Peter Sand\u0026oslash;e. 2022. \u0026ldquo;Dietary Priorities and Consumers\u0026rsquo; Views of the Healthiness of Organic Food: Purity or Flexibility?\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eOrganic Agriculture\u003c/em\u003e. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s13165-022-00396-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13165-022-00396-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDenver, Sigrid, Jonas Nordstr\u0026ouml;m, and Tove Christensen. 2023. \u0026ldquo;Plant-Based Food \u0026ndash; Purchasing Intentions, Barriers and Drivers among Different Organic Consumer Groups in Denmark.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e 419:138256. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138256\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138256\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDitlevsen, Kia, Sigrid Denver, Tove Christensen, and Jesper Lassen. 2020. \u0026ldquo;A Taste for Locally Produced Food - Values, Opinions and Sociodemographic Differences among \u0026lsquo;Organic\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;Conventional\u0026rsquo; Consumers.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 147:104544. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2019.104544\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2019.104544\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDitlevsen, Kia, Bente Halkier, and Lotte Holm. 2022. \u0026ldquo;Pathways of Less Healthy Diets. An Investigation of the Everyday Food Practices of Men and Women in Low Income Households.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCritical Public Health\u003c/em\u003e 1\u0026ndash;14. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/09581596.2022.2101917\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09581596.2022.2101917\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDitlevsen, Kia, Peter Sand\u0026oslash;e, and Jesper Lassen. 2019. \u0026ldquo;Healthy Food Is Nutritious, but Organic Food Is Healthy Because It Is Pure: The Negotiation of Healthy Food Choices by Danish Consumers of Organic Food.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eFood Quality and Preference\u003c/em\u003e 71:46\u0026ndash;53. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEurostat. 2023. \u0026ldquo;Agricultural Production - Livestock and Meat.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFagt, Sisse;, Jeppe Mathiassen, and Anja Biltoft-Jensen. 2018. \u0026ldquo;Hvor meget k\u0026oslash;d spiser danskerne? \u0026ndash; data fra statistikker og kostunders\u0026oslash;gelser.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFuentes, Maria, and Christian Fuentes. 2022. \u0026ldquo;Reconfiguring Food Materialities: Plant-Based Food Consumption Practices in Antagonistic Landscapes.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eFood, Culture \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e 25(3):520\u0026ndash;39. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/15528014.2021.1903716\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15528014.2021.1903716\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalkier, Bente, and Thomas B\u0026oslash;ker Lund. 2023. \u0026ldquo;Exploring Everyday Life Dynamics in Meat Reduction - A Cluster Analysis of Flexitarians in Denmark.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 183:106487. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2023.106487\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2023.106487\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHielkema, Marijke Hiltje, and Thomas B\u0026oslash;ker Lund. 2021. \u0026ldquo;Reducing Meat Consumption in Meat-Loving Denmark: Exploring Willingness, Behavior, Barriers and Drivers.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eFood Quality and Preference\u003c/em\u003e 93:104257. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104257\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104257\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolm, L., and M. M\u0026oslash;hl. 2000. \u0026ldquo;The Role of Meat in Everyday Food Culture: An Analysis of an Interview Study in Copenhagen.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 34(3):277\u0026ndash;83. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1006/appe.2000.0324\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/appe.2000.0324\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolm, Lotte, Drude Lauridsen, Jukka Gronow, Nina Kahma, Unni Kjaernes, Thomas Lund, Johanna M\u0026auml;kel\u0026auml;, and Mari Niva. 2019. \u0026ldquo;The Food We Eat.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJ\u0026uuml;rkenbeck, Kristin, Achim Spiller, and Maureen Schulze. 2021. \u0026ldquo;Climate Change Awareness of the Young Generation and Its Impact on Their Diet.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCleaner and Responsible Consumption\u003c/em\u003e 3:100041. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKemper, Joya A. 2020. \u0026ldquo;Motivations, Barriers, and Strategies for Meat Reduction at Different Family Lifecycle Stages.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 150:104644. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2020.104644\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2020.104644\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeonidou, Leonidas C., Pantelitsa P. Eteokleous, Anna-Maria Christofi, and Nikolaos Korfiatis. 2022. \u0026ldquo;Drivers, Outcomes, and Moderators of Consumer Intention to Buy Organic Goods: Meta-Analysis, Implications, and Future Agenda.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e 151:339\u0026ndash;54. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLund, Thomas B\u0026oslash;ker, and Bente Halkier. 2024. \u0026ldquo;Social Network Research and Meat Reduction \u0026ndash; An Overview of Research Directions and Results from a Study in Denmark.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCleaner and Responsible Consumption\u003c/em\u003e 14:100203. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.clrc.2024.100203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.clrc.2024.100203\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkowski, K. L., and S. Roxburgh. 2019. \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;If I Became a Vegan, My Family and Friends Would Hate Me:\u0026rsquo; Anticipating Vegan Stigma as a Barrier to Plant-Based Diets.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 135:1\u0026ndash;9. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMicheelsen, Arun, Lotte Holm, and Katherine O\u0026rsquo;Doherty Jensen. 2013. \u0026ldquo;Consumer Acceptance of the New Nordic Diet. An Exploratory Study.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 70:14\u0026ndash;21. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2013.06.081\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2013.06.081\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorgan, David L. 1996. \u0026ldquo;Focus Groups.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Sociology\u003c/em\u003e 22(1):129\u0026ndash;52. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorgan, David L. 2018. \u003cem\u003eBasic and Advanced Focus Groups\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiva, Mari, and Johanna M\u0026auml;kel\u0026auml;. 2019. \u0026ldquo;Meals in Western Eating and Drinking.\u0026rdquo; Pp. 1\u0026ndash;14 in \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Eating and Drinking: Interdisciplinary Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, edited by H. L. Meiselman. Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNordstr\u0026ouml;m, Jonas, and Sigrid Denver. 2024. \u0026ldquo;The Impact of Voluntary Sustainability Adjustments on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Food Consumption \u0026ndash; The Case of Denmark.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCleaner and Responsible Consumption\u003c/em\u003e 12:100164. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100164\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100164\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Doherty Jensen, K. 2009. \u0026ldquo;Sociological Aspects of Meat in Meals. Cultural Impacts and Meal Patterns.\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eProceedings from the 55th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology (ICoMST) (pp. 1626\u0026ndash;1631)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOtte, Henning. 2023. \u0026ldquo;Udviklingen i Verdens K\u0026oslash;dforbrug.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eF\u0026oslash;devaremagasinet\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiazza, J., M. B. Ruby, S. Loughnan, M. Luong, J. Kulik, H. M. Watkins, and M. Seigerman. 2015. \u0026ldquo;Rationalizing Meat Consumption. The 4Ns.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 91:114\u0026ndash;28. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePohjolainen, Pasi, Petri Tapio, Markus Vinnari, Pekka Jokinen, and Pekka R\u0026auml;s\u0026auml;nen. 2016. \u0026ldquo;Consumer Consciousness on Meat and the Environment \u0026mdash; Exploring Differences.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 101:37\u0026ndash;45. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSkelly, Thomas A. M., and Kia Ditlevsen. 2024. \u0026ldquo;Bad Avocados, Culinary Standards, and Knowable Knowledge. Culturally Appropriate Rejections of Meat Reduction.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Culture\u003c/em\u003e 14695405241243199. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/14695405241243199\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/14695405241243199\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Doorn, Jenny, and Peter C. Verhoef. 2015. \u0026ldquo;Drivers of and Barriers to Organic Purchase Behavior.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Retailing\u003c/em\u003e 91(3):436\u0026ndash;50. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWiller, Helga, Bernhard Schlatter, Jan Tr\u0026aacute;vn\u0026iacute;ček and Diana Schaack. 2024. Organic Farming and Market Development in Europe and the European Union. In Willer, Helga, Jan Tr\u0026aacute;vn\u0026iacute;ček and Bernhard Schlatter (Eds.) (2024): The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2024. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, and IFOAM \u0026ndash; Organics International, Bonn. Online Version accessed 12 February 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWillett, Walter, Johan Rockstr\u0026ouml;m, Brent Loken, Marco Springmann, Tim Lang, Sonja Vermeulen, Tara Garnett, David Tilman, Fabrice DeClerck, Amanda Wood, Malin Jonell, Michael Clark, Line J. Gordon, Jessica Fanzo, Corinna Hawkes, Rami Zurayk, Juan A. Rivera, Wim De Vries, Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, Ashkan Afshin, Abhishek Chaudhary, Mario Herrero, Rina Agustina, Francesco Branca, Anna Lartey, Shenggen Fan, Beatrice Crona, Elizabeth Fox, Victoria Bignet, Max Troell, Therese Lindahl, Sudhvir Singh, Sarah E. Cornell, K. Srinath Reddy, Sunita Narain, Sania Nishtar, and Christopher J. L. Murray. 2019. \u0026ldquo;Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT\u0026ndash;Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eThe Lancet\u003c/em\u003e 393(10170):447\u0026ndash;92. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYates, Luke, and Alan Warde. 2015. \u0026ldquo;The Evolving Content of Meals in Great Britain. Results of a Survey in 2012 in Comparison with the 1950s.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e 84:299\u0026ndash;308. doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e If a respondent did not specify the frequency for one of the products (e.g. because the respondent did not eat beef or answered \u0026lsquo;don\u0026rsquo;t know\u0026rsquo;), the overall frequency was based on the other product. Respondents who did not specify their organic consumption of either of the products were placed in a fifth group referred to as \u0026lsquo;organic not reported\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The focus groups were conducted during a period of food price inflation, and the participants directly addressed this in the discussions. Several said that price had to be their main priority now, in contrast to earlier.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Of the 35 participants, two identified as vegan and three identified as vegetarian.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"organic-agriculture","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"orga","sideBox":"Learn more about [Organic Agriculture](http://link.springer.com/journal/13165)","snPcode":"13165","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13165/3","title":"Organic Agriculture","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Organic food, meat reduction, food consumption, green transition","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7858394/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7858394/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTo what extent are consumers willing to change their dietary habits due to concerns over the ongoing climate crisis? What do those who state that they reduce meat in their private household change? These questions are investigated here with a focus on different groups of organic food consumers in Denmark, some of whom are expected to be front-runners in the green transition in terms of diet. The study uses a mixed-methods design and combines results from a representative quantitative survey with results from qualitative focus groups. The results show that the status of meat consumption as \u0026lsquo;normality\u0026rsquo; poses a major problem for the green transition because many consumers view meat reduction and replacement as big steps to take. Our results show that the group of consumers with the highest share of organic food intake stand out; they are more concerned about the climate impact of the food they purchase and state a higher willingness to reduce their meat consumption and make many dietary changes compared to consumers with lower shares of organic food purchases. However, even consumers in this group found that reducing meat consumption is a big step. The results also suggest that socio-economic background factors (gender, age, education, region) are reflected in consumer willingness to change practices. For some consumers, changes in food practices seem to come before changes in attitudes, which reinforces our suggestion that the normalisation of meat reduction and replacement is a promising tool to drive food practices towards greener consumption practices.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Big and small steps. A mixed-methods investigation of meat reduction among different groups of consumers in Denmark","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-03 14:17:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7858394/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-12-23T21:39:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-22T17:25:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-22T08:45:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"322737664685415669205230169997273668347","date":"2025-12-11T12:55:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"290282321477263181691683184829585567449","date":"2025-12-03T06:54:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-30T21:16:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-10-15T05:15:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-15T05:13:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Organic Agriculture","date":"2025-10-14T11:56:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"organic-agriculture","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"orga","sideBox":"Learn more about [Organic Agriculture](http://link.springer.com/journal/13165)","snPcode":"13165","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13165/3","title":"Organic Agriculture","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a52551e2-68a6-4c69-834d-f0dbd4972c64","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 3rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-07T16:17:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7858394","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-026-00552-w","journal":{"identity":"organic-agriculture","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Organic Agriculture"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-01 15:59:19","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 1st, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-03 14:17:19","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s13165-026-00552-w","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-026-00552-w","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7858394","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7858394","identity":"rs-7858394","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}