Does “better” mean “less”? Sustainable meat consumption in the context of natural pasture-raised beef

Rachel Mazac (), Kajsa Resare Sahlin, Iisa Hyypiä, Fanny Keränen, Mari Niva, Nora Berglund and Iryna Herzon
Additional contact information
Rachel Mazac: Stockholm University
Kajsa Resare Sahlin: Stockholm University
Iisa Hyypiä: University of Helsinki
Fanny Keränen: University of Helsinki
Mari Niva: University of Helsinki
Nora Berglund: University of Helsinki
Iryna Herzon: University of Helsinki

Agriculture and Human Values, 2025, vol. 42, issue 3, No 25, 1637-1651

Abstract: Abstract Livestock production has significant environmental impacts, requiring sustainable dietary shifts with reduced meat consumption. The concept of “less but better” has gained attention as a pragmatic approach to dietary and production changes, advocating for reduced meat consumption while focusing on sustainably produced, high-quality products. We focus on the interplay between “less” and “better” and critically evaluate the approach in the context of consuming natural pasture-raised beef in Finland. Our study focuses on consumers at the forefront of dietary change within western, upper-income contexts, who, with high educational and financial resources, may play a leading role in shifting to more sustainable diets. Based on 21 interviews with buyers of natural pasture-raised beef in Southern Finland, we investigate the meanings assigned to such premium-priced meat, understandings of the role of meat in sustainable diets, and reflections on the dietary changes in meat consumption when purchasing natural pasture-raised beef. Although meat was unanimously considered part of a sustainable diet, most interviewees recognized the global necessity of reducing meat consumption. The interviewees focused on health, naturalness, origin, and swapping beef for other meats as key factors in sustainable diets. The interpretation of “better” was primarily dominated by animal welfare concerns. However, when purchasing beef, taste emerged as the principal consideration. The relationship between “better” and “less” was ambiguous: the concept of “better” can lead to less consumption or provide a moral justification for maintaining the status quo or even increasing consumption of meat. Our results thus highlight the complexities of the “less but better” meat approach in transitioning to sustainable diets.

Keywords: Sustainable diets; Livestock production; Beef; “Less but better”; Consumers; Meanings (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-025-10707-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:42:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-025-10707-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10460

DOI: 10.1007/s10460-025-10707-2

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture and Human Values is currently edited by Harvey S. James Jr.

More articles in Agriculture and Human Values from Springer, The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().