Why do people accept or reject climate policies targeting food consumption? Unpacking justifications in the public debate in online social forums

A shift in dietary habits will be required to meet global climate targets. However, from a social dilemma perspective, major voluntary shifts in diet patterns are unlikely. Hence, government interventions are called for. This may be a perilous political endeavor, since food habits and choices are assumed to be personal and contentious matters and any food regulation policy risks stepping over the line for what people accept, risking policy legitimacy. In order to construct feasible policy measures, it is therefore important to gain knowledge of the prerequisites for support of climate food regulations and to understand why people accept or oppose regulations. The aim of this paper is to do so by analyzing the public debate concerning meat-free days in school canteens and a tax on meat in two public online social forums in Sweden. We seek to 1) map the arguments supporting (non)acceptability of the two food consumption regulation issues and 2) analyze what policy-specific and factual beliefs are reflected in the arguments and then detangle their meaning and content as revealed in the arguments. We find that policy-specific beliefs around freedom, fairness, and effectiveness are commonly used in support of or objection to these policies, but to different degrees, and often linked to factual beliefs about consequences for health or disadvantaged social groups. We conclude that the general reluctance of policy makers to interfere with what people eat is not necessarily well founded, and that better policy design, framing, and communication have the potential to increase policy support.