IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04512427.html

Environmental co-benefits of health policies to reduce meat consumption: A narrative review

Author

Listed:
  • Céline Bonnet

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - Comue de Toulouse - Communauté d'universités et établissements de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - Comue de Toulouse - Communauté d'universités et établissements de Toulouse, INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Marine Coinon

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - Comue de Toulouse - Communauté d'universités et établissements de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - Comue de Toulouse - Communauté d'universités et établissements de Toulouse, INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

Global meat consumption has risen steadily in recent decades, with heterogeneous growth rates across regions. While meat plays a critical role in providing essential nutrients for human health, excessive consumption of meat, particularly red and processed meat, has also been associated with a higher risk of certain chronic diseases. This has led public authorities, including the World Health Organization, to call for a reduction in meat consumption. How governments can effectively reduce the health costs of meat consumption remains a challenge as implementing effective policy instruments is complex. This paper examines health-related policy instruments and potential economic mechanisms that could reduce meat consumption. Health-related taxation could be the most effective instrument. Other policy instruments, such as informational and behavioral instruments, along with regulations, could discourage meat consumption depending on the policy design. We also provide evidence on the link between meat consumption and the environment, including climate, biodiversity, water use, and pollution. Promoting healthy behaviors by reducing meat consumption can then have environmental co-benefits and promote broader sustainable development goals. We also discuss the policy-related challenges that need to be addressed to meet environmental co-benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Céline Bonnet & Marine Coinon, 2024. "Environmental co-benefits of health policies to reduce meat consumption: A narrative review," Post-Print hal-04512427, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04512427
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Irina-Adriana Chiurciu & Ionela Mițuko Vlad & Paula Stoicea & Iuliana Zaharia & Livia David & Elena Soare & Gina Fîntîneru & Marius Mihai Micu & Toma Adrian Dinu & Valentina Constanța Tudor & Dragoș I, 2024. "Romanian Meat Consumers’ Choices Favour Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-21, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04512427. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.