We invite contributions from a range of disciplines to support a cross-disciplinary synthesis on the transition toward sustainable diets. Specifically, we are seeking concise, timely overviews that summarize the current state of knowledge in your field on this topic.
To ensure consistency across submissions, we ask you to focus on the push and pull factors that influence individuals’ food choices—both in the adoption of more sustainable diets and the reduction of less sustainable, traditional dietary patterns. Push and pull factors are distinct in that they are intentionally directed at influencing individual choices, and they may originate from any actor in the food system, including governments, companies, or individuals.
Please outline the primary push and pull factors identified in your field, emphasizing those that target individuals. We are particularly interested in evidence from behavioural and action-oriented interventions, especially those that assess observed dietary behaviour change.
Where possible, please distinguish between individual-level factors (e.g., habits, preferences, social norms) and system-level factors (e.g., policies, pricing structures, marketing strategies). You can find more about this in the background text. The full contribution should not exceed 400 words.
Please send your text to: meike.morren@vu.nl. To guide your writing, we’ve included an example from the field of (behavioural) economics:
Economics, Behavioural economics. Supermarkets play a pivotal role in initiating dietary change. Cognitive biases guide consumers toward certain products while deterring others. At the individual level, soft behavioural nudges exploit these biases without imposing bans or significant costs (Vecchio & Cavallo, 2019). These nudges include menu reordering, labelling, default vegetarian or vegan options, framing and messaging, educational campaigns, and shifting social norms (Bauer & Reisch, 2019; Byerly et al., 2018; Broers et al., 2017). Customizing nudges to align with consumers’ key motivations (van Gestel et al., 2021), understanding (Cadario & Chandon, 2022), or their social environment (Venema et al, 2020) can enhance their effectiveness. Research shows that nudges are most effective among those who give low priority to food (van der Molen et al., 2021) and when combined (Ingendahl et al., 2020; Broers et al., 2017). Utilizing this method of nudging interventions can push people away from less sustainable food options and in turn, jumpstart change from stakeholders in the larger food system. Nudges will be more effective once coupled with economic incentives (Hoenink et al., 2020; Stuber et al., 2021), especially among the low-income groups who suffer from poor health outcomes (Robertson & Loring, 2014). Nudges can also be counterproductive when coupled with economic incentives, pushing people away from these products (Pachali et al., 2023). While reducing beef consumption is critical for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, meta-analyses show that beef’s own price elasticity is smaller than that of eggs, seafood, and chicken in regions like East Asia, the European Union, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the United States (except China and Oceania) (Gallet, 2010; Cornelsen et al., 2014). Because beef consumption is less sensitive to price changes than other protein sources in these areas, at the system level, subsidies for sustainable protein alternatives may be more effective than taxes on beef and induce less market distortions. Combining price increases with information nudge is more likely to reduce meat consumption (Vellinga et al., 2022), especially among lower-income groups (Femenia 2019) but can be countered by recycling revenues (Klenert et al., 2023). Moreover, these financial incentives might motivate retailers to provide more plant based options (Ronto et al., 2022)pulling people towards more sustainable dietary choices.