Eating for an Environmentally Sustainable Future
Helen Adams, Public Engagement Coordinator for the Livestock, Environment and People (LEAP) project, introduces the project and writes about the team’s first foray into public engagement at Super Science Saturday in March 2018. Outreach is not just a lot of fun, but can help influence the research too…
The Livestock, Environment and Leap (LEAP) project is funded by the Wellcome Trust for four years (2017–2021) and is the banner project for the Oxford Martin School’s ‘Future of Food’ programme. LEAP brings together researchers and experts from different disciplines across the University and beyond, exploring the impact of meat consumption on human and planetary health through the lenses of health, social and environmental sciences. One of these research strands involves a team of health behaviour researchers based at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (Brian Cook, Christina Potter, Emma Cartwright and Filippo Bianchi) and another involves researchers based at the School of Geography and the Environment (Nathan Clay and Alexandra Sexton).
The LEAP project takes as its starting point the global increase in the consumption of meat and dairy and the premise that such levels of production and consumption are not environmentally sustainable in the long-term. There is also growing evidence to suggest red and processed meat in particular as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer. The research team are interested in understanding the reasons people buy and eat meat and what interventions — what actions, messages, and adjustments — might help encourage people to make changes towards more sustainable and healthy diets.
It is not only the multi-disciplinary approach that makes LEAP exciting but also the central role of public engagement with research (PER) — a strategic approach to both consult and collaborate with various public constituencies throughout the research cycle, as well as the usual ‘inform and disseminate’ efforts (publications, reports and presentations) at the end. So what does this look like in reality? If you are not collecting data (one of the notional differences between people as ‘participants’ in research and as ‘attendees’ at PER events) then how can it be useful to you, the researcher, or even the institution? One way is just to use conversations and interactions as a barometer to gauge things like awareness, attitudes and the language used around certain topics. Luckily for us, food is a topic relevant to all of us, every day of our lives and it is common ground for conversation, unlike more esoteric health research topics such as certain diseases or patient experiences.
The project was invited to take part in Super Science Saturday on Saturday 10 March, 2018. Super Science Saturday is a free, twice-a-year, family-focussed day of live science engagement at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. The theme for this event was ‘People and Planet’ where the public get a chance to meet scientists from the wider University who are working hard to find out what makes our planet work and how we can help to look after it, so on our stand entitled ‘Nice to Meat You’ we opted to focus on the environmental and social-domestic contexts of food choices and sustainability.
What were our Public Engagement objectives?
· To gauge and raise awareness of the relationship between food choices and environmental impact
· To invite views on the acceptability of alternatives to meat and dairy products
· To test the effect of food labelling on taste perception
· To involve families in conversations about the role of meat in their everyday diet
How we engaged our audience
The event attracted 3200 people and it is estimated that 250 people attended our activities (140 children, and 110 adults) over four hours. The majority of visitors were families, although we also received interest from older adult couples and small groups of young people, mostly students.
We decided to offer three activities that tackled separate but linked themes and used different formats to appeal to the preferred ways people like to engage and participate. This also meant that visitors could choose to do one activity or all three depending on time restraints, interest levels and crowdedness.
1) Food and GHGs: a sorting activity using small plastic toys (e.g. a hamburger, a tomato) and a visual scale to ask visitors to rank six foods in order of their relative greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e), with a reveal of the actual order at the end. We used three meat-based products (highest CO2e) and three vegetable-based products (lowest CO2e) to raise awareness of the role of livestock in global warming and to introduce the idea of sustainability within food systems.
2) Meat substitute taste test: we supplied tasting samples of cold cooked Quorn cocktail sausages and vegan cheese cubes. With the sausages we had two plates with different labels / descriptors and asked people to vote on which one they liked best. This was to test out whether labelling and language had any effect on people’s perception of taste (even though both products were the same). We also wanted to find out general levels of awareness and acceptance of vegan cheese and if they could guess the ‘secret’ ingredient (coconut!). We provided allergen and intolerance information.
3) Draw your favourite meal: An art activity asking children to draw their favourite meal on a paper plate and label it. They could either take this home or add this to a display of plates. This activity enabled us to get a sense of how much meat figures in children’s favourite foods and meals, and also provides a chance to talk to the adults whilst the children were occupied.
What we found out
· Older children (7+) quickly grasped the idea that food has an impact on the environment.
· Labelling made little difference to perceived taste
· A substantial number of people, who were not necessarily vegan or vegetarian, would consider buying the two sample products (although far fewer people were keen on the cheese which had a strong smell and unusual texture).
· Many people expected the substitutes to be healthier than the meat and dairy products they were purporting to replace.
· Many people expressed an interest or desire to reduce meat consumption. However, commonly cited barriers were time, convenience and their children’s tastes/acceptability. Many women who were the primary feeders, cooks and/or shoppers in the household reported some difficulty in persuading other family members (e.g. husbands and children) to accept dietary changes and even resorted to deception!
· Of the children’s favourite meals, 40% contained meat, 9% were fish-based and 51% were meat and fish free, of which around half contained diary (cheese/eggs). The word cloud below, where the size of the word denotes frequency, gives you an idea of the kind of meals kids chose).
What went well and what could be improved?
We planned the activities well in advance, created a risk assessment to deal with eventualities, and ensured we had plenty of staff on hand to ensure all visitors were engaged with — even at busy times — and the staff themselves could rota breaks. The real food was a great way to draw people in. Our branded T-shirts also helped the visitors distinguish us a team and feel confident in asking questions. We kept printed materials to a minimum but still overestimated visitors’ ability or preparedness to read in such a noisy, busy, time-poor environment so verbal instructions or explanations are of prime importance. We were also surprised by the difficult questions asked, especially about areas outside our research specialisms, so next time a crib sheet or a resource to point people towards would be good.
How has this impacted the research?
Super Science Saturday was lots of fun and researchers gained valuable hands-on experience of delivering a public engagement activity and explaining complex research in lay terms. Our simple tally sheets to evaluate simple questions about awareness and preferences, combined with theme analysis of interactions in a post-event team debrief, allowed us to create a useful benchmark from which to think about how to move forward with areas of research. For example, we had been surprised at two specific reactions to meat substitutes: firstly suspicion (‘fake food’) and second, disappointment (not necessarily healthier), so when the Health Behaviours Team start to plan interventions in a retail environment later this year, issues of nutritional composition and nomenclature (can you really call something a ‘sausage’ if it doesn’t contain meat?) can be considered. Similarly the matter of gender in a household, typified by a male preference for meat and the female partner’s hurdles in initiating dietary change, could be a fruitful area for further work.
What next?
Follow us here on Medium where we’ll be publishing more articles soon.
If you liked this article please ‘applaud’ it to help spread the word and let others find it.
Want to read more? Try our articles on: Imagining the future of healthcare, Who shot the Dodo? or Policy-making and parliament in an era of ‘post-truth’.
Are you a member of the University who wants to write for us on Medium? Get in touch with us here with your ideas: digicomms@admin.ox.ac.uk.
