People are attached to eating meat for a variety of reasons [to quantify attachment, see Delaunay et al. 2025].
Calls for hard interventionism, as promoted by the EAT/FOLU network [see elsewhere], are taken to even further and more extreme levels by certain philanthrocapitalists and activists within NGOs, transnational organizations, and academia [Leroy et al. 2023]. Bill Gates, a major investor in vegan tech [see elsewhere], has expressed his support of the use of regulation to move rich countries fully into 100% synthetic beef [Temple 2021].
- Reducing affordability and access
Because 'enhancement in taste of vegetarian food is not sufficiently motivating' [Pohlmann 2021], some academics argue that a transition away from meat should ‘rely less on consumers’ willpower and more on public policies and institutional measures that change the availability, price, and visibility of plant-based meals’ while challenging meals with meat as the default option [Baptista et al. 2015]. The EAT-Lancet Commission has similarly advocated for hard policy levers (including the restriction of dietary choice) because 'the scale of change to the food system is unlikely to be successful if left to the individual or the whim of consumer choice' (emphasis added) [Willett et al. 2019]. Such views are supported EAT's allies, such as the World Wildlife Fund [WWF 2020] and World Resources Institute [Ranganathan et al. 2016]. For example, prices could be increased through meat and dairy taxes [Burgess 2021; Springmann et al. 2025], which may lead to reduced food security and regressive effects, especially for lower-income households [Charlebois et al. 2024]. Even a full-blown legal ban on animal source foods has been proposed [Deckers 2013, 2016; Malm 2020]. Christiana Figueres [UNFCCC’s ex-Executive Secretary, and member of the board of directors of both WRI and Impossible Foods; see elsewhere] has suggested to expel meat eaters from restaurants, equating them to smokers [Vella 2018].
- Psychological intimidation
Some scientists go so far as to suggest encouragement of 'compassion-inducing visual stimuli' on product packaging or restaurant decor [Pohlmann 2021], the use of virtual reality to weaponize empathy as a psychological mechanism to reduce meat consumption [Hou et al. 2024], the 'development of disgust-based interventions to reduce meat intake' [Becker & Lawrence 2021], for instance by 'deliberately tainting meat blue' [Spence 2021], using 'meat-shaming' techniques [Kranzbühler & Schifferstein 2023], creating feelings of regret and guilt [Duong et al. 2024], helping people to overcome meat eating by making them allergic to beef using 'meat patches' that are akin to nicotine patches [Liao 2017], and setting up public communication campaigns to attack the 'established association between meat consumption and desirable masculine traits' [Warlop 2021]. Emotive and anxiety-inducing communication is already becoming more common, directly targeting children and representing meat as evil and threatening food choices [Greenpeace 2020].