Iryna Herzon & Rachel Mazac
Navigating the “Less but Better” approach in the context of meat
Livestock production has a profound impact on many aspects of the societies and planet. As we grapple with the environmental consequences and sociocultural norms of meat consumption, the concept of “less but better” has emerged as a pragmatic approach to promoting sustainable dietary changes (1). It advocates for reduced meat consumption while emphasizing sustainably produced, high-quality products. But what does this mean in practice? And would consumers who have access to ‘better’ meat also reduce their consumption, thus connecting “better” with “less”?
A recent study (2) conducted by researchers at the University of Helsinki and Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University delves into the concept of “Less but Better”. There is not much evidence that people in their everyday lives would eat less when they can choose better products.
The Environmental Footprint of Livestock Production
Before delving into the specifics, let’s acknowledge the environmental challenges posed by livestock production and consumption. A leading cause of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, biodiversity loss of natural ecosystems displaced by expansion of agricultural lands, and of intensified production practices on farmland, the global production of and demand for meat and dairy has significant repercussions (3). Adverse impacts of the livestock farming on air, land, soil, water, biodiversity, and human health continue to increase despite numerous production improvements. The contradiction between the increasing global demand for meat and dairy and the sustainability prerogative of staying within the biophysical planetary boundaries highlights the need for a transition to diets with less animal products in high-income, and increasingly so, middle-income countries. While acknowledging important roles of livestock in our food systems, we must explore ways towards the transition.
Natural Pasture-Raised Beef: A Sustainable Choice with a Caveat
In Finland, a small number of discerning buyers seek out natural pasture-raised beef (known as “luonnonlaidunliha”). These cattle graze on pastures outside of cultivated fields with non-sown vegetation and without fertilization or other inputs. Through this, the cattle maintain traditional bio-cultural pastoral habitats that are exceptionally biologically diverse and highly endangered in modern rural landscapes. They eat almost entirely locally produced grass. In Finland, meat products are often sold directly to committed customers. Yet, what makes this beef “better” in the eyes of those who buy it at a premium price? Our study, based on 21 interviews with buyers in Southern Finland, reveals intriguing insights.
Animal welfare: Buyers of natural pasture-raised beef prioritize animal welfare. Indeed, natural pasture-raised cattle roam in herds on pastures that are not “improved” agronomically, thus grazing a wide variety of native plants, including trees and bushes, and experience a life closer to their natural state.
Health and naturalness: Interviewees appreciate the perceived health benefits of pasture-raised beef. Moreover, the perceived “naturalness” of the production process resonates with those seeking transparency and authenticity in their food choices.
Origin matters: Buyers stress their interest in food origin and production context of this natural pasture-raised meat. Domestically produced beef is regarded as better than imported alternatives, while cattle production is seen as an especially cogent and important part of Northern European agriculture. Supporting local farmers who prioritize sustainable practices also emerges as important to buyers.
Taste: Interestingly, though the understanding that more sustainable means “better” meat is highlighted, it is taste and eating qualities that emerge as the most critical consideration when purchasing such premium-priced beef. Despite the emphasis on sustainability, consumers still want, above all, a delightful culinary experience.
The Ambiguity of “Less but Better”
While interviewees unanimously consider meat part of a sustainable diet, most of them also recognize the need of reducing meat consumption globally. However, one of the most intriguing findings is an ambiguous relationship between “better” and “less”. Prioritizing “better” may lead in opposite directions: some may reduce or intent to reduce their consumption and thus go for “less”. For some, having access to “better” provides a moral justification to maintain the status quo or even encourages increased meat consumption.
In reality, only a small fraction, perhaps 10%, of the domestic production of beef can be produced on natural pastures due to their extreme rarity in modern agricultural landscapes. Our work in progress indicate that cattle produced on any pasture in Finland, natural or not, would only be able to supply under the half of the current production level. Similar estimates have been achieved for a neighboring Sweden (4). There is an emerging understanding that through less production and consumption, we can make better also possible (5).
Conclusion
There is much further work needed to navigate the intricacies of the “less but better” approach and not only in food. When you see a t-shirt from organic cotton, would you be more likely to buy it because it is “better” or leave it on the shelf, opting for having “less”? While conscientious purchasing choices are important, we need to remind ourselves that pasture-raised beef cannot be produced at scale to satisfy the current appetite for meat, not in this country and not for the world population. Also, “less but better” approach places much of the burden of change on consumer willingness to make substantial personal changes. Policy and economic incentives should be directed also at other actors in food systems, including retail that often mediates the pricing, the availability and the attractiveness. This is crucial for creating an understanding that (ecological) sustainability is a shared and ultimately positive undertaking, for which all participants in the food system are responsible.
References:
- Resare Sahlin, K., Röös, E. and Gordon, L.J., 2020. ‘Less but better’meat is a sustainability message in need of clarity. Nature Food, 1(9), pp.520-522.
- Mazac et al. 2025. Does “better” mean “less”? Sustainable meat consumption in the context of natural pasture-raised beef. Agric Hum Values https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10707-2
- Bowles, N., Alexander, S. and Hadjikakou, M., 2019. The livestock sector and planetary boundaries: a ‘limits to growth’perspective with dietary implications. Ecological Economics, 160, pp.128-136.
- Röös, Elin, Mikaela Patel, Johanna Spångberg, Georg Carlsson, and Lotta Rydhmer. 2016. Limiting livestock production to pasture and by-products in a search for sustainable diets. Food Policy 58. Elsevier: 1–13.
- Herzon, I., Mazac, R., Erkkola, M., Garnett, T., Hansson, H., Jonell, M., Kaljonen, M., Kortetmäki, T., Lamminen, M., Lonkila, A. and Niva, M., 2024. Both downsizing and improvements to livestock systems are needed to stay within planetary boundaries. Nature food, 5(8), pp.642-645.
Photo: Anne Honkanen