$ £ ¥€ social sciences Article Framing Food Transition: The Debate on Meat Production and Climate Change in Three European Countries Dolors Palau-Sampio 1, * , Rubén Rivas-de-Roca 2 and Emilio Fernández-Peña 3 1 Department of Language Theory and Communication Sciences, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain 2 Department of Journalism II, University of Seville, 41092 Seville, Spain 3 Department of Audiovisual Communication and Advertising, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain * Correspondence: dolors.palau@uv.es Abstract: The link between meat production and climate change has fostered increasing social debate in recent years. Livestock is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, among other global problems attached to the meat industry. However, this debate is often presented as one-dimensional, without a comprehensive approach. As the media plays a key role in shaping public perceptions of nutrition, this study aims to examine how the matter of food transition and climate change is addressed by three centre-left media outlets from Germany (Der Tagesspiegel), the United Kingdom (The Guardian) and Spain (El País). A search including the words *meat* and *climate change* in different languages, performed over one year (2021), resulted in a sample of available news items (N = 273). Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we analysed the coverage in terms of scope and use of frames. The results showed a scant number of news items combining climate change and meat consumption, though there were some differences indicating a greater awareness in the United Kingdom. Most of the news items from the three countries applied frames based on solutions from an environmental perspective. Media attention was discontinuous and sometimes determined by political debates, Citation: Palau-Sampio, Dolors, which made it difficult to reflect upon the underlying issues. Rubén Rivas-de-Roca, and Emilio Fernández-Peña. 2022. Framing Food Keywords: climate change; livestock; meat consumption; meat production; cultivated meat; media Transition: The Debate on Meat framing; food transition; food system; Europe Production and Climate Change in Three European Countries. Social Sciences 11: 567. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/socsci11120567 1. Introduction Academic Editor: Nigel Parton Meat production represents a critical challenge in the climate change debate, as it Received: 16 October 2022 involves the difficulty of reconciling many conflicting and relevant interests. The Food and Accepted: 30 November 2022 Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recognises that livestock systems are Published: 2 December 2022 a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for almost 14.5% of the total (FAO Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 2020a), although new research has put the figure at 16.5% (Twine 2021). At the same time, with regard to jurisdictional claims in its role is crucial to enhance the livelihoods of almost a fifth of the population since animal published maps and institutional affil- rearing on farms can be particularly effective at reducing hunger and poverty (FAO 2022). iations. However, it requires sufficient guarantees for sustainability as the global food structure shoulders the very stability of the Earth system (Rockström et al. 2020). The dominant agricultural and food systems have been widely criticised for their multiple failures in preventing the depletion of environmental resources and for not Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. providing universal access to healthy food (Hebinck et al. 2021; Firbank et al. 2018). It Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. is not only “the single largest greenhouse-gas-emitting sector in the world”, but also This article is an open access article “by far the largest cause of biodiversity loss, terrestrial ecosystem destruction, freshwa- distributed under the terms and ter consumption, and waterway pollution due to overuse of nitrogen and phosphorus” conditions of the Creative Commons (Rockström et al. 2020, p. 1). Untying the Gordian knot of meat production entails sus- Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tainable livestock management, which has the potential to contribute to achieving the creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (FAO 2020b) provided that measures to enhance 4.0/). Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11120567 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 2 of 15 production efficiency (Gerber et al. 2013) and policies aimed at an urgent and “irrefutable” food system transformation (Webb et al. 2020) are implemented. World population growth and the increase in meat consumption per capita has resulted in an overall rise in global meat production and consumption (Vranken et al. 2014), driven in part by globalisation practices (Popkin 2006). In 2021, the world’s total meat production reached 355.5 million tons, up 4.5% from 2020. Despite the pandemic and logistic problems, meat exports reached 42.1 million tons in 2021, up 0.9% (FAO 2022). Research has focused on the nutrition/health, economic, environmental and social costs of meat overconsumption (Rust et al. 2020; Drewnowski et al. 2020) to underline that unsustainable food production and consumption negatively affect human and environmental health (Nyström et al. 2019). Whilst meat contains essential nutrients and makes a vital contribution to nutrition and food security (Vågsholm et al. 2020), excessive consumption has been associated with adverse health outcomes (Murphy and Allen 2003). In addition to that is the serious pressure of greenhouse gas emissions caused by intensive livestock production (Garnett 2009). The current context of rising levels of consumption in high meat-eating countries puts the possibility of keeping the global temperature rise below 2 ◦ C at serious risk, as first established at COP15 held in Denmark in 2009, and also limits the chances of achieving the United Nations SDGs (IPCC 2019; UN 2019). Faced with this scenario, transitioning towards sustainable diets is urgently needed and widely accepted (Hawkes and Popkin 2015; Rust et al. 2020; Zou et al. 2022). El Bilali et al. (2019) suggested three main strategies to encourage a sustainable transition of food systems, under the premise that they should be resilient: efficiency enhancement (e.g., sustainable intensification), demand restraint (e.g., sustainable diets reducing meat consumption) and food system transformation (e.g., alternative food systems). However, there is no consensus as to whether this is the best alternative (Zou et al. 2022), and the instruments for such a transformation are very limited (Butler et al. 2021). The urgency has led some authors to call for “suitable and applicable tools for assessing any proposed solutions” (Clément and Ajena 2021), and for fostering a shift towards a sustainable food system that also promotes “livelihoods and food cultures while being fair, just, and equitable” (Drewnowski et al. 2020, p. 1). The complexity of the issue is reflected in the wide-ranging debate, in which domains such as health, ethics, politics, economics and technology come together. However, this debate is often presented as one-dimensional and lacking in a comprehensive approach that it necessarily entails. This is particularly relevant to the media, which plays a central role in shaping public perceptions on diet and nutrition (Frewer et al. 1995; Mroz and Painter 2022). The aim of this study is to understand how the debate on food transition and climate change is addressed by three European media outlets from Germany, the United Kingdom (UK) and Spain to identify its scope and the predominant frames in media coverage. 1.1. Food Transition and Alternatives The idea of food transition entails a progressive change in the way humankind pro- duces and consumes in order to reach “a sustainable, affordable, trustworthy and high- quality food system” to “fulfil the needs of a diverse and growing world population” (Kampers and Fresco 2017). The process requires time and various adjustments to fit the diverse pieces of a complex puzzle together and to ensure the availability of “adequate, sustainable and healthy food in a healthy environment” (Kampers and Fresco 2017). The ful- filment of these criteria has multiple implications, from healthy products, protein transition, animal welfare, fair trade, local food, urban agriculture or non-food waste to innovations such as customised food or cultivated meat and also trends such as comfort, exclusivity or going back to nature (Warnaar and Methorst 2017). Based on the environmental justice approach, Tribaldos and Kortetmäki (2022) ad- vocate a holistic understanding of health under the assumption that it encompasses both human health and ecosystem health. Considering that food system transitions may cause significant adverse effects and aggravate existing inequalities and unsustainability, those authors call for justice issues to be put at the heart of the debate in order to make food Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 3 of 15 transitions inclusive. In this vein, Almiron and Zoppeddu (2015) highlight the close link between livestock meat production and animal cruelty (e.g., confinement, exploitation, genetic modification, mutilation), which activists, NGOs and scholars have denounced over the past 30 years. In the ethical dimension, there has been criticism of speciesism discrimination (DeGrazia 1996; Singer 2009). Hundscheid et al. (2022) stress that with a few exceptions, policy interventions supporting a sustainable protein transition—“change from a diet with a high proportion of animal proteins to a higher proportion of plant proteins” (p. 301)—are missing in European countries. Research highlights the symbolic connotations and cultural conventions of meat in Western countries (Siegrist and Hartmann 2020) and its association with individual freedom (Warde 2013), which together hinder the change, even though the issue of meat overconsumption is increasingly entering the public debate (Hundscheid et al. 2022). An example is the article published in July 2021 by the Spanish Consumer Affairs Minister Alberto Garzón, who advocated reducing meat consumption as one of the measures to lower the impact of climate change and also to improve citizens’ health. First published by a digital newspaper, the article entitled ‘Menos carne, más vida’ (Less meat, more life) (Garzón 2021) had a huge impact when the Minister posted a six-minute video on his Twitter account warning that high meat consumption harms our health and our planet. However, the message resulted in a strongly polarised political debate, in which there was verbal confrontation rather than an exchange of ideas or an opportunity to examine the challenge of promoting ecological transition in depth (Palau-Sampio and Picó 2021). 1.2. Framing the Role of Animal Agriculture in Climate Change Despite scientific evidence of the relationship between animal meat production and its harsh impact on the environment, this issue has received very little attention from Western media (Neff et al. 2008; Almiron and Zoppeddu 2015). Some authors refer to an “aware- ness gap” (Bailey et al. 2014) when addressing the livestock sector’s influence on climate change. Even when the media acknowledged the link, they avoided suggesting changes in individual or public behaviour, as Kiesel (2010) observed. Similarly, research carried out on media from Spain and Italy emphasised the underrepresented role of animal agriculture in climate change and the presentation of “carnist traits more frequently than frames in defence of nonhuman animals” (Almiron and Zoppeddu 2015; Moreno and Almiron 2021). More recently, Hundscheid et al. (2022) stressed that the barrier to transitioning is food that represents the culturally high status of meat within the “Austrian protein regime”. Kristiansen et al. (2021) observed similar patterns in their analysis of the UK and American elite media from 2006 to 2018, with a low volume of coverage and a tendency to mention consumer responsibility more than that of governments or large-scale livestock farms. These results contrast with the 2005–2009 coverage of the Meat Free Monday’s campaign in the UK—a civil society initiative that challenged meat-centric diets—that revealed a relatively balanced picture of both positive and negative reporting, and a position that was “slightly more inclined than not to conceptualise eating less meat” (Morris 2018). Together with underrepresentation, polarisation has been another drawback in media coverage of the issue. The study by Sievert et al. (2022), including four major red and processed meat (RPM) producing and consuming countries (United States, UK, Australia and New Zealand), concluded that polarisation has led to a binary conflict between pro- and antimeat reduction actors. These authors consider that this division may mean that political leaders will give less priority to it in policy agendas and suggest that “nuanced and context-dependent messaging could ensure the narratives around meat are less conflicting and more effective in addressing health and environmental harms associated with RPM” (Sievert et al. 2022). Regarding the influence of social media as sources of information for many people (Shehata and Strömbäck 2021), the study by Maye et al. (2021) focused on the role of animal agriculture in climate change on Twitter and revealed two key insights: the limited evidence of an encompassing debate and the prominent use of this platform for marketing purposes, Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 4 of 15 both commercial (#sustainablemeat) or linked to planetary issues or ‘vegan’ narratives (#eatlessmeat). A core part of research dealing with the debate on livestock and climate change is that of monitoring how the media presents the impact of innovation and technology on meat production under different names: curated meat, customised meat and in vitro meat. Early studies suggested the influence of media coverage on cultured meat—genuine animal meat produced by cultivating animal cells directly—on consumers’ perceptions (Goodwin and Shoulders 2013), highlighting certain aspects of the concept (Laestadius et al. 2016) or shifting individuals’ opinions in a positive or negative direction (Bekker et al. 2017). Goodwin and Shoulders (2013) observed a neutral or positive association in media from both the United States and the European Union, as news articles “commonly discuss cultured meat in terms of benefits, history, process, time, livestock production problems, and skepticism” by relying on sources that are proponents of cultured meat, mainly in print media. Bryant (2020) considers that this fact “may partially explain the more positive attitudes of those who are more familiar with the concept because they presumably become familiar through the media”. The biotechnological component of curated meat opens ethical debates that will shape the future viability of this technology and its acceptability for potential consumers. Research carried out by Dilworth and McGregor (2015) comparing Australian discourses in academic literature and mainstream print media found that, while in the first “discourses relating to in vitro meat’s promised environmental, animal welfare and food security benefits are most prominent”, “ontological struggles over its ‘nature’ have emerged as the dominant feature in the Australian print media”. Hopkins (2015) noted that Western media gives “a distorted picture of what obstacles are in the path of cultured meat acceptance”, especially by overrepresenting the importance of the reception of cultured meat among vegetarians. Furthermore, Bryant and Dillard (2019) demonstrated that frames emphasising the “high tech” elements of cultured meat may be causing consumers to develop more negative attitudes towards it, in contrast to frames stressing the societal benefits of cultured meat or its sensory similarity to conventional meat. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Data Collection and Sample This study analyses how the debate on climate change and meat consumption is addressed in three European countries: Germany, the UK and Spain. This selection follows three criteria: (1) representativity in terms of population, as they are the first, third and fifth most populated countries in Europe; (2) belonging to different media systems (Hallin and Mancini 2004); and (3) a dissimilar presence of the green vote in the 2019 European election (Pearson and Rüdig 2020) (higher in Germany, average in the UK—where the first Green party in Europe was formed—and residual in Spain). Green parties secured 21 seats out of a total of 96 in Germany (B’90/Grüne), 7 out of 73 in the UK (Green Party of England and Wales) and 1 out of 54 in Spain (Catalunya en Comú) (European Parliament 2019). Previous research has found that right-leaning newspapers showed a higher degree of scepticism and contrarianism in reporting the relationship between meat eating and climate change (Almiron and Zoppeddu 2015). A conservative vision of society is understood as being right leaning, so we focused on progressive left-leaning media—based on ideas such as rights and reform—to observe nuanced differences by country in how the debate is framed. To this end, we selected three newspapers representative of the centre-left editorial line in each country: Der Tagesspiegel (TZ), The Guardian (GU) and El País (EP). All three are published in the state capital of the respective countries, and even though the German Der Tagesspiegel has a regional target, it is influential throughout the country. Beyond that, the centre-left ideology has traditionally been more sensitive to environmental problems. The sample was collected between 1 January and 31 December 2021, following two steps. Firstly, by carrying out a search on two keywords in the Mynews database: *meat* and *climate change* and their respective translation into German—*fleisch* and *kli- Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 5 of 15 maschutz* *umweltschutz*, as both of the latter are used indistinctly—and Spanish— *carne* and *cambio climático*—we obtained a total of 981 items including these words. Secondly, by means of a manual search, we only selected those articles dealing with the study issues (N = 273). The items returned after this search were extracted in an Excel document including the title, date of publication and link to the digital edition. 2.2. Data Analysis Method The analysis was based on quantitative methods to identify coverage and relevance patterns and qualitative methods to define the focus. Following the designed datasheet (Table 1), we wanted to discover the emphasis given by the different media outlets in terms of the number and frequency of items published, the section in which they appeared, the journalistic genre presented and the resources invested in reporting and writing the tasks. Table 1. Datasheet for quantitative analysis. Reference Options Type of text News, Opinion International, Politics, Economics, Society (Education, Food, Health, Section Innovation and Technology), Environment, Opinion, Lifestyle, Other Editorial, Column, Piece of News, Analysis, Interview, Reportage, Genre Profile Professional resources Bylined by a journalist, Not bylined, News agency, Other The qualitative analysis relies on framing theory, which states that a media outlet selects a particular approach (frame) to report a fact (Entman 1993). The study of frames allows the premises and representations of the debate on climate change and meat transition to be identified. Starting with the proposal by Moreno and Almiron (2021) and drawing on previous works dealing with the topic (Palau-Sampio and Picó 2021), a codebook was designed after carrying out a process of reading and reflecting on the items included in the sample. Following this path, three macroframes were identified: responsibility for global warming linked to meat production and consumption; diagnosis, i.e., an analysis based on the symptoms observed; and the solutions offered. Each one was further developed into more specific frames (Table 2). Table 2. Categories used for frame analysis. Frame Characteristics Negationist Denial of climate change and liability exclusion Refers to both farm livestock production and the meat Corporative Responsibility industry Focuses on governments, politicians and public policies to Political regulate the effects of meat production and consumption on climate change Identifies humans as being responsible for the main impact Human beings on climate change since protein diets, traditionally linked to men, cause more emissions Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 6 of 15 Table 2. Cont. Frame Characteristics Relates the dual climate emissions and health effect of meat Worsening of overconsumption human health Emphasises the connection between meat production and the devastation of rain forest to make space for agriculture Linked to global and animal grazing, or between meat production and problems altering land-use practices (i.e., crop replacement) in a Diagnosis context of overpopulation Criticism of public actors responsible for announcing plans Inconsistency of that are never implemented, or the incongruency of public plans and actions actors when defending meat reduction to prevent climate emissions Underlines that the approach to the topic remains merely as Political conflict political confrontation and avoids in-depth debate on meat shadows debate consumption and climate change Relates to the environmental, economic and ethical Sustainable questions involved in livestock farming methods and meat livestock farming production, e.g., rearing conditions, impact on the and animal welfare ecosystem and effect on costs Calls for a holistic treatment of the complex phenomenon, analysing and interrelating multiple factors linked to Systemic change climate change that should be considered, including just transition measures Solutions Presents artificial meat as a solution to replace farmed meat Cultured meat without creating environmental problems Veganism, vegetarianism and meatless diets are the most Plant-based food sustainable ones. Use of insects as a protein source is also and insects emphasised Education and Highlights the role of citizens in changing their eating consumer habits and the importance of involving schools responsibility Innovation and Optimism about the climate solutions offered by technology technologies and innovation Others Options not included in the previous sections The sample was analysed manually by two coders. First, a pre-test of 15% of the sample (41 items) was conducted to calculate intercoder agreement. Scott’s Pi formula reached an acceptable error level of 0.87, scoring over 80% for all variables. However, the categories with the biggest mismatches were further developed to improve reliability. A previous round of coding training was also held, so both coders were familiar with the datasheet. The study results were obtained from a descriptive analysis of the categories. The said analysis was mixed with bilateral tests for the proportion of columns based on the Bonferroni correction, targeting the divergences among the analysed sections, although the z-test for pairwise comparisons was limited due to the size of the sample. The null hypothesis for sections under consideration was equal. This study aims to answer the following three research questions (RQs) relating to coverage, relevance and the focus of the published text: RQ1: Which media outlet devoted greater attention to the meat consumption and climate change debate? How was publishing distributed over time? RQ2: Which genres were employed by the analysed media outlets? Did they allocate in- house professional resources to cover the issue? Which sections hosted the items published? Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 7 of 15 RQ3: Which main frames were present in the articles analysed? How were they used by each newspaper in specific sections? 3. Results This section presents, under three subheadings, the results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis, in order of the research questions formulated above. 3.1. Coverage of the Issue The level of attention that newspapers paid to debates on meat consumption and climate change is an interesting way to assess the media agenda. To answer RQ1, the number of news items on climate change published by each specific newspaper is presented. According to the data collected from the Mynews database (Table 3), these media outlets published a lot of articles on climate change (N = 6506 articles), but its association with meat consumption was limited (N = 981 articles). In 2021 specifically, The Guardian had much more news on climate change, whereas El País and Der Tagesspiegel offered quite an even number of pieces. It should be noted that while references to climate change and meat appeared several times in El País, these issues were not dealt with properly, thus explaining why its final sample was 56. Table 3. Number of articles resulting from a Mynews search of ‘Climate change’ and ‘Climate change and meat’. Climate Change Final Media Outlet Climate Change 1 and Meat 1 Sample 1 elpais.com (EP) 1519 457 56 theguardian.uk (GU) 3369 391 156 taz.de (TZ) 1618 133 61 Total 6506 981 273 1 Translated into the respective language of the newspapers. As stated, the study results showed that The Guardian devoted more attention to the issue, while Der Tagesspiegel and El País scarcely accounted for a fifth of the sample (Figure 1a). Interestingly, the frequency of publishing and distribution experienced abrupt changes when considered monthly. Although fluctuations could be observed in all three newspapers, these were particularly evident in The Guardian and El País. Figure 1b shows that the peaks of each media outlet did not follow a common pattern. In this sense, October was the most productive month for The Guardian, July for El País and March for Der Tagesspiegel. In all three, media attention was linked to public agenda issues: COP26 held in Glasgow (GU), the controversy surrounding the video posted by the Spanish Consumer Affairs Minister Alberto Garzón (EP) and the debate on the agricultural reforms under the new government (TZ). A detailed observation showed that July and, to a lesser extent, September, were the only periods in which all three media outlets had a positive evolution. was the most productive month for The Guardian, July for El País and March for Der Tagess- piegel. In all three, media attention was linked to public agenda issues: COP26 held in Glasgow (GU), the controversy surrounding the video posted by the Spanish Consumer Affairs Minister Alberto Garzón (EP) and the debate on the agricultural reforms under the new government (TZ). A detailed observation showed that July and, to a lesser extent, Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 8 of 15 September, were the only periods in which all three media outlets had a positive evolu- tion. (a) (b) Figure 1. (a) Figure 1. (a) Percentage Percentageofofthe thesample samplepublished published byby each each media media outlet outlet including including ‘Climate ‘Climate change change and and meat’; (b) publishing distribution by month for each meat’; (b) publishing distribution by month for each media.media. 3.2. Relevance and Resources Allocated Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 To answer RQ2, different aspects were analysed. First were the characteristics of the texts published by the media outlet. The The results results showed showed that, that, in all the outlets, opinion prevailed, albeit pieces prevailed, albeitwith withvarying varyingstrength. strength.InIn this this sense, sense, almost almost 40%40% of the of the articles articles on on the the issue issue in El in El País País were were opinion opinion texts, texts, whereasthe whereas thefigure figurewas wasbelow below20%20%inin both both The Guardian and Der Tagesspiegel Tagesspiegel (Figure (Figure 2). 2). (a) (b) Figure Figure 2. 2. (a) (a) Type Type of text in of text in the the sample; sample; (b) (b) distribution distribution by by media media outlet outlet and and type type of of text. text. Secondly, to to obtain obtainaabetter betterunderstanding understanding ofofthethe type of resources type of resources allocated, bothboth allocated, the pieces produced the pieces by journalists produced or columnists by journalists and the or columnists andgenres employed the genres in thein employed articles were the articles considered. On theOn were considered. one hand, the it is noteworthy one hand, that 94.5% it is noteworthy that of the texts 94.5% were of the textsbylined, mean- were bylined, ing that the meaning thatnewspapers the newspapers werewere committed committed to providing to providing their theirreaders readerswith withdifferentiated differentiated and comprehensive comprehensive information. information. Only Only 2.2% 2.2% ofof the the texts texts were were either either not not bylined bylined or were presented withwithaageneric genericidentification identification(e.g., El El (e.g., País), País), andandthe the rest rest included includededitorials (not editorials (not bylined bylined as they as they represent represent the the editorial editorial position position of of thethemedia mediaoutlet), outlet),pieces piecesfrom from news agencies or aa mix mixofofthe theforegoing. foregoing.On Onthetheother other hand, hand, news newsemerged emerged as the as themost prominent most promi- genre in each media outlet, present in almost 46% of the sample. Columns nent genre in each media outlet, present in almost 46% of the sample. Columns accounted accounted for a fiftha of for theof fifth sample, while while the sample, editorial piecespieces editorial accounted for a much accounted for a lower much proportion (2.6%). lower proportion Considering (2.6%). the sum Considering the ofsum the remaining genres,genres, of the remaining they accounted for less they accounted forthanlessathan thirda third of all articles, of distributed all articles, as follows: distributed reportage, as follows: interview, reportage, analysis interview, and profile analysis (Figure and profile 3). (Figure 3). presented with a generic identification (e.g., El País), and the rest included editorials (not bylined as they represent the editorial position of the media outlet), pieces from news agencies or a mix of the foregoing. On the other hand, news emerged as the most promi- nent genre in each media outlet, present in almost 46% of the sample. Columns accounted for a fifth of the sample, while editorial pieces accounted for a much lower proportion Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 9 of 15 (2.6%). Considering the sum of the remaining genres, they accounted for less than a third of all articles, distributed as follows: reportage, interview, analysis and profile (Figure 3). (a) (b) Figure 3. (a) Figure 3. (a) Percentage Percentage of of journalistic journalistic genres genres referred referred to to the the items items included included in in the the general general sample; sample; (b) percentage of items per genre published by media outlet (b) percentage of items per genre published by media outlet (%). (%). Finally, we analysed Finally, we analysed the the sections sections that that hosted hosted the the selected selected news news items items in in order order to to moni- mon- itor Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW theirdistribution tor their distribution and and affiliation affiliation (Figure (Figure 4). 4). The The rubric rubric Environment Environment included almost 9 of 16 half of the texts published (47.2%), followed by Economy and Society. The six remaining sections accounted individually for less than 10% of the published articles discussing the relationship between relationship between meat meat production production and and climate climate change. While International, change. While International, Opinion Opinion and Lifestyle reached or exceeded 5%, Politics and Culture did not. and Lifestyle reached or exceeded 5%, Politics and Culture did not. (a) (b) Figure Figure 4. 4. (a) (a)Percentage Percentage of of items items published published by by section section included included in in the the general general sample; sample; (b) (b) percentage percentage of items published by media outlet in each section (%). of items published by media outlet in each section (%). 3.3. Frames Frames Regarding Regarding the use of frames, as indicated in RQ3, most of the sample focused on frames that that tried triedtotoprovide providesolutions solutionstotothe problems the problems reported reported(59.1%). There (59.1%). waswas There a biga big difference difference between between diagnosis diagnosis (24.8%) (24.8%) andand responsibility responsibility (14.6%). (14.6%). Nevertheless, Nevertheless, some some di- divergences between newspapers are noteworthy (Figure 5). El País published vergences between newspapers are noteworthy (Figure 5). El País published almost the almost the same same number number of pieces of pieces on diagnosis on diagnosis (46.4%) (46.4%) as onassolutions on solutions (48.2%). (48.2%). By contrast, By contrast, the the rele- relevance vance of the of the solutions solutions waswas higher higher in in TheThe Guardian Guardian and DerTagesspiegel, andDer Tagesspiegel,as asthey they published published less in the other type of frames. Regarding the use of frames, as indicated in RQ3, most of the sample focused on frames that tried to provide solutions to the problems reported (59.1%). There was a big difference between diagnosis (24.8%) and responsibility (14.6%). Nevertheless, some di- vergences between newspapers are noteworthy (Figure 5). El País published almost the same number of pieces on diagnosis (46.4%) as on solutions (48.2%). By contrast, the rele- Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 10 of 15 vance of the solutions was higher in The Guardian and Der Tagesspiegel, as they published less in the other type of frames. (a) (b) Figure 5. Figure 5. (a) (a) Percentage Percentage of of news news by by group group of of frames frames included included in in the the general general sample; sample; (b) (b) percentage percentage of items published by media outlet in each big frame (%). of items published by media outlet in each big frame (%). In the In thesame samevein, vein, Table Table 4 furthers 4 furthers our understanding our understanding of the specific of the specific strategiesstrategies (frames) (frames) employed employed by theInmedia. by the media. In the the whole wholesolution sample, sample, frames solutionsuch frames such as sustainable as sustainable farming farming and andwelfare, animal animal welfare, systemicsystemic change change and plant-based and plant-based food and food and insects insects were were the the most most mentioned. The Guardian gave priority to these frames, which led to these mentioned. The Guardian gave priority to these frames, which led to these results. Likewise, results. Likewise, Der Der Tagesspiegel Tagesspiegel mostly usedmostly used a centred a perspective perspective centred onlivestock on sustainable sustainable livestock farming and farmingwelfare animal and animal welfare (n = 22). (n =these Again, 22). were Again, these were contrary contrary to the patterntoofthe pattern El País. TheofSpanish El País. newspaper The Spanishpublished newspaper a similar number published of items a similar in diagnosis number of itemsframes and solutions in diagnosis frames. frames and so- lutions frames. Table 4. Distribution of frames by newspaper according to the proposed categories (raw numbers). Total EP GU TZ Negationist 4 - 3 1 Corporative 18 - 15 3 Responsibility Political 15 2 10 3 Human beings 4 - 3 1 Worsening of human health 19 4 11 4 Linked to global problems 16 7 7 2 Diagnosis Inconsistency of plans and actions 20 6 12 2 Political conflict shadows debate 14 9 5 - Sustainable livestock farming and 44 1 1 21 22 animal welfare Systemic change 31 3 20 8 Solutions Cultured meat 16 4 10 2 Plant-based food and insects 30 7 15 8 Education and consumer responsibility 28 10 15 3 Innovation and technology 9 2 6 1 Others 5 1 3 1 1 Findings in bold indicate interesting trends. In addition, Figure 6 presents information about the distribution of groups of frames by section. Environment was the main section for all three big frames (responsibility, diagnosis and solutions), with a huge number of published news items on solutions being particularly outstanding. The number thereof (64.2%) was statistically significant at a p-value of 0.05 compared with the rest of the sample (N = 273) according to the Bonferroni correction. This pattern was also visible throughout the sample, since many sections mostly covered solutions. Conversely, diagnosis frames were more common in the Opinion (13) and International (9) sections. agnosis and solutions), with a huge number of published news items on solutions being particularly outstanding. The number thereof (64.2%) was statistically significant at a p- value of 0.05 compared with the rest of the sample (N = 273) according to the Bonferroni correction. This pattern was also visible throughout the sample, since many sections mostly covered solutions. Conversely, diagnosis frames were more common in the Opin- Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 11 of 15 ion (13) and International (9) sections. Figure 6. Percentage of items published by frame in each section of the sample (%). Figure 6. Percentage of items published by frame in each section of the sample (%). In order to find possible differences between the columns, the statistical analysis performed was a Z test for independent samples. Considering the results, the diagnosis of climate change and meat consumption problems was more likely to be an opinion or a reference to the international sphere, for instance, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP). Regarding responsibility, it mostly appeared in Environment (27), but also to some extent in Economy (8). On this matter, how the economy shapes food transition was relevant, showing that economic factors were key to evaluating this debate. 4. Discussion and Conclusions This article examined the media coverage of the challenging and multifaceted topic that is meat production and climate change, with enormous significance in the sociocultural, political and economic fields. From a comparative perspective, this study focused on media outlets from three European countries, each belonging to a different media system (Hallin and Mancini 2004) yet all having a centre-left editorial line. Three main conclusions can be highlighted. Firstly, attention to livestock as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions is limited, which is consistent with recent studies carried out in the UK and the US (Kristiansen et al. 2021). Even though the three analysed media outlets are sensitive to environmental issues—they include sections devoted to climate, ecology or environment, and allocate pro- fessional resources to cover them—the number of articles published is in line with previous studies (Almiron and Zoppeddu 2015; Kristiansen et al. 2021; Moreno and Almiron 2021). Moreover, the monthly distribution of publishing suffered abrupt changes across the year, particularly in El País and The Guardian. This finding overlaps with prior scholarship on the discontinuous and biased attention to environmental issues (Neff et al. 2008). However, differences among the outlets can be observed, as The Guardian was both the most involved with this topic and the most explicit in labelling its section as ‘Climate Crisis’, which shows a particular focus on this issue. It is important to stress that in 2021, the year analysed, the UK hosted the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, and the peak of publishing coincided with the event. Secondly, although news was the most prominent journalistic genre, it is worth men- tioning that El País, belonging to the Mediterranean Polarised/Pluralist media system, Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 12 of 15 devoted almost 40% of its publications to opinion items. Most of them were concentrated in July, linked to the video posted by the Spanish Consumer Affairs Minister. Most news items were linked to the solutions frame, as news focuses on particular facts, actions or statements but does not allow a more in-depth discussion, as is the case of reportage, analysis, interview or even opinion, a genre associated with the diagnosis frame. So, the multifactorial approach to climate change involving political, social and economic causes and consequences is restricted in the sample considered. Findings relating to frames and genres, focusing on solutions but making an abstraction on the contextual aspects, may be associated with counterproductive messages, as de Boer et al. (2013) stress, considering that, from the perspective of motivation, it is preferable not to isolate the meat–climate issue but to develop an approach that combines multiple values regarding food choices, including health and nature-related ones. Finally, this study offers insightful findings on the main frames in media coverage, with a particular focus on solution approaches. In this vein, the analysis shows that diagnosis frames aiming to evaluate the actions and implications of meat production and climate change constitute a secondary manifestation. This subordinate role contributes to a partial framing of the meat production and climate change discussion, as the link to human health or global problems and debate regarding plans and actions are underrepresented. Unlike solution-oriented coverage, responsibility only accounted for a seventh of the items in the sample; consequently, readers may have found it difficult to assess the role of every stakeholder involved in climate change. This also implies the perpetuation of biased coverage of both anthropogenic contributions to global warming and resultant action, as Boykoff and Boykoff (2004) revealed in their work on the American prestige press coverage of global warming. Similarly, a report on the coverage of the 2013 United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that many mainstream media outlets extended this bias by amplifying viewpoints questioning the role of human activity in global warming (Greenberg et al. 2013). In contrast to Kristiansen et al. (2021), we observed a shift in the responsibility attribution, with a major focus on corporate and political actors and a pedagogical orientation towards citizens, which is presented as a solutions frame. This issue deserves more attention in future research, as it may be influenced by the editorial line of the newspapers selected. The solutions frame includes a notable variety of options, since they range from systemic changes—including citizens involvement, sustainability and welfare—to marked technology-oriented solutions. This heterogeneity is consistent with the complexity of the topic and its diverse implications. On the one hand, the call for holistic treatment and consumer responsibility implies an important step forward, with differences among the media outlets analysed; there was a greater focus on systemic change in the UK and Germany, and on consumer responsibility promotion in Spain. On the other hand, and in contrast to the German and the British newspapers, the very little attention paid to sustainable livestock in the solutions frame by the Spanish newspaper is worthy of note. This is related to two events that happened in 2021: the video posted by the Spanish Consumer Affairs Minister Alberto Garzón and the subsequent interview in The Guardian (Jones 2021), in which sustainable livestock was openly addressed by Garzón, as was the need to reduce meat consumption to stop climate change and to improve health conditions. In both cases, however, political conflict shadowed debate. Spain is the biggest consumer of meat in Europe, with a consumption of 99 kg per person per year, and the EU country with the highest livestock population in 2019 (Eurostat 2020), which may explain the influence of the meat production industry in terms of silencing the debate on sustainable farming. More than a third of the items in the solutions frame are linked to commercial en- deavours, frequently under the guise of innovations in food technologies. The coverage— primarily event-driven and based on the frame of cultured meat as a scientific discovery (Botelho and Kurtz 2008)—is consistent with the news genre priority. While some studies stress that high-tech alternatives such as cultured meat (Bryant 2020) are promoted by in- Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 13 of 15 dustrial lobbies (Orset and Monnier 2020), others are critical of the widespread expectation that solutions require break-through novelties and highlights, and that the high-tech focus shadows meat options with greater sustainability potential, which receive little attention (Van der Weele et al. 2019). According to our study and consistent with prior scholarship (Dilworth and McGregor 2015), ethical discourses critical of the sociocultural ramifica- tions of solutions are currently under represented in the media, regardless of the different discursive trends. This study’s main limitation concerns the sample. We only included one media outlet per country, omitting the regional field and thus making it difficult to obtain representative data for further statistical analysis. Hence, the data need to be interpreted in a national context. However, newspapers with a predominantly rural readership, having a significant animal agriculture make up, are more likely to problematise demands for lower levels of meat eating (Morris 2018). Further research should expand the scope of this work by analysing coverage in urban communities and the countryside. In short, we argue that reporting the food transition involves many factors, which may explain why coverage is focused on environmental solutions. Moreover, in-depth semistructured interviews with journalists will also help us obtain a more nuanced understanding of coverage. Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, D.P.-S.; methodology, D.P.-S.; software, R.R.-d.-R.; vali- dation, D.P.-S., R.R.-d.-R. and E.F.-P.; formal analysis, R.R.-d.-R. and D.P.-S.; investigation, D.P.-S., R.R.-d.-R. and E.F.-P.; resources, R.R.-d.-R. and E.F.-P.; data curation, E.F.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.P.-S. and R.R.-d.-R.; writing—review and editing, D.P.-S., R.R.-d.-R. and E.F.-P.; vi- sualisation, R.R.-d.-R.; supervision, E.F.-P.; project administration, D.P.-S. and R.R.-d.-R.; funding acquisition, E.F.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This article is part of the R&D project “News puzzlement: Precarizased quality, over- (dis)information and polarization (Puzzleflows)” (reference CIAICO/2021/125), funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (2022–2024). Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Almiron, Núria, and Milena Zoppeddu. 2015. Eating Meat and Climate Change: The Media Blind Spot—A Study of Spanish and Italian Press Coverage. Environmental Communication 9: 307–25. [CrossRef] Bailey, Rob, Antony Froggatt, and Laura Wellesley. 2014. Livestock—Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption. London: Chatham House. Bekker, Gerben A., Arnout R. H. Fischer, Hilde Tobi, and Hans C. M. van Trijp. 2017. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite 108: 245–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Botelho, David, and Hilda Kurtz. 2008. The introduction of genetically modified food in the United States and the United Kingdom: A news analysis. The Social Science Journal 45: 13–27. [CrossRef] Boykoff, Maxwell T., and Jules M. Boykoff. 2004. Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14: 125–36. [CrossRef] Bryant, Christopher, and Courtney Dillard. 2019. The Impact of Framing on Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Frontiers in Nutrition 6: 103. [CrossRef] Bryant, Chistopher J. 2020. Culture, meat, and cultured meat. Journal of Animal Science 98: skaa172. [CrossRef] Butler, James R. A., Federico Davila, Robyn Alders, R. Michael Bourke, Steve Crimp, John McCarthy, Andrew McWilliam, Anton S. M. Palo, Lisa Robins, Michael J. Webb, and et al. 2021. A rapid assessment framework for food system shocks: Lessons learned from COVID-19 in the Indo-Pacific region. Environmental Science & Policy 117: 34–45. [CrossRef] Clément, Chantal, and Francesco Ajena. 2021. Paths of least resilience: Advancing a methodology to assess the sustainability of food system innovations—The case of CRISPR. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45: 637–53. [CrossRef] de Boer, Joop, Hanna Schösler, and Jan J. Boersema. 2013. Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple? Journal of Environmental Psychology 33: 1–8. [CrossRef] DeGrazia, David. 1996. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. New York: Cambridge University Press. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 14 of 15 Dilworth, Tasmin, and Andrew McGregor. 2015. Moral steaks? Ethical discourses of in vitro meat in academia and Australia. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 85–107. [CrossRef] Drewnowski, Adam, John Finley, Julie M. Hess, John Ingram, Gregory Miller, and Christian Peters. 2020. Toward healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Current Developments in Nutrition 4: nzaa083. [CrossRef] [PubMed] El Bilali, Hamid, Carolin Callenius, Carola Strassner, and Lorenz Probst. 2019. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security 8: e00154. [CrossRef] Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58. [CrossRef] European Parliament. 2019. 2019 European Election Results. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019 /en (accessed on 10 August 2022). Eurostat. 2020. Agricultural Production—Livestock and Meat. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ index.php?title=Agricultural_production_-_livestock_and_meat&oldid=549389#Meat_production (accessed on 10 August 2022). FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2020a. Finding Climate Solutions in the Livestock Sector. Available online: https://www.fao.org/climate-change/news/detail/en/c/1324024/ (accessed on 10 August 2022). FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2020b. Sustainable Livestock Development. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i6142e/i6142e.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2022). FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2022. Meat Market Review 2021. Available online: https://www.fao. org/3/cc0984en/cc0984en.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2022). Firbank, Leslie G., Simon Attwood, Vera Eory, Yiorgos Gadanakis, John Michael Lynch, Roberta Sonnino, and Taro Takahashi. 2018. Grand challenges in sustainable intensification and ecosystem services. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2: 7. [CrossRef] Frewer, Lynn J., Chaya Howard, and Richard Shepherd. 1995. Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance? British Food Journal 97: 31–36. [CrossRef] Garnett, Tara. 2009. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: Impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental Science & Policy 12: 491–503. [CrossRef] Garzón, Alberto. 2021. Menos carne, más vida [Less meat, more life]. Eldiario.es. Available online: https://www.eldiario.es/opinion/ tribuna-abierta/carne-vida_129_8110291.html (accessed on 10 August 2022). Gerber, Pierre, Henning Steinfeld, Benjamin Henderson, Anne Mottet, Carolyn Opio, Jeroen Dijkman, Alessandra Falcucci, and Giuseppe Tempio. 2013. Enfrentando el Cambio Climático a Través de la Ganadería. Una Evaluación Global de las Emisiones y Oportunidades de Mitigación. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: https://bit.ly/ 3qJEZun (accessed on 10 August 2022). Goodwin, James, and Catherine W. Shoulders. 2013. The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat Science 95: 445–50. [CrossRef] Greenberg, Max, Denise Robbins, and Shauna Theel. 2013. Media Sowed Doubt in Coverage of UN Climate Report. False Balance and “Pause” Dominated IPCC Coverage. Media Matters for America. Available online: http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/ 10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387 (accessed on 10 August 2022). Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hawkes, Corinna, and Barry M. Popkin. 2015. Can the sustainable development goals reduce the burden of nutrition-related non-communicable diseases without truly addressing major food system reforms? BMC Medicine 13: 143. [CrossRef] Hebinck, Aniek, Laurens Klerkx, Bolie Elzen, Kristiaan P. W. Kok, Bettina König, Katharina Schiller, Julia Tschersich, Barbara van Mierlon, and Timo von Wirth. 2021. Beyond food for thought–Directing sustainability transitions research to address fundamental change in agri-food systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 41: 81–85. [CrossRef] Hopkins, Patrick D. 2015. Cultured meat in western media: The disproportionate coverage of vegetarian reactions, demographic realities, and implications for cultured meat marketing. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14: 264–72. [CrossRef] Hundscheid, Laura, Maria Wurzinger, Astrid Gühnemann, Andreas H. Melcher, and Tobias Stern. 2022. Rethinking meat consumption– How institutional shifts affect the sustainable protein transition. Sustainable Production and Consumption 31: 301–12. [CrossRef] Jones, Sam. 2021. Spanish should eat less meat to limit climate crisis, says minister. The Guardian. Available online: https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/26/spanish-should-eat-less-meat-to-limit-climate-crisis-says-minister (accessed on 7 September 2022). Kampers, Frans W., and Louise O. Fresco. 2017. Food Transitions 2030: How to Achieve the Transitions to a Sustainable, Affordable, Trustworthy and High-Quality Food System in the Next Decade or Two That Will Fulfil the Needs of a Diverse and growing World Population. Wageningen: Wageningen University & Research. Available online: https://www.wur.nl/en/article/food-transitions-2030.htm (accessed on 10 August 2022). Kiesel, Laura. 2010. A comparative rhetorical analysis of U.S. and U.K. newspaper coverage of the correlation between livestock production and climate change. In Environmental Communication as a Nexus. Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Conference on Communication and the Environment. Edited by Eleanor Seitz, Travis P. Wagner and Laura Lindenfeld. Maine: University of Portland, Maine. Kristiansen, Silje, James Painter, and Megan Shea. 2021. Animal Agriculture and Climate Change in the US and UK Elite Media: Volume, Responsibilities, Causes and Solutions. Environmental Communication 15: 153–72. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 567 15 of 15 Laestadius, Linnea I., Ronnie A. Neff, Colleen L. Barry, and Shannon Frattaroli. 2016. No meat, less meat, or better meat: Understanding NGO messaging choices intended to alter meat consumption in light of climate change. Environmental Communication 10: 84–103. [CrossRef] Maye, Damian, John Fellenor, Clive Potter, Julie Urquhart, and Julie Barnett. 2021. What’s the beef?: Debating meat, matters of concern and the emergence of online issue publics. Journal of Rural Studies 84: 134–46. [CrossRef] Moreno, José A., and Núria Almiron. 2021. Representación en la prensa española del papel de la agricultura animal en la crisis climática: Falta de visibilidad y carnismo. Estudios Sobre el Mensaje Periodístico 27: 349–64. [CrossRef] Morris, Carol. 2018. Taking the politics out of broccoli’: Debating (De)meatification in UK national and regional newspaper coverage of the meat free Mondays campaign: Taking the politics out of broccoli. Sociologia Ruralis 58: 433–52. [CrossRef] Mroz, Gilly, and James Painter. 2022. One person’s meat is another’s poison: Representations of the meat-health nexus in UK news media. Health Promotion International 37: daac072. [CrossRef] Murphy, Suzanne P., and Lindsay H. Allen. 2003. Nutritional importance of animal source foods. The Journal of Nutrition 133: 3932S–35S. [CrossRef] Neff, Roni A., Iris L. Chan, and Katherine Clegg Smith. 2008. Yesterday’s dinner, today’s weather, tomorrow’s news? US newspaper coverage of food system contributions to climate change. Public Health Nutrition 12: 1006–14. [CrossRef] Nyström, Marcus, Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, Albert Norström, Beatrice Crona, Peter Søgaard Jørgensen, Stephen R. Carpenter, Örjan Bodin, Victor Galaz, and Carl Folke. 2019. Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem. Nature 575: 98–108. [CrossRef] Orset, Caroline, and Marco Monnier. 2020. How do lobbies and NGOs try to influence dietary behaviour? Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 101: 47–66. [CrossRef] Palau-Sampio, Dolors, and Maria Josep Picó. 2021. Food transition: A polarized debate on meat consumption and climate change in Spain. Paper presented at “Transitions in Tension. Controversies and Tensions around Ecological Transitions” Conference, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, December 16–17. Pearson, Mitya, and Wolfgang Rüdig. 2020. The Greens in the 2019 European elections. Environmental Politics 29: 336–43. [CrossRef] Popkin, Barry M. 2006. Technology, transport, globalization and the nutrition transition food policy. Food Policy 31: 554–69. [CrossRef] Rockström, Johan, Ottmar Edenhofer, Juliana Gaertner, and Fabrice DeClerk. 2020. Planet-proofing the global food system. Nature Food 1: 3–5. [CrossRef] Rust, Niki, Lucy Ridding, Caroline Ward, Beth Clark, Laura Kehoe, Manoj Dora, Mark J. Whittingham, Philip McGowan, Abhishek Chaudhary, Christian J. Reynolds, and et al. 2020. How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Science of the Total Environment 718: 137208. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Shehata, Adam, and Jesper Strömbäck. 2021. Learning Political News From Social Media: Network Media Logic and Current Affairs News Learning in a High-Choice Media Environment. Communication Research 48: 125–47. [CrossRef] Siegrist, Michael, and Christina Hartmann. 2020. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food 1: 343–50. [CrossRef] Sievert, Katherine, Mark Lawrence, Christine Parker, Cherie A. Russell, and Phillip Baker. 2022. Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis. Public Health Nutrition 25: 578–90. [CrossRef] Singer, Peter. 2009. Speciesism and moral status. Metaphilosophy 40: 567–81. [CrossRef] Tribaldos, Theresa, and Teea Kortetmäki. 2022. Just transition principles and criteria for food systems and beyond. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 43: 244–56. [CrossRef] Twine, Richard. 2021. Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure. Sustainability 13: 6276. [CrossRef] United Nations. 2019. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future Is Now–Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24797GSDR_report_2019 .pdf (accessed on 10 August 2022). United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019. Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ (accessed on 10 August 2022). Vågsholm, Ivar, Naser Shah Arzoomand, and Sofia Boqvist. 2020. Food Security, Safety, and Sustainability—Getting the Trade-Offs Right. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 16. [CrossRef] Van der Weele, Cor, Peter Feindt, Atze Jan van der Goot, Barbara van Mierlo, and Martinus van Boekel. 2019. Meat alternatives: An integrative comparison. Trends in Food Science & Technology 88: 505–12. [CrossRef] Vranken, Liesbet, Tessa Avermaete, Dimitrios Petalios, and Erik Mathijs. 2014. Curbing global meat consumption: Emerging evidence of a second nutrition transition. Environmental Science & Policy 39: 95–106. [CrossRef] Warde, Alan. 2013. What sort of a practice is eating? In Sustainable Practices: Social Theory and Climate Change. Edited by Elizabeth Shove and Nicola Spurling. London: Routledge, pp. 17–30. Warnaar, Marleen, and Brigitta Methorst. 2017. Factsheet Sustainable Food-Nutrition Center. Almere: Aeres University of Applied Sciences Almere. Available online: https://bit.ly/3OR9LwU (accessed on 10 August 2022). Webb, Patrick, Tim G. Benton, John Beddington, Derek Flynn, Niamh N. Kelly, and Sandy M. Tomas. 2020. The urgency of food system transformation is now irrefutable. Nature Food 1: 584–85. [CrossRef] Zou, Tong, Ayotunde Dawodu, Eugenio Mangi, and Ali Cheshmehzangi. 2022. General limitations of the current approach in developing sustainable food system frameworks. Global Food Security 33: 100624. [CrossRef]