‘Less but better’ is a pragmatic approach to tackling the sustainability challenges of meat consumption and production. Definitions of ‘less’ and ‘better’ lack clarity. Here we explore interpretations of these concepts, finding increasing use of ‘less but better’ in the literature from Western, high-income settings. Despite discrepancies among interpretations of ‘less’ meat, existing quantifications indicate that significant reduction is needed to achieve desirable food system outcomes. Interpretations of ‘better’ meat incorporate the delivery of environmental sustainability, improved animal welfare and better health or nutrition, but lack clear principles and omit many sustainability themes. Practices and outcomes are seldom linked, and diverging narratives on interactions between ‘less’ and ‘better’ exist. A shared vision of livestock systems with improved sustainability across multiple indicators is needed to establish principles for ‘less but better’ in order for decision-making to deliver desired outcomes.

Eating “less but better” meat can be a strategy to guide meat consumption in Western or high-income countries towards sustainability, but what “better” means depends on the perspective. Multiple studies and reports suggest that agroecological farming systems could contribute to a broad range of sustainability benefits, but few studies have examined the implications for people and nature following trade-offs between sustainability priorities at the farm level. Therefore, this study explored the effects on a broad range of sustainability themes following agroecological transition on a case farm in east-central Sweden. We applied a novel mixed-methods approach, combining the indicator-based SMART-Farm tool with additional quantitative and qualitative analysis of the farm’s climate impact, contribution to global food security, economic performance, and working conditions. The results showed improvements for aspects within environmental, social, economic, and governance-related sustainability dimensions, with corroborating results across methods. The case farm thus served as an example of transition to a more sustainable production system, but as expected, there were both trade-offs and synergies between sustainability aspects. Negative effects were found for economic aspects at the farm and societal level. For this case, one may conclude that “better” meat production both supports and depends on, a more sustainable farm; but that “better” meat and a more sustainable farm cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider food system. Also, “better” can be described by several states along a transition pathway. Key contributions of the study are threefold, a) articulation of the links between agroecology and the concept “less but better,” b) empirically demonstrating synergies and trade-offs in striving for more sustainable meat production, and c) a novel methodological approach for sustainability assessment.

Livestock production has significant environmental impacts, requiring sustainable dietary shifts with reduced meat consumption. The concept of "less but better" has gained attention as a pragmatic approach to dietary and production changes, advocating for reduced meat consumption while focusing on sustainably produced, high-quality products. We focus on the interplay between "less" and "better" and critically evaluate the approach in the context of consuming natural pasture-raised beef in Finland. Our study focuses on consumers at the forefront of dietary change within western, upper-income contexts, who, with high educational and financial resources, may play a leading role in shifting to more sustainable diets. Based on 21 interviews with buyers of natural pasture-raised beef in Southern Finland, we investigate the meanings assigned to such premium-priced meat, understandings of the role of meat in sustainable diets, and reflections on the dietary changes in meat consumption when purchasing natural pasture-raised beef. Although meat was unanimously considered part of a sustainable diet, most interviewees recognized the global necessity of reducing meat consumption. The interviewees focused on health, naturalness, origin, and swapping beef for other meats as key factors in sustainable diets. The interpretation of “better” was primarily dominated by animal welfare concerns. However, when purchasing beef, taste emerged as the principal consideration. The relationship between “better” and “less” was ambiguous: access to “better” can both decrease and increase meat consumption or leave it intact. The study highlights how the ambiguity of the message can justify the dietary status-quo and can tamp down the need to have a more sustained, serious engagement with sustainable living.

The production and consumption of animal-source foods must be transformed to mitigate negative environmental outcomes, including greenhouse gas emissions and land-use change. However, livestock are also key for food production and for livelihoods in some settings, and they can help preserve biodiversity and certain ecosystems. Previous studies have not yet fully explored sustainability limits to the use of grazing lands for food production in the context of biodiversity. Here we explore ‘biodiversity limits’ to grassland ruminant production by estimating the meat and milk production from domestic ruminants limited to grazing areas and stocking densities where livestock can contribute to the preservation or restoration of biodiversity. With biodiversity-friendly grazing intensities at 0–20% biomass removal depending on aridity, this take on biodiversity limits corresponds to 9–13% and 26–40% of the current grassland-based milk and meat production, respectively. This equals only 2.2 kg of milk and 0.8 kg of meat per capita per year, globally, but altered management and moving from meat-specialized to meat-and-dairy systems could increase the potential production while still remaining within this approach to biodiversity limits. 

The protein shift, or transition, entails a reduction in the production and consumption of animal-source foods, and an increase in plant-based foods and alternative proteins, at a global level. The shift is primarily motivated by the need to minimise the impact of the food system on social-ecological systems. We argue that rather than focusing singularly on transitioning a ‘protein gap’ in diets, redressing the ‘justice gap’ is a prerequisite for transformative change in food systems. In this context the justice gap is understood as the gap delineating those who have access to just food systems and those who do not. To substantiate our argument a justice lens is used to analyse the political–economic dimensions of such a transformation and to propose that the future of protein must engage with three core elements to be transformative—disruption, innovation and redistribution. Disruption entails challenging both the food trends that encourage the ‘meatification’ of diets, and the influence of ‘Big Meat’ in perpetuating these trends. Innovation emphasises that true novelty is found by designing justice into practices and processes, rather than by firing alternative protein silver bullets within existing food system paradigms. Redistribution stresses that food system redesign is predicated upon establishing fair shares for remaining protein budgets, using approaches anchored in contextual specificity and positionality. Through the application of a justice framework, we expose existing food system injustices related to production and consumption of protein, invite discussion on how such injustices can be addressed and reflect on implications for food system transformations. By reshaping the crux of the protein debate around the more salient concern of the justice gap, food system transformation can take shape.