People in the UK continue to consume excessive amounts of meat, with processed meat making up a particularly large portion of this intake, especially among children. A recent report from a UK charity highlights that school food standards, which encourage meat to be served three times a week, inadvertently lead to children eating more processed meats than adults. This is concerning, as processed meats — including bacon, ham, and sausages — dominate commonly served dishes in schools and fast-food outlets. In fact, over a third of meat consumed by children is processed, with some even coming from pizza toppings. These dietary patterns contradict government guidance advocating for reduced consumption of red and processed meats due to their well-documented health risks.

The health implications linked to high meat consumption are significant. Studies involving large populations have found that both processed and unprocessed red meats are associated with increased risks of conditions such as ischaemic heart disease, pneumonia, colon polyps, diverticular disease, and type 2 diabetes. Much of this risk may be mediated by higher body mass index, implying that excessive meat consumption contributes to obesity and related diseases. Beyond human health, the environmental consequences are stark. The economic cost of overconsumption, considering health and environmental harms worldwide, is estimated at roughly £219 billion annually.

Amid these concerns, calls for a dietary shift toward plant-based foods have grown. Research suggests that a substantial reduction in meat consumption combined with increased fruit and vegetable intake could play a pivotal role in conserving biodiversity and reversing the decline of over 500 endangered UK species. By freeing up land currently used for livestock grazing, such a transition would support the restoration of habitats through tree planting and hedgerows, fostering healthier ecosystems and addressing urgent environmental challenges.

Despite this, there has been notable resistance to reducing meat consumption, often fuelled by coordinated campaigns positioning meat and dairy as “natural” and essential for a balanced diet. An example is the 'Let's Eat Balanced' campaign, which promotes British beef, lamb, and dairy as key sources of micronutrients like Vitamin B12 and frames plant-based diets as nutritionally inadequate. Yet, this narrative overlooks the fact that many farmed animals are given synthetic vitamin supplements, just as people on vegan diets often take vitamin B12 pills. This raises questions about the “naturalness” of meat as a nutrient source and challenges entrenched perceptions.

Moreover, the landscape of plant-based alternatives is complex. While early enthusiasm for these products was high, many fall into the category of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which some consumers view with suspicion due to additives and artificial ingredients used in products such as veggie burgers and vegan milk. Concerns have been raised about ingredients like emulsifiers potentially affecting gut health. However, this should not overshadow the established health risks of processed meats, which contain carcinogenic substances such as nitrites used in meat packaging.

Environmental arguments in favour of some meats, like chicken, are nuanced as well. Although chicken produces fewer greenhouse gases than red meat, intensive chicken farming poses its own problems, including pollution from manure affecting waterways and dependency on soy feed, subject to geopolitical and trade issues. This complexity underlines the challenges of making sustainable dietary recommendations that are fair to farmers, rural communities, and the environment.

Understanding the backlash against plant-based diets is essential for progress. The controversy reveals the deep cultural, economic, and social factors embedded within food choices. For now, meat remains a significant part of UK diets, and efforts to reduce its consumption are met with mixed reactions, reflecting broader societal debates about health, identity, and sustainability. Navigating this “food fight” demands nuanced approaches that respect diverse perspectives while steering toward healthier and more sustainable eating patterns.