Study challenges assumptions about why people choose plant-based diets

Plant-based diets are frequently promoted as a conscious choice driven by concerns about health, sustainability, or animal welfare. However, new research from the University of Vermont suggested that for many Americans, particularly those in rural and socially disadvantaged communities, eating less meat may have more to do with circumstance than conviction.

• Researchers found that plant-based diets among some rural and disadvantaged Americans may be influenced more by economic and structural constraints than personal preference.
• The study examined how factors including income, geography, culture, education, and food access shaped dietary patterns and food choices.
• The findings suggested that policy and marketing efforts promoting plant-based diets should account for social inequalities and differing motivations across communities.

The study, published in the journal Appetite, was led by Saadatu Abdul-Rahaman, a Food Systems PhD candidate at the University of Vermont and a fellow at both the Food Systems Research Institute and the Gund Institute for Environment.

In the paper, titled Plant-based diets: Not always a free choice for rural adults, Abdul-Rahaman explored how social, economic, and cultural factors influence dietary decisions, challenging the idea that plant-based eating is always the result of individual choice.

The research found that many people who consume relatively low amounts of meat do not necessarily do so because of environmental values, ethical beliefs, or health concerns. Instead, lower meat consumption may reflect limited financial resources, restricted food access, or broader structural inequalities.

According to Abdul-Rahaman, this perspective has often been overlooked in discussions about plant-based diets.

“Most of the time, plant-based diet is framed as if it's a choice and something that everybody can do,” she said. “But it hasn't been looked at through the lens of intersectionality.”

The study examined how multiple factors, including income, race, gender, education, geography, culture, and food access, intersect to influence dietary behavior.

While previous research has often considered individual demographic characteristics in isolation, Abdul-Rahaman argued that examining how these factors overlap provides a more complete understanding of why people eat the foods they do.

The findings suggested that some individuals who currently consume less meat might increase their meat consumption if financial barriers were removed.

That conclusion carries important implications for policymakers, food companies, and advocates seeking to encourage shifts toward more sustainable diets.

“For us to be able to make a change in terms of changing consumption patterns, we need to first address the inequalities that are in society,” Abdul-Rahaman said.

“We have food insecurity issues. We have income issues. There are people who live in food deserts. With all these inequalities in place, it makes it difficult for people to align their values with their dietary patterns.”

The research highlighted how dietary choices are often shaped by circumstances beyond individual control. Access to grocery stores, the affordability of fresh produce, transportation, time available for cooking, and local food culture all influence what people eat.

Abdul-Rahaman's work focused in part on African immigrant communities in Vermont, where cultural attitudes toward meat differ significantly from those commonly associated with plant-based diets in the USA.

In many African cultures, she noted, meat is strongly associated with hospitality, respect, and social status. Serving a meal without meat can be interpreted as a sign of financial hardship rather than a deliberate lifestyle choice.

As a result, plant-based diets may carry very different meanings depending on social and cultural context.

The study also examined rural communities across the United States, where food traditions are often closely linked to hunting, livestock production, and farming.

In such settings, meat-centered diets can represent deeply embedded cultural norms, making plant-based eating less common and, in some cases, socially challenging.

At the center of Abdul-Rahaman's research is a combination of two frameworks: the Theory of Planned Behavior and the concept of intersectionality.

The Theory of Planned Behavior explores how attitudes, social norms, perceived control, and available resources influence decision-making. Applied to food choices, it considers whether individuals have positive attitudes toward plant-based diets, whether their communities support such choices, and whether they have the means to follow them.

Intersectionality, meanwhile, examines how broader systems of inequality shape people's experiences and opportunities.

By combining the two approaches, the research sought to place food choices within the wider social realities that influence everyday life.

The findings raise questions about the effectiveness of broad public campaigns promoting plant-based diets.

Initiatives such as Meatless Monday and messaging that encourages consumers to “vote with your fork” often assume that dietary choices are largely voluntary, the paper argued. However, such campaigns may fail to account for people who already consume limited amounts of meat because of financial constraints rather than environmental or health motivations.

For food manufacturers and marketers operating in the alternative protein sector, the research highlights the importance of understanding consumer motivations beyond sustainability alone.

Consumers may approach plant-based foods from very different perspectives depending on their economic circumstances, cultural backgrounds, and lived experiences. Messaging that resonates with one demographic group may be less effective with another.

The study concluded that efforts to encourage dietary change must take a broader view of the food system and the inequalities that shape it.

Abdul-Rahaman argued that meaningful progress requires moving beyond one-size-fits-all assumptions and recognizing the complexity of consumer behavior.

“It's not possible to actually achieve environmental sustainability without considering social sustainability,” she said.

The paper adds a new dimension to ongoing debates around sustainable diets by suggesting that discussions about reducing meat consumption cannot be separated from wider conversations about income, food access, social equity, and cultural identity.