Does the climate crisis reshape meat and vegetarian preferences? Climate-change appraisals moderate the association between value orientations and meat and dietary preferences

Every meal we take is a small vote for the kind of world we want to live in. The way we raise animals and grow crops releases vast amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, making the food system a major driver of climate change. For decades, scientists have known that shifting toward plant-based diets is one of the most powerful things an individual can do to lower their carbon footprint. Yet, despite this knowledge, meat consumption continues to rise in many parts of the world, including South Korea, where per-person intake has more than quintupled since 1980. This gap between knowing the problem and changing our habits suggests that the decision to eat meat or vegetables is not simply a matter of logic. It is deeply rooted in who we are, what we value, and how we perceive the threat of a warming planet.

Researchers have long studied the psychological drivers behind food choices, looking at everything from personal ethics to the pleasure of a good meal. They have also examined how people judge the severity of climate change, asking whether feeling scared or guilty about the environment changes what we put on our plates. But a crucial question remained unanswered: do these two sets of factors work independently, or do they interact? In other words, does a person's deep-seated belief system only influence their diet when they are actively thinking about the climate crisis? A team of researchers from South Korea set out to answer this by looking at how personal values and climate perceptions combine to shape what people want to eat.

The study, based on a survey of nearly 2,000 adults across South Korea, treated the desire to eat meat and the desire to eat vegetables not as opposite ends of a single scale, but as two separate tendencies that can exist independently. The researchers asked participants about their core values—such as whether they prioritize the well-being of nature, other people, or themselves—and their feelings about climate change, including how serious they think the threat is, how close it feels, and whether they feel a moral duty to act. They then analyzed how these factors predicted whether a person leaned toward a meat-heavy diet or a plant-based one.

The results revealed a clear and distinct split in what drives these two preferences. The desire to eat more vegetables was strongly linked to a sense of moral obligation and a deep connection to nature. People who felt a personal duty to protect future generations, or who believed that nature has value in its own right, were significantly more likely to prefer plant-based meals. Age also played a role, with older participants showing a stronger preference for vegetables. In contrast, the desire to eat meat was driven by a different set of factors. It was most strongly associated with the belief that climate change is a distant problem that does not affect the individual directly. People who viewed the climate crisis as far away in time or space, and those who prioritized their own immediate comfort and pleasure, were more likely to stick with a meat-centered diet. Interestingly, the factors that drove people toward vegetables, such as feeling a moral duty, did not necessarily push people away from meat; the two preferences operated on different psychological tracks.

The most significant finding, however, was that these values do not operate in a vacuum. The researchers discovered that a person's perception of the climate crisis acts as a lens that changes how their values influence their food choices. For instance, a person who values their own pleasure and comfort might normally prefer meat. But if that same person feels a strong sense of guilt about their contribution to climate change, or feels that the threat is personally vulnerable and immediate, their preference for meat can weaken, and their openness to vegetables can increase. The study found that feelings of guilt and vulnerability could actually flip the script for people who usually prioritize self-interest, making them more receptive to plant-based options. Conversely, for those who already value nature, a heightened sense of the climate threat simply reinforced their existing preference for vegetables, making that value even more powerful.

This suggests that the climate crisis does not just change our diets directly; it reshapes the conditions under which our deepest values are expressed. When people feel the climate threat is distant, their self-centered values dominate their food choices, leading them toward meat. When they feel the threat is close, urgent, or morally weighty, those same self-centered values can be reoriented, or the moral values of others can take the lead, opening the door to vegetarianism. The study indicates that simply telling people about the environmental impact of meat may not be enough. Instead, the way the climate crisis is framed—whether as a distant global issue or a personal, immediate, and morally urgent reality—can determine whether a person's values lead them to keep eating meat or to choose a plant-based path. The research confirms that while values provide the foundation for our choices, it is our appraisal of the current crisis that often decides which foundation we build upon.