Our group gathers researchers and professors from French public institutions (CNRS, INRA, Universities - TEPP) working on plant-based diets and animal welfare.
We propose experimental, theoretical and empirical works to tackle the environmental, political, social and economic stakes associated with plant-based diets and animal welfare.
Plant-based diets have numerous benefits: fewer CO2 emissions, less deforestation, less soil pollution, better health, less animal suffering, etc.
Our works pursue three objectives.
Who adopts a plant-based diet? For which reasons? Which arguments are usually used to support meat consumption? Are people well informed? Do they refuse to get informed?
How to develop plant-based consumption?
Are information campaigns effective?
What are the most striking arguments?
What hinders the transition to plant-based diets?
What drives the increased concerns for animal welfare? What are the political outcomes for these altruistic concerns? What is the role of NGOs?
See the members of our research team.
Head of the team
Researcher at CNRS University of Rennes 1
Associate Professor
University of Rennes 1
Senior researcher at INRA Toulouse School of Economics
Associate Professor
Université de Nantes
PhD Candidate
Université Paris 2
Researcher at CNRS
Paris School of Economics
Full Professor
Université Rennes 1
Find below our published or ongoing research projects (in French or in English).
Cet article propose une discussion sur l’alimentation végétale et la condition animale comme objets d’étude pour la science économique.
Il répond à trois questions : Pourquoi les économistes devraient-ils s’intéresser à la question de la consommation de produits d’origine animale ?
Quelle peut être la contribution de l’économie aux discussions académiques existantes ?
Quelles raisons peuvent expliquer le peu d’intérêt porté jusque-là par les économistes à cette problématique ?
Ce travail expose tout d’abord trois arguments pour lesquels la science économique devrait prendre en compte la consommation de produits d’origine animale : une raison environnemen- tale, une raison sanitaire et une raison éthique.
Il présente ensuite l’analyse comportementale de la consommation de viande développée en psychologie, puis discute comment l’économie pourrait contribuer à ce champ de recherche (économie comportementale, économie des politiques publiques, économie industrielle et économie politique).
La dernière partie propose une discussion plus exploratoire sur le faible intérêt porté jusqu’à aujourd’hui par les économistes à ces questions.
L’économie ne s’intéresse pas aux animaux. L’ambition de cet article est de stimuler des recherches en économie sur les animaux et le véganisme. Par véganisme, nous considérons tous les comportements visant à modifier (et pas seulement éliminer) l’utilisation ou la consommation d’animaux pour des raisons morales. Nous proposons une introduction sélective au sujet, centrée sur la consommation de viande et les conditions d’élevage des animaux. La viande se situe aujourd’hui à la croisée des chemins à cause de ses externalités sanitaires et environnementales, et de la montée du végétarisme dans les pays développés. L’économie du véganisme –ou veganomics– peut aider à mieux comprendre le comportement des consommateurs (omnivores, flexitariens, végétariens) et ses implications sur les stratégies des producteurs, des activistes et des décideurs publics, et ainsi mieux cerner un monde où la relation à l’animal peut profondément évoluer.
Voir l'articleWe develop a method to assess population knowledge about any given topic. We define, and rationalize, types of beliefs that form the ‘knowledge spectrum’. Using a sample of over 7,000 UK residents, we estimate these beliefs with respect to three topics: an animal-based diet, alcohol consumption and immigration. We construct an information- campaign effectiveness index (ICEI) that predicts the success of an information campaign. Information resistance is greatest for animal-based diets, and the ICEI is highest for immi- gration. We test the predictive power of our ICEI by simulating information campaigns, which produces supportive evidence. Our method can be used by any government or company that wants to explore the success of an information campaign.
See Working PaperHow can individuals care about animals and, at the same time, eat meat? We design a survey study to explore this “meat paradox”. Survey participants (N = 3054) underestimate farm animal suffering, and underestimate it more (i.e., are less realistic) when they eat more meat. Building on the literature on cognitive dissonance, we develop a model in which individuals form self-serving beliefs in order to reduce the moral guilt associated with meat consumption. The model characterizes how individuals’ beliefs about animal welfare and their attitude towards information are affected by the economic environment (e.g., price of meat, salience of animal welfare), and by individuals’ preferences (e.g., taste for meat, moral cost of guilt). Several empirical observations are consistent with our model.
See Working PaperWhile antispeciesism is an ethical notion, veganism is a behavioural notion. In this paper, we first examine theoretically the links between the two notions. Building on Blackorby and Donaldson (1992), we consider a two-species model in which humans consume animals. Antispeciesism is conceived as the weight on animals’ welfare in the utilitarian social welfare function. We show that (more) antispeciesism increases total meat consumption if and only if animals’ utility is positive. We then explore empirically using a survey study if participants believe that farm animals’ life is worth living. We show that the beliefs depend on participants’ meat eating habits and whether they are students, animals’ activists, experts in farm animal welfare or in animal ethics. We finally discuss some issues and difficulties regarding the study of animal welfare in economics and social choice.
See Working PaperNGOs often vary in how radical they are. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of NGOs’ discourses in inducing social change. We focus on animal advocacy: welfarist NGOs primarily seek to improve the rearing conditions of animals and reduce meat consumption in the society, while abolitionist NGOs categorically reject animal exploitation and call for a vegan society. We design an experiment to study the respective impact of welfarist and abolitionist discourses on participants’ beliefs about pro-meat justifications, and their actions, namely their propensity to engage in the short-run for animal welfare and plant-based diets. First, the results show that welfarist and abolitionist discourses significantly undermine participants’ pro-meat justifications. Second, both discourses increase the polarization of beliefs. Third, the welfarist discourse does not significantly affect participants’ actions. Moreover, we detect a potential backfire effect of the abolitionist discourse. Fourth, higher levels of contributions to the public good are associated with a stronger engagement for animal welfare in presence of a NGO discourse. Last, the abolitionist discourse significantly increases the polarization of actions for animal welfare and plant-based diets.
+33 2 23 23 61 87
romain.espinosa [at] univ-rennes1.fr
