Priorities for social science and humanities research on the challenges of moving beyond animal-based food systems

The paper addresses the societal grand challenge of moving beyond animal-based food systems in light of escalating environmental, health, and socio-economic impacts associated with intensified animal production and rising consumption of animal-based foods. It highlights rapid global meat consumption growth and associated climate, land, water, and public health concerns. The study’s purpose is to identify and prioritise key social science and humanities (SSH) research questions that can guide system-wide transformations toward reduced reliance on animal-based foods. Motivated by the observation that SSH contributions are often narrowly positioned within multidisciplinary programmes, the paper creates a dedicated space for SSH scholars to define research needs. It aims to build capacity, mutual understanding, and influence research and policy agendas by formulating a coherent, system-oriented SSH research agenda focused on debates, practices, governance, and ethical tensions inherent in transitions beyond animal-based food systems.

The authors synthesise dispersed SSH scholarship on animal-based food systems. Key strands include: (1) consumption-focused research on motivations, practices, and identities related to vegetarianism/veganism and their institutional dimensions; (2) analyses of structural, ideological, and political-economic forces reproducing animal-based systems and inhibiting transitions; (3) critiques of meat provisioning regimes and governance/politics of reducing meat production and consumption; (4) practice-theoretic work on transforming food practices; and (5) emerging research on cultural, moral economies and consumer acceptance of alternative proteins. Despite richness, the literature remains fragmented across domains (production, consumption, provisioning), potentially marginalising SSH insights within food system policy debates increasingly adopting holistic approaches (e.g., EC Farm to Fork; FAO food systems frameworks). This underpins the need for a coordinated SSH research agenda developed through participatory prioritisation.

Design: An adapted Sutherland Method was employed to collaboratively identify and prioritise SSH research questions about moving beyond animal-based food systems. Unlike traditional Sutherland/Delphi/JLA approaches, this initial stage engaged only academic researchers (SSH) to allow discipline-led agenda setting in a fragmented field, with plans to later broaden participation. Participants: SSH researchers (primarily sociology, geography; also human-animal studies, cultural studies, STS, food studies) at varied career stages; majority female; mainly Europe-based. Stage-wise participation: Survey sent to 30 (19 responses); Nottingham workshop 18; Tampere workshop 16; final manuscript involved 30 contributors. Procedure (six stages): 1) Online survey (May 2019): Participants proposed 1–10 SSH-amenable research questions and commented on field framing. Output: 100 questions. Identified three provisional themes (eating/consumption; food system transformation; governance/politics). Nineteen framing comments coded for themes. 2) Workshop 1—Nottingham, UK (June 2019): Thematic group deliberations (5–7 per group). Each question scored 1–10 for importance; top 10 per theme discussed, reworded, amalgamated. Notes recorded live; plenary feedback; short research presentations; initial collective framing discussion. 3) Inter-session synthesis (July–Aug 2019): Lead authors refined and amalgamated top questions per theme, analysed interlinkages, regrouped for next workshop, and drafted a definitional text for the research area. 4) Workshop 2—Tampere, Finland (Sept 2019): Half-day, pre-congress at EurSafe with a somewhat different disciplinary mix (more ethics/humanities). Plenary discussion of refined questions and definitional text; critical debate over framing (‘de-animalising’ vs ‘beyond animal-based food systems’); rewording and gap identification. 5) Post-workshop refinement: Further consolidation for clarity and emphasis on present actions/interventions. 6) Collaborative writing: Lead authors drafted article; edits, references, and approvals gathered from 30 researchers via shared document. Ethics: Institutional approval obtained; no personal/sensitive data collected; informed, voluntary participation with co-authorship opportunity.

- Process outputs and scale: - Initial 100 questions (19 survey responses) refined through two workshops to 15 prioritised research questions under five themes. - Participation: 18 researchers (Nottingham workshop), 16 (Tampere workshop), 30 authors in final writing. - Reframing the field: Consensus to shift terminology from ‘de-animalising the food system’ to ‘beyond animal-based food systems’ to accommodate multiple pathways and acknowledge animals’ varied roles and agency. - Prioritised research questions (RQs) and themes: 1) Debating and visioning food from animals - RQ1. What is the nature of societal debates around food from animals (political, economic, social, ethical)? How are these debates developing at different scales (international, national, regional, local) and in different country contexts, and how can further meaningful debate be fostered? - RQ2. How and why do different stakeholders contribute to societal debates around food from animals and which stakeholders are excluded and why? - RQ3. In what ways do future visions of reducing food from animals interact with other imagined future visions of sustainable food systems? 2) Transforming agricultural spaces - RQ4. How and why are farmers and other rural community members responding to the calls for reducing food from animals? - RQ5. What are the behavioural, institutional, agronomic and economic challenges and opportunities associated with plant-based protein production and how do these compare across different geographical contexts? - RQ6. How, and by whom, are vegan agricultural systems being imagined and developed in different country contexts and what are the behavioural, institutional and economic barriers to and opportunities for their development? 3) Framing animals as food - RQ7. How do different food system actors understand and perform current and future roles of animals within food systems, and how do these roles vary across different geographical contexts? - RQ8. How is the idea of a 'food animal' understood and performed within research across different academic disciplines? - RQ9. How are 'food animals' understood and performed in primary, secondary and tertiary education and what happens when these framings are discussed between teachers, pupils and students? 4) Eating practices and identities - RQ10. How do socio-economic categories and identities, and their intersections, play a role in (not) eating food from animals and the ways in which this form of eating is changing in practice? - RQ11. How, where and why is plant-based eating already being incorporated into daily food practices? - RQ12. What kinds of communities are meaningful, why, where and how, in supporting a reduction in the consumption of food from animals? 5) Governing transitions beyond animal-based food systems - RQ13. What are the current agricultural policies and other public policies that support animal-based food systems, how are these policies legitimised and how do they need to change in order to support a shift towards more plant-based food systems? - RQ14. What is the actual and potential contribution of national dietary guidelines, public health and environmental behavioural change programmes, and public procurement to moving beyond animal-based food systems? - RQ15. How are local food partnerships in both urban and rural places contributing to the reduction of food from animals and what are the enabling and constraining conditions? - Additional insights: - Calls for holistic, systemic, and comparative perspectives across geographies (Global North and South) and for inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration. - Recognition of ethical tensions over whether to reduce vs eliminate animal use; proposed treating this tension as a research object and viewing multiple pathways along a continuum. - Emphasis on animals’ agency and the need for methods less human-centric.

The prioritised questions address the central aim of strengthening SSH contributions to transforming food systems beyond animal-based provisioning by offering a coherent, system-oriented agenda. They surface critical domains—public debates and imaginaries, agricultural transformations, the framing of animals, everyday eating practices and identities, and governance mechanisms—where SSH expertise can diagnose barriers, illuminate power relations, and design inclusive pathways for change. The reframing to ‘beyond animal-based food systems’ broadens engagement, accommodates multiple ethical stances, and acknowledges animals’ roles and agency. The themes connect production and consumption and provide actionable loci for future inter- and transdisciplinary programmes, informing policy mixes (e.g., dietary guidelines, procurement, local partnerships) and practice change (e.g., plant protein value chains, veganic systems, community-based initiatives). By convening a diverse SSH cohort, the process built capacity, forged collaborations, and articulated a shared research agenda that can influence funders and policymakers, while encouraging critical engagement with the normative dimensions and contested politics of human–animal relations in food systems.

The study delivers a collaboratively derived SSH research agenda comprising 15 prioritised questions under five integrative themes, reframing the field as ‘beyond animal-based food systems’. It demonstrates the value of dedicated SSH-led prioritisation in an emergent, controversial area, fostering capacity, shared understanding, and early collaborations. The agenda can guide research funding, policy design, and transdisciplinary programmes targeting sustainable food system transitions. Future directions include: expanding participation to underrepresented SSH fields and geographies beyond Europe; involving natural, agricultural, nutrition, health, veterinary, and economic sciences; engaging non-academic stakeholders (including those whose livelihoods depend on animal farming); exploring methods to incorporate animals’ agency; and continuing reflexive debate over field framings (e.g., ‘moving toward plant-based food systems’). The ethical tension over continued versus eliminated animal use should be an explicit focus of subsequent research and agenda-setting processes.

- Participation limited primarily to European SSH researchers; perspectives from the Global South and minority/decolonial/indigenous scholars were underrepresented. - Initial stage included only academic researchers; no non-academic stakeholders (e.g., farmers, industry, NGOs, policymakers) directly involved. - The Sutherland approach was adapted, omitting broader stakeholder engagement typical of original methods; results reflect a particular, situated SSH community. - Ethical and ideological divergences (e.g., reduction vs elimination of animal use) remained unresolved, potentially shaping research framing and applicability. - Potential discipline and geography biases due to participant composition and workshop contexts.