Background
A protein consumption transition (PCT) in the European Union (EU) has the potential to abate the substantial negative impacts regarding environmental sustainability, health, animal welfare and food security, that are related to high meat consumption levels. Many conditions exist that influence consumption of different types and quantities of protein, which have mainly been researched in a qualitative and theoretical way. An overview of the degree to which these conditions are present in the EU could help in uncovering patterns across member states, and determining pathways towards enabling PCTs.

Methods
A framework was constructed by studying literature on conditions affecting consumption of meat and alternative proteins. Researchers were interviewed to validate and direct the literature review. Nine indicators were selected to represent conditions that influence PCTs. These spanned from conditions on an individual level (e.g. motivation for eating healthily and sustainably), to situational conditions (e.g. the affordability of meat), to conditions in the macro environment (e.g. the level of urbanisation).
EU member states’ performance on the selected indicators was assessed. The member states were clustered based on their performance on the indicators through an agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis. The clusters that emerged were then characterised based on the ways in which they were similar within their cluster, as well as dissimilar to other clusters in regards to their conditions to PCTs.

Results
The EU member states showed varying performance on all indicators. On average for the EU, 75% of citizens are motivated to pay for healthy and sustainable food, but just 35% report that that would include eating less meat. The affordability of meat is currently increasing as compared to total foods in all member states.
Three clusters emerged from the data. Cluster 1 was characterised as ‘systemic constraints for consumption’, as the performance for most indicators showed unfavourable conditions for PCTs. Cluster 2, labelled ‘urbanised and fiscally unfavourable’, showed overall more favourable conditions, though barriers for this cluster may lie in relatively higher urbanisation and affordability of meat. Cluster 3 also showed relatively more favourable conditions. Cluster 3 was characterised as ‘misinformed and protein plenteous’, for the relatively moderate to low performance on the knowledge indicator, and the relatively high total protein consumption.

Conclusion
The findings in this research highlight the diverse conditions that affect protein consumption in the EU. Though there are conditions that are unfavourable in all member states, it is apparent that some conditions form bigger barriers for PCTs in some member states over others. Pathways for enabling PCTs for cluster 1 could include fiscal incentivising of alternative proteins and education campaigns. For cluster 2, fiscal incentives and interventions targeting meat consumption in urban settings could be prioritised. Member states in cluster 3 may benefit most from prioritising education campaigns on healthy and sustainable types and quantities of protein.
Further research is needed to deepen knowledge for many of these conditions, in particular for conditions in the macro environment, and for the different ways in which they affect different people. Defining effective pathways to PCTs could be assessed more extensively in policy oriented research.

The global biodiversity crisis demands urgent action, with global food production being one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss. Transitioning to less animal-intensive diets is a potential solution to decrease impacts. While it is established that diet change can lead to a decrease in agricultural land use, it remains unclear whether these reductions occur in areas at risk of biodiversity loss. This study uses a spatially-explicit land use indicator, based on co-existence of species richness and agriculture, to analyze the impact on four land use types, ranging from land use with low conservation priority to land use with very high conservation priority. We analyze the impact of a diet change scenario where fifty-four high-income countries adopt the EAT-Lancet diet. Our findings indicate a major decrease of about one third of conservation priority land use across all four land use types considered. This means that the diet change is indeed effective in lowering land use in high conservation priority sites. We recognize that even with the adoption of the EAT-Lancet diet there is a need for additional strategies to further decrease high conservation priority land use, with priority sourcing strategies being the most obvious next step.