Public support for meat-reduction policy instruments is higher for subsidies and health framing than alternatives across six countries

Food production and consumption contribute to climate change, biodiversity loss, and public health burdens. Policy instruments that promote sustainable diets include taxes, subsidies, and marketing bans. However, these instruments are often subject to public resistance, influenced by framing as health- or climate-related, policy type, and socio-political factors. Here, we use a cross-country survey ( N = 10,513) from the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Sweden, and India to examine public attitudes toward various policy instruments to reduce meat consumption. Results indicate that subsidies face less resistance than taxes, and that health-based justifications of policies are generally more accepted than climate-based ones. Public resistance to policy measures is shaped by ideology, climate concern, and political trust, with stronger effects in the Global North. While opposition exists, net support for most policy instruments suggests opportunities for implementation. Understanding the drivers of public resistance, particularly among vocal minorities, can inform the design of effective interventions to promote sustainable and healthy food consumption.