Europe is entering a “new era of green marketing” as more cities turn their backs on climate-damaging advertising.
It all started with Amsterdam, which became the first capital city in the world this year to ban billboards promoting fossil fuels and meat on 1 May – five years after the law was first proposed.
The ban is part of the city’s targets to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 and to halve meat consumption during the same period. Other Dutch cities, such as Utrecht, the Hague, Zwolle, Delft and Nijmegen already have similar bans in place.
Many other cities including Helsinki, Stockholm and Bristol have introduced bans on promoting fossil fuels or other carbon-intensive products such as aviation, shipping, fast-fashion and construction. However, many of these don’t include meat.
Why are European cities banning meat adverts?
While the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels are widely understood, the environmental effects of animal agriculture get less attention.
A recent report from European non-profit Changing Markets found mounting evidence that departments within the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) have a “bias in favour of the livestock sector” – as lobbyists seek to undermine climate action.
This includes high-ranking members of the FAO delivering speeches at the World Meat Congress and affiliated scientists from the animal agriculture industry attempting to discredit studies that promote plant-rich diets.
But there is no hiding that food and agriculture contribute one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, second only to burning coal, oil and gas.
Animal-sourced foods in the EU are also believed to make up between 81 and 86 per cent of total GHG emissions of food production. However, they only supply an estimated 21 per cent of calories and 64 per cent of protein.
Over recent years, scientists have called for countries – particularly those in the West with access to plant-based alternatives – to reduce their meat consumption to tackle this.
Most notably, the 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission report – compiled by 70 leading experts from 35 countries – found that around 15 million deaths could be avoided each year if the world shifted to predominantly plant-based diets.
Experts say this could also cut non-CO2 GHG emissions from agriculture – such as methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from fertilisers – by 15 per cent by 2050.
When factoring in the entire food lifecycle – such as reducing deforestation, transportation and refrigeration, and restoring nature – the total drop in emissions would be much higher.
How advertising shapes Europeans’ behaviour
Amsterdam’s meat ban proved controversial, with many people on social media branding the ruling “ridiculous” – or arguing that their meat consumption isn’t linked to what they see on billboards.
“I can’t honestly remember the last time I actually purchased something directly because of an advertisement,” one Reddit user wrote. “Probably [when I was] a teenager.”
But Linda Aspey, a climate psychology specialist and board member of Climate Psychology Alliance, tells Euronews Earth that much of advertising’s influencing power comes from “repetition and cueing”.
“One study found that seeing meat imagery (in this case, a Big Mac) increased people’s desire to eat it, and its everyday presence likely reinforces meat as an ordinary choice,” she says.
“This may be reinforced by someone’s identity, culture of livelihood where eating meat is simply a part of that, and carries little conscious tension.”
Meat consumption in the Netherlands, for example, has been on the decline. In 2024, the Dutch ate less meat (including meat products) than at any time in the past 20 years, according to Wageningen Social and Economic Research’s ‘Meat Report’.
“For others, there's an uncomfortable pull between valuing animal welfare or the environment and still eating meat, and advertising may make that pull easier to set aside,” Aspey explains.
“What the evidence does show is that advertising typically shapes what feels normal for most of us, to varying degrees, which in turn can shape behaviours.”
Would banning meat advertisements actually make a difference?
Amsterdam is yet to announce any data on how the ban has impacted meat consumption in the country – but experts predict there will be a correlation.
When Transport for London (TFL) in the UK removed junk food advertising from its network, weekly household purchases were estimated to fall by nearly seven per cent, confectionery by almost a fifth.
This was measured through actual shopping data, not consumer surveys.
“The effect wasn't dramatic as a ban changes the constant prompts that people see around them day to day, without necessarily changing why people eat what they eat, whether that's habit, taste, livelihood or budget,” Aspey explains.
“As with tobacco control, such restrictions tend to work best combined with other measures, not alone.”
Should climate-damaging foods be restricted?
Despite the known climate-link, the EU has historically propped up foods like red meat with generous subsidies.
A recent report from charity Foodrise found that the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP) directed more subsidies to the production of high-emitting animal-sourced foods than plant foods in 2020.
That year, animal-sourced foods received around 77 per cent of total CAP subsidies, accounting for €39 billion out of the total €51 billion spent.
The study found that beef and lamb, which are consistently identified as the biggest culprits of climate damage, were given around 580 times more in subsidies compared to legumes such as lentils and beans in 2020.
Going from funding these foods to actively stripping them from public advertising may feel too drastic – but experts say it could become part of a “mix of strategies” to tackle climate change.
“Most research points to sustainable diets needing meaningfully less meat than the UK eats now, for both planetary and personal health, and marketing that is weighted heavily towards meat – especially mass produced and cheaper – makes that shift harder," Aspey says.