Helsinki will replace 50% of meat and dairy with plant-based foods by 2030
The city of Helsinki has voted to halve meat and dairy consumption and replace them with plant-based optionsby 2030. With 57 votes in favour and 23 against, the Helsinki City Council approved this landmark initiative called Puolet Parempaa (meaning “Half Better”), which will reduce meat and dairy by 50% by the end of the decade. The motion received broad cross-party support and provides for animal proteins to be replaced with plant-based alternatives in schools, hospitals, daycare centres, and other public institutions.
The NGO Greenpeace launched the initiative and is part of a national campaign that challenges municipalities to make half of their food offerings “better” for public health and the environment. Introduced in the Finnish capital by city councillor Mai Kivelä, the vote was described as a victory for “climate responsibility, animal welfare, and children’s right to a sustainable future.” Helsinki had already distinguished itself as a pioneer in alternative protein policies, removing meat (but not fish) from all city-organised events in 2022.
Jukka Kajan, executive director of the industry association Plant Based Food Finland, is reported to have welcomed the decision as strengthening climate action but also creating long-term market predictability for companies developing plant-based solutions. However, in 2025, the share of meat consumers reached its highest level in four years.
A food policy driven by nutritional science?
The “Half Better” project is presented as a measure in favour of the climate, health, and animal welfare, but, when examined critically, it raises several relevant issues. The initiative is based on the assumption that reducing animal protein intake and replacing it with plant-based alternatives is automatically more sustainable and healthier. In reality, the scientific picture is far more complex.
Many industrial plant-based products are ultra-processed, containing refined ingredients, additives, and structuring agents. From a nutritional perspective, they are not equivalent to animal proteins, especially in terms of the bioavailability of iron, vitamin B12, essential amino acids, and omega-3 fatty acids. Moreover, in sensitive settings such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes, it would be more logical for nutritional quality to take priority over symbolic climate policy objectives.
There is, of course, the risk that the substitution will occur through industrial products created by the lauded plant-based alternatives industry. It is therefore not surprising that the initiative has been welcomed enthusiastically by the Plant-Based Food Finland association. Public procurement policies can in fact artificially create demand for an industrial sector that is still relatively fragile.
These measures are often presented as climate policy, but they also have an industrial policy dimension: guaranteeing a stable market for companies producing meat substitutes. In other words, the protein transition risks shifting from a food choice made by citizens to an economic direction decided from the top down.
More than 53% of Finns do not want to reduce meat: the paradox of food policy
An interesting finding is that over 53% of Finnish consumers would not support halving meat consumption. This highlights a growing tension in EU food policies: institutions seek to steer behaviour through public catering systems and dietary guidelines, while the population continues to exhibit diverse preferences. This approach can be interpreted as a form of “institutional nudging”, shaping choices without imposing explicit bans, but by modifying the available food options.
Attributing a large share of the climate problem to meat also risks oversimplifying the food system challenges. Agricultural emissions depend on many factors, including farming models, soil management, transport, supply chains, and food waste. In Nordic countries such as Finland, a significant portion of land is better suited to grazing than to the direct cultivation of plant foods for human consumption. Eliminating or excessively reducing livestock farming could therefore have significant consequences for rural land management.
The key issue is the quantitative target being imposed (50%), which suggests a planning-oriented logic rather than a scientific or nutritional one. The measure raises important questions about food freedom and social consent, the actual nutritional quality of alternatives, the influence of the plant-based industry, and the use of public catering as a political instrument. More than a simple food policy, it appears to be an experiment in governing diets at the urban scale, a way to gradually shape citizens’ eating habits over time.