Background

How does consumption contribute to the construction of identity, and in what ways does this process equate specific consumption patterns with particular political ideas?

My initial idea was to focus on how consumption contributes to the formation of identity and how identities equate to specific political ideologies. I started from the premise that consumption and identity are closely linked and mutually influential.

Cultivation of identity is the defining of people at their core and in a manner that suits an intended purpose, enacted by putting a “consumable” at/near the center of a person’s identity. (Source)

This manifests itself in various aspects of identity, including the political dimension: the consumption of particular items is frequently linked to specific political leanings.

• Patagonia, for example, is associated with left-leaning identities due to its strong environmental advocacy, whereas Timberland, although worn by people of various ideologies, is strongly associated with a rugged, working-class identity in rural, conservative areas.
• Wrangler jeans, meanwhile, are favoured in rural communities with conservative leanings. By contrast, Levi's is seen as more progressive due to its CEO's outspokenness on progressive causes.
• Tesla used to appeal to progressive, tech-savvy environmentalists, but Elon Musk’s views have alienated some of Tesla's original left-leaning fans and attracted a more libertarian, centre-right tech and finance crowd.

How I decided to explore the topic

• Explore the mechanisms through which consumption practices and material possessions serve as tools for identity formation.
• Investigate how these identities can become politicized, with consumption choices acting as markers of political affiliation or ideology.

• Analyze the implications of these processes for social cohesion, political polarization, and environmental sustainability.

Problem Definition

AI algorithms are fueling the formation of politically polarized consumption tribes around meat versus plant-based diets.

By amplifying identity-driven content and product recommendations, these algorithms deepen divisions, drive unsustainable consumption patterns, and hinder the collective action needed to address global environmental and social challenges—while simultaneously accelerating them.

I decided to focus on the political identities connected to food choices, especially whether people eat meat or plant-based proteins. The choice around this type of consumption:

1. Is closely linked to political beliefs;
2. Has a very noticeable impact, both on the environment and on society.

System Map and Problem Analysis

Eventually, I decided to structure my research in three areas: algorithms, the meat industry, and the resulting impact.

Algorithms of Identity

Firstly, we need to understand how algorithms can affect the way we create our identity. When we talk about algorithms, we are referring to two types in particular: community detection and recommendation engines.

Community detection algorithms are used to detect people with common interests and keep them together. This is useful for social media as it increases engagement on posts and connections, creating an online community of similar people. 

When we are part of a community, the sense of belonging becomes part of us. Communities require in-group and out-group dynamics, and the establishment of norms, habits and values. This leads to a sense of identification with the community based on what you like and dislike. At the same time, social media uses recommendation engines to filter content and show users relevant and interesting material.

The Meat Industry's Strategic Response

However, what makes this phenomenon particularly concerning is how the meat industry has recognized and exploited these algorithmic dynamics. My research revealed that the industry has developed sophisticated propaganda strategies that work in tandem with social media algorithms to influence public perception. They employ two primary narrative approaches: disparaging alternatives to meat and dairy products, which accounts for 78% of their misinformation efforts, and enhancing the perceived benefits of meat and dairy consumption, representing 22% of their messaging.

This strategic misinformation campaign has proven remarkably effective. The data shows that over 40% of the U.S. public now believes that beef is better for the environment than plant-based alternatives, while only 34% hold the scientifically accurate opposite view. This represents a complete inversion of environmental reality, demonstrating how algorithmic amplification of industry messaging can fundamentally distort public understanding of critical issues.

The Resulting Polarization and Impact

The convergence of algorithmic content curation and industry manipulation has created what I term „consumption tribes“ – polarized groups whose dietary choices have become political symbols. These tribes exist within filter bubbles and echo chambers, where members are isolated from diverse viewpoints and gradually lose trust in outside sources of information. The distinction between filter bubbles, where you don't hear the other side, and echo chambers, where you don't trust the other side, becomes crucial in understanding how misinformation spreads and solidifies.

This polarization extends far beyond individual food choices, creating a cascade of negative impacts across environmental, political, and social dimensions. Environmentally, we see stalled progress on climate goals and the perpetuation of unsustainable consumption patterns. Politically, this phenomenon undermines collective action and destroys the foundation for democratic debate. Socially, it creates stigma and division while facilitating the spread of misinformation and distrust. At a scale affecting millions of people globally, these algorithmic manipulation tactics are fundamentally reshaping how we understand our relationship with food, identity, and each other.

Theory of Change

There’s an issue with AI algorithms fueling politically polarized consumption tribes around meat versus plant-based diets at the scale of millions of people globally. The meat industry is further exploiting this in its favor.

This has the impact of deepening social divisions, promoting unsustainable consumption patterns, and hindering collective action on environmental and social challenges.

So, it is important to raise awareness of this issue, especially among policymakers who are directly involved with the meat industry. This will help to get regulations in place that make algorithms accountable. If policymakers implement robust standards for algorithmic transparency, independent auditing, and participatory oversight then public trust in food information will increase, misinformation and polarization will decrease, and democratic discourse around food choices will become more balanced and inclusive.

Design Concept

My design idea is aimed primarily at policymakers and regulators involved in the meat industry — people who can translate data into policy action and raise public awareness. The secondary audience includes think tanks, advocacy groups, NGOs and academic institutions. These organisations will act as trusted intermediaries, legitimising the research findings, amplifying the message through their established networks and providing the credibility needed to influence policy decisions. These organisations are crucial in bridging the gap between raw data and political action. They translate complex algorithmic patterns into compelling policy narratives that resonate with lawmakers, who may lack technical expertise, but understand constituent concerns and democratic threats.

Explanatory Video

Slide Deck

Sources

1 Admin. (2022, March 11). What is a recommendation engine and how does it work?. Appier. https://www.appier.com/en/blog/what-is-a-recommendation-engine-and-how-does-it-work

2 Filter bubbles. WOLF OF SEO. (2023, November 17). https://wolf-of-seo.de/en/what-is/filter-bubbles/

3 Caballar, R., & Stryker, C. (2025, April 17). What is a recommendation engine?. IBM. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/recommendation-engine

4 Jayawickrama, T. D. (2021, February 1). Community detection algorithms. Medium. https://medium.com/data-science/community-detection-algorithms-9bd8951e7dae

5 Despot, I. (n.d.). Understanding community detection algorithms with python networkx. Memgraph. https://memgraph.com/blog/community-detection-algorithms-with-python-networkx

6 Nguyen, T. T., Hui, P.-M., Harper, F. M., Terveen, L., & Konstan, J. A. (2014). Exploring the filter bubble. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1145/2566486.2568012

7 Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2017). Media audience homophily: Partisan websites, audience identity and polarization processes. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1072–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625945

8 Gurteen, D. (n.d.). Filter bubbles, epistemic bubbles and Echo Chambers. Conversational Leadership. https://conversational-leadership.net/echo-chambers-filter-bubbles/

9 Truth, lies and culture wars - social listening analysis of meat and dairy persuasion narratives • changing markets. Changing Markets. (2024, May 15). https://changingmarkets.org/report/truth-lies-and-culture-wars-social-listening-analysis-of-meat-and-dairy-persuasion-narratives/

10 How do online communities shape identity? → question. Lifestyle. (2025, March 4). https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/question/how-do-online-communities-shape-identity/

11 Prime, R. (2025, March 27). Groupthink theory: 8 best concepts, definition, examples. Best Dissertation Writers. https://bestdissertationwriter.com/groupthink-theory/

12 Nezlek, John B. and Forestell, Catherine A., Vegetarianism as a Social Identity (2020). Current Opinion in Food Science, 33, 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2019.12.005

13 How does food choice affect personal identity? → question. Lifestyle. (2025b, March 14). https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/question/how-does-food-choice-affect-personal-identity/

14 How the Meat Industry Shapes U.S. politics (and vice-versa). Sentient. (2024, July 16). https://sentientmedia.org/meat-industry-us-politics/

15 Saha S. (2023). Why don't politicians talk about meat? The political psychology of human-animal relations in elections. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1021013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1021013

16 Muller, S. M., & Rooney, D. (2024, May 17). Plant-based meat alternatives are trying to exit the culture wars – an impossible task?. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/plant-based-meat-alternatives-are-trying-to-exit-the-culture-wars-an-impossible-task-229684

17 Davis, T., Harkins, L., & Papies, E. K. (2025). Polarizing Plates: Both Omnivores and Vegans Represent In-Group Foods With Eating Simulations. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 51(5), 742–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231202276

18 Yasseri, T., & Sanford, M. (2025, April 15). Social media is reducing climate change debates to your views on veganism. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/social-media-is-reducing-climate-change-debates-to-your-views-on-veganism-167931

19 Gadarian, S., Van Bavel, J., Knowles, E., & Ruggeri, K. (2024). Political Polarization Harms Public Health. https://doi.org/10.14305/rt.lerner.2024.3

20 Carlile, C. (2024, March 4). Meat Industry using “misinformation” to block dietary change, report finds. DeSmog. https://www.desmog.com/2024/03/01/meat-industry-using-misinformation-to-block-dietary-change-report-finds/

21 (2024). (rep.). The New Merchants of Doubt: How Big Meat and Dairy Avoid Climate Action. Retrieved June 18, 2025, from https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Report-The-New-Merchants-of-Doubt_Final.pdf.

22 Carothers, T., & O’Donohue, A. (2019, October 1). How to understand the global spread of political polarization. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2019/10/how-to-understand-the-global-spread-of-political-polarization?lang=en