The 'meat paradox': Why people can love animals — and eat them
Canadians prefer pepperoni on their pizza. And though one in four considered cutting it during COVID-19, beef is still a staple .
Laura Brehaut -National Post - Thursday
© Provided by National PostMany people experience the
If you eat meat — as more than 90 per cent of Canadians do — chances are good, it comes from factory farms. Each year, 80 billion animals are slaughtered for meat globally, more than 90 per cent of which are estimated to live in intensive farming systems.
The alternative — meat bearing labels such as “free-range,” “grass-fed” and “certified humane” — is very much the minority. But those $7.99 rotisserie birds come at a cost to animal welfare and the environment.
According to Our World in Data , livestock production takes a significant environmental toll. Beef (meat and dairy), lamb and mutton emit the most greenhouse gas per kilogram than any other food. And when it comes to producing the beef that leads the pack in emissions, a study published in the journal Animal Welfare suggests that 13.6 per cent of bulls are inadequately stunned.
Many of the same people who regularly put meat on their plates are also likely to identify as animal lovers — sharing their homes with pets they adore, devouring cute animal videos on social media and supporting stricter food labelling around animal welfare.
A 2017 study published in the journal Society & Animals even suggests that people empathize more with dogs than they do other adults.
So, how do people reconcile their affection for animals with their desire to eat them in the form of meat?
The answer lies in the psychology behind the way we perceive contradictory information: a manifestation of cognitive dissonance (the discomfort of our beliefs clashing with new information) called the “meat paradox.”
In a first-of-its-kind literature review published in the Social Psychological Bulletin , U.K. researchers from the Societies Research Hub at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) and Nottingham Trent University investigated the meat paradox and identified its two main psychological processes: triggers, such as reminding people of meat’s animal origin; and restorative strategies including disengagement from the issue.
“One of the big triggers of this meat paradox and of this cognitive dissonance, as we call it — this feeling of discomfort — is just hearing information about animals,” says ARU doctoral researcher Sarah Gradidge, lead author of the literature review.
“So simply just, for example, saying to somebody that their meat comes from an animal could be a trigger of this discomfort and can make them feel very uncomfortable and potentially very threatened.”
The researchers found that people use different strategies to deal with the meat paradox and alleviate their discomfort. Different people — intersecting with age, culture, dietary preferences, gender, occupation or religion — use different strategies, adds Gradidge, though figuring out why requires future research.
Some tend to use indirect strategies, the most common of which is avoidance: mental (e.g., avoiding thinking about meat as animal flesh) or physical (e.g., steering clear of slaughterhouse footage).
“Obviously, if you’re eating meat, you might not want to think about where that meat has come from. So very simply, you might just be avoiding any thoughts that this meat has come from an animal,” says Gradidge.
This is the Healthiest Fish You Can Eat
Most fish is full of healthy fats, which make it a nutritious addition to any meal. And, since most fish is free from both saturated fats and trans fats, “it’s an overall really great lean protein source,” says Maiya Ahluwalia, registered dietitian and founder of Toronto-based nutrition counselling service Nourishing Balance.
The healthy fatty acids found in many types of fish, known as omega-3s, have a whole suite of health benefits. For instance, omega-3s are known for their anti-inflammatory properties and are essential to heart health. In fact, they've been shown to help prevent coronary heart disease.
Omega-3s are also great for brain health. Studies have shown that higher omega-3 consumption is associated with better cognitive function in adults over the age of 60.
“All you need is approximately two servings a week to meet your omega-3 needs,” says Annie Tsang, a Vancouver-based registered dietitian. “Each serving is about 75 grams: think the size of a deck of cards.”
To get the most out of those weekly servings, find out the five healthiest fish to eat.
Others tend to use more direct strategies to reduce dissonance by justifying their meat consumption. Most commonly: “denying positive traits to animals,” the 4Ns — defending meat eating as “natural,” “necessary,” “nice” and “normal” — and “denial of adverse consequences.”
“Instead of not thinking about it, they might actually be actively denying certain information. They may be denying that meat consumption causes harm to animals. They may be denying that animals even feel pain ,” Gradidge explains.
“And that alleviates guilt because obviously, if animals can’t feel pain, then meat consumption isn’t going to hurt them. It essentially renders meat consumption completely harmless because it doesn’t cause any pain.”
Vegaphobia — stigma against vegans and vegetarians — can also be a strategy for dealing with the meat paradox, she adds. Sociologists Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan first identified the phenomenon in 2011 in their examination of the British media’s “derogatory” portrayal of vegans.
Most people want to act in a moral way, says Gradidge. If someone were to tell them that their meat eating is causing harm, for example, it could make them feel threatened and uncomfortable.
Instead of dealing with those emotions of discomfort, reflecting on and perhaps changing their own behaviour — such as reducing meat consumption — they may deflect the threat towards vegans and vegetarians. “I suppose, almost like shooting the messenger.”
In “It ain’t easy eating greens,” a 2015 study published in the journal Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , researchers Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson observed that only people with an addiction are viewed more negatively than vegans and vegetarians.
“Unlike other forms of bias (e.g., racism, sexism), negativity toward vegetarians and vegans is not widely considered a societal problem; rather, (it) is commonplace and largely accepted,” the Guardian reports of their conclusions.
Demonstrating this stigma — a phenomenon called do-gooder derogation — doesn’t just apply to vegans and vegetarians, Gradidge highlights, but people dealing with other moral issues as well (e.g., resentment of others’ generosity ).
How much of a role does protein play in getting Olympic athletes to the podium?
Beef is still a staple, but 1 in 4 Canadians considered cutting it during COVID: survey
The way people communicate information about the consequences of meat eating matters, highlights Gradidge.
An August 2021 study published in the journal PLOS One suggests that blaming people — intentionally or not — for their role in unethical behaviour “leads to increased defensiveness and may be counterproductive.”
Alleviating them of any wrongdoing, however, may make them more receptive to information and potential change.
“It’s really, really important that when we’re talking about these issues, we’re doing it in a way that is absolving. So, we’re doing it in a way that’s not blaming meat eaters and saying, ‘It’s all your fault, you’re a bad person,’ etc.,” says Gradidge.
“We want to try to do it in a way that’s compassionate, and in a way that’s relatable to them. We really want to avoid these ‘us versus them’ politics. We don’t want to be presenting it as us, the animal welfare advocates, against them, the meat eaters. We really want to be thinking about how we can relate and try to bridge the gap.”
Effective communication requires finding the “sweet spot of cognitive dissonance,” she adds. Behavioural change requires some discomfort — if people don’t feel any, they’ll continue doing what they’ve always done.
If people feel too threatened, however, they tend to switch off and avoid the issue. A minority of people will even do the opposite in an urge to rebel (a psychological effect called reactance ). If the message is to decrease meat consumption, they will increase it due to a perceived loss of freedom.
Raising awareness about animal welfare and environmental issues related to meat consumption is necessary, says Gradidge, but needs to be done in a way that will encourage people to reflect — not disengage.
“It raises some major issues when we’re talking about these issues, because we need to talk about them. But then we have to really navigate this cognitive dissonance and this potential discomfort as well,” she adds.
“It’s not about trying to force people to change their behaviour. It’s about trying to get people to reflect on their meat consumption themselves and to then make the decision themselves…. But obviously if we are presenting it in a way that’s threatening, then people aren’t going to reflect at all. They’re just going to ignore the information sadly.”
Laura Brehaut -National Post - Thursday
© Provided by National PostMany people experience the
If you eat meat — as more than 90 per cent of Canadians do — chances are good, it comes from factory farms. Each year, 80 billion animals are slaughtered for meat globally, more than 90 per cent of which are estimated to live in intensive farming systems.
The alternative — meat bearing labels such as “free-range,” “grass-fed” and “certified humane” — is very much the minority. But those $7.99 rotisserie birds come at a cost to animal welfare and the environment.
According to Our World in Data , livestock production takes a significant environmental toll. Beef (meat and dairy), lamb and mutton emit the most greenhouse gas per kilogram than any other food. And when it comes to producing the beef that leads the pack in emissions, a study published in the journal Animal Welfare suggests that 13.6 per cent of bulls are inadequately stunned.
Many of the same people who regularly put meat on their plates are also likely to identify as animal lovers — sharing their homes with pets they adore, devouring cute animal videos on social media and supporting stricter food labelling around animal welfare.
A 2017 study published in the journal Society & Animals even suggests that people empathize more with dogs than they do other adults.
So, how do people reconcile their affection for animals with their desire to eat them in the form of meat?
The answer lies in the psychology behind the way we perceive contradictory information: a manifestation of cognitive dissonance (the discomfort of our beliefs clashing with new information) called the “meat paradox.”
In a first-of-its-kind literature review published in the Social Psychological Bulletin , U.K. researchers from the Societies Research Hub at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) and Nottingham Trent University investigated the meat paradox and identified its two main psychological processes: triggers, such as reminding people of meat’s animal origin; and restorative strategies including disengagement from the issue.
“One of the big triggers of this meat paradox and of this cognitive dissonance, as we call it — this feeling of discomfort — is just hearing information about animals,” says ARU doctoral researcher Sarah Gradidge, lead author of the literature review.
“So simply just, for example, saying to somebody that their meat comes from an animal could be a trigger of this discomfort and can make them feel very uncomfortable and potentially very threatened.”
The researchers found that people use different strategies to deal with the meat paradox and alleviate their discomfort. Different people — intersecting with age, culture, dietary preferences, gender, occupation or religion — use different strategies, adds Gradidge, though figuring out why requires future research.
Some tend to use indirect strategies, the most common of which is avoidance: mental (e.g., avoiding thinking about meat as animal flesh) or physical (e.g., steering clear of slaughterhouse footage).
“Obviously, if you’re eating meat, you might not want to think about where that meat has come from. So very simply, you might just be avoiding any thoughts that this meat has come from an animal,” says Gradidge.
This is the Healthiest Fish You Can Eat
Most fish is full of healthy fats, which make it a nutritious addition to any meal. And, since most fish is free from both saturated fats and trans fats, “it’s an overall really great lean protein source,” says Maiya Ahluwalia, registered dietitian and founder of Toronto-based nutrition counselling service Nourishing Balance.
The healthy fatty acids found in many types of fish, known as omega-3s, have a whole suite of health benefits. For instance, omega-3s are known for their anti-inflammatory properties and are essential to heart health. In fact, they've been shown to help prevent coronary heart disease.
Omega-3s are also great for brain health. Studies have shown that higher omega-3 consumption is associated with better cognitive function in adults over the age of 60.
“All you need is approximately two servings a week to meet your omega-3 needs,” says Annie Tsang, a Vancouver-based registered dietitian. “Each serving is about 75 grams: think the size of a deck of cards.”
To get the most out of those weekly servings, find out the five healthiest fish to eat.
Others tend to use more direct strategies to reduce dissonance by justifying their meat consumption. Most commonly: “denying positive traits to animals,” the 4Ns — defending meat eating as “natural,” “necessary,” “nice” and “normal” — and “denial of adverse consequences.”
“Instead of not thinking about it, they might actually be actively denying certain information. They may be denying that meat consumption causes harm to animals. They may be denying that animals even feel pain ,” Gradidge explains.
“And that alleviates guilt because obviously, if animals can’t feel pain, then meat consumption isn’t going to hurt them. It essentially renders meat consumption completely harmless because it doesn’t cause any pain.”
Vegaphobia — stigma against vegans and vegetarians — can also be a strategy for dealing with the meat paradox, she adds. Sociologists Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan first identified the phenomenon in 2011 in their examination of the British media’s “derogatory” portrayal of vegans.
Most people want to act in a moral way, says Gradidge. If someone were to tell them that their meat eating is causing harm, for example, it could make them feel threatened and uncomfortable.
Instead of dealing with those emotions of discomfort, reflecting on and perhaps changing their own behaviour — such as reducing meat consumption — they may deflect the threat towards vegans and vegetarians. “I suppose, almost like shooting the messenger.”
In “It ain’t easy eating greens,” a 2015 study published in the journal Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , researchers Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson observed that only people with an addiction are viewed more negatively than vegans and vegetarians.
“Unlike other forms of bias (e.g., racism, sexism), negativity toward vegetarians and vegans is not widely considered a societal problem; rather, (it) is commonplace and largely accepted,” the Guardian reports of their conclusions.
Demonstrating this stigma — a phenomenon called do-gooder derogation — doesn’t just apply to vegans and vegetarians, Gradidge highlights, but people dealing with other moral issues as well (e.g., resentment of others’ generosity ).
How much of a role does protein play in getting Olympic athletes to the podium?
Beef is still a staple, but 1 in 4 Canadians considered cutting it during COVID: survey
The way people communicate information about the consequences of meat eating matters, highlights Gradidge.
An August 2021 study published in the journal PLOS One suggests that blaming people — intentionally or not — for their role in unethical behaviour “leads to increased defensiveness and may be counterproductive.”
Alleviating them of any wrongdoing, however, may make them more receptive to information and potential change.
“It’s really, really important that when we’re talking about these issues, we’re doing it in a way that is absolving. So, we’re doing it in a way that’s not blaming meat eaters and saying, ‘It’s all your fault, you’re a bad person,’ etc.,” says Gradidge.
“We want to try to do it in a way that’s compassionate, and in a way that’s relatable to them. We really want to avoid these ‘us versus them’ politics. We don’t want to be presenting it as us, the animal welfare advocates, against them, the meat eaters. We really want to be thinking about how we can relate and try to bridge the gap.”
Effective communication requires finding the “sweet spot of cognitive dissonance,” she adds. Behavioural change requires some discomfort — if people don’t feel any, they’ll continue doing what they’ve always done.
If people feel too threatened, however, they tend to switch off and avoid the issue. A minority of people will even do the opposite in an urge to rebel (a psychological effect called reactance ). If the message is to decrease meat consumption, they will increase it due to a perceived loss of freedom.
Raising awareness about animal welfare and environmental issues related to meat consumption is necessary, says Gradidge, but needs to be done in a way that will encourage people to reflect — not disengage.
“It raises some major issues when we’re talking about these issues, because we need to talk about them. But then we have to really navigate this cognitive dissonance and this potential discomfort as well,” she adds.
“It’s not about trying to force people to change their behaviour. It’s about trying to get people to reflect on their meat consumption themselves and to then make the decision themselves…. But obviously if we are presenting it in a way that’s threatening, then people aren’t going to reflect at all. They’re just going to ignore the information sadly.”
The meat paradox: how your brain wrestles with the ethics of eating animals
The Conversation
February 12, 2022
Photo by Daniel Quiceno M on Unsplash
Most people eat meat and dairy with little thought of the consequences. Yet those consequences are planetary in scale. Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk accounts for roughly 14%
of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Beef production is the biggest driver of forest loss within agriculture. The meat industry has been linked to a host of other environmental harms, including water pollution.
Eating too much meat can be bad for your health too, particularly red and processed meat which is thought to increase your risk of developing colorectal cancer. Feeding the world’s appetite for meat costs the lives of billions of animals a year, and animal welfare is a concern on farms worldwide, with pigs, cows and chickens often subject to overcrowding, open wounds and disease.
Animal welfare laws in the UK compare poorly with standards set by organisations like the RSPCA. Chickens are forced to grow much faster than they naturally would and become ill as a result, while narrow crates and tying posts restrict the movements of pigs and cows. In extreme cases, captive pigs have been found engaging in cannibalism.
In what is no doubt a response to these concerns, veganism is on the rise. In the UK, the number of people eating a plant-based diet increased fourfold between 2014 and 2019. However, vegans still only make up about 1% of the UK population and vegetarians just 2%. On a global scale, meat consumption is actually increasing. So why do people keep eating meat, despite widespread awareness of the downsides?
Psychologists have some answers.
The meat paradox
Our recent paper reviewed 73 articles on a phenomenon called the meat paradox – the mental contradiction that helps devoted animal lovers continue eating animals.
This moral dilemma can cause people psychological discomfort, and our review revealed several triggers. For instance, you may relate to the jarring experience of realising for the first time that the meat on your plate came from an animal.
Meat-eating has consequences for how we interact with and perceive animals in later life, too. While eating beef in a 2010 study, participants were less likely to view animals as worthy of moral concern. And the more committed someone is to eating meat, the more likely they are to avoid information about the positive qualities of animals raised for food.
The discomfort people feel about eating meat presents them with a stark choice. Either remove the moral dilemma by giving up meat, or continue eating meat and morally disengage. Moral disengagement is when we choose not to act on our moral values. Our review highlighted several strategies that people use to maintain this moral disengagement.
After being reminded that the meat on your plate comes from an animal, you may try to forget its animal origins. People are more willing to eat meat when its animal origins are obscured, such as by calling meat beef instead of cow. Telling yourself that meat is necessary for health, socially normal, natural or too nice to give up can reduce the guilt people feel when eating meat. Giving up meat can seem difficult and so people often turn to these strategies to reconcile conflicting feelings.
Recalling the animal origins of meat can counter moral disengagement.
Moonborne/Shutterstock
Overcoming moral disengagement
If you would like to reduce your own meat consumption, psychological research has a few recommendations.
• Recognise and remember how reducing your meat consumption aligns with your values.
• Always keep animals in mind. Allow yourself to humanise them by considering their capacity for emotion, for example.
• Accept that changing your diet may be a gradual process.
If you want to encourage others to cut down on meat-eating, you can:
• Avoid blaming them for their meat consumption. This only makes people more resistant to vegetarianism and veganism. Instead, approach these tricky interactions with compassion.
• Avoid telling other people what to do. Let them make up their own minds.
• Humanise animals by encouraging people to view them instead as friends and not food.
Sarah Gradidge, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University
The Conversation
February 12, 2022
Photo by Daniel Quiceno M on Unsplash
Most people eat meat and dairy with little thought of the consequences. Yet those consequences are planetary in scale. Raising livestock for meat, eggs and milk accounts for roughly 14%
of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Beef production is the biggest driver of forest loss within agriculture. The meat industry has been linked to a host of other environmental harms, including water pollution.
Eating too much meat can be bad for your health too, particularly red and processed meat which is thought to increase your risk of developing colorectal cancer. Feeding the world’s appetite for meat costs the lives of billions of animals a year, and animal welfare is a concern on farms worldwide, with pigs, cows and chickens often subject to overcrowding, open wounds and disease.
Animal welfare laws in the UK compare poorly with standards set by organisations like the RSPCA. Chickens are forced to grow much faster than they naturally would and become ill as a result, while narrow crates and tying posts restrict the movements of pigs and cows. In extreme cases, captive pigs have been found engaging in cannibalism.
In what is no doubt a response to these concerns, veganism is on the rise. In the UK, the number of people eating a plant-based diet increased fourfold between 2014 and 2019. However, vegans still only make up about 1% of the UK population and vegetarians just 2%. On a global scale, meat consumption is actually increasing. So why do people keep eating meat, despite widespread awareness of the downsides?
Psychologists have some answers.
The meat paradox
Our recent paper reviewed 73 articles on a phenomenon called the meat paradox – the mental contradiction that helps devoted animal lovers continue eating animals.
This moral dilemma can cause people psychological discomfort, and our review revealed several triggers. For instance, you may relate to the jarring experience of realising for the first time that the meat on your plate came from an animal.
Meat-eating has consequences for how we interact with and perceive animals in later life, too. While eating beef in a 2010 study, participants were less likely to view animals as worthy of moral concern. And the more committed someone is to eating meat, the more likely they are to avoid information about the positive qualities of animals raised for food.
The discomfort people feel about eating meat presents them with a stark choice. Either remove the moral dilemma by giving up meat, or continue eating meat and morally disengage. Moral disengagement is when we choose not to act on our moral values. Our review highlighted several strategies that people use to maintain this moral disengagement.
After being reminded that the meat on your plate comes from an animal, you may try to forget its animal origins. People are more willing to eat meat when its animal origins are obscured, such as by calling meat beef instead of cow. Telling yourself that meat is necessary for health, socially normal, natural or too nice to give up can reduce the guilt people feel when eating meat. Giving up meat can seem difficult and so people often turn to these strategies to reconcile conflicting feelings.
Recalling the animal origins of meat can counter moral disengagement.
Moonborne/Shutterstock
Overcoming moral disengagement
If you would like to reduce your own meat consumption, psychological research has a few recommendations.
• Recognise and remember how reducing your meat consumption aligns with your values.
• Always keep animals in mind. Allow yourself to humanise them by considering their capacity for emotion, for example.
• Accept that changing your diet may be a gradual process.
If you want to encourage others to cut down on meat-eating, you can:
• Avoid blaming them for their meat consumption. This only makes people more resistant to vegetarianism and veganism. Instead, approach these tricky interactions with compassion.
• Avoid telling other people what to do. Let them make up their own minds.
• Humanise animals by encouraging people to view them instead as friends and not food.
Sarah Gradidge, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University
Magdalena Zawisza, Associate Professor/Reader in Gender and Advertising Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
No comments:
Post a Comment