Joy (2010)
How can people
care about animals, and yet eat them? This is the meat paradox.
The meat paradox
From time immemorial, humans have exploited
environmental and natural resources, including animals. To be specific, animals
are used as food (intensive and factory farming, battery reared-chickens,
industrial fishing, dairy industry—to name just a few instances); clothes (fur,
leather, wool, feather, cashmere, ivory, silk, angora, etc.), science (animal
experimentation, cosmetics testing, biology lessons, medical training…),
company (pets, guides or assistance dogs, animal guards and so on),
entertainment (circuses, zoos, rodeos, cockfighting, dogfighting, hunting and
others), traditions (Corrida, Yulin dog meat festival, Grindadràp, Toro de la Vega tournament, Kots Kaal Pato, Gadhimai festival, the list goes on) and means
of transport (working or draft animals, pack and harness animals, logging
elephants, dogcarts and so on).
According to ADAPTT (2016), the number of animals killed worldwide for the food industry reaches 150 billion each year. The animal rights organization PETA (2016) reported more than a billion animals killed for the leather industry and approximately 100 million in vivisection laboratories in just the U.S.
Flickr – Equality (2005)
Interestingly, we observe a banalization of this
massive exploitation: The average Belgian eats around 86 kg of meat a year
(WRI, 2016) and Europe imports 33,000 tonnes of heavy leather obtained from
bovine animals per year (FAO, 2014). These routines suggest that we live in a
culture that does not value animals’ lives, ignores their suffering, and denies
them moral standing (Bratanova, Loughnan & Bastian, 2011). However,
according to the American Pet Association, ownership of pets around the world,
and especially in the U.S., is increasing (APPA, 2016). How can society
consider animals part of people’s families and yet tolerate their instrumentalization,
deindividualization, dichotomization and objectification by eating, wearing or
using them (Joy, 2010)? This is a paradox.
How do we manage the meat paradox?
The state of ambivalence emerging from the
contradiction that people enjoy eating meat but
do not like eating minds generates cognitive dissonance, which
motivates individuals to resolve an unpleasant emotional state in which a
belief and an action are in conflict (Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones &
Harmon-Jones, 2007; Loughnan et al., 2011). In other words, how can people deal
with a contradiction between a moral belief (e.g., I should not hurt animals)
and a specific form of behaviour (e.g., I eat meat, I wear leather) (Bratanova
et al., 2011).
One way to resolve this state of
ambivalence is to stop the consumption of animal meat. Indeed, vegetarians and
vegans do not experience discomfort with respect to the relationship between
their consumption and the animal rights (Allen et al., 2000). However, the vast
majority of people do not change their behaviour and keep eating meat. A way
for them to reduce this dissonance is to modify their perception of eating
animals, especially by denying that animals suffer and diminishing the moral
rights of animals (Loughnan et al., 2011). Specifically, researchers asked
their participants to eat beef jerky or cashew-nuts, and then indicate their
moral concerns about animals (‘rate the extent to which you
think a cow possesses the ability to experience these psychological states:
perception, wishes, thoughts and intentions.’). As expected, participants who ate beef
jerky attributed fewer abilities to the cow compared to the participants who
ate cashew-nuts. Thus, they concluded that eating meat leads people to withdraw
moral concern from animals (Loughnan et al., 2010). In the same vein, scholars
have demonstrated that omnivores (but not vegetarians) offer evidence of a
clear distinction between meat and non-meat animals by denying non-meat animals
emotions and excluding their moral concern (Bilewicz et al., 2011). To
summarize, withdrawing moral concern from animals can play a role in the way in
which people perceive animals and motivate them to resolve the meat paradox
(Loughnan et al., 2011).
Speciesism-Kuczynski (2012)
In conclusion, the animal meat industry slaughters a
huge amount of animals each day (Monson, 2010), and the production and
consumption of meat entail numerous negative consequences for our environment
and our health (IARC [2015], the cancer agency of the World Health
Organization, based on 800 studies on red meat and transformed meat). However,
even if people assert that they love and respect animals, they keep on eating
meat and instrumentalizing them. This paradox generates cognitive dissonance
that can be resolved in many different ways: for example, by ceasing meat
consumption like vegetarians. For omnivores, they tend to minimize the moral
rights of animals in order to feel less guilty while eating them (Loughnan et
al., 2010). Additionally, lobbyists from the meat industry might also play an
important role in the meat paradox by spreading false information to encourage
people to consume more meat or discourage them from adopting alternatives
(e.g., ‘There is no
science linking red meat to cancer, stroke and heart attacks,’ ‘Red meat warnings violate consumer rights,’
‘Real men eat meat,’ ‘Millions of Americans can’t be wrong,’)
and also exert pressure on and
bankroll institutions, organizations, environmental groups, scholars, etc., in
order to ensure that their business flourishes (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014).
Vegan Sidekick (2016)
Finally, as we saw, this disconnect (e.g., between
what we have on our plate and the animal killed) leads directly to negative
impacts on health, environment and animal welfare. However, while I was writing
this article, I was really surprised about how people did not know about the
consequences that their daily habits generate (e.g., that their shoes came from
pig skin or that the cosmetics they use had been tested on rabbits or monkeys).
This ignorance inspired me to offer an alternative point of view on the animal
industry, not to convince them to change, but to act freely while being aware
of the consequences of their consumption.
And you, how do you manage the meat
paradox?
Suggestions:
1. Documentaries:
Earthlings: Hidden cameras are used to record what the
animal industry does not want us to see.
‘Cowspiracy’—The Sustainability Secret: Destructive consequences
of the animal meat industry for the planet.
2. Book:
Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear
cows: an introduction to carnism. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press.
3. Scientific literature on the meat paradox:
Loughnan, S., Bratanova, B., & Puvia, E. (2011).
The meat paradox: How are we able to love animals and love eating animals?
In-Mind Italia, 1, 15–18.
References:
ADAPTT (2016). Animals deserve absolute protection
today and tomorrow. Retrieved 7.7.2016, from http://www.adaptt.org/
Allen, M. W., Wilson, M., Ng, S. H., & Dunne, M.
(2000). Values and Beliefs of Vegetarians and Omnivores. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 140(4), 405–422. doi:10.1080/00224540009600481
Andersen, K., & Kuhn, K. (2014). Cowspiracy: The
Sustainability Secret. In AUM Films & first spark media.
APPA (2016). U.S. pet ownership statistics—American
Pet Products Association. Retrieved 7.7.2016, from
http://www.americanpetproducts.org/.
Bilewicz, M., Imhoff, R., & Drogosz, M. (2011).
The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians
and omnivores. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 41(2), 201–209. doi:10.1002/ejsp.766
Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011).
The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of
animals. Appetite, 57(1), 193–196. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020
FAO (2014). Imports of heavy leather from bovine
animals—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 7.7.2016,
from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4651e.pdf
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive
dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive
dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association
IARC (2015). International Agency for Research on
Cancer. Volume 114: Consumption of red meat and processed meat. IARC Working
Group. Lyon
Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear
cows: an introduction to carnism. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press.
Loughnan, S., Bratanova, B., & Puvia, E. (2011).
The meat paradox: How are we able to love animals and love eating animals?
In-Mind Italia, 1, 15–18.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010).
The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat
animals. Appetite, 55(1), 156–159. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043
Monson, S. (2010). Earthlings
[Documentary]. Nation Earth Media, Burbank, California.
WRI (2010). Per capita meat consumption by nation—World Resources Institute. Retrieved 7.7.2016,
WRI (2010). Per capita meat consumption by nation—World Resources Institute. Retrieved 7.7.2016,
