Avocados Are ‘Bad’ and Vegans Are ‘Ridiculous’: New study exposes how people justify eating meat
The researchers observed a tendency among study participants to steer the topic away from meat and towards more comfortable topics by portraying vegans as extremists, and suggesting they are hypocritical because they eat avocados and highly-processed vegan foods, which focus group participants refer to as climate damaging. Furthermore, various forms of shaming 'morally superior' vegans are used to justify their meat consumption.
PHYS.ORG: Avocados are “bad” and vegans are ridiculous. My body needs meat. It’s my partner who doesn’t want to cut back on meat—not me. These are just a few of the things we say when feeling compelled to legitimize not being able to scale back on our meat consumption for the sake of climate.
The findings are from a University of Copenhagen study. In focus group discussions with Danish consumers, the researchers took note of which arguments came into play as participants addressed meat consumption.
“The study shows how we justify our reluctance to cut down on meat consumption when in social settings. All of the participants — predominantly meat eaters — agree that one of the best things a person can do to be a more climate-minded eater is to eat less meat. But when addressing their own meat consumption, other mechanisms kick in,” says Thomas A. M. Skelly, a Ph.D. fellow at the Department of Food and Resource Economics and first author of the article about the study, now published in the Journal of Consumer Culture.
While all six focus groups in the study agreed that reducing meat consumption is one of the most effective ways to make eating more climate-friendly, the participants began to engage in social negotiations on their own behalf along the way.
“That is, they come up with various excuses and justifications or try to shift the focus onto something else. For example, there was a tendency for them to shame avocados as being climate-unfriendly and scold vegans for being extremists. Common to the arguments is that they are perceived as socially legitimate in the groups, and that they help to maintain a morally responsible self-image among the participants,” says the other of the study’s authors, Associate Professor Kia Ditlevsen from the Department of Food and Resource Economics…
The researchers also observed a tendency among participants to steer the topic away from meat and towards more comfortable topics. “People quickly derail the topic and begin talking about other things, such as how they seek to avoid food waste and plastic packaging. Within the group, people are mutually supportive of such derailments. Our interpretation is that this is because these things are more culturally neutral and harmless to relate to. No one really has much of an identity attached to plastic disposal. People can envision doing these kinds of things without any great deprivation or personal cost,” says Ditlevsen.
Furthermore, various forms of shaming “morally superior” vegans are used to justify one’s meat consumption, as the researchers point out:”For example, when a participant states that he or she doesn’t intend on going vegan, the other participants laugh. In doing so, they confirm to one another that veganism would be a ridiculous solution,” says Skelly.
The researchers also see a pattern in the groups of portraying vegans as extremists, and suggesting they are hypocritical, because they eat avocados and highly-processed “vegan foods,” which focus group participants refer to as climate damaging…
According to the researchers, the research results point to the need for public agencies and politicians to have unambiguous messaging with regards to meat consumption… The researcher concludes, “If there is to be more clarity and less confusion among consumers, so that it becomes more difficult to come up with socially acceptable excuses and justifications, clear statements from politicians and authorities must be made”. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: