The cheese paradox: How do vegetarians justify consuming non-meat animal products?

Minding some animals but not others: Strategic attributions of mental capacities and moral worth to animals used for food in pescatarians, vegetarians, and omnivores

While moral concern for animals has become increasingly important for both consumer food choice and food policy makers, previous research demonstrated that meat eaters attribute lower moral status and mental capacities to animals raised for meat compared to non-food animals. The current research investigated whether this strategic flexibility in moral concern and mind perceptions also occurs when considering aquatic food animals and animals used for dairy and egg products, and the degree to which these concerns and perceptions are evident in pescatarians and vegetarians. We compared perceptions (mind attributions and moral concern) of land food animals versus aquatic food animals, and of animals in the meat versus dairy and egg industry between omnivores (n = 122), pescatarians (n = 118), vegetarians (n = 138), vegans (n = 120), and flexitarians (n = 60). Pescatarians scored lower than other dietary groups on moral concern and mind attribution for aquatic animals relative to farmed land animals. Unlike the other dietary groups, pescatarians and vegetarians scored lower on moral concern and mind attribution for dairy than beef cows and for layer chickens than broiler chickens. These findings demonstrate that pescatarians and vegetarians were flexible in their moral thinking about different types of food animals in ways that suited their consumption habits, even when the same animal was evaluated (e.g., dairy vs beef cows). This research highlights the psychological barriers that might prevent people from reducing animal product consumption and may need to be addressed in interventions to encourage transitioning towards more plant-based diets.

Moral disengagement in the media discourses on meat and dairy production systems

Meat and dairy production and consumption are the subject of ongoing public debates that touch on various sustainability issues such as biodiversity loss, climate change, animal welfare, and social and health aspects. Despite extensive discussions specifically relating to the environmental impacts of livestock farming in conjunction with animal welfare aspects, there have been no substantial changes in production or consumption patterns. Moreover, the focus of extant research is usually on consumers' responses to public concerns around livestock production. In this study, we shed light on the discrepancy between the normative discourse and action of relevant value chain actors with the help of Bandura's theory of moral disengagement, which allows us to identify mechanisms that contribute to the perpetuation of unsustainable production and consumption patterns. In particular, we focus on the shifting of responsibility between actors in the normatively charged field of sustainable livestock production. We collected 109 media interviews on meat and dairy production and consumption from the years 2020-2022, including interviews with actors from agriculture, processing industries, and food retail. Using qualitative content analysis, we investigated the role of moral disengagement in the media discourse on meat and dairy production and explored differences between actors in terms of moral disengagement. We found that shifting of responsibility shows a quasi-circular dynamic of being shifted from all actors to all, in our case most frequently to consumers, politics, and (diffuse) economic forces. In addition, our analysis showed the use of social justifications, beneficial comparisons, and euphemistic labelling to be common mechanisms of moral disengagement, constituting a collective problem within agri-food systems.

Psychological differences and similarities between vegans, prospective vegans, and vegetarians. Motivation, knowledge, vegan literacy - and cheese

Introduction

Although vegan and vegetarian diets and lifestyles differ significantly from each other, among other things, notably in their respective consequences regarding animal welfare and their ecological impact, vegans and vegetarians are often grouped together and usually compared to omnivores in psychological research. Considering that vegans and vegetarians often share similar motives for their lifestyle choices, namely animal and environmental issues, the question arises why similar motives lead to different conclusions and correspondingly different behaviors, most notably, of course, that vegetarians consume animal-derived foods such as cheese or milk while vegans do not consume animal-derived products (e.g., food, cosmetic products). This is why this study explored the psychological differences between vegans, vegetarians, and prospective vegans - the latter group being located in an intermediate, transitionary position. Focusing on the motivational, affective and cognitive components of dietary transition and participants' adherence to eating patterns, reasons for said patterns, possible hinderances to becoming vegan, the role of participants' social environments, and the impact of various misconceptions regarding the feasibility of a vegan diet in everyday life were all explored.

Methods

An observational study was conducted via online questionnaire (1420 participants).

Results

Significant differences were found between vegans, prospective vegans, and vegetarians, especially concerning their knowledge of issues pertaining to their respective lifestyles.

Discussion

The critical role of knowledge is invoked as an explanation as to why vegans and vegetarians display different behaviors although they share a similar motivation. Thus, in this study the concept of vegan literacy is introduced. Additionally, the distinctive role of cheese is explored, discussing possible indications of its potentially addictive nature and, consequently, the importance of cheese as a hindering factor for pursuing a vegan diet.

Similarities and differences between vegetarians and vegans in motives for meat-free and plant-based diets

Plant-based diets are quickly gaining popularity for their benefits to animal welfare, the environment, and public health. Compared to meat-eaters, meat-abstainers such as vegetarians and vegans are especially motivated by animal rights and the environment. However, little is known about the motivational and psychological factors that distinguish vegetarians from vegans, and what prevents vegetarians to shift towards a fully plant-based diet. In a sample of vegans (n = 335) and vegetarians (n = 182), we investigated a) motives for reducing or quitting meat consumption and b) motives for reducing or quitting animal product (dairy and egg products) consumption, as well as moral psychological and social-contextual factors that may explain potential differences. Results demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans tend to be similar in their motives to abstain from meat consumption and are most strongly motivated by animal rights. However, vegetarians are less motivated by health, environmental, and especially animal rights for dairy/egg reduction compared to meat reduction and compared to vegans. Lower moral concern for animals, stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals, and heightened veganism threat among vegetarians (vs. vegans) partly explained why vegetarians were less strongly motivated by animal rights for dairy/egg reduction. Human supremacy beliefs also explained differences between vegetarians and vegans in health and environmental motives for dairy/egg reduction. Furthermore, vegetarians reported significantly less social support for plant-based diets and perceived more practical barriers to plant-based diets than vegans. These findings reveal meaningful differences in the motivational and psychological profiles of vegetarians and vegans and highlight the value of distinguishing between motives for meat-free diets and motives for plant-based diets.

Vegetarians: Past, Present, and Future Regarding Their Diet Quality and Nutritional Status

The term "vegetarian" usually refers to individuals who exclude meat, fish, poultry and/or their derived products from their diet [...].