Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: a test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism

The Veg∗n Eating Motives Inventory Plus (VEMI+): A measure of health, environment, animal rights, disgust, social, pandemic and zoonotic diseases, and farm workers' rights motives

Health, environmental concern, and animal rights are established motives for reduced meat consumption that can be measured by the Vegetarian Eating Motives Inventory (VEMI). This preregistered study aimed to expand the VEMI to include four less-studied motives: disgust, social, concern about zoonotic diseases and pandemics, and concern for workers' rights. We had three objectives: to combine the seven motives into a comprehensive model, to test if the VEMI+ scales function equivalently across omnivore and vegan groups, and to validate and differentiate these motives against external measures and meat reduction appeals. In samples of 731 omnivores and 731 vegans (total N = 1,462), we found support for the measurement invariance of a seven-factor structure across groups and created a scale with reliable measures for each dimension (ω total between 0.82 and 0.97). Vegans scored higher overall, with substantially higher scores on environmental concern, animal rights, disgust, and zoonotic disease concerns, while omnivores had slightly higher scores on health, social, and workers' rights scales. Scale scores had expected correlations with criterion measures and differentially predicted support for motive-tailored appeals. This study enhances our understanding of dietary motivations and provides a valuable tool for future research.

Four studies yield limited evidence for prepared (disgust) learning via evaluative conditioning

Prepared learning accounts suggest that specialized learning mechanisms increase the retention of associations linked to ancestrally-prevalent threats. Few studies have investigated specialized aversion learning for pathogen threats. In four pre-registered studies (N's = 515, 495, 164, 175), we employed an evaluative conditioning procedure to test whether foods (versus non-foods) are more readily associated with negative content associated with pathogens than negative content not associated with pathogens. Participants saw negatively valenced (either pathogen-relevant or -irrelevant), neutral or positively-valenced stimuli paired with meats and plants (in Studies 1 and 2) and with meats and abstract shapes (in Studies 3 and 4). They then evaluated each stimulus explicitly via self-reports (Studies 1-4) and implicitly via an Affect Misattribution Procedure (Studies 3 and 4). Linear mixed models revealed general evaluative conditioning effects, but inconsistent evidence for specialized (implicit or explicit) learning for a food-pathogen association. However, results from a mega-analysis across studies revealed stronger conditioning effects for meats paired with pathogen-relevant negative stimuli than pathogen-irrelevant negative stimuli.

WITHDRAWN: Four studies Yield limited evidence for prepared (disgust) learning via evaluative conditioning

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Are cooks more disgust sensitive? Preliminary examination of the food preparation hypothesis

According to the food preparation hypothesis, sex differences in disgust sensitivity may stem from different sex roles that males and females played in our ancestral times. In current times, these differences may be reflected in varying levels of disgust sensitivity between people who frequently versus rarely engage in meal preparation, or who are versus are not professionally responsible for providing meals for others. To test this reasoning, we conducted a preregistered study with 493 individuals (55% female), with 280 of them working in the restaurant industry. Participants reported their weekly time spent on cooking-related activities and completed the Food Disgust Scale and pathogen subscale of Three Domain Disgust Scale. These measures capture specific, food-related disgust sensitivity, and generalised pathogen disgust sensitivity, respectively. We found that while time spent on cooking was not associated with disgust sensitivity, people professionally engaged in food preparation displayed higher levels of food-related disgust sensitivity. There was no effect of cooking on the generalised pathogen disgust sensitivity. Additionally, we observed sex differences in both types of disgust sensitivity and found that vegetarians exhibited lower disgust sensitivity than meat-eaters. Overall, our findings offer preliminary support for the food preparation hypothesis, and point out that the mechanisms adjusting our disgust sensitivity levels are category-specific, even within the broader pathogen disgust domain.

Diet and odor hedonic ratings: comparative study between vegetarians, flexitarians, and omnivores

OBJECTIVES

Odor hedonic perception is well known to exhibit great variability and to depend on several parameters, i.e. stimulus, context, and subject characteristics. As hedonic perception (pleasant/unpleasant character) of food odors is considered one of the most prominent dimensions in eating behavior, the question of hedonic variability in this context arises. Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare odor hedonic ratings in three populations with regard to diet (i.e. omnivore, vegetarian, and flexitarian diets).

METHODS

Four categories of odors were compared: meat, vegetable, other food, and non-food odors.

RESULTS

The results showed that vegetarian and flexitarian individuals rated meat odors as more unpleasant than omnivores, while no significant difference was found for other categories of odors.

DISCUSSION

The question of whether the diet influences the hedonic perception or/and inversely is discussed, regarding several aspects of food consumption such as eating disorders, food education, … and could further serve to manage eating behaviors.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This study evidenced that vegetarians and flexitarians specifically rated meat odors as being more unpleasant than those of omnivores. Because of the growing number of vegetarians and flexitarians in the general population, it could be suggested to take into account the odor hedonic perception (especially regarding food odors) in studies related to diets. Besides, the present results could further serve research in several aspects of food consumption such as eating disorders (anorexia, bulimia … etc.) or food education as well as the management of eating behaviors, especially in an elderly population.

Pandemic elevates sensitivity to moral disgust but not pathogen disgust

The behavioral immune system, with disgust as its motivational part, serves as the first line of defense in organisms' protection against pathogens. Laboratory studies indicate that disgust sensitivity adaptively adjusts to simulated environmental threat, but whether disgust levels similarly change in response to real-life threats, such as a pandemic, remains largely unknown. In a preregistered within-subject study, we tested whether the threat posed by the Covid-19 pandemic would lead to increased perceived disgust. The perception of threat was induced by testing during two phases of the Covid-19 pandemic (periods of high vs. low pathogen threat). We found heightened levels of moral disgust during a "wave" of the pandemic, but the effect was not observed in the domain of pathogen or sexual disgust. Moreover, the age of respondents and levels of trait anxiety were positively associated with pathogen and moral disgust, suggesting that variation in disgust sensitivity may be based chiefly on stable characteristics.

Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism: A systematic and comprehensive literature review of quantitative studies

Meat production and consumption are sources of animal cruelty, responsible for several environmental problems and human health diseases, and contribute to social inequality. Vegetarianism and veganism (VEG) are two alternatives that align with calls for a transition to more ethical, sustainable, and healthier lifestyles. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature review of 307 quantitative studies on VEG (from 1978 to 2023), collected from the Web of Science in the categories of psychology, behavioral science, social science, and consumer behavior. For a holistic view of the literature and to capture its multiple angles, we articulated our objectives by responding to the variables of "WHEN," "WHERE," "WHO," "WHAT," "WHY," "WHICH," and "HOW" (6W1H) regarding the VEG research. Our review highlighted that quantitative research on VEG has experienced exponential growth with an unbalanced geographical focus, accompanied by an increasing richness but also great complexity in the understating of the VEG phenomenon. The systematic literature review found different approaches from which the authors studied VEG while identifying methodological limitations. Additionally, our research provided a systematic view of factors studied on VEG and the variables associated with VEG-related behavior change. Accordingly, this study contributes to the literature in the field of VEG by mapping the most recent trends and gaps in research, clarifying existing findings, and suggesting directions for future research.

Knowledge, attitudes, and factors associated with vegetarianism in the Saudi Population

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been great interest in the dietary practices of vegetarians in addition to an increasing awareness of the potential benefits of vegetarian diets. However, there are insufficient data on the spread of vegetarianism in Arab countries. The aim of this study was to investigate knowledge and attitudes about vegetarianism and associated factors in the Saudi population and to understand the reasons for its growing prevalence.

METHOD

This is a cross-sectional study began in May 2020 and ended in September 2020. Researchers distributed the questionnaire electronically through social media. Data were collected electronically and exported to Excel by the researchers .The electronic questionnaire comprised three sections: sociodemographic questions, reasons for following a vegetarian diet, and beliefs and knowledge about vegetarianism.

RESULTS

There were 3,035 responses, of which 80.2% of respondents were female and 19.8% were male. Participant were aged 18-65. Vegetarians represented 37.5% (15.7% semivegetarians, 8.1% pescovegetarians, 64.3% lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and 11.3% vegans), and the rest were nonvegetarians. The majority of the vegetarian participants (92.9%) had a low vegetarianism knowledge level. Health issues, followed by ethical and environmental concerns, were the most common motivators for adopting a vegetarian diet; these reasons were cited by 72.5%, 59.3%, and 47.9% of participants, respectively. Factors associated with increased vegetarianism were engaging in exercise for half an hour to two hours, while factors associated with decreased vegetarianism were male, aged 51-64 years, being married, having a higher education, working in the health sector, being a housewife, and having an income between 5,000 and 10,000 SR/month.

CONCLUSION

Vegetarianism appears to be a growing phenomenon among the Saudi population. Increased awareness of health issues and the desire to live a healthy lifestyle might be the strongest motives. This study offers an opportunity to better understand vegetarianism in Saudi Arabia along with the possibility of expanding vegetarian food choices for the general public.

Moral emotions and justifying beliefs about meat, fish, dairy and egg consumption: A comparative study of dietary groups

Meat eaters and meat abstainers differ in their beliefs and moral emotions related to meat consumption alongside gender differences. Few studies have investigated beliefs and moral emotions in pescatarians and vegans. Little is known about differences in moral emotions and beliefs regarding dairy, eggs, and fish or about speciesist beliefs within and between specific dietary groups. To address this gap, we investigated moral emotions (consumption-related disgust and guilt), attitudes towards animals (Animal Attitudes Scale) and justifying beliefs related to meat (Carnism Inventory), dairy, egg, and fish consumption in omnivores (n = 167), pescatarians (n = 110), vegetarians (n = 116), and vegans (n = 149). Results showed that people who consumed animal-derived products reported lower disgust and guilt and held stronger justifying beliefs about consumption of these products than those who did not consume animal products. All dietary groups significantly differed from each other in their attitudes about using animals for human benefit, with omnivores showing the least positive attitudes towards animals, followed by pescatarians and vegetarians, and with vegans showing the most positive attitudes towards animals. Women experienced greater moral emotions and held fewer justifying beliefs than men within groups where animal products were consumed and related to the animal-based products they consume (i.e., fish for pescatarians and eggs/dairy for vegetarians). These findings emphasise the importance of considering a wider range of animal products, such as eggs, dairy and fish, and dietary groups in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the psychological underpinnings of animal product consumption. The results highlight differences between dietary groups in attitudes and moral concern towards animals, which may be important to consider when designing interventions to reduce animal product consumption.

The relationship between meat disgust and meat avoidance-A chicken-and-egg problem

Feelings of disgust toward meat have been researched for at least 30 years, but so far the causal relationship that may link meat disgust and meat consumption has remained elusive. Two possible pathways have been proposed in previous literature: the more common pathway seems to be that meat disgust is developed after a transition to vegetarianism, potentially via the process of moralization and recruitment of (moral) disgust. Other accounts suggest the existence of a second pathway in which disgust initiates the avoidance of meat and this can be explained by existing theories of disgust functioning as a pathogen avoidance mechanism and meat serving as a pathogen cue. However, the evidence base for either relationship remains thin and to our knowledge no research has examined whether temporary meat abstention can lead to increases in meat disgust, as the first pathway suggests. We measured meat disgust and meat intake in n = 40 meat eaters before and after attempting a meat-free diet for 1 month (while taking part in the annual vegan campaign Veganuary). Although most participants lapsed to eating meat during this period, we found that reductions in meat intake during the month were predictive of increases in meat disgust afterwards. This supports the view that meat disgust is expressed as a result of meat avoidance in meat eaters. Implications for theoretical understanding of the relationship between meat disgust and meat avoidance, as well as the development of disgust based interventions are discussed.

Relevant characteristics of food products based on alternative proteins according to European consumers

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the importance attributed by consumers in Denmark (DK), Germany (DE) and Spain (ES) and across dietary lifestyles to the characteristics of different types of foods based on alternative proteins. Data were collected through a web-based survey (15 November to 16 December 2019). A total of 872 completed questionnaires from DK (n = 258), DE (n = 296) and ES (n = 318) were obtained.

RESULTS

Four segments according to frequency of animal- and plant-based food consumption were identified: (i) no animal, high plant; (ii) low animal, high plant; (iii) moderate animal and plant; and (iv) high animal, moderate plant. Across all segments, foods based on legumes/pulses as well as plant-based spreads and products that do not resemble meat in taste and texture were of interest. Segment 4 was more in favour of 'health' as an important factor in new food products, whereas segment 1 was more likely to consider 'animal friendly', 'minimally processed', 'environmentally friendly' and 'produced with minimum CO₂ emissions' as key aspects. Furthermore, familiarity was of minor importance across the segments. This could indicate an opening for new, innovative plant-based alternatives that have their own identity.

CONCLUSION

An overall interest exists towards innovative food products based on plant protein, specifically legumes/pulses, among consumers in the three countries and across different dietary lifestyles. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.

Do Vegetarian Diets Provide Adequate Nutrient Intake during Complementary Feeding? A Systematic Review

During the complementary feeding period, any nutritional deficiencies may negatively impact infant growth and neurodevelopment. A healthy diet containing all essential nutrients is strongly recommended by the WHO during infancy. Because vegetarian diets are becoming increasingly popular in many industrialized countries, some parents ask the pediatrician for a vegetarian diet, partially or entirely free of animal-source foods, for their children from an early age. This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence on how vegetarian complementary feeding impacts infant growth, neurodevelopment, risk of wasted and/or stunted growth, overweight and obesity. The SR was registered with PROSPERO 2021 (CRD 42021273592). A comprehensive search strategy was adopted to search and find all relevant studies. For ethical reasons, there are no interventional studies assessing the impact of non-supplemented vegetarian/vegan diets on the physical and neurocognitive development of children, but there are numerous studies that have analyzed the effects of dietary deficiencies on individual nutrients. Based on current evidence, vegetarian and vegan diets during the complementary feeding period have not been shown to be safe, and the current best evidence suggests that the risk of critical micronutrient deficiencies or insufficiencies and growth retardation is high: they may result in significantly different outcomes in neuropsychological development and growth when compared with a healthy omnivorous diet such as the Mediterranean Diet. There are also no data documenting the protective effect of vegetarian or vegan diets against communicable diseases in children aged 6 months to 2-3 years.

An appetite for meat? Disentangling the influence of animal resemblance and familiarity

Consumers in modern society are often less exposed to meat that resembles the animal, and thus are less familiar with it, making it difficult to disentangle the influence of these two inputs (familiarity vs. animal resemblance) on meat appetite. Across three studies, we sought to systematically disentangle the impact of familiarity and animal resemblance on meat appetite using inductive (Study 1) and experimental (Studies 2a-2b) approaches. In Study 1 (N = 229) we separated familiarity and animal resemblance into orthogonal dimensions using 28 meat products. Participants provided free associations and rated the products on familiarity, animal resemblance, and appetitive appeal. In Studies 2a and 2b (N = 514) we experimentally examined the independent contributions of familiarity and animal resemblance, using stimuli normed in Study 1. We hypothesized that animal resemblance has its most pronounced influence on appetite when meat products are unfamiliar. Participants' free associations and ratings of the products were in line with this conditional hypothesis (Study1), as were the experimental manipulations of familiarity and animal resemblance (Studies 2a-2b), confirmed by a mini meta-analysis. In all three studies, familiarity had a pervasive influence on appetite. These findings suggest that product familiarity can attenuate the psychological impact that animal reminders have on appetite. Thus, interventions aimed at eliciting animal associations with meat should consider the familiarity of the products employed.

Exploring how product descriptors and packaging colors impact consumers' perceptions of plant-based meat alternative products

While consumers have been increasingly trying to reduce their meat consumption due to rising concerns about its impact on their health and the environment, many still find animal-based foods more attractive than plant-based foods, thus hindering their adoption. Could marketing cues such as product descriptors and packaging colors help make these products more attractive to consumers? Across two studies, we tested the effects of product descriptors and packaging colors on meat eating consumers' perceptions of, and behavioral intentions toward, plant-based meat alternative products. Study 1 revealed that a "plant-based" (vs. "meat alternative") descriptor positively impacted perceptions of healthiness and eco-friendliness, as well as trial likelihood, and negatively impacted predicted quantity consumed. Study 2 provided some evidence for the moderating role of packaging color, and more specifically for the (mis)matching effects of product descriptor and packaging color on product perceptions and behavioral intentions. Results revealed that, when using a "meat alternative" descriptor, mismatching (vs. matching) it with a green (vs. red) packaging color negatively impacted perceptions of eco-friendliness and trial likelihood. Conversely, when using a "plant-based" descriptor, matching (vs. mismatching) it with a green (vs. red) packaging color negatively impacted predicted satiety. Overall, our research suggests that marketing cues can, to some extent, impact consumers' perceptions of plant-based meat alternative products and related behavioral intentions, and offers many avenues for future research.

Meat disgust is negatively associated with meat intake - Evidence from a cross-sectional and longitudinal study

Meat consumption is increasingly seen as unsustainable, unhealthy, and unethical. Understanding what factors help people reduce their meat intake is urgently needed. One such factor is meat disgust, a feeling reported by many vegetarians, and which could be a promising basis for meat reduction interventions. However, meat disgust and its impact on meat consumption is poorly understood. We examined meat disgust and its role in vegetarianism and reducing meat intake in a cross-sectional and longitudinal online study. We measured self-reported meat consumption, meat disgust (by self-report and Implicit Association Test), meat liking, self-control, and disgust sensitivity in N = 711 adults (57% omnivores, 28% flexitarians, 15% vegetarians) recruited from a community cohort. Results showed that 73% of vegetarians can be classified as 'meat disgusted', and that meat disgust predicted meat intake better than self-control in omnivores and flexitarians at baseline. Following up a sub-sample of participants (N = 197) after six months revealed that changes in meat intake over time were also associated with changes in meat disgust. This is the first study to quantify the impact of meat disgust on (changes in) meat consumption and its prevalence in the vegetarian and the general population. Our findings advance research into meat disgust and encourage the development of disgust-based interventions to reduce meat intake.

Vegetarianism/Veganism: A Way to Feel Good

Previous studies have identified health, the environment and animal welfare as key motivations for becoming and remaining vegetarian/vegan. However, the idea of vegetarianism/veganism appears to have interesting facets that go beyond those drivers. This paper describes and examines this attraction. Twenty-six in depth interviews and two group discussions were conducted using the Morphological Psychology approach, which allows the revelation of conscious as well as unconscious drivers based on the detailed narrations of the interviewees. We conclude that the attractiveness of vegetarianism/veganism cannot only be explained by the classical and conscious motivations of a meatless or animal-free diet such as improving health and animal welfare. It also comprises less conscious or unconscious drivers of vegetarianism/veganism such as empowerment and enrichment, regaining autonomy and creating identity and superiority in addition to and partly through liberation from a meat production system which is perceived as destructive and threatening.

The multidimensional nature of food neophobia

People vary in their willingness to try new foods. This variation, which is most frequently measured using the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS; Pliner & Hobden, 1992), has been interpreted as unidimensional. In four studies (N's = 210, 306, 160, and 161), we 1) demonstrate that food neophobia varies across meat and plant dimensions, 2) explore the validity of a measure of meat and plant neophobia, and 3) test whether these food neophobia dimensions predict decisions to eat a novel food item (i.e., a snack bar that contains insects). Mixed-effects model across the four studies indicated that the two dimensions differentially relate to a number of variables, including disgust sensitivity, animal empathy, and masculinity. Women scored higher on meat neophobia than men, but the sexes did not differ on plant neophobia. Only meat neophobia uniquely predicted eating a novel insect-based snack bar. Overall, these results extend knowledge regarding orientations toward novel foods.

Gender Differences in Attitudes to Vegans/Vegetarians and Their Food Preferences, and Their Implications for Promoting Sustainable Dietary Patterns–A Systematic Review

Limiting meat consumption has recently become one of the key issues linked to public health and environmental sustainability. This is reflected in the strong emphasis on increasing promotion of plant-based nutritional styles, such as vegan and vegetarian diets. Vegan/vegetarian diets appeal to certain demographic groups more than to others. The most striking difference, however, is found between the sexes. Men and women differ in their preferences for plant products and in their attitudes to meat consumption. There are also differences between their motivations to start and/or follow a vegan/vegetarian diet. Major differences have also been observed in men’s and women’s attitudes towards people following plant-based diets. Vegetarian diets are generally considered to be less masculine than meat-based diets, and omnivores exhibit more prejudice against vegetarian men than women. This study follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) systematic literature review model. The Web of Science and PubMed databases were searched (up to January 2020) to identify studies, which analysed variables directly or indirectly related to inter-sex differences with regard to the vegan/vegetarian diet. After the screening process based on the relevance and quality criteria, 29 articles were included in the study. The purpose of this review is to raise awareness of these gender differences, not only as regards social perceptions, but also in terms of individual attitudes to vegetarian/vegan diets. Ignoring those differences hinders the promotion of plant-based diets and may explain the relatively meager success of previous efforts to promote sustainable nutritional styles.

Consumer Moral Dilemma in the Choice of Animal-Friendly Meat Products

More and more consumers, at least in Western developed countries, are attentive to the sustainability aspects of their food, one of which concerns animal welfare. The conflict of harming an animal for the joy of eating meat causes a moral dilemma, affecting consumers’ reactions to, and choices of, animal-friendly products. This systematic review identified 86 studies from Scopus and Web of Science. The review outlines: (1) What are the personal antecedents among consumers regarding moral conflicts?; (2) In what situation do moral conflicts occur in consumer food choice?; (3) How do consumers emotionally experience the moral dilemma?; (4) How do consumers resolve moral conflicts over animal products? Researchers have studied personal factors and situational factors that arouse consumers’ moral dilemma and how the dilemma is solved, during which emotions and dissonance come into play. When synthesizing these findings into a comprehensive model, we notice that the current research is lacking on how personal factors change and interact with situations, which limits the understanding of the real-life context of consumers’ moral dilemma as well as their choices of animal-friendly products. More in-depth studies are needed to find situational factors that contribute to this complex psychological process.

Using Evidence Mapping to Examine Motivations for Following Plant-Based Diets

Motivations to adopt plant-based diets are of great public health interest. We used evidence mapping to identify methods that capture motivations to follow plant-based diets and summarize demographic trends in dietary motivations. We identified 56 publications that described 90 samples of plant-based diet followers and their dietary motivations. We categorized the samples by type of plant-based diet: vegan (19%), vegetarian (33%), semivegetarian (24%), and other, unspecified plant-based diet followers (23%). Of 90 studies examined, 31% administered multiple-choice questions to capture motivations, followed by rate items (23%), Food Choice Questionnaire (17%), free response (9%), and rank choices (10%). Commonly reported motivations were health, sensory/taste/disgust, animal welfare, environmental concern, and weight loss. The methodological variation highlights the importance of using a structured questionnaire to investigate dietary motivations in epidemiological studies. Motivations among plant-based diet followers appear distinct, but evidence on the association between age and motivations appears limited.

Promoting 'pro', 'low', and 'no' meat consumption in Switzerland: The role of emotions in practices

Meat consumption has become a contentious issue among the Swiss population. The emotional character of the debates surrounding the necessity for a change of habits, namely a reduction in consumption and a shift in the kind of meat we eat, reveals its particular place in our societies: as a symbolic food with roots in our affective economies, as involved in the creation of a shared culture and national identity, and as a political object used to defend different views. To date, research in sustainable consumption has given much attention to environmental- and animal-friendly groups and their practices. However, certain interest groups have been voicing the right to meat, or promoting alternative forms of meat consumption. In this paper, we seek to understand the affective dimension of 'no', 'low' and 'pro' meat consumption initiatives in the Swiss context. Based on a qualitative study and an understanding of emotions as part of social practices, we draw out what affects and related moralities are being mobilized by prescribers and how they are picked up in practice. By doing so, we contribute to further understanding the emotions and moral registers linked to different approaches to meat (non)consumption, their role in promoting certain practices over others, as well as the dynamics that make reducing meat consumption so controversial. We conclude by discussing the need to take emotions and related moralities seriously as a crucial step towards understanding opportunities for 'healthy and sustainable' food practices.

Is Opposition to Genetically Modified Food "Morally Absolutist"? A Consequence-Based Perspective

Genetically modified foods (GMFs) have met with strong opposition for most of their existence. According to one account-the consequence-based perspective (CP)-lay people oppose GMFs because they deem them unsafe as well as of dubious value. The CP is backed by the data and offers a clear solution for easing GMF opposition. However, several scholars have claimed that the CP is faulty, that lay opposition derives from largely nonrational factors and is consequence blind. One recent statement of this, the moral-absolutism perspective (MAP), contends that GMFs' opponents are principled "moral absolutists" who think that GMFs should be banned no matter their value or risk. Herein we critically weigh key arguments for this proposal. We also present five new studies that probed the clearest data that seem to favor the MAP-opponents affirming the statement that GMFs should be "prohibited," no matter their value or risk. These studies jointly show that (a) most presumed absolutists do not understand the key question and/or (b) cannot validly answer it. We show that taking due steps in clarifying the question and screening for those participants who cannot validly answer it cuts down absolutism to near zero. Finally, we demonstrate that helping GMFs' opponents imagine a world wherein GMFs are safe and constructive makes the majority willing to welcome GMFs in this context.

Health-Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Consumption: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.

BACKGROUND

A person's meat consumption is often determined by their values and preferences.

PURPOSE

To identify and evaluate evidence addressing health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences Abstracts, International System for Agricultural Science and Technology, and Food Science and Technology Abstracts were searched from inception to July 2018 without language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting adults' health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data were synthesized into narrative form, and summaries were tabulated and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Of 19 172 initial citations, 41 quantitative studies (38 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 5 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) and 13 qualitative studies (10 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 4 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) were eligible for inclusion. Thirteen studies reported that omnivores enjoy eating meat, 18 reported that these persons consider meat an essential component of a healthy diet, and 7 reported that they believe they lack the skills needed to prepare satisfactory meals without meat. Omnivores are generally unwilling to change their meat consumption. The certainty of evidence was low for both "reasons for meat consumption" and "willingness to reduce meat consumption in the face of undesirable health effects."

LIMITATION

Limited generalizability of findings to lower-income countries, low-certainty evidence for willingness to reduce meat consumption, and limited applicability to specific types of meat (red and processed meat).

CONCLUSION

Low-certainty evidence suggests that omnivores are attached to meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42018088854).

Human evaluation of amphibian species: a comparison of disgust and beauty

Animals can evoke a wide range of emotions helping us to choose a quick and appropriate reaction towards them: approach or avoidance in general. This work has focused on disgust evoked by amphibians in humans as well as perceived beauty. Due to the high morphological variability of recent amphibian taxa, we examined humans' cognitive categorisation of 101 amphibian photos and the effect of stimuli characteristics on disgust evaluation or beauty perception of individual groups/species. We also explored how respondents' characteristics, e.g. gender, age and disgust sensitivity (DS-R) influence the disgust and beauty evaluation of picture stimuli on a 7-point Likert scale. The scores of disgust and beauty evaluation were strongly negatively correlated, representing the opposite ends of a single axis, further referred to as the index of preference. The most preferred amphibians belonged to anurans, whereas the least preferred ones were mostly worm-like, legless and small-eyed caecilians. Additional analyses of morphologically diverse anurans showed that species with a round body shape, short forelegs, small eyes, warts, pink and grey colouration, or dark and dull colouration were perceived as disgusting or ugly. The effect of gender and age were only marginal; however, people with higher disgust sensitivity rated amphibians as more disgusting and less beautiful, which might support the hypothesis of a possible disgust involvement in animal fears and phobias. This topic has implications not only for the nature conservation decisions of globally endangered amphibians but also for understanding the evolution of disgust and its generalisation to harmless animals.

Measurement is the core disgust problem: Response to Inbar and Scott (2018)

Scott, Inbar and Rozin (2016) presented evidence that trait disgust predicts opposition to genetically modified food (GMF). Royzman, Cusimano, and Leeman (2017) argued that these authors did not appropriately measure trait disgust (disgust qua oral inhibition or OI) and that, once appropriately measured, the hypothesized association between disgust and GMF attitudes was not present. In their commentary, Inbar and Scott (2018) challenge our conclusions in several ways. In this response, we defend our conclusions by showing (a) that OI is psychometrically distinct from other affective categories, (b) that OI is widely held to be the criterial feature of disgust and (c) that we were well-justified to pair OI with the pathogen-linked vignettes that we used. Furthermore, we extend our critique to the new findings presented by Inbar and Scott (2018); we show that worry and suspicion (not disgust) are the dominant affective states one is likely to experience while thinking about GMF and that the true prevalence of disgust is about zero. We conclude by underscoring that the present argument and findings are a part of a larger body of evidence challenging any causal effect of disgust on morality.

Flexitarian Diet and Weight Control: Healthy or Risky Eating Behavior?

A carefully planned vegetarian diet meets nutrition recommendations by providing essential nutrients and lowering levels of saturated fat and cholesterol. Because balanced diets that limit or exclude meat tend to be lower in calories than omnivorous diets, it has been suggested that vegetarian eating patterns may be motivated by weight control. This view has been supported by findings demonstrating that vegetarians have a higher rate of disordered and restrained eating than non-vegetarians. Other findings suggest that weight control is a primary reason identified by adolescents and young adults for eliminating items such as meat and other animal products from their diet. Thus, it has been suggested that vegetarianism may provide a socially acceptable means to control body weight. However, this may be an over-generalization. Vegetarians are a heterogeneous group of individuals with radically different eating habits. Moreover, they are often compared to omnivores who eat meat on a regular basis. These omnivorous eating habits do not represent a growing subset of the population, many of whom are adopting a flexitarian diet that involves only the occasional consumption of meat. The goal of the current paper will be to demonstrate that semi-vegetarians and flexitarians are categorically different from vegans, lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and omnivores and describe the motivations as well as the positive and negative health implications that are associated with dietary patterns that limit the intake of meat. It is important for us to understand the motivations and behaviors that are characteristic of flexitarians in order to develop effective evidence-based strategies to address unhealthy eating behaviors.

Vegetarians' and omnivores' affective and physiological responses to images of food

Many vegetarians report that meat is unpleasant, but little else is known about their affective responses to meat and non-meat foods. Here we explored affective responses to food images in vegetarians and omnivores and tested the hypothesis that vegetarians have global differences in affective processing (e.g., increased disgust sensitivity). We presented pictures of different food items and recorded participants' affective experience while we recorded peripheral physiology. We found that vegetarians' self-reported experience of meat meal images was less pleasant than omnivores', but that other food images were equally pleasant across the two groups. Moreover, vegetarians and omnivores had strikingly similar physiological responses to all food images - including meat meals. We interpret these results from a psychological constructionist perspective, which posits that individuals conceptualize changes in their bodily states in ways that match their beliefs, such that increased sympathetic nervous system activity may be conceptualized as an experience of excitement about a delicious meat meal for omnivores but as an experience of displeasure for a vegetarian who believes meat is cruel, wasteful, impure, or unhealthy. This interpretation is consistent with emerging neuroscience evidence that the brain constructs experience by predicting and making meaning of internal sensations based on past experience and knowledge.