A structured literature review of the meat paradox

Exploring Consumer Preference towards the On-Farm Slaughtering of Beef in Germany: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Current production standards and communication campaigns about animal welfare in relation to beef strongly emphasise the "humane" rearing of cattle. Aspects such as transport and slaughtering conditions are often overlooked in both production standards and communications with consumers. Long transport routes and conventional slaughtering can cause significant stress to animals and have negative impacts on their welfare and on meat quality. On-farm slaughter can address these criticisms. Communicating the value of low-stress slaughtering conditions like on-farm slaughtering may offer significant sales potential for a premium market segment. In this study, we explore consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for beef that is slaughtered on-farm rather than in conventional abattoirs. We conducted an online survey (n = 400) in 2022, with a sample that is representative of the German population with respect to gender, age, income and education. Our survey included a discrete choice experiment for the purchase of minced beef, incorporating product attributes that influence purchase decisions. These included: price, information on the social, economic and environmental benefits of regional production, different production standards (conventional/organic) and information on on-farm slaughtering. Our findings indicate that consumers derive the highest utility from a low price, followed by information about on-farm slaughtering. Participants indicated a preference for information on high animal welfare over high beef quality. We conclude that highlighting on-farm slaughtering could be a significant benefit in marketing premium beef products.

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

Researchers interested in animal ethics have proposed the 'meat paradox' - psychological discomfort arising from people's affinity for animals and conflicting desire to consume their flesh. Yet what can be said about the psychology of consuming an animal's non-meat products, in an age where most beings in these industries are harmed, and ultimately killed? Non-meat animal products (NMAPs) such as eggs and dairy entail the same, and perhaps even worse ethical issues as meat yet receive disproportionately less critical attention. Therefore, unlike meat, very little is known about the psychology of egg and dairy consumption. This study looks at vegetarians to address this gap, because they are more likely to show empathetic concern for animals than meat-eaters, yet actively choose to include these products in their diet, a conflict ripe for exploration. Interview data were analysed via thematic analysis, finding that vegetarians perceive robust ethical issues with NMAPs but give various justifications pertaining to personal benefits and social norms. Cognitive dissonance was evident and participants used various strategies to resolve it. This paper expands research on food psychology and animal ethics and may also be used to inform NMAP reduction strategies, an important pursuit in the quest for a more sustainable and compassionate world.

Psychological barriers moderate the attitude-behavior gap for climate change

Behavioral change has been increasingly recognized as a means for combating climate change. However, being concerned about climate problems and knowing the importance of individual actions in mitigating them is not enough for greater adherence to a more sustainable lifestyle. Psychological barriers such as (1) finding change unnecessary; (2) conflicting goals; (3) interpersonal relationships; (4) lack of knowledge; and (5) tokenism have been proposed as an explanation for the gap between environmental attitudes and actions. Yet, so far, this hypothesis has remained untested. This study aimed to assess if psychological barriers moderate the association between environmental attitudes and climate action. A sample of Portuguese individuals (N = 937) responded to a survey measuring climate change beliefs and environmental concerns as an index of environmental attitudes, a scale of self-reported frequency of environmental action, and finally, the dragons of inaction psychological barrier scale. Our participants revealed generally elevated positive environmental attitudes. These attitudes were positively and moderately related to greater self-reported frequency of environmental action in areas such as reusing materials, reduced consumption of animal products, water and energy saving, and airplane use, but not driving less. Critically, the association between attitudes and behavior was negatively moderated by psychological barriers for the reuse, food, and saving domains, but not for driving or flying. In conclusion, our results corroborate the assumption that psychological barriers can partly explain the attitude-behavior gap in the climate action domain.

Perceptions of Farm Animal Sentience and Suffering: Evidence from the BRIC Countries and the United States

In this study, we examined how beliefs about farm animal sentience and their suffering vary across culture and demographic characteristics. A total of N = 5027) questionnaires were administered in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the USA. Brazilians showed higher and Chinese lower levels of perceived animal sentience. In Russia and India, the perception of suffering and sentience increases with age, with similar levels to those observed in the USA. In all the countries, more people agreed than disagreed that animals are sentient. Men in India show higher levels of agreement with the relation between eating meat and animal suffering, followed by women in Brazil and China. Lower levels of agreement are observed in Americans and Chinese. Women show higher levels of compassion than men. In Russia, there is a slightly higher level of agreement between men and in the USA younger men agree more. Young American men show higher levels of agreement, while in India and China age has the opposite effect. For fair trading competition, it is important to standardize procedures and respect the demand for both animal protein and its ethical production. Overall, our results showed that perceptions of farm animal sentience and suffering vary substantially across countries and demographic groups. These differences could have important consequences for the perceived ethicality of meat production and consumption, and for global trade in animal products.

Is Eating Less Meat Possible? Exploring the Willingness to Reduce Meat Consumption among Millennials Working in Polish Cities

Reducing the consumption of meat constitutes an important part of the global shift towards more sustainable food systems. At the same time, meat is firmly established in the food culture of most human beings, and better understanding of individual behaviors is essential to facilitate a durable change in contemporary eating patterns. To determine the level and nature of attachment to meat among consumers, the Meat Attachment Questionnaire (MAQ) in relation to the phases of behaviour change in the meat consumption reduction process was utilised. Data collected through a survey carried out among Poles aged 25-40 years living in cities were analysed with the use of Spearman's correlations and one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc tests. The biggest share of the studied group of millennials (N = 317) never considered reducing their meat consumption (Phase 1-41%) and was described by the highest level of MAQ score in all its categories: hedonism, affinity, dependence, and entitlement. More than half of the respondents in Phase 2 participants ("planners") declared a willingness to cut down meat consumption but had not yet put their intentions into practice. Respondents qualified in Phase 3 declared the highest willingness to reduce meat consumption and were significantly less attached to meat regarding all MAQ categories than respondents in Phase 1. The 9% of the study participants (Phase 4) had already limited the frequency of their meat consumption to "several times a week", this however still remains insufficient compared to the ambitious goals of sustainable healthy diets. Results indicated that meat attachment categories, especially hedonism and dependence, were identified as predictors of willingness to reduce meat consumption. Research exploring the determinants of change and possibilities of effective communication about meat reduction on an individual level in different cultural settings are needed.