An overview of drivers and emotions of meat consumption

Emotions are present in almost everything we do, including meat procurement, preparation and consumption. This paper examines the main drivers of this consumption, including sensory and hedonic properties, physiological needs, historical reasons and habits, social influence, ethical motives, practical aspects and other determinants, exploring the meat-related emotions as both an outcome of consumption and as consumption drivers. Emotions are affected by multiple factors relating to the context, the information provided, and the type of product. Positive emotions such as pleasure, satisfaction, proudness and joyfulness have been described in relation to meat, as well as some neutral or negative ones. To enhance positive emotions and increase meat liking, it is essential to improve animal welfare and promote a more sustainable production, focusing on nutritional and sensory quality and providing consumers with reliable information.

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account

Animal-based diets in Western countries are increasingly regarded as unsustainable because of their impact on human health, environmental and animal welfare. Promoting shifts toward more plant-based diets seems an effective way to avoid these harms in practice. Nevertheless, claims against the consumption of animal products contradict the ideology of the omnivorous majority known as carnism. Carnism supports animal-product consumption as a cherished social habit that is harmless and unavoidable and invalidates minorities with plant-based diets: vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns). In this theoretical review, we integrate socio-psychological and empirical literature to provide an identity-based motivational account of ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy. Advocates who argue against the consumption of animal products often make claims that it is harmful, and avoidable by making dietary changes toward veg*n diets. In response, omnivores are likely to experience a simultaneous threat to their moral identity and their identity as consumer of animal products, which may arouse motivations to rationalize animal-product consumption and to obscure harms. If omnivores engage in such motivated reasoning and motivated ignorance, this may also inform negative stereotyping and stigmatization of veg*n advocates. These "pro-carnist" and "counter-veg*n" defenses can be linked with various personal and social motivations to eat animal products (e.g., meat attachment, gender, speciesism) and reinforce commitment to and ambivalence about eating animal products. This does not mean, however, that veg*n advocates cannot exert any influence. An apparent resistance may mask indirect and private acceptance of advocates' claims, priming commitment to change behavior toward veg*n diets often at a later point in time. Based on our theoretical account, we provide directions for future research.

Humans and Goats: Improving Knowledge for a Better Relationship

Simple Summary

A good relationship between humans (e.g., farmers, owners) and farm animals is vital for the well-being of both parties: on the one hand, people are satisfied with their work, which becomes less stressful and more profitable, and may receive social benefits in terms of education or animal-assisted therapy; on the other hand, animals are rewarded by the presence of humans and are not afraid of them. Goats have high cognitive and communicative abilities towards humans: recognising these abilities helps humans to work properly on the quality of this relationship that is built from the first hours of the goat kids’ life, thanks to frequent and positive contacts (e.g., stroking, talking in a calm voice). Improving the quality of this relationship is an investment in the future of livestock farming and meets public demands for ethical and sustainable production. This review outlines the characteristics and predisposing factors for the establishment of a good human–goat relationship and for its evaluation.

Abstract

There is consensus that the quality of the human–animal relationship (HAR) is relevant to guarantee appropriate levels of animal welfare. Given the impact that HAR may have on both goats and human beings, the aim of the present review is to elucidate: (1) how humans and goats communicate; (2) which are the factors affecting human–goat interactions; (3) how we can measure the quality of this relationship. The systematic review led to the selection of 58 relevant articles. Effective human–goat communication takes place by means of visual, tactile and auditory stimuli and, to a less extent, via olfactory and gustative stimuli. Goats have well-developed socio-cognitive abilities and rely on humans to get relevant information. A deep knowledge of goats’ communication means and socio-cognitive abilities may greatly help improving the human–goat relationship. Management practices (e.g., rearing methods, amount and quality of interactions), as well as genetic selection for suitable individual traits, may contribute to improving HAR. Several measures to assess the quality of HAR have been validated, including avoidance in the pen and at the feeding rack and latency to first contact. Finally, farmers’ attitudes and empathy with goats, as well as their motivation to work with animals, should be improved through appropriate training.

Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets - An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system

Animal source foods are evolutionarily appropriate foods for humans. It is therefore remarkable that they are now presented by some as unhealthy, unsustainable, and unethical, particularly in the urban West. The benefits of consuming them are nonetheless substantial, as they offer a wide spectrum of nutrients that are needed for cell and tissue development, function, and survival. They play a role in proper physical and cognitive development of infants, children, and adolescents, and help promote maintenance of physical function with ageing. While high-red meat consumption in the West is associated with several forms of chronic disease, these associations remain uncertain in other cultural contexts or when consumption is part of wholesome diets. Besides health concerns, there is also widespread anxiety about the environmental impacts of animal source foods. Although several production methods are detrimental (intensive cropping for feed, overgrazing, deforestation, water pollution, etc.) and require substantial mitigation, damaging impacts are not intrinsic to animal husbandry. When well-managed, livestock farming contributes to ecosystem management and soil health, while delivering high-quality foodstuffs through the upcycling of resources that are otherwise non-suitable for food production, making use of marginal land and inedible materials (forage, by-products, etc.), integrating livestock and crop farming where possible has the potential to benefit plant food production through enhanced nutrient recycling, while minimising external input needs such as fertilisers and pesticides. Moreover, the impacts on land use, water wastage, and greenhouse gas emissions are highly contextual, and their estimation is often erroneous due to a reductionist use of metrics. Similarly, whether animal husbandry is ethical or not depends on practical specificities, not on the fact that animals are involved. Such discussions also need to factor in that animal husbandry plays an important role in culture, societal well-being, food security, and the provision of livelihoods. We seize this opportunity to argue for less preconceived assumptions about alleged effects of animal source foods on the health of the planet and the humans and animals involved, for less top-down planning based on isolated metrics or (Western) technocratic perspectives, and for more holistic and circumstantial approaches to the food system.

Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Environment, Economy, Society, and Policy

Agri-food systems (AFS) have been central in the debate on sustainable development. Despite this growing interest in AFS, comprehensive analyses of the scholarly literature are hard to find. Therefore, the present systematic review delineated the contours of this growing research strand and analyzed how it relates to sustainability. A search performed on the Web of Science in January 2020 yielded 1389 documents, and 1289 were selected and underwent bibliometric and topical analyses. The topical analysis was informed by the SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems) approach of FAO and structured along four dimensions viz. environment, economy, society and culture, and policy and governance. The review shows an increasing interest in AFS with an exponential increase in publications number. However, the study field is north-biased and dominated by researchers and organizations from developed countries. Moreover, the analysis suggests that while environmental aspects are sufficiently addressed, social, economic, and political ones are generally overlooked. The paper ends by providing directions for future research and listing some topics to be integrated into a comprehensive, multidisciplinary agenda addressing the multifaceted (un)sustainability of AFS. It makes the case for adopting a holistic, 4-P (planet, people, profit, policy) approach in agri-food system studies.

Children and adults should avoid consuming animal products to reduce the risk for chronic disease: Debate Consensus

The present debate outlined opposing views regarding the role of animal products in human diets. The YES position argues that the health benefits and safety of plant-based diets have been clearly established by consistent findings of randomized trials and observational studies; that animal products skew the diet toward saturated fat, excess protein, cholesterol, lactose, and exogenous hormones; and that vulnerable populations are better nourished by vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains than by striated muscle and cow milk. In contrast, the NO position asserts that animal foods are not only benign but are also key elements of the human omnivore diet, facilitating the global challenge of adequate essential nutrition. This view holds that the portrayal of animal foods as unhealthy is not supported by the evidence and that a restrictive vegan diet decreases nutritional flexibility and robustness, increasing risk for vulnerable population groups. Points of agreement and controversy were identified, as well as opportunities for further studies.