A study conducted by scientists at the University of Copenhagen has examined the “excuses and justifications” used by participants to legitimise their reluctance to reduce their meat consumption.
While all participants agreed that eating less meat was important for the climate, many quickly began deploying various excuses to explain why they could not do so. Some labelled vegans as extremists, or said their partner insisted on eating meat. Others used inaccurate arguments, insisting that they had a biological need for meat or that meatless meals are less filling. Some even cast doubt on whether the climate footprint of meat is as large as it is claimed to be, despite an abundance of evidence.
Derailing the conversation
Many participants also attempted to shift the focus away from meat consumption, for example by claiming that plant-based foods such as avocados are bad for the planet. There was a tendency to derail the conversation by bringing up such issues as food waste and plastic packaging, with other participants within the group mutually supporting these subject changes.
The researchers theorise that this is because these topics are more “culturally neutral”, and participants rarely identify with them. Additionally, reducing plastic use or food waste does not involve “any great deprivation or personal cost”.
Shaming vegans
Many study participants attempted to shame vegans or implied that adopting a vegan diet was ridiculous. When one participant said they would not go vegan, others laughed, “confirm[ing] to one another that veganism would be a ridiculous solution”. Vegans were accused of being hypocritical for eating processed foods and avocados, which participants claimed were damaging to the climate.
“With this notion, the participants confirm to each other that their food practices are not more problematic than food practices among people who have cut out meat entirely — even though the truth is that red meat has a far greater climate footprint than both avocados and vegan products, and vegans do not necessarily eat more avocados or processed products than meat eaters,” said Thomas A. M. Skelly, a PhD fellow at the Department of Food and Resource Economics and one of the authors of the study.
“Not knowing is convenient”
The researchers note that participants effectively had no choice but to come up with excuses and justifications because otherwise, they would “look stupid” after already acknowledging that meat consumption is damaging to the climate. On a subconscious level, they were attempting to appear “morally coherent”.
Skelly explains that it was often unclear whether the participants were genuinely lacking in knowledge or were exercising the “selective deployment of knowledge” because “not knowing is convenient”. He points out that with the current state of public discourse, it is possible for people to make these excuses in social settings without sounding “completely ignorant”. The researchers conclude that public agencies and politicians should strive for “unambiguous messaging” regarding meat consumption to make the environmental impact clear.
“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 – messaging that unequivocally supports the importance of cutting back on meat consumption,” said another of the study authors, Associate Professor Kia Ditlevsen. “This is also something that the European Union emphasises. This alone probably won’t do, but it could help get people moving in the right direction.”
Read the full study here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14695405241243199
