Vegan Practically

A group of Danish researchers has done a study to show what most vegans (and lots of non-vegans) already know: people make up excuses to keep eating meat even when they know that it would be good for the climate. According to the lead researcher:

“All of the participants – predominantly meat eaters – agree that one of the best things a person can do to be a more climate-minded eater is to eat less meat,” said Thomas Skelly, a Ph.D. fellow at the Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Copenhagen, and first author of the study, in a statement on the findings. 

But among this group of people who agree that reducing their meat consumption is good for the planet, when it comes to their own meat consumption they display a reluctance — “other mechanisms kick in.” In social settings, they undertake a kind of “social negotiation” to justify their choices or to shift the conversation. For example, they would diss avocados as being climate unfriendly, characterize vegans as ridiculous, or blame it on someone else. Said one participant: “I don’t eat climate-friendly foods, unfortunately. I try, but I have a partner who’s against it. He wants meat.”

Another common strategy is to “derail” the conversation by shifting it to a new topic, such as plastic waste. In the social setting of the studies focus groups (all of which were populated by omnivores), participants were mutually supportive of this type of derailment. The other of the study’s authors, Associate Professor Kia Ditlevsen from the Department of Food and Resource Economics, suggests that what makes this move attractive is that “these things are more culturally neutral and harmless to relate to. No one really has much of an identity attached to plastic disposal. People can envision doing these kinds of things without any great deprivation or personal cost.”

The social setting also encourages the shaming of vegans. The researchers report that when one participant clearly stated that he would not be “going vegan,” the others all laughed, confirming the belief that veganism is a ridiculous choice.

In the end, the researchers weren’t sure what to make of these findings: “We are unable to conclude whether this is because people actually don’t know, or because not knowing is convenient. But there is certainly enough ambiguity in public discourse and the media for people to make these justifications without sounding completely ignorant in social settings.” In some sense they clearly do know, since clarifying the information about the connection between reducing your meat consumption and reducing your carbon footprint was clearly communicated and agreed upon.

They note that there is a collective knowledge that reduced meat consumption is one of the best ways to reduce climate impact. But at the same time, as the focus groups demonstrate and as most vegans are aware, it is completely socially acceptable, even socially desirable, to challenge, minimize, and even mock that bit of collective knowledge when it comes up in conversation.

What to do? Skelly and Ditlevsen suggest that more public agencies and politicians need “to have unambiguous messaging with regards to meat consumption.”

Personally, I’m skeptical of how much we can count on the politicians and agencies to do this work. I’ve been teaching a seminar on social injustice for the past few months, and a recurrent issue is whether governments and organizations are (or are not) reliable agents of change.

What I find valuable about this research is that it is another indicator of the cognitive dissonance that we are dealing with when it comes to sustainability solutions that require lifestyle changes. This reluctance to make changes is not just in relation to the consumption of animal products, but in many more realms of life, from transportation to our behaviour as consumers. The immensity of “the ask” when it comes to meaningful change makes me have a teeny tiny bit more empathy.

At the same time, there is another whole set of arguments having to do with animal suffering and exploitation that bring a second layer of urgency to the issue of meat consumption. If I were to be in charge of any messaging campaign, I would certainly not sidestep that horror story in my communications even if it sometimes feels as if I am talking to a beach full of rocks.