Your Excuses For Eating Meat Are Predictable And Wrong, Study Finds

Eating too much meat is bad for you , bad for the environment , and fatal for the animals involved . Those are straight facts, indisputable and proven through years of study. But counterpoint: have you considered that vegans are annoying?

If the comments section under just about any media promoting a vegetarian or vegan diet is anything to go by, the answer to that question is probably “yes”. And, in any case, what about all the poor plants , huh? You okay with murdering them , IFLScience? The blood of countless… uh, cabbages on your hands?

All things considered, people are really, really good at coming up with excuses for eating more meat than ever . And the weirdest thing? According to a new study, which followed six focus groups with Danish consumers about their attitudes towards their diets and the environment, we kind of know it’s all bullshit – and we tie ourselves in a variety of predictable mental knots to justify it anyway.

“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 when addressing their own meat consumption, other mechanisms kick in,” he added.

Oh yeah. Prepare to feel seen.

Playing dumb

Imagine you knew a way to cut your carbon footprint by more than half; it was easy, required no real major sacrifice on your part, and would even make you healthier and maybe improve your love life .

Imagine you then decided not to do it. That would be, well, kind of stupid, wouldn’t it?

"There is certainly enough ambiguity in public discourse and the media for people to make these justifications without sounding completely ignorant in social settings."

Thomas Skelly

And yet, according to the research, that’s precisely what many of us are doing. “When all of the focus groups point to reduced meat consumption as one of the most climate effective things people can do, it demonstrates the existence of a collective knowledge,” Skelly pointed out.

“But on the other hand, this knowledge can be problematized,” he continued, “and the results demonstrate that it is socially acceptable to problematize it.”

What does that mean? Well, you’ve no doubt seen this tactic in the wild: it’s what’s happening whenever someone tells a vegan about the environmental cost of avocados or meat substitutes like soy, or points to the supposed necessity of meat in a human diet.

“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,” Skelly explained. It’s not actually justified: “The truth is that red meat has a far greater climate footprint than both avocados and vegan products,” Skelly pointed out, “and vegans do not necessarily eat more avocados or processed products than meat eaters” – but that doesn’t really matter , according to the paper.

It’s just truthful enough, with the details just obscure enough, that for someone already looking for excuses for their meat consumption, it can be elevated to a fact on equal footing with years of scientific research behind it.

“We are unable to conclude whether this is because people actually don't know [the truth], or because not knowing is convenient,” Skelly said. “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.”

Look over there!

So, what about when these things are pointed out to the meat fans? Well, when in doubt, there was one tactic that seemed to pop up time and time again. Whether consciously or not, the participants chose to simply divert the conversation, and talk about something else.

Cutting out meat entirely was seen as an absurd position – and one only taken by haughty stick-in-the-muds.

“They [would] come up with various excuses and justifications or try to shift the focus onto something else,” explained Kia Ditlevsen, an associate professor in the Department of Food and Resource Economics and one of the co-authors of the study.

“People quickly derail the topic,” she said, “and begin talking about other things, such as how they seek to avoid food waste and plastic packaging.”

You might think this would be an obvious ploy – after all, packaging, retail, and even transport of food typically has a much lower carbon footprint than the food itself. But within the group studied, it was seen as totally legitimate: “Within the group, people are mutually supportive of such derailments,” Ditlevsen said.

“Our interpretation is that this is because these things are more culturally neutral and harmless to relate to. No one really has much of an identity attached to plastic disposal.”

But you know what definitely isn’t seen as neutral? Going vegan . Cutting out meat entirely was seen as an absurd position – and one only taken by haughty stick-in-the-muds, Ditlevsen explained. “There was a tendency for them to […] scold vegans for being extremists,” she noted.

In other words: despite being a perfectly reasonable way to reduce your personal climate impact – one which the focus group participants clearly knew and understood the effectiveness of – adopting a vegan diet was just kind of written off as impossible.

“For example, when a participant states that he or she doesn't intend on going vegan , the other participants laugh,” Skelly said. “In doing so, they confirm to one another that veganism would be a ridiculous solution .”

The importance of messaging

So, what’s the solution? How do we reconcile a clear desire to reduce our environmental impact with this dilly-dallying on one of the most effective methods to do so?

Well, part of the answer might lie in combatting the mixed or counterproductive messaging coming from politicians and corporations. That may not be easy: in the US, meat and dairy companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying to block climate legislation over the past couple of decades, with evermore aggressive marketing campaigns targeting new consumer blocs.

If there is to be more clarity and less confusion among consumers, […] it becomes more difficult to come up with socially acceptable excuses and justifications.

Kia Ditlevsen

Over in Europe, the situation is more clear-cut – but not by a whole lot. “We have politicians who say, for example, that Danes should keep on eating spaghetti and meat sauce, [and] it helps support the notion that we can simply carry on with our meat consumption,” Ditlevsen pointed out.

“At the same time, the Danish Official Dietary Guidelines say that we should eat significantly less meat […] This is also something that the European Union emphasizes.”

This causes a discrepancy between the messages that people receive, she explained – and that confusion is where these justifications for excessive meat consumption sneak in and take hold. In response, “clear statements from politicians and authorities must be made,” recommended Ditlevsen, “messaging that unequivocally supports the importance of cutting back on meat consumption.”

Would it be enough? Probably not, she said – but it would at least be a start.

“If there is to be more clarity and less confusion among consumers, […] it becomes more difficult to come up with socially acceptable excuses and justifications,” Ditlevsen said. “This alone probably won't do, but it could help get people moving in the right direction.”

The study is published in the Journal of Consumer Culture .