Rare, medium or welldone?
Motivation behind behaviour in relation to
consumption of animal products
Melissa Maxter &
André Ahlman
Kandidatexamen huvudområde Miljövetenskap 180 p Miljövetenskap III MV109A 15 p
The production of animal products has a major negative impact on the environment. Still, the consumption of meat has been shown to continually increase. A selection of carnists, vegetarians and vegans in Malmö, Sweden, and Berlin, Germany, were studied with semi-structured interviews and Grounded Theory was used as a methodological base for data collection, analysis and interpretation. The geographical comparison was motivated by some perceived differences and similarities, as it was believed to contribute to a broader perspective. By applying different theories, we aimed in this study to identify which factors that influence the willingness and ability of the individual to reduce the own consumption of animal products. It was found that norms, values, knowledge, economic incentives, availability and ethical aspects were the most influential factors.
Keywords: Animal products, environment, consumption, carnist, vegetarian, vegan, Malmö,
Berlin, motivators, norms, values, ethics, denial.
Sammanfattning
Produktionen av animalier har en stor negativ inverkan på miljön, ändå har konsumtionen av kött fortsatt att öka. Ett urval av karnister, vegetarianer och veganer i Malmö, Sverige, och Berlin, Tyskland, studerades via semi-strukturerade intervjuer och med Grounded Theory som en metodologisk bas för datainsamling, analys och tolkning. Den geografiska jämförelsen motiverades av vissa uppfattade skillnader och likheter mellan städerna och som ansågs kunna bidra till ett bredare perspektiv i studien. Genom att tillämpa olika teorier strävade vi i denna studie efter att identifiera vilka faktorer som påverkar individens vilja och förmåga att minska den egna konsumtionen av animaliska produkter. Det konstaterades att normer, värderingar, kunskap, ekonomiska incitament, tillgänglighet och etiska aspekter var de mest inflytelserika faktorerna.
Nyckelord: Animaliska produkter, miljö, konsumtion, karnist, vegetarian, vegan, Malmö,
Introduction - Problem: The environmental impact of animal products...8
Objective and research question...9
Background - How the production of animal products affects the environment and probable motivational factors to reduce consumption...10
Landegradation and deforestation...10
Greenhouse gas emissions...11
Water use, eutrophication and water pollution...12
Pesticides and a growing resistance...12
Hormones and anitibiotics...13
Human- and animal ethical aspects and health factors...15
Theory – What makes us do what we do?...17
Theory of Planned Behaviour...17
Norm Activation Theory...18
Values, ethics and denial...19
An integrated model...22
Method...23
Sampling and research design ...23
Collection and analysis of data ...24
Reflexivity ...25
Delimitations...25
Results - What’s stopping us? ...26
Typically Swedish - The cultural influence on the individual in Malmö...26
“Cheese, oh my God, it’s my number one guilty pleasure” - Animal products in the food experience...27
What problem? - Knowledge and attitude towards environmental problems...29
”I only eat happy lambs” - Willingness to change the consumption...30
Schnitzels and sausages - The cultural influence on the individual in Berlin...31
More than nouns - Animal products in the food experience...32 “Farting cows” is what is destroying the planet - Knowledge and attitude towards
Conclusion...44 References...45
Introduction - Problem: The environmental impact of animal products
The conventional production of animal products (materials, foods etc. deriving from the animal kingdom, such as meat and internal organs from land- or aquatic animals, eggs, honey, milk and other dairy products) contribute to several environmental problems. For example, in order to grow fodder for livestock, or to create pastures, rainforests are cut down, harming biodiversity (Steinfeld et al., 2006) and emitting greenhouse gases that otherwise are bound in the soil (Cerri, Maia, Galdos, Cerri, Feigl & Bernoux, 2009; Wright & Boorse, 2011). Some research, however, e.g.by Fraser, Moorby, Vale and Evans, 2014, shows that livestock in some places increases biodiversity. Keeping livestock furthermore contributes to the pollution of surface waters (Granger et al., 2011; Old et. al., 2012) and the use of antibiotics on the animals contributes to bacterial resistance, caused by the spreading of antibiotics in the surrounding environment (Kumar, Lee & Cho, 2012). Despite the acknowledged problems, the global meat intake is expected to continue to rise, according to the Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011). In their study, Tobler, Visschers and Siegrist (2011) found doubt among consumers about the actual environmental impacts caused by the production of animal products and that the consumers did not find it beneficial for the environment to reduce their intake. We therefore find it imperative to further study the culture of meat eating; the reasons behind it and the reasons for refraining from it. By studying and analysing the reasons behind consumer choices of meat, eggs and dairy, it might be possible to find effective ways of reducing the intake, the production and the negative environmental impacts of the livestock industry.
The purpose of this study is to analyse the individual’s food habits and to identify which factors influence the willingness and ability of the individual to reduce the own consumption of animal products. The focus in this study is on the environment, although we recognize that a reduction in consumption of animal products might very well be based on other aspects such as e.g. animal welfare. The targets are individuals in different consumer groups (carnists, vegetarians and vegans) from Malmö/Scania, Sweden, and Berlin, Germany. A carnist is a person who engages in carnism, which is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals (Joy, 2010). By “vegetarian” we mean a person who solely include products in their diet not involving the direct killing of animals, such as eggs, dairy, vegetables and fruits. A vegan is someone engaging in veganism: a person who completely abstains from the consumption and usage of all animal products. Both Sweden and Germany have traditionally meat-heavy food cultures.
Berlin and Malmö are viewed as culturally rich cities with a large subcultural diversity, and the vegan lifestyle seem to be growing in popularity in the two cities (Berliner Morgenpost, 2013; Djurens Rätt, 2014; SVT, 2013; 2014). It is estimated that both Germans and Swedes in the year 2013 on average consumed 88,2 kg (presented in carcass weight) per person (Statista, 2015; Jordbruksverket, 2014). Individuals from these towns could therefore be comparable and could bring interesting aspects to the project, as well as a wider perspective and different outlooks. Our belief is that we will find similarities and differences in how national food traditions affect attitudes and consumption behaviour. We also studied the impact and differences between cultural and subcultural norms in the chosen consumer groups.
The case of this study is the individual (the carnist, the vegetarian and the vegan) in the context of consumptional behaviour under influence of norms (what is perceived to be normal; describes collective behaviour), attitudes (the mental outlooks and understandings which reflect the classification and evaluation of objects and events), values (the subjective perception of what is important, good bad or useful - values reflects our attitudes), and knowledge (understanding and skills, appropriated through study and/or experience), and the individual in interaction with the culture. To understand what could make a person help the environment by decreasing and/or excluding the consumption of animal products in their consumer behaviour, opinions and thoughts on food habits need to be analysed.
Objective and research question
Our objective is to explore and determine which aspects are of importance regarding the individual’s consumption of animal products. In order to find solutions to unburden the environmental strains that the animal industry has on the environment today, we aim to answer this question:
Which factors influence the willingness and ability of the individual to reduce the own consumption of animal products?
Background - How the production of animal products affects the environment
and probable motivational factors to reduce consumption
Westhoek et al. (2014) showed that by cutting the EU:s meat, egg and dairy consumption in half, nitrogen emissions could be reduced by 40 %, greenhouse gases by 25-40 %, and the use of cropland for production of food with 23 % (per capita in EU). If these calculations are anywhere near to correct, it seems it is in our best interest to reduce the individual’s intake of animal products. The growing consumption of imported animal products exacerbates and intensifies environmental degradation beyond domestic borders and is becoming a large contributing factor to global environmental problems, e.g. global warming. Because we live in a globalized world with global consumption patterns, the national consumption inevitably affects the environment in other countries as well. Wallman, Berglund and Cederberg (2013) stated: "Through the imported feed and imported livestock, consumers in Sweden contribute to the use of pesticides abroad." (p. 57) (freely translated), which can also be applied to Germany which, in 2011, for example, was the fourth largest importer of bacon and ham, the second largest importer of butter and the largest importer of eggs (FAOSTAT, 2015). Throughout our study, we therefore acknowledge the impacts of globalization on the environment and recognize that our behaviour at home affects other countries.
Landegradation and deforestation
Almost 33% of the earth’s land surface has already been cleared to make room for the expanding operations of the livestock sector (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Today the livestock industry is by far the single largest user of landmass and the expansion shows no signs of slowing down (Henning, 2011). The total area occupied by grazing has grown six times its size since 1800, spanning over 35 million km2 of land. In addition, industrialized animal farming, first introduced in the 1950s has grown in
practice all over the world demanding enormous amounts of feed crop to be produced (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The total area dedicated to animal feed crop production amounts to 33 % of the world’s total arable land. In all, livestock occupies 70 % of the world’s agricultural land. With the global population growth, the demand for animal products is rising, causing the livestock production to expand on the expense of natural ecosystems (Henning, 2011). Expansion of livestock production plays a major role in deforestation, especially in South America where the greatest amount of
deforestation is happening. 70 % of previously forested land in the Amazon is now occupied by pastures, and feed crops cover a large part of the remaining land (Steinfeld et al., 2006). After a minor decline in the early 20th century, deforestation to make room for pastures is now increasing again, destroying 13 million hectares of rainforest every year (Alkemade, Reid, van den Berg, de Leeuw & Jeuken, 2013). It’s not only the rate of deforestation that is unsustainable, the way the pastures are being treated is also unsustainable. About 20 % of the world’s pastures, with 73 % of pastures in dry areas, has to some extent been degraded (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The degradation is mostly caused by overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action. The degradation is turning these areas into barrows where effects like soil degradation and loss of vegetation creates irreversible damage to ecosystems and local communities where livestock is the only source of livelihoods for the people living there (Henning, 2011). According to Singer (1990), the probability that the meat we consume originates from a factory farm or deforested pasture depends of what country we live in. However, a definitive figure on the likelihood is unavailable.
Greenhouse gas emissions
With changes in temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is one of humanity’s greatest challenges (Steinfeld et al., 2006). While the debate on climate change is focusing on major contributors like energy production and transportation, the livestock sector often gets omitted or ignored (Henning, 2011). The reason for this may be that the livestock sector is responsible for a relatively small portion of direct global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, only 9 %. The livestock industry’s largest share of
direct carbon dioxide emotions comes from deforesting (burning of bio-mass) and other land conversion caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crop production (Cerri, Maia, Galdos, Cerri, Feigl & Bernoux, 2009). With that said, carbon dioxide is only one of many greenhouse gases that is contributing to the climate issue and measuring carbon dioxide emission alone fails to cover the total impact of the livestock industry. Livestock is responsible for large shares of gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 % of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential or “GWP” of CO2), most of
that from enteric fermentation by ruminants (Cederberg, Sonesson, Henriksson, Sund & Davis, 2009; Henning, 2011; Steinfeld et al., 2006). The livestock industry furthermore emits 65 % of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. If
these gases are converted statistically, the livestock sector becomes a major player, responsible for 18 % of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalents (Henning, 2011; Steinfeld et al.,
2006), which is a higher share than the global transport sector. Livestock is also responsible for 64 % of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which significantly contributes to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems (Henning, 2011; Steinfeld et al., 2006).
Water use, eutrophication and water pollution
The world is moving towards increasing problems of freshwater scarcity and depletion, with 64 % of the world’s population expected to live in water-stressed areas by 2025 (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The increasing growth of the human population is responsible for this problem to some extent (Henning, 2011; Steinfeld et al., 2006). However, the real problem is not the quantity of water that’s being used, but how we use it. Studies show that humans only use 10 % of freshwater through direct consumption while 66-70 % is used in the agricultural sector (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The livestock sector plays a big role in the constantly increasing water use, accounting for over 8 % of global human water use, mostly through the production of feed crops. It is estimated that the production of 1 kilo of animal protein uses over 100 times more fresh water than the production of the same amount proteins from grain. The livestock sector is furthermore believed to be the largest source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication and degradation of coastal areas. The major sources of pollution come from animal waste, the use of antibiotics, artificial hormones, fertilizers and pesticides used for feed crops, and sediments from eroded pastures (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Livestock also affects the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil where the animals are grazing, reducing water infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables. Livestock’s large contribution to deforestation also increases runoff and reduces dry season water flows (Granger et al., 2011; Steinfeld et al., 2006).
Pesticides and a growing resistance
A pesticide is a toxin “used to kill animals or plants that cause economic damage to crop or ornamental plants [...]” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2015a) and are often classified by what kind of pest they are supposed to kill: e.g. herbicide or insecticide (ibid). While pesticides are not directly used on livestock, they are often used in the production of their feed: 75 % of all grown soy is used
for animal feed and the pesticides used during cultivation affects the soil, terrestrial animals, bees, fish and biodiversity in general (WWF, 2014). Traces of pesticides have also been found in human breast milk (Palma, 2011, as referred to in WWF, 2014). According to Marzaro et al. (2011) and Tapparo et al. (2012), aerial dust from neonicotinoids, which are used in soybean production, can kill nearby flying honeybees. Yang et al. (2008), Han et al. (2010) and Henry et al. (2012) found that the learning, foraging and homing abilities in bumblebees and honeybees reduced due to exposure to neonicotinoids, risking a collapse in the colonies. Studies have found glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, to have poisoned domestic animals (cf. Albo & Nebbia, 2004), to have toxic effects on rabbits semen characteristics (Yousef et al., 1995) and to be damaging to DNA on human cells and in vivo (Gasnier et al., 2009). Usage of pesticides can result in resistance: when the target organisms are not affected by the pesticides any more as they have grown resistant to them (Wright & Boorse, 2011). When a pesticide is no longer effective, new ones have to be developed, thus continuing the ongoing spiral of pesticide use. In a case study of Brazilian soybean production, focusing on pesticide use and genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, Meyer and Cederberg (2010) noted a growing insecticide dependence in the soy bean crop and saw that after beginning to use the GE soy beans, the use of herbicides in Brazil and the United States increased.
Hormones and antibiotics
Hormones are an organic substance produced by plants and animals (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2015b). They regulate physiological activities such as the digestive or immune system, and maintains homeostasis. Today, the animal husbandry is kept under the influence of trying to lower the costs and to increase profit. For example: 10 - 15 % less feed is required for pigs to reach their market weight if they are given antibiotics (Heinrich Böll Foundation & Friends of the Earth Europe, 2014). In Sweden, the consumption of Swedish meat has decreased, mainly due to lower prices of imported meat which are hard for the Swedish sector to compete with (Lööv, Lannhard Öberg, Loxbo, Lukkarinen, & Lindow, 2013). Sweden mainly imports from countries within the EU (ibid), but also from Brazil, New Zealand, Chile and Argentina (Svenskt Kött, 2015). It is allowed in the EU to use hormones on livestock for therapeutic reasons, e.g. when the animals get sick, but not for growth-purposes (2008/97/EC). The EU directive 96/22/EC prohibits its members to import meat which derive from animals treated with growth hormones (96/22/EC). However, we travel and are global consumers, and the rules are not the same everywhere. Both natural and synthetic
hormones are approved to use on some livestock in other countries, such as U.S.A (FDA, 2014) and according to Svenskt Kött (n.d.), imported meat containing residues of hormones have been found in random samples in the EU. Oestrogen coming from an animal feedlot has been found in a river discharge in Taiwan (Chen et al., 2010) and in the United Kingdom, headwater streams was found to be contaminated by oestrogenic hormones from livestock farms and were considered likely to act as endocrine disruptors in some fish, causing e.g. intersexual abnormalities (Matthiessen et al., 2006). Several other species, such as amphibians and invertebrates, can be affected by externally derived natural and synthetic hormones, impacting the gonads, sexual differentiation and reproductive fitness, threatening the biological balance in the surrounding environment (Lange, et al., 2002). As for humans, a correlation between a mother’s reported beef consumption while pregnant and her son’s sperm concentration was found in a study by Swan et al. (2007), of fertile men from the U.S. The findings suggested a lower sperm concentration and possibly reduced fertility connected to beef consumption among the mothers.
Keeping the animals more closely confined increases the risk of diseases being spread and with it the need for antibiotics (Jordbruksverket, 2012a). The risks, perils and consequences of pesticide resistance are similar to the use of antibiotics, as bacteria evolve beyond the spectrum of the antibiotics, increasing the use of the drugs further in an on-going spiral. These risks are not isolated to animals but include humans as well. Antibiotic resistance is not considered severe in Sweden, mainly due to the cautious usage of antibiotics and the prohibition of using antibiotics in feed for growth promotion (Jordbruksverket, 2012b). The situation in Germany is different, where Germany in 2011 accounted for 211 mg of the European sales of antimicrobial agents for livestock (per kg of meat stock biomass), compared to Sweden’s 14 mg per kg, according to a report by Heinrich Böll Foundation and Friends of the Earth Europe (2014). A possible reason for this difference may be because of Sweden’s stricter animal welfare laws (Jordbruksverket, 2012a). As participants in a globalized world, we cannot detach ourselves from involvement in environmental degradation in other countries. Plenty of bacteria can be found in manure which is used as fertilizer on fields (Baguer, Jensen, & Krogh, 2000) and can leach from the soil into lakes and rivers (Zhang et al. 2014). Liu et al. (2009) found that soil microbial and enzyme activities may be affected by antibiotic residues in manure and soils, risking to rock the balance of ecosystems and characterizing a source of ample environmental concern. Yang and Carlson (2003) discovered that only the pristine area in the mountains, before the studied river had passed any agricultural or urban landscapes, was without antibiotics.
Human- and animal ethical aspects and health factors
Many people might choose to abstain from animal products because of other reasons, such as ethical and/or health reasons. Writing an essay about the production of animal products without mentioning the ethical elements of effects on humans, animal welfare and the health aspects, seems to be impossible, even though the main focus in this study is on the environmental aspects.
The consumption of animal products has impact on the environment in countries, and on the inhabitants of the countries, that produce soy. Soy is highly nutritious, fast growing and is a very popular animal feed all around the globe (WWF, 2014). Countries that grow soy include Brazil, India, Paraguay, China and Argentina. Today soy fields cover the total area of Belgium, Germany, France and the Netherlands combined (1 million square kilometres). Soy can be eaten directly by humans and thus supply us with e.g. protein and other nutrients. However, 75 % of all grown soy is turned into animal feed (WWF, 2014).
According to FAO (2007) as referred to in Halweil (2008), each year, 56 billion animals are slaughtered for food. Pigs, after sexual maturation, spend 75 % of the rest of their lives pregnant, according to a report by Lindström and Björklund (2014). They are mainly kept in their enclosures, contributing to physical injuries, such as chafers and sores. Psychological disorders are also common. As the pigs cannot perform their natural behaviours, such as e.g. building a nest or grubbing, they can engage in aggressive behaviour, even towards their young. This can then result in so-called fixation: the sow is placed in a very small box, not able to move, just stand up and lie down. In the modern intense chicken production, the animals are exposed to congestion, chemical burns and poor air quality (Lindström & Englund, 2012). Furthermore, the birds have trouble walking due to a breeding heavily focused on growth and many chickens are hurt during transportation and slaughter.
Eating animal products has been linked to various diseases, which might spark a change in consumption for a number of individuals. According to World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research (2011), eating red and processed meats (such as sausage, salami, bacon, liver paté and smoked ham) increases the risk for cancer in the colon and the rectum. The Swedish National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket, 2015) recommends eating less than 500 grams of meat per week, to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Processed meat products are often high in saturated fat and salt. Reducing the intake of such products therefore reduces the risk of cardiovascular diseases.
husbandry, not just pigs and chickens, as there are other diseases linked to animal products, which can influence an individual to choose to reduce or omit animal products from their lives and diets. We do not wish to belittle any of these aspects. Nonetheless, we cannot mention all in this study, as the focus is on the environmental aspects. However, the fact that we give food, which we can eat ourselves, to produce animal products, the way animals live their lives during production and the health risks associated with meat are for many people a reason to reduce or to not eat meat or any other animal product.
Theory – What makes us do what we do?
Lidskog and Sundqvist (2011) mean that there is not one sole answer to why and how environmental problem arise and how they are to be solved. Nature, the state, the individual and the science are not emancipated from each other or autonomous. Instead, co-dependency illuminates the spheres; they are intertwined and affect one another. This means that we might need to look at both the individual, at the culture and the group, of which the individual takes part, to try to ascertain which factors influence an individual’s consumption of animal products.
Theory of Planned Behaviour
The Theory of Planned Behaviour was introduced by Ajzen (1985, 1991) and the theory predicts behaviour based on the intention to perform the behaviour and the perceived control of the behaviour. The theory can be used as a framework to easier predict, understand and possibly change human behaviour. The theory revolves around two components critical to behaviour change: cognitive self-regulation (to control the own mind) and personal intention (Klöckner & Zur, 2012). The intention itself is generated by three factors: attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Attitude refers to how the individual evaluates the behaviour, deeming it favourable or not. Subjective norms refers to perceived expectations of other people and perceived social pressure to perform a certain action. Thøgersen (2006) further differentiated subjective norms into descriptive and injective norms: descriptive norms are representations of what others do, injective norms represents others’ expectations of ones’ behaviour. Lastly, perceived behaviour control refers to if the person feels they can decide willingly to perform the behaviour; in relation to how hard or easy performing the behaviour is perceived to be and presumably reflects past experience and anticipated obstacles (Ajzen, 1991). As intentions supposedly influence a behaviour and indicate how hard a person is willing to try to perform it, the individual’s intention to perform the behaviour is a central factor. The intention to behave a certain way can turn to actual behaviour only if the person can decide willingly to perform the behaviour or not. Factors like opportunities and resources (e. g. skills, time, money and cooperation of others) represent the actual control of the behaviour and help, to some degree, to decide the performance of the behaviour. A person should succeed in performing a certain behaviour as long as they intend to perform it, and have the required possibilities and resources. This means that the best intentions and values can be
found in a person but without opportunity and means, lacking perceived control of the behaviour and subjective norms can become a limiting factor without e.g. support from the surrounding group or family. Furthermore, cultural and subcultural norms surrounding the individual can also be a limiting factor when the behaviour are not commonly practiced or seen as uncommon. Without the proper structural integrity supporting behaviour change intentions remain just that - intentions.
The theory of planned behaviour has been widely applied in scientific research on food choices, sustainable consumption and meat consumption (Klöckner & Zur, 2012). The theory still has limitations: as it is based on cognitive processing and level of behavioural change, it overlooks emotional variables such as generation of negative and positive feelings. Aarts and Verplanken (1999) additionally argues that habits are also important variables not to be overlooked when predicting repeated behaviour which largely applies to our study. Another aspect is the activation of personal norms, e.g. the feeling of moral obligations to perform a specific action or inhabit certain qualities (Schwartz, 1977), which we will examine in the next section.
Norm Activation Theory
The norm activation theory was introduced by Schwartz (1977) and revolves around the moral and normative dimensions of human behaviour. The theory describes the relationship between personal norms, activators and behaviour. Compared to Theory of planned behaviour by Ajzen (1991), Schwartz (1977) states that the personal norms consist of the person’s own views about right and wrong, contrary to subjective norms, that Ajzen (1991) states are a main factor for creating intention. The consequences of either defending or violating certain patterns of behaviour are tied to the individuals concept of “self” and not to the individual’s perceived social concept. Harland, Staats and Wilke (2007) expanded the theory by explaining the main mechanics behind norm activation. Norm activation is primarily driven by four situational activators and two personality trait activators (Harland, Stats & Wilke, 2007). The first situational activator is awareness of need: this activator involves the extent to which a person’s attention is focused on another human or non-human individual in need or an abstract concept such as environmental destruction. The second situational activator, situational responsibility, revolves around the extent to which the person feels responsible for the need or problem. If the person thinks it is clear that other people have caused the problem or need, it is less likely that the person will act responsibly in this situation. The will to act pro socially is further enhanced by the efficiency activator, which is the extent of a person’s
capacity to identify appropriate actions that would address the need/problem. The last situational activator is ability. Ability refers to the acting person’s perception of available resources that are required to perform the behaviour. The situational activators are always limited by the difference in people’s tendency to favour pro social behaviour, therefore, the two personality trait activators become determining factors for norm activation to occur: the first activator is awareness of consequences, which refers to the degree to which someone is aware of the negative consequences for other individuals (human or animal) when not acting, and the second are ascription of responsibility, which relates to the feelings of responsibility for negative consequences while not acting. All these aspects combine into feelings of moral obligation and activation of personal norms which Schwartz claims to be the main contributor to behavioural change.
Values, ethics and denial
Simmons (1993) identifies two kinds of environmental ethics which are 1. Management ethics (the use of the environment) and 2. The environment as an entity with intrinsic values. In this study, we incorporate these ideas with the usage of animals for food. Depending on how we view the environment, or animals, we ascribe not only different amount of value, but different kinds of values. Singer (1990) stated that for most people in urban and suburban environments the only time they are in direct contact with animals are during dinner: we eat the animals and in this simple fact lies the key to changing people’s attitudes towards consumption of animal products. Most people view animals only by their instrumental value: the animals’ contribution to the service of mankind. By doing so, according to Singer (1990), the connection between animal products and moral consideration is severed. If we instead look at the environment or at an animal and see that it holds intrinsic value, using it for food might seem dubious (Simmons, 1993; Singer 1990). Schröder and McEachern (2004) noted that there were two perspectives among the participants, concerning animal welfare. One is the perspective as a citizen, where the animals are attributed intrinsic value and a life of dignity. The other is the perspective of the consumer, where the cognitive connection between the animal and the product is avoided, and management of the animal is thus enabled.
Responding to common misconceptions about ecological living, Elgin (1981) states, for example, that to live in simplicity is not the same as to live in poverty. Poverty is ”involuntary and debilitating, whereas simplicity is voluntary and enabling” (p. 460). So e.g. refraining from animal products might be seen as a step towards ecological living and voluntary simplicity or as poverty, as
eating meat also has symbolic value of abundance and wealth as a higher income normally generates a higher consumption of meat (Fiddes, 1992). It is found to be important to acknowledge stereotypes as the ones mentioned, as they, according to Elgin (1981), make a sustainable life seem impractical, unattainable and hopeless.
According to Schwartz (1992), values are “the criteria people use to select and justify actions and to evaluate people (including the self) and events” (p. 1). Schwartz (1992; 2006) identified a number of motivational basic values, stemming from 3 universal requirements for humans: individual needs as biological organisms, conditions for coordinated social interaction, and the group’s survival and welfare needs. Because values generally are understood as stable constructs they can be good predictors of behaviour over extended periods of time (Rokeach, 1979, as referred to in Krystallis et al., 2008). Among the motivational values we can find self-direction, benevolence, power, tradition, security and universalism (cf. Schwartz, 1992). Viewing values as goals, achieving these goals needs to be beneficial to the individual and/or the group (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Values which only serve the individual are supposedly discordant with values which are favourable to the group, meaning it is unlikely that they are in unison and striving for an individual goal is thus incompatible with a goal for the group. Five value types, (power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction) mainly benefits the individual; benevolence, tradition and conformity essentially benefit the group. Others can serve both the individual and the group, and is therefore placed on the boundaries between them. Furthermore, some values are believed to be more compatible, such as universalism and benevolence, or achievement and power. These two pairs are however in conflict with each other and therefore less compatible.
Different motivators determine which value is most important at the moment, and therefore we will all act differently not only as individuals, but as group members and in different situations (Schwartz, 1992; 2006). In their study, Schröder and McEachern (2004) focused on animal welfare. The authors found that not understanding the production system, limited availability of options (both geographically and product wise) and in situations beyond the individuals control (e.g. restaurant visits and intermediate goods), acted as hindrances towards the participants development of stable ethical attitudes and behaviour regarding the consumption of animal products. The participants of the study said that they avoided thinking about animal production and slaughter, as they believed it would make them stop eating meat if they did. Here, the values seem to be in conflict, as the participants did not want to contribute to animals suffering but also seem to not want to stop eating animal products. According to Joy (2010), the reason to why we block our empathy in
this manner, is because we actually care, and because we eat the animals we care about. When values and behaviour collide and are in conflict, moral discomfort arises. We then have three ways to try to relieve this discomfort: changing our values to match our behaviour, changing our behaviour to match our values, or “we can try to change our perception of our behaviours so that they appear to match our values” (p. 18). This means that by looking at a cat and seeing a pet, and looking at a cow and seeing food, our behaviour is justified and we feel comfortable continuing our carnistic food habits. Psychic numbing, a psychological process where we mentally and emotionally detach ourselves from our experiences, is the main mechanism that enables and allows the behaviour to endure. This is considered necessary, as it allows us to function in this world. Joy (2010) gives the example of driving on a highway: “... you would likely be hard-pressed to drive on the highway if you were fully cognizant of the fact that you were speeding down the road in a metal vehicle, surrounded by thousands of other speeding vehicles” (pp. 18-19). Joy (2010) continues and states that these numbing mechanisms are powerful, extensive and invisible, that they operate both socially and psychologically, and disbands us from our feelings. Invisibility is furthermore the system’s (the system that ultimately turns animals into food) dominant shield of protection. This defence system keeps us safe from the unwelcome thought of what it actually took to have animal products on our plate and can be applied when it comes to the environmental aspects as well. By it being invisible, it can be avoided and denied.
Opotow and Weiss (2000) explains denial as a means of protection from feelings of e.g. guilt or anxiety, by selectively averting attention from an aspect of a situation considered as threatening and it is considered to be a common way to handle both problems and different conflicts. According to Corsini, (1999, as cited in Opotow & Weiss, 2000), denial is “a defence mechanism consisting of an unconscious, selective blindness that protects a person from facing intolerable deeds and situations”. It could be that denying that the production of animal products causes e.g. environmental damage helps the consumer to protect them from unwanted emotions and situations, and thus to maintain the behaviour. This way, the person is shielded from the own involvement and responsibility. It could also be that denying is favourable because of e.g. hedonistic values. Opotow and Weiss (2000) illuminate another perspective to the definition of denial:
Seeing the environment as “out there” or as “other” instead of within ourselves exhibits exclusion and denial. The natural world is internal. It is the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the elements from which our bodies are constituted and continuously remade. Seeing the environment as separate from oneself creates a false distinction coloring our sense of the interdependencies between self and environment. (p. 488)
This can further be applied to animals: by not looking at the similarities, we see the differences. By denying intrinsic value to animals and nature, instrumental value might be applied instead, and with it the previously discussed management ethics identified by Simmons (1993).
An integrated model
The theories we have discussed focus on different aspects and factors that regulate consumer behaviour. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour, we can examine how the intention to perform a behaviour is created, by trying to understand how the attitude, the subjective norms and the perceived control of the behaviour has affected the respondents. The Norm Activation Theory compliments the Theory of Planned Behaviour by explaining how personal norms dictate the integrated process of behaviour change. Different ethical outlooks and values help motivate behaviour and are in addition themselves affected by aspects such as attitude, norms and perceived behaviour control. It is therefore relevant to take into account which ethical standpoints and values the respondents hold, to determine their effect. However, to protect oneself from discomforting knowledge, when e.g. our values do not match our behaviour, denial or psychic numbing may be cognitively applied, and therefore needs to be considered as potentially influencing behaviour. They might furthermore act as inhibiting factors to behaviour change.
Method
The study carries a hermeneutical orientation and is built on an interprativistic and relativistic interpretation of data, in the way Bryman (2011) describes them. It is in this interpretive approach, according to Bryman (2011), central to understand the social reality, with its intangible properties, in the way the participant perceives it. The strategy we used in this essay is primarily based on Grounded theory, originally by Glaser and Strauss, but as described by Bryman (2011) and Merriam (2009), and we view these as general guidelines for data collection, analysis and interpretation.
Sampling and research design
In contrast to Grounded Theory, where theoretical sampling (cf. Bryman, 2011) or maximum variation (Merriam, 2009) are more commonly used, our sample of interviewees was target-oriented (cf. Bryman, 2011), meaning we gathered our participants strategically, based on relevance for the research question. We chose a different sampling method because our needs for the study were specific. The interview sample consisted of 4 carnists and 4 vegetarians, as it was these opinions we aimed to analyse in this study. We furthermore interviewed 2 vegans as somewhat of a control group, as they have already excluded all sorts of animal products from their lifestyles. This constitutes a total of 10 individuals interviewed for this study: 5 in Malmö and 5 in Berlin; 1 vegan, 2 vegetarians and 2 carnists in each of the cities. The three consumer groups were targeted for displaying different behaviour in relation to consumption of animal products. The differences were essential in the study of factors that trigger, contribute and regulate consumer behaviour. The individuals in Malmö and Berlin came from different backgrounds and did not necessarily grow up in the respective cities or even countries. However, they were living in the respective cities during the course of this study and for the equivalent of or more than two years.
We chose to conduct semi-structured interviews, to get as wide a range of opinions and thoughts as possible, as qualitative interviews aim the research at the views and opinions of the interviewee (cf. Bryman, 2011). Furthermore, according to Bryman, 2011 and Merriam, 2009, this method gives the respondent the opportunity to express what they find valuable and relevant and gives the interviewer space for follow up questions when see fit. Cons with this method is that we would not get to hear as many thoughts as with e.g. focus groups. However, as we wished to get as uninfluenced opinions as possible, we found interviews more appropriate.
had begun. According to Merriam (2009), no predetermined wording or order is necessary during a semi-structured interview. For reliability, we aimed to follow the interview guide during the sessions, at the same time allowing for exploratory and unplanned questions to be asked. The semi-structured method enabled us to keep the base of the questions the same for all individuals, but with the possibility to ask supplementary questions, full equivalence during the interviews was unrealistic and unattainable.
The interviews in Malmö were conducted in Swedish and the interviews in Berlin in English, as our own German is limited. We were aware of the language barrier it might bring to conduct the interviews in another language than the informant’s mother tongues. To avoid misunderstandings and to make sure the informants’ true opinions came across, we were careful to find participants who felt comfortable and confident in expressing themselves in English. The interviews conducted in Swedish then had to be translated to English, which is another dimension we saw to be handled with caution and we have been aware of the differences this might create during translation and continued work.
Collection and analysis of data
With the respondents’ consent, the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed as soon as possible after the interviews. We offered the respondents anonymity but all declined. Even so, we only kept the first names in the paper because of confidentiality obligations (cf. Bryman, 2011). Each interview lasted for ca 1 hour. Bryman (2011) mentions that in the analysis of qualitative data, the general strategies are iterative, a recurring and continual synergy between the collection and analysis of data, and recursive, a looping method where analysis of data runs parallel to the collection of the same, affecting the upcoming step in the process. In Grounded theory, according to Bryman (2011), theoretical sampling is preceded by the research question. We have, however, formulated a research question and thereafter formulated a chain of theories we find applicable and credible to offer us a foundation to our question. In accordance with Grounded theory, the analysis of the gathered empirical evidence has run parallel with coding and continuous comparison of data (Bryman, 2011; Merriam, 2009). During the process, concepts and categories were identified through the three coding phases - open, axial and selective (cf. Bryman, 2011; cf. Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, we chose to keep our interview guide throughout the data collection, in an attempt to increase reliability, validity and for replicational purposes. As otherwise typical for Grounded
theory, we do not expect theoretical saturation in this study, (cf. Bryman, 2011), as time and resources are limited. We do however expect to reach a substantive theory which can be used as a base and applied in further, deepening studies. Examination of the substantive theory, to generate a formal theory, is, also due to limited resources and time, not considered realistic in this study.
Reflexivity
As Cherry, Ellis and DeSoucey (2011) found in their research, the collection of empirical evidence, data analysis and the written work is affected by the researcher’s own “consumption identities”. Our own standpoints and preconceptions, such as being students of environmental science, vegans and animal rights advocates, have of course coloured the choice of research question, objective, theme and so on. Although the aspect of reflexivity has been addressed, to not influence the research with our own individual realities and consumption identities is seen as inevitable. We keep in mind to not taint any part of the study with our own opinions and we have been careful to choose informants who do not care or know about our own values. We are in this essay not trying to change or convince anyone. The purpose is to gather and analyse the opinions of the informants and we are fully aware that a complete detachment and objectivity is not possible.
Delimitations
Because of limitations in time, resources and writing space, we had to limit the extent and depth of this study. We have set aside aspects such as GMO or laboratory-meat as environmental aspects. Furthermore, in developing countries, raising e.g. chickens can be an economical advantage, according to Heinrich Böll Foundation and Friends of the Earth Europe (2014). Sexism, gender issues, ethnicity, age and other demographics were also not focused on in this essay due to the above mentioned reasons.
Results - What’s stopping us?
Typically Swedish - The cultural influence on the individual in Malmö
In Malmö, the respondents had different backgrounds and talked openly about a wide range of cultural and subcultural aspects affecting their food consumption while growing up. The carnists; Tommy and Tobias, and the vegetarian Amanda, came from homes where meat was perceived as the largest part of every meal experience. Tommy and Tobias both described the food they grew up with by giving examples of different dishes, often with meat in their names or as the first described ingredient. Amanda also commented on this aspect by saying that “potatoes, vegetables and greens always came as the side dish”. Josefine, the second vegetarian, had a different experience with meat consumption and described the family’s diet as mostly based on carbohydrates, vegetables and fruit. Josefine was very picky as a child and meat was far down on her preference list. Being forced to eat it as a child generated many negative emotions which contributed to her life choice of quitting meat forever. Amanda had neither negative nor positive emotional attachments towards animal products. Food was good but it was not that interesting to her. Her striving towards a vegetarian diet was instead fuelled by sub-cultural norms found through hobbies, political views and friends. In her late teenage years Amanda began to rebel against her parents, including their food habits. In her case, the feeling of independence and subcultural belonging became the deciding factor. For Josefine however, growing up as a picky child with underweight problems, her mother encouraged her to take a stand regarding her food habits. By discarding meat and applying a vegetarian diet she found new, exciting and healthy food.
The respondents’ everyday consumption of animal products, in relation to their surroundings and cultural norms while growing up, look vastly different. This became clear when the respondents were encouraged to explain what the most important aspect of their food experience was. Their answers were very different. Josefine and Tobias ranked health as the number one aspect, although for very different reasons. Josefine thought it was important to get all the necessary nutrients and energy to cope with everyday life. Tobias talked about portions for muscle growth, which Tommy also stated as a benefit of meat consumption. For Tommy, food was extremely important. The main factor contributing to his preferences, was the experience of taste. He doesn’t like cheap fast-food because it lacks consistency and taste. He rather invest more time and money on high quality foods. Factors like health and moral statements were not of importance. For Ida, who is vegan, and
Amanda factors like moral statement, conscience and consumer identity, was of greater importance, and dictated their food choices to some extent.
The respondents did agree that the Swedish food traditions revolved mainly around meat heavy dishes, all drawing parallels to foods that were perceived as typical Swedish or food served at celebrations and cultural holidays. Tommy’s and Tobias’s stories showed that their consumption of animal products was never questioned or in conflict with the injunctive norms of the Swedish food culture. The overall positive emotional response and liking of the meat dishes they were served at home made them conform to these norms and never questioning them while growing up. Ida perceives the Swedish food culture as ignorant, meaning that the individual eats according to tradition, habit and norms instead of pondering and questioning what it is one eats and perhaps change the intake accordingly. She thinks that there is something quite personal about an individual’s food choices and that people often “eat their feelings”, as self-medication for insecurity. She thinks that by knowing that the same breakfast awaits every day helps to create a sense of stability that is otherwise lacking.
“Cheese, oh my God, it’s my number one guilty pleasure” - Animal products in
the food experience
We asked our participants how they associated four different words: meat, egg, milk and soy. Concerning “meat” the vegan and the vegetarian’s choice of words, describing associations, were mainly negative or neutral. “Meat” was at first response never associated to something edible. Instead they associated it with living tissue, violence and animal suffering. Ida’s first association was “flesh wounds”. Josefine said she thought of “dead muscle mass previously attached to animals”. Amanda thought about “suffering, blood, gore and severe trauma”. In contrast, both carnists associated the word with positive food experiences, social gatherings and health benefits; their associations included: steak dinner, outdoor barbecue, great taste and protein rich food. Tommy said: “meat is so fulfilling, there is nothing like it, a steak at summer, barbecuing with friends, just pure joy”. Tobias had the same associations regarding experience of taste. However, regarding its place in his health lifestyle, he showed signs of conflict, saying “red meat is not good for your heart, I know that for a fact, but I am still young and need the protein for my workout”.
When the participants heard the word “egg”, there was contradictions in attitude among a majority of the respondents. The vegan and vegetarians associations were no longer unanimous
negative or natural. For Ida and Josefine the word was associated as deriving from animals, mistreatment and animal tissue. Amanda had both positive and negative associations with her first thoughts, then leading to omelette and baking and later to as; “unfertilized hen eggs” and “a life confined in a cage”. The carnists both had positive associations to food and breakfast, with the first associations to food like omelette and pancakes.
Hearing the word “milk” made Ida think of a cow and calf who got separated from each other for sake of production. She further associates the word to commodity, as the animals lose their identity in the factory farms, and turned into numbers instead. The other participants all first associated milk with food and food items like cheese and cream. The vegetarians both saw milk as more natural and not connected to animals to the same extent as they saw eggs, and also that the animal it comes from doesn’t get killed in the process. The carnists associated it in the same way and first thought about milk devoured through drinking. Josefine expressed her love for dairy products by saying:” I can’t live without cheese”. Amanda also had a sweet spot for cheese, ignoring negative aspects and stated that dairy products were a very important part of her daily meals. “Cheese, oh my God, it’s my number one guilty pleasure. My friend who is vegan told me that it’s bad for the calves. But think I’m kind of blinded regarding the issue, if I knew how terrible it was maybe I would stop eating it “.
When they were asked about soya and tofu, the carnists associated it with a chosen lifestyle, particularly veganism. The vegan and the vegetarians talked about health benefits. Amanda said “soy is a good thing, you can make everything with it. Tofu is only one thing, there are hundreds of other meat substitutes made out of soy”.
Meat, animal products and meat substitutes appeared, to some degree, to be of importance for all participants. The carnists named meat the centre of the food experience while the others said that substitutes were made to mimic certain qualities of meat, like soy sausages, tofu bacon and seitan chicken. The participants later talked about the meat norm and how food is perceived in society. Amanda was particularly interested in this, saying “the food looks almost the same as when I ate meat. The difference is that I changed to substitutes”. She later added that it was because she liked the old concept of food. Josefine was not very fond of meat-substitutes but used it to make social situations like dining with relatives and family easier: “we can all eat the same side dish, just switch meat to something similar”.
The participants argued that the only real advantages of meat was the taste and convenience, meaning that animal products are available and accessible. Price was also an issue, especially for
Tobias. He stated that meat is cheaper than substitutes, but if it was not so, he would gladly consume meat less often. For all the respondents the negative health aspects of meat was overwhelming with examples like case of heart disease and cancer. The only positive thing regarding health was the high amount of protein.
What problem? - Knowledge and attitude towards environmental problems
Ida considers the environment while shopping and tries to mainly consume organic products. She recognizes the extra strain cow milk has, compared to e.g. oat milk as one less step is needed during production. She thinks it is unnecessary to give feed to the animals when we can eat it ourselves. Because animals require more food than they generate it is considered unsustainable. Also, the amount of water required is also indefensible. She mentions the problem of gases released from Australian cows, depleting the ozone layer. She also recycles. Overall Ida had the most knowledge about livestock and its negative impact on the environment. Josefine had a small amount of knowledge regarding meat consumption, but her knowledge about livestock’s environmental impact did not include production of eggs and dairy products. Josefine thought that the reason for her lack of knowledge was in fact self-inflicted, due to her choice of consuming dairy on a day to day basis. She said that she did not want to know because it would affect her negatively making it hard to enjoy the food she loves. Amanda had more knowledge about the livestock’s total environmental effects. Ecological food was a high priority for her and she defended her consumption of animal products by choosing the organic alternatives. Tommy acknowledged that he participated in environmental friendly behaviour to some degree. Tommy recycles, he doesn’t litter and rarely drive cars or use public transportation. Instead he uses his bicycle. Even if he thinks this behaviour is environmentally favourable it is not driven by knowledge or attitude. Environmental friendly behaviour is more of a positive by-product of behaviour driven by other factors (time, money and flexibility). Tommy stated that environmental problem awareness occurred to some degree after he started to take the bike everywhere:
when I’m on my bike in the city core, heavily surrounded by vehicles, I think of all the exhaust fumes that the cars are emitting, and I don’t emit anything!, I’m driven by my own energy and it feels great!
This thought didn’t occur to Tommy before bicycle became his transportation of choice. He now feels a slight sensation of being part of a positive force by not contributing to the planets
environmental degradation. It seems that the participants were keener to acquiring knowledge and changing attitudes in practices they are already were engaged in. Ida adds that people usually want to know as much as possible about everything but in the case of animal products, people seem to be in a state of avoidance, a voluntary blind spot. She thinks that if people took responsibility for the products they buy, it would affect the consumption.
”I only eat happy lambs” - Willingness to change the consumption
Ida thought that by making animal product less available, people would be influenced to find alternatives. People would also increase their intake of non-animal foods if these became the norm instead. Tommy also talked about availability and stated that meat was convenient and easy to find everywhere, he did not even know where to look for alternatives. Instead he went strictly to the meat freezer out of habit and the comfort of familiar flavours and experience. Tobias’s problem with changing his meat consumption, was that he did not feel any moral obligation and that his personal experience was the most important aspect when it came to food habits. He did not think that vegetarian food was bad in any way, but addressed his need for animal protein while training to build muscle mass. He also took the social aspect in to consideration and stated that he often chose to eat food free from animal products when he was in the company of vegans or vegetarians. By doing so he believed himself to show tolerance and respect to other people’s life choices. Tommy also admitted that he thought vegetarian food to be “interesting” and “enjoyable” but not near as satisfying as meat-based dishes. Tommy thought that the only way he would stop consuming meat was if he was presented with an alternative that mimics its properties with precision, so that he could not tell the difference. The taste and experience of animal products were recurring themes throughout the interview. Tommy furthermore draws parallels between his meat consumption and smoking. He won’t quit because he likes it too much
.
The vegetarians Amanda and Josefine both stated that they would never go back to eating meat but had ambivalent opinions on changing their consumption of other animal based products. Josefine stated that this would be a sacrifice of self-gratification because of her large consumption of dairy products. She stated that she would have to enjoy food less, turn her back on old habits and that this would be challenging. Amanda had often thought about giving up, or cutting down on animal products but didn’t out of pure laziness. When the participants were asked about people’s attitude in general, Tommy stated that there was a lot of prejudice against meat free foods and
vegetarian lifestyle. He thought that some people felt that the “vegetarian or vegan lifestyle” came with certain values that for some people might be excluding. Ida questioned why people disputed her choice of refraining from animal products. She thought it was the fear of not following the norm, to stand out and risks alienation, and that one chooses alienation because it makes them feel better than following the norm. “Maybe what society does doesn’t fit with one’s own moral and values”. She thinks that the ones who choose to fit in might have “thought for themselves” but don’t have the strength to leave the norm. Maybe they don’t have the energy or motivation for it. They don’t see the reasons why not to eat animal products. It’s easier to believe that it happens to others but not us, in other places but not here: “There are probably animals who are maltreated but not the ones I eat. I only eat happy lambs”, she said in a jokingly fashion, quoting a fictive person.
Tobias and Josefine thought that most people did not have the knowledge or moral connection to generate the will to change, instead it was stated that people will eat what they want based on their emotional experience.
Schnitzels and sausages - The cultural influence on the individual in Berlin
The respondents in Berlin also came from different backgrounds and they openly shared their thoughts, opinions and stories about their upbringings and lives today.
Both Sebastian and Christoff are carnists, and their food habits while growing up looked quite different from each other. Christoff and his family ate “everything”. Sometimes he didn’t like the food but he was forced to eat it anyway. Many children get scared off from foods that have been forced onto them but Christoff, like Ida in Malmö, says he is a very curious and interested person, so instead of renouncing the forced upon foods, Christoff would try to cook them in a way which suited him better (later in life, when he gained control over his own consumption). Sebastian’s mother is a very picky eater and therefore controlled what the family did and did not eat. A lot of fatty and sugary foods and schnitzels and roasts were often on the table. Despite this, Sebastian is not choosey himself and likes to try different things from different cultures. Sven, a vegetarian for his whole life, was raised in a vegetarian and Buddhist family. He says that the values of his parents have had a great impact on his own values and transcended into his own - those of respect, understanding and karma. They ate mainly vegetables and on special occasions tofu or seitan. It is normal for Sven to not have meat and he therefore easily sees how the meat in a dish can be replaced. Lisanne, also vegetarian grew up as a carnist but she didn’t like the taste of meat so it was
easy to give up. The family’s diet was not heavily meat focused and they ate a lot of vegetables. She said she was “the cheese-girl” and while friends around her went vegetarian for ethical reasons, she became a vegetarian because of disliking meat. Today, she mainly eats plant-based food, mostly fruits, seeds and vegetables. She focuses on eating healthy food, has cut out cheese and dairy from her daily diet and only drinks cow’s milk a couple of times a week. Since she is often on the go and has a lot to do, it is important to her to not put extra strain onto and into her body more than necessary. She lessens the burden with eating healthily. Despite her very limited intake of animal products, she doesn’t consider herself a vegan. She sees her eating habits as a lifestyle, as the focus is on health.
Veronica is a vegan and was raised on a farm where self-sufficiency was very important. The family grew their own fruits and vegetables and followed a seasonal diet, mainly vegetarian for seasonal reasons. When the seasons changed, so did the diet, and somewhat more meat was consumed. They always ate all of the animal and didn’t let anything go to waste. She liked the taste of some meat but chose to be vegan for health and ethical reasons. The veganism was sparked on a barbecue in Australia, with an amount of meat which she says was “unhealthy, unreasonable and unfair”. Both Veronica’s and Lisanne’s lives are heavily focused on food, both because of health reasons and because of genuine interest. Christoff too has interest in cooking and also states that “not starving” is what is most important to gain from food. In Sebastian’s case, his girlfriend does most of the cooking and in addition inspires him to eat more healthily. For all participants, what was most important to gain from food was nutrition, strength and the like. To Sven, gaining nutrition while not causing suffering was most important. Veronica added that she thinks that the industry has changed in such a way that we have forgotten the reasons why we eat. She thinks most people live to eat, not that they eat to live.
All of the informants portray the German food culture as meat heavy and that there is a prevailing meat norm in society. Schnitzels, roasts with potatoes and sausages are portrayed as typical German food. Christoff thinks it is normal for countries with winter to eat meat, a view he shares with Sven. Christoff further thinks that the German food culture has changed into a diet more typical for the western world and industrialised countries, where capitalism has a strong influence on the promotion of desirable lifestyles.
More than nouns - Animal products in the food experience
We then asked what they associated the words “meat”, “egg”, “milk” and “soya” with. Veronica thought of a clip she had seen in the documentary “Cowspiracy”, a scene where the narrator has taken a duck, who was going to be killed for food, to an animal sanctuary because he could not watch it getting killed. Sven views meat as a dead product which someone had to die for. He thinks that the commoditization of animals increases an already existing gap between humans and animals and makes it easier to not reflect over where it came from and what it took for it to become meat. Veronica also thinks that people are unaware of where meat actually comes from. Lisanne associates the word meat with meat eaters. She thinks it’s because meat is so closely associated to people who consume it. Sebastian thought of a steak and Christoff thought of a piece of red meat. Sebastian thought of a chicken upon the mentioning of the word “egg” and Christoff of an actual egg. To Sven, an egg is both an egg that could become something, like a source of life, but it is also food. He can eat chicken eggs, but finds other eggs suspicious as there is a “direct association with nature and outside". Veronica associates it with the colour yellow. As she doesn’t eat eggs, she doesn’t perceive them as food, she said. Lisanne thought of procreation and potential babies. Sven views milk as a difficult area since a cow has to be pregnant in order to produce milk and he finds this to be a negative aspect of milk production. At the same time he is indecisive as he is used to eating dairy products. Lisanne thinks about a white fluid and also associates milk with an ingredient in foods. Sebastian associates it with a cow and meat, and Christoff with just a cow. Veronica also thought of a cow, emphasizing that it is an unhappy cow she thinks of.
Mentioning the word “soya”, Sven sees it as what he needs to continue to be vegetarian, Sebastian thinks of Chinese food and that it is unusual in the German food culture. Christoff thinks of a legume and Veronica thinks of vegan substitutes. Lisanne also thinks that soya, for vegetarians and vegans, works as a substitute for meat. Soya is furthermore associated with big fields of soya.
Sebastian likes the taste of meat very much but he doesn’t think that animal products are important to consume every day. Instead he says he strives for balance in his consumption and eating healthier. When asked if he eats meat every day he answered no, but when he gives an example of what he eats during a day, he mentions a ham sandwich that he always eats in the evenings, seemingly unaware that ham is in fact meat. Nor Christoff thinks that animal products are important to consume. He eats meat a couple of times a week and mainly uses milk and eggs when he bakes. He has a very low income, which usually gets to steer what he buys. Sven thinks that eggs and dairy are important parts of his food experience as he views them as his main protein source,
