What Is More Important

2018 ◽  
pp. 148-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Bogueva ◽  
Dora Marinova
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Meat Eating ◽  
Traditional Masculinity

The unnecessary question what a man is without his masculinity, is deeply ingrained into the socially established norms of strength, power, virility and machoism. Although the traditional male masculinity stereotype and its association with meat consumption are still undisputable for many “real” men, there is indication about a shift toward a new modern evolutionary masculinity which reflects more sustainability values. The chapter explores this based on a survey of Sydney men. It reveals the influence of new factors, such as environmental, health and animal welfare concerns, which shape the concept of the masculine. Meat-eating men will experience increasing pressure to defend their traditional masculinity. The Sydney study also explores the factors likely to influence Australian men to replace a meat-centred diet with more plant-based alternatives.

Western Buddhist Motivations for Vegetarianism

2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Kaza
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Food Choice ◽  
Food Choices ◽  
The West ◽  
Meat Eating ◽  
Food Practices ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Animal

AbstractBuddhist motivations for abstaining from meat-eating draw from a wide range of traditions. Theravada themes emphasize non-harming, Right Livelihood, and detachment; Mahayana themes highlight interdependence, Buddha-nature, and compassion; Tibetan themes consider rebirth implications for human-animal relationships. These and other contemporary themes overlap with traditional western arguments promoting vegetarianism based on animal welfare, personal and environmental health, world hunger, and ethical development. This paper surveys these themes, then discusses two studies based on survey data that indicate that western Buddhists and Buddhist centers have a wide variety of practices regarding meat-eating. The first survey reports on institutional food choice practices at western Buddhist centers. The second study reports on individual food practices among western Buddhists, with data on food choices and rationales for these choices. In both surveys, Buddhist principles interact with western arguments, leading to diverse decisions about what to eat. As interest in Buddhism grows in the west, Buddhist moral concerns regarding food could influence western food choices in a significant way.

scholarly journals Interventions to Reduce Meat Consumption by Appealing to Animal Welfare: Meta-Analysis and Evidence-Based Recommendations

Appetite ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 105277
Author(s):  
Maya B. Mathur ◽  
Jacob Peacock ◽  
David B. Reichling ◽  
Janice Nadler ◽  
Paul A. Bain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Evidence Based

scholarly journals Reducing meat consumption in the USA: a nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 1835-1844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roni A Neff ◽  
Danielle Edwards ◽  
Anne Palmer ◽  
Rebecca Ramsing ◽  
Allison Righter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Health ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Processed Meat ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Processed Meats ◽  
Motivation For Change ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Rich Information ◽  
Nationally Representative

AbstractObjectiveExcess meat consumption, particularly of red and processed meats, is associated with nutritional and environmental health harms. While only a small portion of the population is vegetarian, surveys suggest many Americans may be reducing their meat consumption. To inform education campaigns, more information is needed about attitudes, perceptions, behaviours and foods eaten in meatless meals.DesignA web-based survey administered in April 2015 assessed meat reduction behaviours, attitudes, what respondents ate in meatless meals and sociodemographic characteristics.SettingNationally representative, web-based survey in the USA.SubjectsUS adults (n 1112) selected from GfK Knowledgeworks’ 50 000-member online panel. Survey weights were used to assure representativeness.ResultsTwo-thirds reported reducing meat consumption in at least one category over three years, with reductions of red and processed meat most frequent. The most common reasons for reduction were cost and health; environment and animal welfare lagged. Non-meat reducers commonly agreed with statements suggesting that meat was healthy and ‘belonged’ in the diet. Vegetables were most often consumed ‘always’ in meatless meals, but cheese/dairy was also common. Reported meat reduction was most common among those aged 45–59 years and among those with lower incomes.ConclusionsThe public and environmental health benefits of reducing meat consumption create a need for campaigns to raise awareness and contribute to motivation for change. These findings provide rich information to guide intervention development, both for the USA and other high-income countries that consume meat in high quantities.

Marketing Meat Alternatives

2018 ◽  
pp. 327-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte B. Rödl
Keyword(s):  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Meat Eating

Meat alternatives have been proposed as one solution to decrease meat consumption and thus its negative effects on individuals and the environment. Using three meat myths identified in literature on meat consumption—meat eating is normal, natural, and necessary—this chapter discusses how they emerge in six selected print adverts: (1) normal: dishes containing meat alternatives are portrayed as traditional, perpetuating normality; (2) natural: the myth that it is natural to eat meat is not explicitly opposed, but bypassed; (3) necessary: meat alternatives are portrayed as even more necessary for good health than meat. The author proposes changes to neutralise these meat myths; but they are unlikely to be adopted by advertising due to its commercial goals. Although meat alternatives are theoretically preferable over meat (and can help individual transitions to vegetarianism), their marketing perpetuates meat myths, and may therefore reinforce a meat-centred culture.

scholarly journals Animal welfare and ecology in the contested ethics of rodent control in Cape Town

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicoli Nattrass ◽  
Jed Stephens ◽  
Jorich Johann Loubser
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Job Creation ◽  
Cape Town ◽  
National Council ◽  
Representative Survey ◽  
Rodent Control ◽  
Ecological Consequences ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
Cruelty To Animals

Abstract There is growing concern globally about the inhumane treatment of ‘pest’ animals, including rodents, and about the ecological consequences of rodenticides, notably the poisoning of non-target wildlife like raptors and scavengers. Recent contestation between Environmental Health (EH) officials in Khayelitsha, Cape Town’s largest African township, and the National Council for Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) illustrates the tension that can arise between innovative ecologically-focused strategies and existing legislation and animal protection practices. In 2013/14 EH officials introduced a job-creation project to trap and drown rats, describing it as ‘humane’ because it avoided poison thereby posing no danger to wildlife such as owls. The NSPCA, however, halted the project, arguing that drowning was both inhumane and illegal. Death by poison is also inhumane but the South Africa’s Animals Protection Act (1962) allows it (and trapping and hunting) to be used against ‘pests’/‘vermin’. The NSPCA, which has never challenged the Act for allowing the inhumane treatment of these animals, used it to trump local preferences. A representative survey from Khayelitsha showed that there was some support for an NSPCA-like position (14% thought that drowning was cruel and that workers should not be allowed to trap and drown rats) but that the majority (70%) indicated that they were both concerned about the poisoning of non-target animals and supported the continuation of the trapping and drowning project. This was not a contestation over whether animals should be protected, but over how to do this, and which animals to include.

Reconciling Not Eating Meat and Masculinity in the Marketing Discourse for New Food Alternatives

2019 ◽  
pp. 260-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Bogueva ◽  
Dora Marinova
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Food Choices ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Dietary Choices ◽  
Eating Meat ◽  
Gender Based

Traditional hegemonic masculinity can be traced on the typical man's plate where meat represents the centerpiece. Meat consumption dominates the current marketing discourse which builds on masculinity to reinforce the stereotyped gender-based diets. In light of scientific evidence about the detrimental impacts of meat consumption on human wellbeing and environmental health, this chapter argues that men are at the crossroads where the concept of masculinity is being redefined. Their social role is similarly changing with new expectations for more sustainable diets which call for plant-based food choices and possibly lab-grown meat. Some men are endorsing these imperatives while others continue to succumb to social inertia. A new marketing discourse is needed which reconciles masculinity with not eating meat and encourages a transition to alternative dietary choices that are better for personal health, allow improved use of the planet's resources, and have less impact on climate change.

Animal Studies: Let’s Talk About Animal Welfare and Liberation Issues in Childhood

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-326
Author(s):  
William Sarfo Ankomah
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Health Hazards ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Childhood Studies ◽  
Animal Suffering ◽  
Language Philosophy ◽  
Environmental Destruction ◽  
Children's Education

Abstract This article examined reasons why information pertaining to nonhuman animal welfare and liberation should be introduced during childhood. Studies indicate that animal-welfare activists’ and abolitionists’ efforts to date may be insufficient given the pervasive environmental destruction and ongoing animal suffering. Moreover, research reveals that education related to animal welfare and liberation is systematically excluded from children’s education, and they thus remain unaware of the sources and associated health hazards of meat they consume. Conversely, children’s knowledge about animal welfare increases when exposed to literature on the topic, which enables them to make informed choices regarding meat consumption. This paper draws on animal-welfare and liberation literature to argue that augmenting children’s knowledge about animal welfare and liberation can foster children’s understanding, language, philosophy, and ability to make informed choices about their relationship with animals and the environment in general.

scholarly journals Meat avoidance: motives, alternative proteins and diet quality in a sample of Swiss consumers

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (13) ◽  
pp. 2448-2459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Désirée Hagmann ◽  
Michael Siegrist ◽  
Christina Hartmann
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Diet Quality ◽  
Weight Status ◽  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Taste Preferences ◽  
Dietary Recommendations ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Meat Intake ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Awareness Campaigns

AbstractObjective:Diets lower in meat are considered both highly beneficial for human health and more environmentally friendly. The present study compared consumer groups with different self-declared diet styles regarding meat (vegetarians/vegans, pescatarians, low- and regular meat consumers) in terms of their motives, protein consumption, diet quality and weight status.Design:Cross-sectional data from the Swiss Food Panel 2.0 (survey 2017).Setting:Switzerland, Europe.Participants:Data of 4213 Swiss adults (47·4 % females) from a nationally representative sample living in the German- and French-speaking regions of Switzerland (mean age 55·4 years).Results:For vegetarians, vegans and pescatarians, ethical concerns about animal welfare and environmental friendliness, as well as taste preferences are stronger reasons to avoid meat consumption. Female low-meat consumers are more likely to be motivated by weight regulation. Only 18 % of the sample and 26 % of self-declared low-meat consumers met the official dietary recommendations for meat intake. Concerns about animal welfare and taste preferences predicted lower meat intake, whereas perceived difficulty of practising a low-meat diet and weight-loss motives were associated with higher meat consumption in consumers who reported eating little or no meat.Conclusions:Our study demonstrates that there can be large discrepancies between consumers’ self-perception and their actual meat consumption. This has to be taken into account when designing public health interventions. Addressing ethical concerns about animal welfare (e.g. through awareness campaigns), further improving the range of vegetarian options and increasing consumers’ knowledge about the dietary recommendations may be ways to promote diets lower in meat.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document