Unpalatable truths: Commitment to eating meat is associated with strategic ignorance of food-animal minds

Animal minds are of central importance to debates about their rights and welfare. Remaining ignorant of evidence that animals have minds is therefore likely to facilitate their mistreatment. Studying samples of adults and students from the UK and US we found that, consistent with motivational perspectives on meat consumption, those who were more (vs. less) committed to eating meat were more motivated to avoid exposure to information about food-animals’ sentience (Studies 1), showed less interest in exposure to articles about intelligent food animals (Studies 2a and 2b), and were quicker to terminate exposure to internet pop-ups containing information about food-animals’ minds (Studies 3a and 3b). At the same time, those who were more (vs. less) committed to eating meat approached information about companion-animals’ minds (Studies 2a-3b) and unintelligent food animals (Studies 2a and 2b) in largely the same ways. The findings demonstrate that, within the UK and US, the desire to eat meat is associated with strategies to avoid information that is likely to challenge meat consumption.

Wisdom is Elimination of Hunger

Hunger is more cruel then other tragedies. Saint Ramalingar loudly said to the enlightened world that ‘Seevakarunyam’ is spiritual contribution to elimination of hunger of another soul. He has said happyness and sorrow belong only to the soul, not for the body. So hunger suppresses wisdom of soul. It is not a crime to satisfy the hunger of sinners. Humans have the power to feel the hunger of others. Therefore, the primary task of Vallalaar is to satisfy the hunger of fellow human beings. Also Vallalaar insists on eating meat and donating it to others. Because he considers eating meat to be against spiritual wisdom and spirituality. Diferrences of nation, caste and creed are not important for elimination of hunger of others. It is our duty to quench the hunger of fellow human beings. A mind devoid of debit will cure hunger. Thus wisdom is the realization of oneself by others.

Trichinosis in the Rostov oblast

In the Russian Federation, cases of infection with trichinosis in a population of people or animals are annually recorded. Trichinosis is intestinal and tissue helminthiasis of humans and a number of mammals, caused all over the world by nematodes. A person becomes infected with the parasite by eating meat containing live encapsulated Trichinella larvae. Mating takes place in the gastrointestinal tract, fertilized females are introduced into the intestinal mucosa with their anterior thinned ends. The clinical picture of trichinosis is accompanied by the development of myositis, degeneration of muscle fibers, and multiple edema. Deaths are not uncommon due to necrotic ulcerative lesions of the intestine and internal bleeding.

Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Motivational Adoption Barriers and Solutions

Meat consumption is increasingly being seen as unsustainable. However, plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA) are not widely accepted yet. PBMA aim to imitate the experience of eating meat by mimicking animal meat in its sensory characteristics such as taste, texture, or aesthetic appearance. This narrative review explores the motivational barriers to adopting PBMA while focusing on food neophobia, social norms and rituals, as well as conflicting eating goals that prevent consumers from switching to a plant-based diet. Based on the key characteristics of these motivational barriers, which are informed by research findings in consumer psychology and marketing, solutions are discussed that can help counter the barriers.

Materials Properties, Oral Processing, and Sensory Analysis of Eating Meat and Meat Analogs

To increase the appeal of plant protein–based meat analogs, further progress needs to be made in their sensory perception. Given the limited number of studies on meat analogs, this review focuses on structure, oral processing, and sensory perception of meat and subsequently translates the insights to meat analogs. An extensive number of publications has built the current understanding of meat mechanical and structural properties, but inconsistencies concerning terminology and methodology execution as well as the wide variety in terms of natural origin limit solid conclusions about the control parameters for oral processing and sensory perception. Consumer-relevant textural aspects such as tenderness and juiciness are not directly correlated to single structural features but depend on an interplay of multiple factors and thus require a holistic approach. We discuss the differences in mastication and disintegration of meat and meat analogs and provide an outlook toward converting skeptical consumers into returning customers. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, Volume 13 is March 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Students Eat Less Meat After Studying Meat Ethics

In the first controlled, non-self-report studies to show an influence of university-level ethical instruction on everyday behavior, Schwitzgebel et al. (2020) and Jalil et al. (2020) found that students purchase less meat after exposure to material on the ethics of eating meat. We sought to extend and conceptually replicate this research. Seven hundred thirty students in three large philosophy classes read James Rachels’ (2004) “Basic Argument for Vegetarianism”, followed by 50-min small-group discussions. Half also viewed a vegetarianism advocacy video containing factory farm footage. A few days after instruction, 54% of students agreed that “eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical”, compared to 37% before instruction, with no difference between the film and non-film conditions. Also, 39% of students anonymously pledged to avoid eating factory farmed meat for 24 h, again with no statistically detectable difference between conditions. Finally, we obtained 2828 campus food purchase receipts for 113 of the enrolled students who used their Student ID cards for purchases on campus, which we compared with 5033 purchases from a group of 226 students who did not receive the instruction. Meat purchases remained constant in the comparison group and declined among the students exposed to the material, falling from 30% to 23% of purchases overall and from 51% to 42% of purchases of $4.99 or more, with the effect possibly larger in the film condition.

Capabilities and Opportunities of Flexitarians to Become Food Innovators for a Healthy Planet: Two Explorative Studies

To support the transition to a more plant-based diet, it is necessary to better understand flexitarians, i.e., individuals who curtail their meat intake by abstaining from eating meat occasionally without fully abandoning meat. Much of the research about eating (less) meat thus far has focused on motivations. However, a dietary shift toward less meat consumption also demands that capabilities and opportunities be taken into account. The present study explores the capability and opportunity variables in terms of enablers and barriers to reduced meat consumption. Focus group discussions (Study 1) and a survey study (Study 2) were conducted. Study 1 provides an overview of what food consumers perceive as capabilities and opportunities in the context of limiting meat consumption. Study 2 quantifies the aspects of capabilities and opportunities with a special focus on enabling and constraining aspects regarding plant-based meat substitutes. Both studies examine what Dutch flexitarians designate as capabilities and opportunities in transitioning to eating less meat in everyday life. More insight into this helps to find and facilitate food choices that make the flexitarian choice an easier and more obvious one and consequently contribute to flexitarians as food innovators for a healthy planet.

The End of Meat

The edge required by renewable technologies is provided by a simplification of the energy supply train. This simplification consists in no longer eating animals. Animals have upside-down energy returned on energy invested values (EROIs), with up to 30 times as much energy having to be put into raising them as we get out of them through eating them or their products. At one time, when our fossil fuels sported extraordinarily high EROIs—100:1 in some cases—we could afford to take this sort of hit on our food-based energy supply. Now, however, we can no longer afford to do so. Moreover, the results of this grossly inefficient energy exchange are rising greenhouse gas emissions. By no longer eating meat, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 14%. Importantly, much of this reduction will be in methane and nitrous dioxide, which have very high global warming potential relative to carbon dioxide.