Avocados are labelled ‘bad’, and vegans dismissed as absurd, and some argue that their body requires meat—it’s not them but their partners who resist cutting back on meat consumption. According to a study by the University of Copenhagen, these are some of the justifications put forward when individuals feel compelled to rationalize their inability to reduce their meat intake for environmental reasons. During focus group discussions with Danish consumers, researchers documented the variety of arguments that emerged as participants discussed their meat consumption habits. The findings, led by Thomas A. M. Skelly, a PhD fellow at the Department of Food and Resource Economics, were published in the Journal of Consumer Culture, highlighting the social dynamics when discussing dietary choices.
Participants in all six focus groups agreed that reducing meat consumption is critical for a climate-friendly diet, yet personal consumption habits triggered defensive justifications. For instance, some participants criticized avocados for being harmful to the environment and condemned vegans for being too extreme, using these points as socially acceptable arguments within the groups to help maintain a self-image of moral responsibility, explains Kia Ditlevsen, another study author. These discussions often shifted from meat to more agreeable topics like food waste and plastic use, as these topics are seen as culturally neutral and involve less personal cost.
The study also highlighted how group dynamics can reinforce particular views; for example, demeaning comments about ‘morally superior’ vegans were used to justify ongoing meat consumption. When a participant expressed no intention of becoming vegan, laughter from others reinforced the notion that veganism was an absurd solution, as noted by Skelly. This behaviour illustrates how social settings influence and affirm dietary practices, even when contradicting environmental knowledge.
Furthermore, participants portrayed vegans as extremists and suggested hypocrisy due to their consumption of avocados and highly processed ‘vegan foods,’ which were labelled as damaging to the climate. This mutual reassurance among the group members helped them maintain the belief that their dietary practices were not worse than those who had eliminated meat, despite evidence to the contrary regarding the climate impact of red meat compared to avocados and vegan products.
The researchers also observed a tendency to use actual or simulated ignorance as a defence. Skelly points out that while all focus groups recognized that reducing meat consumption is one of the most effective actions for climate mitigation, this knowledge was often problematized, making it socially acceptable to question it. This indicates a selective deployment of expertise, where acknowledging the full impact of meat consumption is avoided in favour of less disruptive topics.
The findings underscore the need for clear communication from public authorities and politicians regarding meat consumption. Ditlevsen remarks that contradictory messages from the government, such as encouraging the continued consumption of traditional dishes like spaghetti and meat sauce while recommending a reduction in meat intake, need clarification among consumers. To overcome the socially acceptable excuses and move towards sustainable dietary choices, unequivocal messaging from both national and European authorities is essential. This message should support reducing meat consumption and aligning public behaviour with environmental goals.
More information: Thomas A.M. Skelly et al, Bad avocados, culinary standards, and knowable knowledge. Culturally appropriate rejections of meat reduction, Journal of Consumer Culture. DOI: 10.1177/14695405241243199
Journal information: Journal of Consumer Culture Provided by University of Copenhagen – Faculty of Science
