If you don’t know that eating meat is bad for the environment by now, you probably haven’t been paying attention. A mountain of research has shown that meat production is responsible for up to 17% of the world’s greenhouse gases, far more than other types of food. It also uses up a lot of land and water, offers fewer nutrients and is an environmental culprit in pretty much any metric you can look at.

Despite some progress, however, most people don’t seem willing to give up on meat. New research from Denmark investigated why that happens.

The study shows how we justify our reluctance to reduce meat consumption in social settings. All of the participants — predominantly non-vegans — agree that one of the best things a person can do to be a more climate-minded consumer is to eat less meat. But when addressing their meat consumption, other mechanisms kick in,” says Thomas A. M. Skelly, a PhD fellow at the Department of Food and Resource Economics and first author of the article about the study, now published in the Journal of Consumer Culture.

Cultural conventions are central to tackling unsustainable consumption

We’re all guilty of various cognitive biases, and none of us like to admit we’re not doing the right thing. When it comes to meat consumption, this becomes painfully obvious. Avocados are bad; my body needs meat; vegans are ridiculous — these are all common excuses. So common that they were all used by a substantial proportion of the study participants.

The participants were split into six focus groups that discussed how to eat more climate-friendly. All focus groups agreed that eating less meat is one of the most effective ways — but halfway through, participants started making excuses.

“That is, they come up with various excuses and justifications or try to shift the focus onto something else. For example, there was a tendency for them to shame avocados as being climate-unfriendly and scold vegans for being extremists. Common to the arguments is that they are perceived as socially legitimate in the groups and help maintain a morally responsible self-image among the participants,” says another of the study’s authors, Associate Professor Kia Ditlevsen from the Department of Food and Resource Economics.

The first strategy used by participants to justify eating meat to deflect the blame and find excuses. Some claimed humans are hard-wired to eat meat, while others claimed they don’t feel satiation without meat. Participants even tried to shift the blame to other members of the family. “I don’t eat climate-friendly foods, unfortunately. I try, but I have a partner who’s against it. He wants meat,” one participant said.

The second part was finding other culprits.

Vegans are the bad guys

In all focus groups, researchers also reported a bias against vegans. Everyone in the participant group agreed that reducing meat is important for reducing emissions. However, vegans were made “the bad guys” — extremists and hypocrites that don’t do much good for the cause.

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

“With this notion, the participants confirm to each other that their food practices are not more problematic than food practices among people who have cut out meat entirely — even though the truth is that red meat has a far greater climate footprint than both avocados and vegan products, and vegans do not necessarily eat more avocados or processed products than meat eaters,” Skelly adds.

So what’s the takeaway?

According to researchers, the key message is that we need to have a clearer, unambiguous message for meat consumption.

There seems to be a collective awareness of the climate impacts of meat consumption, but this is often accompanied by “questionable knowledge” or “lack of knowledge.” These gaps in understanding are frequently used to excuse or justify continued meat consumption and to criticize others who oppose it. People tend to accept the climate impacts of meat consumption when it aligns with cultural norms, but they are less inclined to acknowledge it when it challenges modern consumer habits.

Journal Reference: Thomas A.M. Skelly et al, Bad avocados, culinary standards, and knowable knowledge. Culturally appropriate rejections of meat reduction, Journal of Consumer Culture (2024). DOI: 10.1177/14695405241243199