Meat is central to many human cultures. But over the last few decades, the world has seen more and more people turning their backs on the consumption of animal flesh. The food industry has noticed this trend as well, and by the early 1990s, British consumers were finding many items on their supermarket shelves that aimed to be an alternative to meat. Today, these products are targeting consumers who have stopped eating meat for environmental, ecological, ethical, health, or other reasons.
Now, as a reader of this article—possibly vegan yourself—you may know that carnists (just as anyone) can be very stuck in their ways. Psychologist Melanie Joy, in a book called Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism (2009), describes the three so-called meat myths, or ‘the three N’s of justification’. These are patterns that she identified amongst carnists when they try to justify their dietary choices: “Meat eating is normal, natural, and necessary,” she writes. One of the things I consider in my research, is the following: if meat alternatives are meant to be an alternative to meat, do they propose alternative myths as well?
This question resonates with The Vegan Society’s research endeavours, particularly the Society and Culture portfolio theme; it is highly relevant when understanding veganism in a holistic, and not just material, way. All meat alternatives are meat-free, and many are animal-free, but as extensive research suggests, our contemporary meat culture embodies much more than just the consumption of animals: for example, meat symbolises masculinity and power (Rothgerber, 2013), a baseline for a balanced diet (Biesalski, 2005), or simply what is normal to eat at the dinner table or for a Sunday roast (Beardsworth & Keil, 1992). A holistic vegan, I suggest, should at least consider the cultural-symbolic interconnections and implications of their food choices. This is especially crucial for meat alternatives, as their physical properties are often designed to closely replicate animal flesh. So, for a study that will be published in the next few months (Rödl, 2018), I investigated exactly this question: what ‘myths’ do meat alternatives propose? I selected a number of adverts for meat alternatives from the Vegetarian Society’s member magazine, and examined how they deal with these three meat myths. Unfortunately, I cannot print any of these adverts here due to copyright restrictions, but I will summarise my findings below.
Meat consumption is normal
Carnists argue that meat consumption is normal; it is a big part of tradition and of everyday life, as well as being ubiquitously available. However, certain meat alternatives have been available in all major supermarkets, even as long as 20 years ago - and their general availability is often emphasised throughout the adverts I have looked at. So the question is: can meat alternatives become a part of everyday life, and replace meat in traditional dishes? The adverts I examined would lead us to believe they can. For example, an advert for a flesh-free Toad in the Hole, printed in 1993, depicted a white dinner plate filled with vegetables, potatoes, and most importantly a crispy, battered object which looks like it covers four sausages. The advert emphasised that this dish is a general favourite, both traditional, yet suitable for everyday life. Only through the word ‘vegetarian’, and its appearance in a vegetarian magazine, can we actually know that this is a vegetarian dish. Generally, I found that most recipe suggestions or food photographs for meat alternatives displayed dishes originally prepared with meat. The meat myth is thus overcome by providing functionally equal, traditional, or exciting dishes, which promise satisfaction and easy preparation. So instead of questioning whether meat-eating is indeed normal, the adverts extend the myth to encompass meat alternatives.
Meat consumption is natural
Meat consumption is often justified as being natural on the grounds that humans are biologically meant to eat meat, have always eaten meat, and are superior to animals. While I could not find any advertisements that repeat these assumptions, there were quite a few adverts that depicted animals. For instance, take one advert from 2001 promoting vegan bacon: the advert depicts a pink, domesticted pig on a green, countryside meadow sitting below an uppercase headline which reads, “THE GREAT TASTE OF BACON WITHOUT THE PIG”. Later on in the advert, it suggests that bacon is actually healthy, and an irreplaceable morning ritual. Consequently, the advertised product “means good news for you (and even better news for the pigs).” Put bluntly, this advert implies that pigs would be happier and living in a green idyl if it were not for the meat industry. Unfortunately, it is highly doubtful that any pig enjoyed a better life due to the fact humans were transitioning to meat alternatives. Unless the viewer of the advert owned a farm and could extricate its pigs at will, there would have been no rescue and no happy ending. Nevertheless, the advert suggests that the consumer has the power to decide an animal’s fate: to decide its life, death, and quality of living. In essence, it proposes to entitled humans—who see themselves as the top of the food chain - that they can improve the lives of animals, simply by replacing meat with other fabricated food products. Other advertisements argue along similar lines, suggesting that humans have the power to rescue animals or to help fish stocks simply through their decision to switch to processed foods. These adverts, thus, reinforce the idea that human power can shape and form nature; as opposed to a relationship in which humans are equal or taking care of nature, which some vegan scholars may advocate for.
Meat consumption is necessary
Some people argue that meat consumption is necessary because it provides crucial nutrients for human health. Other people argue that meat consumption is necessary for economic reasons, or to contain animals (however, these ideas are not the focus of this research project). None of the adverts that I examined actually argued that eating meat is healthy. However, some did claim that ‘meat alternatives are (even) healthier than meat!’. For instance, the punchline of one advert from 1992 read: “All the nourishment you need — without the meat!”. In a part of the advert entitled ‘nutrition’, it is revealed that "nourishment" specifcally refers to protein: containing “as much protein as meat (if not more)”, no cholestrol and “less calories than most meats” the advert consciously emphasised the “added health benefits" of meat alternatives.
If you are an established vegan, you will probably know that your diet is already cholesterol-free, and that your protein intake is most likely sufficient. You probably also know, that “all the nourishment you need” can come from potatoes, pulses, fruit and vegetables, to name a few, and that "nourishment" includes many more things than just protein. While this may not be the case for everyone who seeks to reduce their meat intake, the advert certainly focuses its nutritional advantages on being an alternative to meat, rather than simply being plant-based.
Many adverts I looked at—although not often as explicit and extreme—contained this pattern: the nutrition of the advertised product is always described in relation to meat, and instead of good nutrition, the adverts discuss ‘better-than-meat’ nutrition. This perpetuates the idea of meat as a nutritional baseline. In essence these adverts suggest that meat is necessary for human nutrition, but that meat-alternatives are even better.
Conclusion
So, what? It would seem that a product intended to attract former or current carnists to shift to a healthier, more ethical and more ecological diet needs to compare itself to meat to become credible. What is intriguing about this trend is that the myths of carnism are not debunked or criticised. Rather, they are simply amended and extended in order to become more convenient and easy for the consumer, who then does not need to challenge their existing worldview in order to live more healthily or ethically.
If I sold meat alternatives, I too would not want to tell my consumers to liberate themselves from eating flesh. The very business depends on the fact that consuming flesh has been transcended on a motivational level, but is still embodied in consumer behaviour, beliefs, and desires. Despite this, meat alternatives are a great food product on a material level: they mean fewer animals are killed, less methane is emitted, and less rainforest is destroyed for feed monocultures. But we do need to be aware, that through these products, meat culture may remain part of our traditions, attitudes, and nutritional beliefs. The aim of The Vegan Society, and many vegans, is to end the exploitation of animals. Perhaps not consuming animal products is sufficient for that goal. But maybe there is value in reconsidering our attachment to products which symbolise animal exploitation. Maybe meat alternatives are a kind of ‘carnal legacy’ of a bloody past?
My analysis suggests that marketing companies utilise the affection we have towards the consumable results of animal exploitation when advertising meat alternatives: they are shown to fill our bellies in a supposedly tasty manner, they symbolise tradition and well-being, and they promise us easy, meat-centric health. Despite this, I suggest that the way forward is to embrace vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, and all the other wonderfully tasty ingredients that make vegan cuisine so versatile and special. In my opinion, these foods are even tastier, healthier, and can be just as ordinary or exquisite. What do you think?
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
Written for the Society & Culture Research Portfolio by Researcher Network member, Malte B. Rödl of the Sustainable Consumption Institute, The University of Manchester, UK.
References
Beardsworth, A., & Keil, T. (1992). The vegetarian option: Varieties, conversions, motives and careers. The Sociological Review, 40(2), 253–293.
Biesalski, H. K. (2005). Meat as a component of a healthy diet – are there any risks or benefits if meat is avoided in the diet? Meat Science, 70(3), 509–524.
Joy, M. (2009). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Berkeley, Calif.; Enfield: Conari Press.
Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128.
Rödl, M. B. (2018). Marketing Meat Alternatives: Meat Myths and Their Replication in Advertising for Plant-Based Meat. In D. Bogueva, D. Marinova, & T. Raphaely (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Social Marketing and Its Influence on Animal Origin Food Product Consumption (pp. 327-343). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumptionn. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363–375.
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
