The cheese paradox: How do vegetarians justify consuming non-meat animal products?

Abstract

Researchers interested in animal ethics have proposed the ‘meat paradox’ - psychological discomfort arising from people's affinity for animals and conflicting desire to consume their flesh. Yet what can be said about the psychology of consuming an animal's non-meat products, in an age where most beings in these industries are harmed, and ultimately killed? Non-meat animal products (NMAPs) such as eggs and dairy entail the same, and perhaps even worse ethical issues as meat yet receive disproportionately less critical attention. Therefore, unlike meat, very little is known about the psychology of egg and dairy consumption. This study looks at vegetarians to address this gap, because they are more likely to show empathetic concern for animals than meat-eaters, yet actively choose to include these products in their diet, a conflict ripe for exploration. Interview data were analysed via thematic analysis, finding that vegetarians perceive robust ethical issues with NMAPs but give various justifications pertaining to personal benefits and social norms. Cognitive dissonance was evident and participants used various strategies to resolve it. This paper expands research on food psychology and animal ethics and may also be used to inform NMAP reduction strategies, an important pursuit in the quest for a more sustainable and compassionate world.