veganism: motivations and difficulties
TRANSCRIPT
Roskilde Universitet
International bachelor study programme in humanities
House 44.2 – Group 13
Veganism: Motivations and Difficulties
Submitted on: 19th December 2017
Mathilde Beck - 60197 ([email protected])
John Harvey - 61040
Christina Trauth - 62066
Supervisor: Dr. Rashmi Singla
Table of content
Abstract 2
1 Introduction 3
2 Setting 4 2.1. History of Veganism 4 2.2 What is Veganism 5
3 State of art 6
4 Theory 8 4.1 Carnism - Joy 8 4.2 Transtheoretical Model - Prochaska and DiClemente 9 4.3 Theory of Science 11
5 Methodology 15
6 Analysis 17 6.1 Motivations 17
6.1.1 Ethics-based motivations 17 6.1.2 Environment-based motivations 23 6.1.3 Health-based motivations 26
6.2 Difficulties 31 6.2.1 Individual level 32 6.2.2 Group level 35 6.2.3 Structural level 38
7 Discussion 43
8 Conclusion and perspectives 45
References 47
1
Abstract
An increasing number of people are adopting a vegan lifestyle, which means to stop
consuming products, that are made from or based on animals, like meat, dairy or eggs. However,
the number of research concerning veganism is limited. As the existing research is mainly
concentrating on the process of adopting a vegan lifestyle and the view of vegans, these findings
shall be examined further with the question, What are the motivation and difficulties about adopting
a plant based vegan diet in Western society today? Interviews, collected from the webpage
YouTube.com, are analysed through two theories (concept of carnism by Joy and the
Transtheoretical Model by Prochaska and DiClemente). The thematic analysis revealed three main
motivations and three levels of difficulties. As main motivations the three topics ethic, environment
and health have been clustered. The levels of the difficulties have been named individual, group and
structural level.
2
1 Introduction
The first historically verifiable followers of vegetarianism and veganism go back to the sixth
century before Christ. Pythagoras considered that “everything that man does to animals comes back
to man.”. In the same time period, vegetarianism and veganism emerged in India as an important
part of religion. With the fall of the ancient cultures, vegetarianism disappeared mainly in Europe.
Nevertheless, occasionally significant figures like Leonardo da Vinci (1452 - 1519) refused the
consumption of meat. Today, the numbers of vegans, meaning people, who are not consuming
animal-based products like meat, dairy, eggs and fish, increase steadily. (Chapter 2) 1
Despite the fact, that the number of vegans increase, the scientific studies concerning
veganism are still rare. The two main focuses of the research are (a) the process of becoming vegan
and (b) the attitudes towards veganism. (Chapter 3) To take these existing results further, (a) the
motivations behind the decision of becoming vegan shall be examined and (b) as the current studies
imply that the attitudes towards vegans are mainly negative and even aggressive, the difficulties of
adopting a vegan lifestyle shall be analysed. Therefore, the following research question transpired:
Research question: What are the motivation and difficulties about adopting a plant based vegan
diet in Western society today?
Subquestion:
- What are the pros and cons of a vegan lifestyle?
- What makes it hard to adopt and pursue veganism?
To analyze the data, two theories have been chosen: The concept of carnism by Joy and the
Transtheoretical Model by Prochaska and DiClemente. Joy explains the psychological mechanisms
behind the ideology of “carnism”, the ideology where the abuse of animals is viewed as legitimate.
Therefore, her focus lies mainly on the aspect, why the majority of people is consuming animal
products and thus, the difficulties of being vegan. The Transtheoretical Model describes the
different stages of the process of becoming a vegan and, in consequence, is linked with the
motivations. Both theories are examined from an critical realist point of view with the concepts of
Adorno, Horkheimer and Lyotard and are placed in the landscape of psychology. (Chapter 4)
As data interviews which are retrieved from YouTube-videos are used, in which vegans and
non-vegans are talking about their motivations, difficulties and attitudes. The data is analysed
1 Schlüter ([Not given])
3
through the theories with the thematic analysis approach. (Chapter 5) The findings are reported and
(Chapter 6) and discussed (Chapter 7). A conclusion and perspectives are drawn (Chapter 8).
2 Setting
2.1. History of Veganism
The “vegetarian” term was created in 1847 by The Vegetarian Society. It all started with
ecologists, vegetarians, and differents movements who wanted to go back to a state that was closer
to earth and its values. During that time, what we call veganism today was termed as “non-dairy
vegetarianism”, but the need to acquire a more precise term as well as a proper definition of the
movement led Donald Watson, an English joinery teacher, to call a meeting in November 1944
during which the term of “veganism” was coined. During the same year, Watson would then found
the still existing Vegan Society. Although the terms of “vegetarianism” and “veganism” are
relatively recent ones, avoidance of animals products can be tracked all the way back 2 000 years
ago, as Pythagoras and The Buddha were promoting and following a vegetarian diet. But it is only
in 1806 that the notion of veganism was starting to take place as the first public objections based on
ethics were made to eggs and dairy products. 2
As for today, veganism is officially a protected human right, and the vegan movement has
never seen so many followers. In the United Kingdom, over a quarter (28%) of meat eating Brits
have reduced or limited their meat consumption in the last six months , indeed, the number of 3
people following a plant based diet grew from 150,000 in 2006 to 542,000 in 2016, which is a
360% increase during the past decade. Many investors have started and continue to fund plant based
and vegan businesses. For example, this year, Miyiko’s Vegan Cheese was funded six million
dollars by various investors, while Allplants raised one million dollars. The rise of plant based 4
businesses, the multiplication of vegan alternatives and movements, the release of movies made to
educate and raise awareness, , , , , , the growing number of people moving to a more plant based 5 6 7 8 9 10
diet and conscious lifestyle, and many other factors, are suggesting that the world is slowly but
2 The Vegan Society ([Not given]a) 3 Mintel (2017) 4 Vevolution (2017) 5 Andersen and Kuhn (2014) 6 Andersen and Kuhn (2017) 7 Fulkerson (2011) 8 Bong and Ronson (2017) 9 Amstell (2017) 10 Monson (2005)
4
surely moving towards a more vegan world.
2.2 What is Veganism
Beyond being a philosophy, veganism is a lifestyle centered around ecological, ethical, and
health reasons. Nowadays, more and more people are becoming vegan for multiples reasons
including the consciousness of the suffering and exploitation of animals, the damages - sometimes
irreversible - done to our planet, allergies, or just simply to lead a healthier lifestyle. As previously
mentioned, the term of veganism was created in 1944, but it is as late as 1949 that The Vegan
Society decided to come up with a proper definition of the word which was “to seek an end to the
use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses
involving exploitation of animal life by man.” In 1979, as The Vegan Society was officially 11
registered as a charity, that definition was remodeled to “a philosophy and way of living which
seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to,
animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and
use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary
terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
While there are many reasons and many ways for adopting and taking up a vegan lifestyle, what 12
all vegans have in common is the diet, which is 100% plant-based, meaning the avoidance of meat,
fish, eggs, dairy products, shellfish, insects, and honey. It also includes avoiding commodities made
of leather or material of animal provenance (feathers, horn, fur, wool, etc.), and any products tested
on animals. Being vegan goes further than a daily practice, zoos and circus, created for human
enjoyment are also rejected, and so is the practice of hunting and fishing. Any activity implying the
exploitation, domination, or possession of animals by humans is excluded.
11 The Vegan Society ([Not given]a) 12 The Vegan Society ([Not given]a)
5
3 State of art
In Germany, the number of people who are living vegan increased over the last few years
steadily: Nearly 10 years ago 80.000 people declared themselves as vegans, in 2014 already
900.000 followed a vegan diet. The marketing research institute Skopos showed that in 2017 1,3
Million Germans are living vegan. There are similar results in other European countries, e.g. in the 13
UK: As in 2007 150,000 people only consumed vegan products, in 2016 at least 542,000 people in
Britain are now following a vegan diet. However, the empirical sociological research about 14
veganism is limited. 15
One focus of the limited research lies on the attitude towards the vegan diet. Povey, Wellens
and Conner (2001) examined in a quantitative approach the differences between the attitudes of four
different diets (N=111, ncarnists=25, nmeat avoiders=26, nvegetarians=24, nvegans=26). The results show, that the
participants had the most positives attitudes towards their own diet, while the most negative
attitudes were expressed towards the most different diet from their own. LeRette (2015) takes this 16
result in further investigations by examining if vegans and vegetarians are confronted with
microaggressions because of their lifestyle. In her qualitative inquiry she used semi-structured
interviews with 11 vegans and vegetarians. Using thematic analysis, she found nine themes, which
evolve mainly around the acceptance of veganism or vegetarianism, e.g. insensitive comments and
questions and bullying behaviour. Her findings show, that vegans and vegetarians experience
microaggressions regarding their choice of adopting a vegan lifestyle. Furthermore, she found, that
some vegans and vegetarians do not want to reveal that they are vegan towards non-vegans and
have conversation about it to prevent any conflict. Cole and Morgan (2011) investigates 17
discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. Their findings showed, that newspapers
are likely to discredit and stereotype vegans. Cole and Morgan (2011) are interpreting the “overall
effect […] of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism […] as ‘vegaphobia”. 18
Other studies look at the process of becoming a vegan. McDonald (2000) looked at the
process of becoming vegan by using qualitative methodology. She interviewed 13 participants, who
have been vegan for at least one year. In her findings she presents seven different elements of the
vegan learning process, e.g. a catalytic experience that demonstrated the participant some aspects of
13 SKOPOS GmbH & Co. KG (2016) 14 The Vegan Society (2016) 15 Cole and Morgan (2011) 16 Povey, Wellens, and Conner (2001) 17 LeRette (2015) 18 Cole and Morgan (2011), p. 134
6
the consequences when consuming meat or the decision point, where the person started to be
committed to veganism. Mendes (2013) applied the Transtheoretical Model to the process of 19
becoming vegan in a theoretical work. She suggests that the process of adopting a vegan lifestyle
can be observed in the different stages of the TTM. Her application of the model to veganism will
be used later in the chapter analysis. 20
However, the number of studies about veganism are rare. In a majority of the research
veganism is subcategorised as an extreme form of vegetarianism and not viewed as an own
category. That this is not representing the reality are showing different studies over the last few 21
years: While in 2008 0,09 % Germans have been declaring themselves as vegans, in 2014 the
numbers have risen to 1,09 %. 2017, 1,9 % of the german population is following a vegan lifestyle.
To explore this steady increase, the motivations of people to adopt a vegan lifestyle, e.g. the 22
relevance of animal rights to vegans have to be evaluated. But, as Cole and Morgan (2011) state, the
motivations of vegans are “underexplored”. Therefore, in the present paper the motivations of 23
vegans are analysed. In already named studies like Povey, Wellens and Conner (2001) , LeRette 24
(2015) and Cole and Morgan (2011) have suggested, that there are several difficulties vegans 25 26
have to face. This could be one reason, why in 2017 98,1 % of the population do not adapt a vegan
lifestyle and more - like e.g. LeRette found - are even showing microaggressions towards vegans.
These difficulties shall be examined further.
19 McDonald (2000) 20 Mendes (2013) 21 Cole and Morgan (2011) 22 The Vegan Society (2016) 23 Cole and Morgan (2011) 24 Povey et al. (2001) 25 LeRette (2015) 26 Cole and Morgan (2011)
7
4 Theory
4.1 Carnism - Joy
The social psychologist Melanie Joy created in 2003 the neologism carnism to describe the
ideology that “dichotomizes nonhuman animals into “edible” and “inedible” categorizations” and 27
consider the utilization and abuse of animals as genuine. The ideology habituates people to the
consumption of animal based food. Carnism is distributed globally: The attitude that animals are 28
food is widespread in a majority of cultures, however, different cultures consider different species
as food. One often used example to illustrate the gap between perceived and real edibility is the
Indian conception of cows as holy animals while European view them as part of their daily diet. 29
Joy considers her concept of carnism as a sub-ideology of speciesism, which is defined by Oscar
Horta as “the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified
as belonging to one or more particular species” Like speciesism, carnism is “structural and 30
internalized” , influencing different attitudes and behaviour towards different species. With the 31 32
development of the concept of carnism, Joy made it for the first time possible to label the opposite
of veganism. One aspect in which the ideologies carnism and veganism are strongly opposed is the 33
visibility of the ideology: vegans support veganism consciously, but people who endorse carnism
are usually unaware of doing so. This is comparable to the ideology of patriarchy, where men were
considered to be superior to women. Several cognitive and affective distortions keep people in this 34
kind of “matrix” . These defence mechanisms can be organised in three categories: The first is 35
denial, which can occur through dissociations, where a “reality that would cause emotional
discomfort” will be unconsciously avoided, e.g. by avoiding thoughts and emotions regarding 36
consuming meat or the confrontation with the meat production. Weitzenfeld and Joy describe that 37
denial is mainly expressed through invisibility: “If carnism is not named, it cannot be
conceptualized, questioned, or challenged. The invisibility of carnism is why eating animals appears
to be given, rather than a choice.” The second category topics the vast methodology concerning 38
27 Weitzenfeld, A & Joy, M. (2014), p. 28 28 Weitzenfeld, A & Joy, M. (2014) 29 Gibert and Desaulniers (2013) 30 Horta (2010) 31 Weitzenfeld, A & Joy, M. (2014), p. 29 32 Weitzenfeld, A & Joy, M. (2014) 33 Gibert and Desaulniers (2013) 34 Gibert and Desaulniers (2013) 35 Joy (2011), p.134 36 Joy (2003), p.111 37 Mannes (2017) 38 Weitzenfeld, A & Joy, M. (2014), p.30
8
eating animals. “The three Ns of justification“ summarize the myths under the headings eating 39
meat viewed as normal (e.g. “everyone consumes meat”), natural (e.g. “already our ancestors ate
meat”) and necessary (e.g. “meat is the only food supplying enough protein”). Thirdly, the 4041
distortion of perception which can express itself in objectification, deindividualization and
dichotomization. Animals are objectified as they are considered as things (e.g. calling a chicken a
broiler – even before they are killed). Deindividualization shows as they are viewed as „abstract 42
members of a group about which humans have made generalized assumptions“ (e.g. “all pigs are
the same”). Through dichotomisation animals are categorized in fixed sections, like pets and farm 43
animals. 44
4.2 Transtheoretical Model - Prochaska and DiClemente
The transtheoretical model of behaviour change was developed by Prochaska and
DiClemente (1982) and achieved since then great acceptance especially in US, Australia and UK. It
occurred originally in studies concerning “smoking self-changers”, meaning people who try to stop
smoking by themselves without (therapeutic) help, but is now also applied public health care,
clinical and health psychology as well as in prevention. The model “emerged from a comparative 45
analysis of leading theories of psychotherapy and behavior change.” Different psychotherapeutic 46
schools contributed to the model (such as the Freudian, Skinnerian and Rogerian tradition), which
was decisive for the name “transtheoretical”. 47
Meanwhile, the transtheoretical model has been well developed and is based on various concepts.
The two concepts, that are relevant to this work, are shortly described in the following.
Firstly, with a temporal dimension six “stages of change” are distinguished, which an individual has
to undergo to achieve a long-lasting change. People start from precontemplation, where they do 48
not plan to take action in the near future to change their behaviour. Possible reasons can be the lack
of information and motivation or else they became demoralized by previous failures. They behave
“often defensive and resistant, particularly against programs and persuasions designed to have them
39 Joy (2011), p. 96 40 Joy (2011) 41 Mannes (2017) 42 Gibert and Desaulniers (2013) 43 Weitzenfeld, A & Joy, M. (2014) 44 Gibert and Desaulniers (2013) 45 Maurischat (2001) 46 Prochaska and Velicer (2016), p. 38 47 Prochaska and Velicer (2016) 48 Maurischat (2001)
9
take action.” Through contemplation people build an intention to change their behaviour within 49
the next six months. Nevertheless, they are considering the benefits and costs, whereby some people
get stuck in this stage as they cannot balance them. This is characterized as critic contemplation or
behavioural procrastination. When people are convinced that the benefits overcome the costs 50 51
and are having a concrete plan for taking action in the immediate future, they are in the stage of
preparation. This would be the right time to recruit them for action-oriented programs The 52 53
stage of action involves “overt behavioural modification” ; the behaviour has changed. In this stage 54
people have to make the greatest efforts to apply the processes of change for six months. As the
public expects the change to be quicker internalized, they reduce their efforts quickly. When 55
people managed to go through the six months of concentrated action, they reach maintenance. Now
they do not have to work so hard to prevent relapse, yet they have to be prepared to cope adequately
with distress without falling back into their old behaviour. Prochaska and DiClemente name as the
most common risk factors “anger, anxiety, boredom, depression, and stress”. People that reach the 56
final stage termination experience no temptation across all these high-risk situations and are
completely sure that they will never resort back. Not everyone reaches that phase, but stays in the
fifth stage. 57
Additionally to the six stages of change, Prochaska and DiClemente define processes of
change, which describe “covert and overt activities that people use to progress through the stages.” 58
The ten processes that are most supported by research are consciousness raising, dramatic relief,
self-re-evaluation, environmental re-evaluation, self-liberation, helping relationships, counter
conditioning, reinforcement management stimulus control, and social liberation. 59
49 Prochaska (1996), p. 722 50 Tobler, Visschers, and Siegrist (2011) 51 Mendes (2013) 52 Prochaska and Velicer (2016) 53 Prochaska (1996) 54 Prochaska (1996), p. 723 55 Prochaska (1996) 56 Prochaska (1996), p. 723 57 Prochaska (1996) 58 Prochaska and Velicer (2016), p. 39 59 Prochaska and Velicer (2016)
10
4.3 Theory of Science
In our project, we touch upon a critical realist view which means that while we make
observations in the world, we are mostly involved with what causes those behavioral observations
and how the power structure that surround the subject affects it. We make observations of the
subject taking in account their position within a chosen society (here Western) while commenting
on the influence of said society on the subject. The data and conclusions collected from these
observations will perform as a critique on social reality and eventually accomplish the task of an
advocate for change. Applying this directly to our project, it lead us to not only look at the 60
individual and their own motivations and difficulties, but also to move towards a critical view on
the society in which they live and thus try to deduce the influence that this society has had on them
in relation to other subjects and to their own values.
In the early 20th century and with the emergence of culture industry, Adorno and
Horkheimer, scholars in the Frankfurt School at the time where the critical theory was first coined,
were the first to build up a critique on the newly emerged cultural conditions. According to Adorno
and Horkheimer, human thoughts have developed through stages that have involved several
purposes and actions which are the use of reason to give meaning to human existence, to enlighten a
surrounding darkness, and to control nature and other human beings. The Enlightenment's original
idea was to bring reason to the world which ended up in a system of control that inhibits thoughts.
This suppression of thoughts lead to humanity objectifying and thereby sacrificing itself. Scientific
rationality therefore dominates thoughts and have for consequences to create a dynamic idea of
being rather than a static one of being. Indeed, according to them, the culture industry produces
false representations, relies on false illusions and misrepresentation. It is an opium that deceives us
and reinforces the first representation. There exists no active thinking or reflecting in the subject
anymore. 61
Following Adorno's thesis, the entire world is structured by the culture industry which is
spread through cinema, tv, newspapers, etc. Medias are used to transform individuals into passive
objects meant to absorb anything we present to them, which dehumanise them and makes them lose
any critical capacity. Even the self that is in the heart of intimacy is trapped by the standardisation
of society and has to be conform to what society wants it to be. Medias are the end of the thinking
subject, and achieve the movement of "autodestruction of reason". For him, this industry does not 62
60 Ambrosius Madsen (2017) 61 Adorno and Horkheimer (2002) 62 La-Philo (2012)
11
make the individuals more free but forces them into a lifestyle that is uniform, leading to the
domination of economy. Indeed, this unity is lead by an economic force that stands above the
cultural industry and controls it. Consumers are considered customers or employees, a part of a
statistics. This system marginalises anyone who refuses this uniformisation of thought and 63
individuals are impregnated by this cultural industry in every way including their own emotions. 64
This critical view has helped us shape our own critique by trying to look at the different systems of
thoughts and representations as well as myths that surround a subject and to see how these take
control of how they think and view the world around them as well as define their place in society.
More concretely, we look at what kind of representations are spread by the industry through media
and dietary guidelines, how they affect vegans as well as non vegans in how they see themselves
but also in how they see each other by analysing different interactions and interview between them.
We further take a look at how these representations shape the subject’s view on their own place in
the world, more particularly those that emanate from non vegans and spread the general belief of
humans possessing the right of controlling nature to their own ends.
“Every day we engage in a behavior that is completely contrary to how we would optimally
function [...] an integral human behaviour [...] a deeply intimate behaviour. Every day we engage
in a behavior that requires us to distort our thoughts, numb our feelings and act against our core
values, and which enables a global atrocity that can make even the most stoic of us weep in sorrow.
And every day we could choose not to engage in this behavior, except we don’t realize that it’s
irrational. We don’t see that it’s destructive and we don’t even know we have a choice.” 65
This critique by Adorno and Horkheimer of a society where the subject has its thoughts
controlled and therefore abandons active thinking and self reflecting is closely linked to our primary
theory which is Carnism. Indeed, Melanie Joy wants, through her theory, to make people think in
order for them to realise that they have a choice even if the culture industry makes it look that they
do not. Everyday, the subject loses their emotions and compassion and goes against their morals
without questioning and reflecting on their actions. Adorno and Horkheimer's critique supports the
fact that the industry produces false representations, for example the myths surrounding dairy as
healthy and necessary, which leads to misrepresentations that makes the subject dehumanize
themselves and others, but also that makes them control nature and other beings through their
63 Adorno and Horkheimer (1974) 64 Adorno and Horkheimer (1974) 65 TEDx Talks (2015)
12
actions and perception towards them without active thinking nor reflection.
Jean-François Lyotard was a 20th century French philosopher, sociologist and literary
theorist who is best known for his articulation of the postmodern. Lyotard’s work commonly dealt
with a rejection of universals with regard to truth or perception, which resonated Melanie Joy’s
repudiation of what she refers to as, the hidden ideology, Carnism. His work on the subject of
post-modernity centered around the rejection of metanarratives, or grand universalizing narratives
which combine other social or cultural themes into one overarching master ideology, through which
through which society and the knowledge that it produces, can be legitimized. He states,
“Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward
metanarratives. ... The narrative function is losing its functors, its great hero, its great
dangers, its great voyages, its great goal. It is being dispersed in clouds of narrative
language ... Where, after the metanarratives, can legitimacy reside?” 66
He describes the function these narratives as not only legitimizing denotative truth like “the earth
revolves around the sun”, but also prescriptive truths such as “Carthage must be destroyed”. In this 67
fashion the meta-narrative supersedes both objective and subjective observation, instead providing
the material from which reality is produced, and then reproduced. In the declaration about the
destruction of Carthage, the only role that knowledge has is to inform the subject of the conditions
of reality within which the execution of the prescription is to be inscribed. This allows the subject to
define what is possible to be done, without introducing the question of whether it should be done. In
this reality knowledge is no longer the subject, but in service of the subject. The efficiency with 68
which these prescriptions are executed become self legitimizing as performativity justifies the
ideology, thereby reinforcing existing power structures. Lyotard refers to this as “context control”,
articulating that as “reality” was what provided scientific evidence, as well as contributing values in
the political and ethical arenas, that one could “master all of these games by mastering reality”. 69
Our project deals with the motivations for, and against, adopting a vegan lifestyle, but also
touches on how the narrative of diet is constructed, and by whom. The animal agriculture industry
exerts enormous influence in how food is perceived in Western culture, working to promote its
product, often at the expense of humanity and the planet. In Melanie Joy’s theory of Carnism she
discusses Carnism as a hidden ideology in which the idea of eating meat is so deeply ingrained in
66 Lyotard (1979) 67 Ibid 68 Lyotard (1979) 69 Ibid
13
Western society, that we don’t even see it as a choice, but rather the norm, rendering any other
dietary decisions “alternative”, relegating them to the status of niche behavior. She outlines the
justification of eating meat as being the three N’s, that it is Normal, Natural, and Necessary,
describing those responsible for the perpetuation of this myth as the institutions that form the pillars
of society, such as, the education, politics, and healthcare. Through naming this hidden ideology, 70
what Joy hopes to do is challenge the narrative reality surrounding the production and consumption
of animal products, thereby generating a new discourse on diet and ethics not driven by the outdated
interests of a morally corrupt system.
In the following chapter, the two theories will be placed in the landscape of psychology,
beginning with the Transtheoretical model.
Prochaska and DiClemente describe, that in the 1970s a huge number of new therapies were
released to the market. Between 130 and 200 therapies – depending on the source – have been
flooding the therapeutic marketplace, leading to an excessive demand of choice. Back then,
non-conformance was impacting the field of psychology. However, Prochaska and DiClemente
considered this variance among other things as a chance for new creativity. With the goal to 71
integrate systematically the many theories form the various psychotherapy-schools, a comparative
analysis of the dominant theories of psychotherapy and how to change behaviour has been
conducted. This analysis established processes of change like consciousness, which is based on 72
Freud’s approach, that “the basic therapeutic process is to make the unconscious conscious” . Other 73
examples are the contingency management, which is founded on the Skinnerian tradition regarding
the cognitive processes and structures and helping relationships from the Rogerian tradition. 74
Joy does not place her theory of carnism one of the various schools of psychology by herself.
Therefore, it is tried in the present work to do so. Mainly two directions of psychology can be
identified: one is the consistency theories of cognitive psychology, the other is a psychodynamic
approach, which emphasis the unconsciousness. Concerning the cognitive psychology, which is
based on psychological processes like perception and information, Joy refers to the most popular
theory of the consistency theories: The concept of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger, a U.S.
social psychologist. 1957 Festinger established cognitive dissonance, which he defines as a 75
70 Joy (2010) 71 Prochaska and DiClemente (1982) 72 Prochaska and Velicer (2016) 73 Prochaska and DiClemente (1982), p. 278 74 Prochaska and Velicer (2016) 75 Festinger (2001)
14
“aversive motivational state that motivates the individual to dismantle this unpleasant state” Joy 76
describes, that the reality of how animals are treated and the wish to consume animal products cause
this “aversive motivational state” To “dismantle this unpleasant state” Joy offers several 77 78
mechanisms. The main mechanism is based on the psychodynamic approach from Freud, the
founder of psychoanalysis. Through denial the dissociations, that are causing discomfort, are 79
unconsciously avoided.
After describing the two theories and placing them in the landscape of psychology, the
theories will be used to analyze the data, which is used in the present paper. This process is
described in the following chapter.
5 Methodology
To investigate the motivations and difficulties of becoming vegan, we chose to use videos
from the website youtube.com. These videos are recordings of interviews with vegans and
non-vegans. For this project we chose to use two videos: In the first video, a vegan activist –
“Earthling Ed”, the host of the YouTube channel – interviews people passing by on the streets,
about the necessity to eat animals, health and ethical questions and starts discussions with them.
The boy (Y) and the girl (X) Ed starts a conversation with are not able to explain in a reasoned,
structured argument chain, why they are eating meat. Almost every argument against veganism is
brought up: “Meat is tasty”, “Eating meat is natural and a cultural thing”, “I respect your choice, so
respect mine. It is a personal choice”. In the second video, two vegan girls – Kate, the host of the 80
YouTube channel) and her friend Christy – are talking about their motivations of becoming vegan
and the difficulties they are facing in everyday life. 81
After collecting the data, we started with the thematic analysis. As Braun and Clarke (2006)
described, thematic analysis investigated and reveals patterns within data. For this analysis, they 82
provide a step-by-step guide to identify the themes and patterns lying within the data. In phase 1 the
researcher is familiarizing him- or herself with the data. This includes a transcription of the videos
76 Fischer, Asal, and Krueger (2014), p. 16 77 Fischer et al. (2014), p. 16 78 Fischer et al. (2014), p. 16 79 Rudolph (2013) 80 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 81 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 82 Braun and Clarke (2006)
15
and repeated reading of the data. In the second phase initial coding of the data starts, referring to 83
‘the most basic segment, or element, of the raw data or information that can be assessed in a
meaningful way regarding the phenomenon’ As Braun and Clarke (2006) suggested, highlighters 84
and notes were used to code the data. In the third step – the searching for themes – the analysis
refocused “at the broader level of themes, rather than codes, involves sorting the different codes
into potential themes.” Post-its and mind maps were used to cluster the different codes into 85
broader themes. Reaching step 4, the different themes were reviewed. The clustering and
organisation of the themes was re-examined and adjusted. Now, we had a specific idea what our
different themes about motivations and difficulties for becoming vegan are and how they are linked:
After naming the themes in step 5, we started to write the report (step 6). During this process we 86
applied the described theories of Melanie Joy’s theory, Carnism, and Prochaska and DiClemente’s,
Transtheoretical Model of Change.
While following these steps, it had to be decided, what counts as a theme. According to
Braun and Clarke, (2006), this decision has to be made by the researches judgement. Since 87
thematic analysis is a qualitative method, there is no absolute answer – like in quantitative research
– in what proportion the data set needs to include the theme. Likewise the “keyness” of a theme 88
cannot be measured by quantifiable terms, “but rather on whether it captures something important
in relation to the overall research question.” 89
The topic veganism is emotional and heated discussed in society for a few years now. For
this reason and as we are partly vegans ourself, we wanted to work close to the state of the art of
research. By consulting only studies with a high number of participants and driven by authorities,
like the World Health Organisation or government driven authorities like Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, we want to ensure an academic approach to the topic. The paper is not
made to persuade anyone to adopt a vegan lifestyle, but to illuminate the motivations and
difficulties of veganism.
83 Braun and Clarke (2006) 84 Boyatzis, Richard, E. (1998), p. 68 85 Braun and Clarke (2006), p. 89 86 Braun and Clarke (2006) 87 Braun and Clarke (2006) 88 Braun and Clarke (2006), p. 82 89 Braun and Clarke (2006), p. 82
16
6 Analysis
The theme analysis, conducted as described above, revealed six themes concerning not only
the reasons to become vegan, but also the difficulties which make it hard for vegans to stick with
their life changing choice or even hold people back to adopt a vegan lifestyle. The motivations can
be clustered into ethic-based, environment-based and health-based motivations. This clustering also
corresponds with the testimony from Kate from the second video:
K: You’ve got the ethical side of things, what happens to the animals […]. You’ve got the
environmental damage that happens […], and then you’ve got the health benefits, […]. 90
The Matching between the clustering the analysis showed and the testimony from Kate suggests,
that the motivations ethic, environment and health are crucial for vegans.
The difficulties can be structured in three different levels: individual, group and structural
level. In the following the motivations followed by the difficulties shall be closely examined.
6.1 Motivations
The analysis of the motivations is structured as following described: The data, which
consists of interviews is analyzed through the theories of both Joy and Prochaska and DiClemente.
Afterwards, some additional information referring to (1) the present literature concerning research
about the motivations and difficulties vegans have (linked to literature review above) and (2) the
state of art of current research to the reasons of going vegan are presented. This is necessary, as the
testimonies do not explain the reasons into depth and, therefore, it is needed to understand the
single testimonies better.
6.1.1 Ethics-based motivations
Ethics refers to moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an
activity , it deals with what is good or bad is relation to moral duty. Here, we are going to look at 91
the moral implications concerning veganism, what they are and how they relate to certain parts of
our theories and data. In video n°1, the subject of ethics and morals are quite redundant. Indeed,
there is the mention of “humane slaughter” as well as the fact that killing and using animals
90 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 91 Oxford University Press ([Not given])
17
“doesn’t have to be cruel”, and also several statements about the act of eating meat as being an
individual choice. In this part, we will discuss how this individual choices have victims, and give 92
more insights about how animals are treated in different parts of the industry today.
Animals are a complete part of our industrial society, they are used as raw material for all
sorts of products aside from meat itself. While animal parts and products are used in a wide variety
of the food we eat, they can also be used in the process of making other products. We can find
animal skin on all sorts of clothes and commodities, gelatin, which is leftovers from animal parts
can be found in most of the candy on the market, almost all the cheese with crust also contain
animal parts as the crust is made from a part of the calf’s stomach, bone powder is also used in
certain faculties to refine sugar or alcohol and can be found in some fertilizers and toothpastes, etc.
Another branch in which animals are also used are cosmetics. Four years ago, PETA (People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had discovered and unveiled the fact that several previously
cruelty-free brands had started to fund animal testing in China. Up until earlier last year, the China
Food and Drug Administration had specific requirements about any cosmetics product having to go
through a process of testing on animal in order to get to their market. Those requirements have now
been waived for certain non-special use cosmetics, which means that it will no longer be required,
but still allowed. Today, many known beauty and cosmetics brands still aren’t cruelty-free, such as 93
Estée Lauder, Gemey Maybelline, Victoria’s Secret, etc. 94
Medicine can also contain ingredients derived from animals such as Adrenaline which
comes from adrenal glands of hogs, cattle, and sheep, or such as Allantoin, used both for cosmetics
and medical use and is actually in most cases cow’s uric acid, but can also come from other
mammals , etc. 95
a) Animal exploitation and situation
Today, factory animals have their life controlled and pre-calculated before they are even
born. Every day of their life has to fit it the frame of production no matter which industry they live
in.
92 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 93 Spencer (2017) 94 Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ([Not given]c) 95 Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ([Not given]b)
18
In the egg industry, 95% of the U.S production comes from caged birds, living in tiny and
sloping metal squares, so the eggs can fall down instantly after being produced. The wire cages in
which they live makes lose feathers constantly, and hurts their feet. The anxiety created by the
precarity of their living situation can also lead the birds to fight, which is why their beaks are
sometimes removed to avoid injuries (their beaks are burnt off without any kind of pain reliever). In
fact, an approximate ⅓ of the hens who arrive at slaughter have broken legs and/or bones. In those 96
U.S hatcheries, more than 200 millions male chicks are ground up alive each year because
considered useless to the industry, and the laying hens never reach their natural old age as they are
slaughtered after two or three laying cycles. This means that the remaining 5% are the production 97
of eggs labelled as “free range”, or “organic”. But there again, those labels are considered
“misleading”, as 20,000 hens in one barn is still considered “free range”. This topic will be further 98
discussed in a later part of our project concerning the society’s impact on consumption. One would
think that the conditions are more regulated in Europe, but for example in France, 50 millions of
chickens are kept by 5 per cage that aren’t bigger than an A4 paper, and male chicks are either
gassed or crushed alive.
Meat is probably one of the first things that comes to mind when the subject of animal
slaughter is brought up. Every year, more than 56 billion farmed animals are killed. This number 99
only includes animals killed by humans, but does not include fish or any sea animals as the number
is so great that it is only measurable in tonnes. In general, cows raised for flesh will be 100
slaughtered the first year of their life, while their natural lifespan goes over 25 years. Cows aren’t
only profitable by selling their flesh, but also by the production of leather, which is considered the
second most profitable product of the meat industry. Despite what one might think, the milk and 101
dairy industry is not better than the meat’s. In a video taken by Earthling Ed on Youtube, he goes
visit a dairy farm in Israel, Tel Aviv. He calls the farm “absolutely massive”, and sees rotting 102
faeces and urine that has created a “disgusting fluid” all over the floor and going all along the cow’s
pens. In this video, we witness a newly born calf being removed from his mother by a farmer. The
mother tries to follow her calf with “remains still hanging from her vagina”, but she is stopped and
will never see her baby again. The calf, not able to walk yet, is then violently put in a tiny pen,
alone. The grieving mother, unwilling to get up, will then be kicked and slapped by the farmer until
96 Geer (2014) 97 Geer (2014) 98 Geer (2014) 99 Animal Equality ([Not given]a) 100 Animal Equality ([Not given]a) 101 Animal Equality ([Not given]a) 102 Earthling Ed (2017c)
19
she gets up. We also learn that dairy cows are milked several times a day until their body is too
weak to produce a worthwhile amount of milk, they will then go to slaughter. Cow milk is only
produced from a cow’s pregnancy, in order to feed a calf, just like humans.
Fishes are considered the ones that constitute the most deaths in consumption processes. As
mentioned above, the number of deaths is so big that we aren’t able to give an exact number. There
are several ways in which fishes die including suffocation, being crushed by the weight of other
fishes stuck in the fishing net, getting frozen, but also by the decompression caused by the pressure
inflicted to the fishes when the nets are being brought up to the surface, causing their eyes and
internal organs to explode. 103
It is a bit harder to understand why honey isn’t vegan and considered animal exploitation,
but in a tape taken in a honey factory, we can see the bees getting crushed alive by the scraping
device, which is initially made to get the honey. Their habitat is destroyed, and social order torn
apart. In that video, the speaker reveals that he himself did not understand why honey wasn’t 104
considered vegan before seeing the tape, which shows that there is confusion about how honey is
actually made and the consequences on the bees that produce it. Just like Carnism explains it about
eating animals, there is that “paradigm” shift that needs to be had in order to see the same things
differently. Just like beef stew turns into dead animal parts, honey turns into bee vomit, which it 105
fundamentally is.
A wider range of animals are also used for a variety of different products, such as geese for
foie gras, insects for dyes, rodents such as rabbits and rats for scientific testing, etc. The suffering
caused by these industries lead to campaigns and the creation of different organizations in order to
expose these processes and fight for animal rights.
b) Animal liberation, welfare, and rights
Every week, 1.2 billion of farmed animals are killed, and 98% of the meat, egg, and dairy
that we consume come from those animals. Like we can see in the video n°1, the persons being 106
interviewed are not quite sure whether animals can feel pain or demonstrate emotions. Animals are
sentient beings, which means that they do feel pain and deploy certain behaviour to avoid it. Peter
103 Animal Equality ([Not given]a) 104 Redneck2vegan (2016) 105 TEDx Talks (2015) 106 TEDx Talks (2015)
20
Singer stated in his book that the external signs which lead us to infer pain in other humans can be
seen in other species and especially mammals and birds, and that those behavioural signs such as
writhing, yelping, attempts to avoid the source of pain, etc, are present in those animals. While it 107
is in general accepted that mammals experience pain and don’t wish to suffer, the idea is less spread
when it comes to fishes. In his research, John Wiley & Sons stated that “Fish have the same stress
response and powers of nociception as mammals. Their behavioural responses to a variety of
situations suggest a considerable ability for higher level neural processing – a level of
consciousness equivalent perhaps to that attributed to mammals.” . As said in the setting part of 108
our project, to be vegan is to exclude all animal products from one’s life. But above the practical
aspects of veganism, there is an ideology and a purpose, which is to stop the exploitation and
suffering of animals, because it is not necessary and, if we follow the carnism theory, goes against
our values. The Animal Liberation movement, which goes along the vegans’, is all about ceasing 109
to regard the exploitation of other species as natural and inevitable , and as the professor of 110
Philosophy at Sussex University, Patrick Corbett puts it: “We require now to extend the great
principles of liberty, equality and fraternity over the lives of animals. Let animal slavery join human
slavery in the graveyard of the past.” Indeed, as seen in video n°1, the people interviewed think 111
of eating animal as “natural”, as the “natural state of the food chain”, but still think that is it
“definitely wrong” to slaughter animals even if they sometimes argue that they might not feel pain.
Melanie Joy, in the theory of Carnism, states that every day we go against our values without 112
knowing that we have a choice because we think that what we are doing is natural, and the fact that
the people keep eating meat because it’s considered natural while they know it is wrong, is a great
example of carnism and shows that there exists a gap between our actions and our morals.
There exist a growing number of organizations whose purpose is to spread consciousness
and educate people about the animal’s (but also environmental and health) situation on the planet.
Animal Equality (International Organization working with society, governments and companies to
end cruelty to farmed animals) for example, make campaigns and spread pictures and videos and
informations about how animals are treated in farms through the internet. Since 2006, the
investigators have filmed inside “more than 700 factory farms and slaughterhouses across 13
countries.” For them, “animals are not simply food products, but thinking, feeling individuals who 113
107 Singer (1977) 108 Branson (2008) 109 Branson (2008) 110 Singer (1977) 111 Garner (2016) 112 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 113 Animal Equality ([Not given]b)
21
want to enjoy their lives. An animal's life is as important and irreplaceable to them, as ours is to us.
But as children we are conditioned to view cows, pigs, chickens, sheep and fish as inferior beings
whose reason for existence is to provide us with meat, milk and eggs.” This statement fits perfectly
with Melanie Joy’s, advocate of Carnism.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal), who also call themselves the animal
rights organization, is considered as the biggest animal right organization as their number of
supporters and members goes up to 6.5 million. Their focus is on the food industry, the clothing
trade, laboratories, and the entertainment industry which they consider being the places where
animals suffer the most and the longest. The organization reaches the public through a number of 114
different processes such as public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue,
legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns. As Melany Joy does it 115
in her talk about Carnism, the PETA organization considers animal slaughter another mistake that
humanity is making without being aware of it. Indeed, PETA says: “Human beings have justified
wars, slavery, sexual violence, and military conquests through the mistaken belief that those who
are “different” do not experience suffering and are not worthy of moral consideration.” , while 116
Melanie was comparing Carnism to “other dominant violent ideologies”, and pursued with quoting
Voltaire’s own quote; “if we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities”. 117
Education seems to be a common point on which advocates for animal rights and veganism
agree on. In video n°2, Kate mentioned as her main advice that people should educate themselves in
order to be able to understand and to find the motivation: “My suggestion would be to educate
yourself first and foremost because otherwise yes the vegans of the world do seem kind of crazy
[...]” Indeed, it seems unlikely for people to make a complete and durable lifestyle change if one is
not fully aware of the purposes and motivations behind such which can make it hard for vegans to
remain so, but also for non vegans to consider the change a real possibility.
The motivation that may emerge from education could help getting out of the
precontemplation or contemplation phase, to get educated about those subjects in order to create the
will for a sustainable change and enter the phases of preparation, action, maintenance, and may
eventually reach termination. It could also help newly vegans to reach maintenance and/or
termination, and longer time vegans to reach termination if they haven’t and are struggling. As both
our theories confirm, it is very important to gain awareness by taking the time to process and
114 Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ([Not given]a) 115 Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ([Not given]a) 116 Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ([Not given]a) 117 TEDx Talks (2015)
22
assimilate informations to be able to see both sides of the spectrum in order to make a conscious
choice that doesn’t go against one’s values without questioning it. In the next part, we will look at
how this also applies to other areas such as environmental and health conditions.
6.1.2 Environment-based motivations
“Arguably, the environmental problems associated with livestock production would
best be resolved by reducing consumption of their products, as many
environmentalists suggest. We believe that chances for lowering the overall demand
are close to nil and that the billions of poor people have a right to improve their
diet.” 118
The classification of the consumption of meat as a right despite the obvious, unsustainable
environmental impact illustrates perfectly how culturally entrenched the practice is. Joy discusses
this in terms of justifying eating meat as Natural. This need to produce and consume meat despite
the negative effects defies rationality.
The number of people on the planet continues to grow at an astounding rate, In 1812, there
were around one billion people on the planet, with that number growing to one and a half billion by
1912, before exploding in the 20th and 21st centuries to over seven billion souls. With the provision
for this dynamic population growth in mind, sustainability must be among the foremost
considerations when planning for the future wellbeing of our planet. Keeping this in mind, the
overwhelming, and increasing environmental impact of animal agriculture can be described in many
ways, but certainly not sustainable. In fact, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations, “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant
contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” The 119
effects are far reaching and complex, but will be summarized here as land degradation, climate
change and air pollution, and water shortage, pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
To begin the discussion on land degradation it is important to reflect on the sheer immensity
of the amount of land occupied by livestock, or the food grown to support them. It is estimated that
the equivalent of 26% of all ice free terrestrial surface is occupied by grazing livestock, while 33%
118 Food And Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2006) 119 Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations (2006)
23
of all arable land is dedicated to the growth of food to support the livestock industry. In total, the
production of livestock accounts for 70% of all agricultural land, and a mind boggling 30% of the
total surface of the planet. With this sort of a global geographic footprint it seems impossible to 120
believe that the detrimental environmental consequences associated with animal husbandry could
go unnoticed, or at least unaccounted for, but that is exactly what is happening. As of 2006,
somewhere around 20% of the world’s pastures and rangelands had been degraded to some degree
as a result of overgrazing, soil compaction, or erosion, all due to livestock activity, with the number
rising to 73% in rangelands found in drier areas. 121
Another action undertaken in the interest of the increasing demand for the products of
animal agriculture is the rapid and continuous deforestation of the Amazon rainforests. An
estimated 70% of all previously forested land is being utilized as pasturage for livestock, with most
of the remainder occupied by food crops raised to support the animal agricultural industry . The 122
results of this in environmental terms are myriad, and in some ways unknowable. For example,
consider the era of hyper vigilance with regard to greenhouse gas emissions in which we live.
Currently 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to livestock production, a number
which is significant in that it is greater than the total emissions of the entire transport sector making
livestock production the largest anthropomorphic contributor to global warming. Yet, until 123
recently we’ve heard almost nothing about it. In the destruction of the rainforest to create pasture
and farmland for livestock we remove one of the earth’s most important systems for the removal
and storage of CO2 and other greenhouse emissions and replace it with what is potentially the most
significant contributor to global warming. This is tantamount to burning down fire stations in the
middle of a fire! And burned quickly. To date an estimated 136 million acres of rainforest have
been deforested at a rate of an acre per second , leading to the loss of an estimated 4000 to 6000 124
species a year. 125
Livestock production is also a major contributor to water depletion and pollution. Runoff
from intensive farming operations, or biologic waste, including the presence of residual antibiotics
that has been improperly disposed of has lead to contamination of groundwater and eutrophication
of lakes, rivers, and streams. In the United States sediment and nutrient pollution, excessive
presence of nitrogen and phosphorus, are considered the main polluting agents of fresh water, with
livestock responsible for 55% of erosion, 32% of the nitrogen, and 33% of the phosphorus present
120 Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations (2006) 121 Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations (2006) 122 Steinfeld ([Not given]) 123 Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations (2006) 124 Andersen and Kuhn (2014) 125 Aotearoa Magazine (1996)
24
as fresh water pollutants. Hazardous chemical waste such as from slaughter operations and 126
tanneries are also absorbed into the water supply, as well as our oceans.
Animal agriculture in the form of fishing has had an equally large impact on the
environment, devastating local and oceanwide aquatic ecosystems. The global demand for fish is an
estimated 90 million tons. As if this number isn’t staggering enough, consider that for every one 127
pound of fish produced, it has been determined that there is roughly five pounds of bycatch , or 128
collateral, unintended fish kill, accomplished through the indiscriminate trawling of our seas with
massive nets. The consequence of this behavior is nothing less than the “removal of up to 90
percent of all large ocean predators since 1950,” including a mind numbing 270000 sharks a day. 129
Consequently the United Nations has declared that the three quarters of the world’s fisheries are
overexploited, fully exploited, or severely depleted due to overfishing. All of this to find that 130
more than 60% of the world’s fish catch goes to feed livestock. 131
6.1.3 Health-based motivations
Regarding the theme “health”, there have not been many testimonies of the interviewed
people. However, as Braun and Clarke (2006) stated, a theme does not have to be highly
represented in quantitative terms, but has to be a part of the broader picture. And this is definitely 132
the case with the theme “health” as illustrated in the following.
In the second video, there is indeed only one testimony, where Kate and Christy are referring to the
health aspect of veganism, however this statement has a huge impact on our analysis.
K: You’ve got the ethical side of things, what happens to the animals […]. You’ve got the
environmental damage that happens […], and then you’ve got the health benefits, […]. 133
In this statement, Kate names the three motivations, we also found in our thematic analysis and are,
furthermore, often named in a vegan context. Here, the Transtheoretical Model cannot be directly
applied as the statement is not indicating one phase Kate is in right now. For Joy’s theory, it can be
126 Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations (2006) 127 Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations (2006) 128 Andersen and Kuhn (2014) 129 Brannen (2017) 130 Andersen and Kuhn (2014) 131 Joy (2011) 132 Braun and Clarke (2006) 133 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2]
25
said, that Kate is hinting but not actually phrasing the following motivation:
“I am vegan because of health reasons.”
In the first video, the non-vegan girl states, that meat is necessary for the human diet:
X: “I think meat is still important for the diet it still brings loads of things […] So many
people who live in great health and live very old, eat meat.” 134
This is similar to the reports of vegans interviewed by LeRette, who recounted the statements from
carnists like:
“You have to eat meat. You work every day. You don’t eat meat. You lack of nutrition.” 135
“They [parents] thought that milk was important for proteins, et cetera.” 136
“How do you get your protein” 137
“Vegans have a lack of energy.” 138
Applying the Transtheoretical Model, the carnists seem to be in the stage of precontemplation. This
phase is characterized by a lack of information and motivation. However, analysing the testimonies
from non-vegans it appears, that the lack of information rather the absence of motivation is in the
foreground. They are not recognizing their behaviour as a problematic behaviour. Here, the concept
of carnism offers the explanation, that this unknowledge results from the invisibility of carnism of
our society. Before Joy, the ideology did not even have a name and eating meat is still given and not
a choice.
As already stated, the testimonies to the health theme are not many, but still show a huge
aspect of motivations of going vegan. Furthermore, they also show, that non-vegans think, that a
vegan diet is not providing enough nutrition and meat and dairy products are necessary for a healthy
diet. To place the testimonies in a broader picture and to enable the reader to understand the
testimonies in theory full range, in the following there are some literature based information given.
This part is structured into the current health situation, the risks and benefits of consuming meat,
dairy products, eggs and fish and the risks and benefits of a vegan diet.
The current health situation in the western civilisation seems devastating. In the following,
the focus exemplary lies on researches concerning the U.S, but the results are comparable with
134 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 135 LeRette (2015) 136 LeRette (2015) 137 LeRette (2015) 138 LeRette (2015)
26
those of other countries. The American Cancer Society states, referring to the research data from
National Center for Health Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that chance of
getting cancer is 42% (1 in 2) for men and 38% (1 in 3) for women. But cancer is only one 139
contribution to “the picture of disease and death in America” From the 1970s to the 2000s the 140
rates of obesity increased dramatically and according to the results of National Health and 141
Nutrition Examination Survey from 2013-2014 this trend is continuing: A third of the adults twenty
years of age and over are overweight, 37.9% are obese, and 7.7% are extremely obese. This 142
means that the number of overweight people exceed the people with a healthy weight by far.
However, as if these two “epidemics” were not enough, diabetes “has also increased in
unprecedented proportions” The National Diabetes Statistics Report 2017 (published by the 143
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) shows that 30.3 million people of all ages, that’s 9.4%
of the U.S. population, had diabetes in 2015. Moreover, the prevalence of diabetes persists to rise 144
rapidly, which is also highly correlated to the already mentioned prevalence of obesity (r = 0.64, p<
0.001). Or to put it in Dr. Robert Ratners words, American Diabetes Association Chief, Scientific 145
and Medical Officer: “There is no question that we are in the midst of a diabetes epidemic.” But 146
cancer, obesity and diabetes are not the most common cause of death in the U.S.. It is heart
disease. The American Heart Association declared in their report from 2016, that in 2013 nearly
801,000 people in the U.S. died from a heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases,
which makes one out of three deaths. 147
As, firstly, more and more studies show, that the development of these diseases relate to the
consumption of animal products and, secondly, that “inadequate care has become the norm” 148 149
[16], for an increasing number of people the solution is a plant based diet. As the prevention of
these diseases are one important motivation for people to adopt a vegan lifestyle, the risk and
benefits of an animal- and a plant-based diet are described in the following.
To analyse the benefits and risks of animal-based products, the food categories of meat,
139 American Cancer Society (2016) 140 Campbell and M.D. Thomas M. Campbell II (2016) 141 Flegal (2002) 142 Fryar, Carroll, Ogden, and Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2016) 143 Campbell and M.D. Thomas M. Campbell II (2016) 144 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2017) 145 Mokdad et al. (2000) 146 Andersen and Kuhn (2017) 147 Mozaffarian et al. (2016) 148 Campbell and M.D. Thomas M. Campbell II (2016) 149 Campbell and M.D. Thomas M. Campbell II (2016)
27
dairy, eggs and fish are distinguished.
Regarding the consumption of red and processed meat, the International Agency for
Research in Cancer, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, evaluated over 800
studies, which examined more than twelve cancer types in various cultures and countries. While 150
red meat includes all types of mammalian muscle flesh, like e.g. beef, pork and lamb, processed
meat covers meat “that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or
other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. […] Examples of processed meat
include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef […]” . While red meat was classified 151
as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), processed meat was classified with strong
evidence as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). In addition, meat contains – so do all products 152
gained from animals – high rates of cholesterol. 120g of meat (red meat and also chicken) contain
100mg of cholesterol. The ideal cholesterol level lies below 150 mg/dl, while 300 mg /dl is the
absolute maximum. A high cholesterol level leads to plaques forming in the artery walls, which will
restrict the blood flow and therefore lead to less oxygen for the heart muscle. Blocked arteries are
one type of cardiovascular diseases. However, not only contains meat high rates of cholesterol, 153
but also saturated fat, which make the liver to generate more cholesterol. The foodstuff, that
contains the most saturated fats is meat – varying between 39-50% saturated fat of fat – and so
called tropical oils (e.g. palm or coconut oil 49-87%). 154
After describing these severe risks of meat consumption, it is to be looked at the benefits.
The most commonly known benefit is the protein in meat. 100g of red meat or chicken contain 25g
of protein. The recommended amount is 55g protein per day. Another benefit that can be named 155
is the iron in the meat. With iron deficiency anemia, too little oxygen in contained in the blood, 156
which leads to a lack of oxygen in the head. This can cause tired- and dizziness, concentration
disorder, headache. Therefore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend a daily 157
intake of 8mg iron for men and postmenopausal women and 18 mg for premenopausal women, as
they need more iron because of menstruation blood loss). Beef contains 3 mg per 100g of
Haem-iron (FE2+). This type of iron is only found in meat and can be absorbed by the body easily.
But the heme iron in meat is a double-edged sword: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort 158
150 International Agency for Research in Cancer (2015) 151 International Agency for Research in Cancer (2015) 152 International Agency for Research in Cancer (2015) 153 Greger and Stone (2015) 154 Greger and Stone (2015) 155 Campbell and M.D. Thomas M. Campbell II (2016) 156 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002) 157 National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (2016) 158 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002)
28
studies from Bastide, Pierre, and Corpet (2011) investigate colon cancer – the third most common
type of cancer worldwide – and heme iron intake (N=566 607, ncancer= 4 734). The analysed data
shows an association between heme iron and the risk of colon cancer. The mechanisms is yet not
understood, but it is suggested that heme iron has a catalytic effect on carcinogenic developments. 159
To look at the risks and benefits of dairy, which are “foods that are made from milk, such as
cream, butter and cheese.” , it makes sense to have a closer look at what milk actually is. The 160
Cambridge Dictionary defines milk as “the white liquid produced by women and other female
mammals as food for their young” and is designed to increase the weight of a calf about 100 kg in 161
the next months. Milk contains exactly the right amount nutrition for a calf and is full of 162
hormones and a human diet with a food extra designed for calves bears several risks. Canadian
Cancer Society names a diet high in fat and dairy products as most important possible risk factor to
prostate cancer (directly followed by a diet high in red or processed meat). They suggest that the fat
and the high calcium intake are the reasons for the high risk. Also, Gao, LaValley, and Tucker 163
concluded from the data of their meta-analysis (N ranged from 3612 to 65 321) that a high intake of
dairy products and calcium could be linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer. A study by 164
Kroenke, Kwan, Sweeney, Castillo, and Caan (2013) showed that the intake of high-fat dairy was
linked to a higher risk of mortality after having a diagnosis of breast cancer (N=1893). 165
Taking the benefits of milk consumption in perspective, a widespread belief is that milk
serves us precious calcium and is necessary for strong bones. However, as above already
mentioned, research is not only revealing that the intake of calcium is associated with cancer, but
also with osteoporosis. A Swedish cohort study with 61 433 women indicated, that the high
consumption of milk was associated with higher fracture incidence in women. Moreover, seen in 166
a worldwide context, countries in which people consume the most dairy have the highest rates of
osteoporosis (Northern Europe and the U.S.). 167 168
Regarding the risks of consuming eggs, they are similar to the risks of dairy. One egg
contains 212 mg of cholesterol which reaches or already exceeds the recommended maximum 169
(see above). This coincides with sources like a study from Spence, Jenkins and Davigonon (2012)
159 Bastide, Pierre, and Corpet (2011) 160 Cambridge University Press (2017) 161 Cambridge University Press (2017) 162 Greger and Stone (2015) 163 Canadian Cancer Society (2017) 164 Gao, LaValley, and Tucker (2005) 165 Kroenke, Kwan, Sweeney, Castillo, and Caan (2013) 166 Michaëlsson et al. (2014) 167 Canadian dairy Information Centre (2015) 168 Dhanwal, Dennison, Harvey, and Cooper (2011) 169 Fatsecret - calorie counter app (2017)
29
with proposes that persons with a risk of cardiovascular disease should refrain the regular
consumption of egg yolk. 170
Concerning the benefits of eggs various nutrition like selenium, vitamin D, B6, B12 and
minerals such as zinc, iron and copper are often named e.g. by the food section of BBC. Despite 171
these benefits, the U.S. Department of Agriculture declared that “eggs cannot legally be labelled:
nutritious, low fat, part of a balanced diet, low calorie, healthful, healthy, good for you, or safe.” 172
There are mainly two risks of fish consumption. On the one hand, fish has – equally as the
already addressed animal products – with the other animal products – high cholesterol in fish flesh.
The amounts of cholesterol in fish vary between the types of fish: tuna fish contains approximately
40 mg Cholesterol per 100 g; one fillet of salmon contains 164 mg Cholesterol. On the other 173
hand, fish is highly contaminated with toxins: With the National Lake Fish Tissue Study, carried
out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 500 nationally-representative sampling locations
were examined regarding freshwater fish contamination. The results demonstrate that mercury and
PCBs were found in every fish sample from all 500 lakes and reservoirs. Moreover, in 48.8% fish
tissue had mercury concentrations that exceeded the 300 ppb (0.3 ppm) human health SV for
mercury. This represents a total of 36,422 lakes. The German Federal Ministry of the 174
Environment found out that the higher the fish consumption in a country, the higher the mercury
rates. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration names as benefits high rates of protein and 175
omega-3 fatty acids in fish. 176
After describing the risks and benefits of meat, dairy, eggs and fish, another overall risk has
to be shortly mentioned: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declare antibiotic
resistance as “one of the world’s most pressing public health problems” and see a link to the 177
consumption of animal products. Antibiotic resistance is A review on antimicrobial resistance, 178
supported by the UK government, shows that over 70% of the antibiotics, the U.S, Food and Drug
Administration classified as medically important for humans, are used in livestock in the U.S., 50%
worldwide. 179
In the following the risks and benefits of a plant based diet shall be examined. The main
170 Spence, Jenkins, and Davignon (2012) 171 Lewin ([Not given]) 172 Post et al. (2007) cited after Andersen and Kuhn (2017) 173 Greger and Stone (2015) 174 United States Environmental protection Agency (2017) 175 Umweltbundesamt (2012) 176 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2004) 177 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016), p. 1 178 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016) 179 O'Neill (2005)
30
risk of a vegan diet is a lack of vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is made by microbes that are found in
soil. In the past, humans met their vitamin B12 needs by drinking water, while nowadays, in the
western civilisation, the drinking water is chlorinated. Deficiency of vitamin B12 can be quite
dramatic, as cases of paralysis, psychosis, blindness, and even death are reported. Therefore, all
humans and animals have to supplement vitamin B12 nowadays. When humans eat the animals,
which have been fed with B12 vitamin supplements, they take indirectly the vitamin B12 in. For
people eating a plant-based diet, the regular direct intake of supplements of vitamin B12 is critical.
Instead of supplementing the vitamin to the animals and eat the animals, vegans take the vitamin
B12 by themselves in form of pills. One other widespread risk is the lack of protein (less than 55g 180
protein per day as mentioned above). But nearly all vegetables, beans, nuts, and seeds hold some
protein or even as much as meat, like 15g protein per 100g lentils or 25g proteins per 100g
soybeans. Another stereotyped risk is the lack of iron in a plant-based diet. Even though, it is true 181
that plant-based foods do not contain heme-iron (see above), they do contain non-heme-iron. Foods,
that contain iron (per 100g) are e.g. pumpkin seeds (14mg), oats (4mg), lentils (8mg), cocoa
(12mg). Substances that promote the absorption of nonheme-iron, as it is not as good absorbed as
heme-iron is, are vitamin c, fruit acid and fruit sugar. 182
The benefits of a vegan diet are plenty: In a cross-sectional study (N= 71 751) diet patterns
of carnists, vegetarians and vegans were compared. The choice of diet was significantly associated
with the BMI (p<0.001). Carnists had the highest mean BMI values and highest rate of obese people
(33,3%) while vegans had the lowest BMI. Furthermore, vegans “had the lowest intakes of
saturated, trans-fat, and arachidonic acid and the highest intakes of fiber, soy protein and vitamins
C, folate, β-carotene and E.” Several recent studies show, that by adopting a plant based diet, the 183
main problematic diseases in U.S. (see above) can be prevented and halt: one example is a study
carried out from Esselstyn, Gendy, Doyle, Golubic, and Roizen (2014) with 198 people having a
documented cardiovascular disease, which tried to adopt to a plant-based diet for four years. From
the 177 people, who were able to stick to the diet, only one experienced a cardiovascular event, e.g.
a stroke, while 13 of the 21 people, who did not perceive the diet had a cardiovascular event. A 184
meta-analysis (N=832) by the American Heart Association shows that a vegetarian diet lowers the
blood concentration of cholesterol. 185
180 Greger (2012) 181 The Vegetarian Resource Group ([Not given]) 182 Keller (2014) 183 Rizzo, Jaceldo-Siegl, Sabate, and Fraser (2013), p. 5 184 Esselstyn, Gendy, Doyle, Golubic, and Roizen (2014) 185 Wang et al. (2015)
31
To conclude after reporting the risks and benefits of an animal as well as a plant-based diet,
the severe risks of consuming animal products became clear. Now the testimonies from the
non-vegans described in the beginning of this chapter seem dramatic. The lack of knowledge seems
even more devastating, looking at the current state of health in the western civilisation and the
relation to the consumption of animal based products is. According to Melanie Joy, this lack of
knowledge is generated by the invisibility of the concept carnism. As eating meat and other
animal-based products is regarded as normal, necessary and natural in western civilisation it is not
scrutinized. The majority does not inform itself about the consequences of eating meat. They stay in
the matrix Joy described and are denying all information, that would bring the matrix down.
This invisibility is also the reason, why a detailed examination of the risks and benefits of
an animal- and plant-based diet is necessary for the present work. It explains the full meaning of the
statement “I am vegan because of health reasons”. This motivation is not understandable if you just
look at it from an everyday perspective. In everyday life many people change their diet because of
health reasons. In western society being healthy goes hand in hand with the beauty ideal of being
skinny. Therefore, many people want to reduce their sugar intake, quit on eating sweets and want to
exercise more. They are even following diets advertised in magazines like “16 ways to lose weight
fast” or “16 healthy eating rules you should always follow” . However, the statement of being 186 187
vegan because of health reasons goes way beyond such ideals and diets. A comparison between the
health-based motivation to go vegan and the here called “everyday life”- diets would be a
simplification of the matter. As the overview of studies has shown, vegans have a deeper motivation
here. With all the risks the consumption of animal-based products bring with them, the motivation
is on another level than following diets from magazines. This is also the reason, why so many
studies have been collected and presente in the present paper. The statement “I am vegan because of
health reasons” had to be differentiated from other diets. Now, this one motivation can be entirely
understood.
6.2 Difficulties
6.2.1 Individual level
186 Gridwain (2016) 187 Narins (2016)
32
The challenges facing the individual when facing the set of choices that must be made, or
not made, to embrace, or not, a vegan lifestyle are in many cases fundamental in nature. Our
perception of what is normal, or natural, is a result of what we have been conditioned to believe 188
and it motivates us to accept, or reject, ideas based on the way in which we organise and interpret
received data. Looking at testimony one, we find responses that demonstrate how beliefs structure
the way that we perceive the world, and construct reality. Participant Y often responds assertively,
absent doubt, making statements that make clear his standpoint. Consider his answer when asked
how graphic slaughterhouse footage makes him feel, and why,
“Y: not that much different” 189
“Y: cause I like eating meat” 190
“Y: I feel like it’s the natural…” 191
and then his later reply concerning a comparison between cruelty towards humans versus animals,
“Y: That would be putting a human on the same status as an animal.” 192
For interviewee X the idea that there is a choice between eating or not eating meat doesn’t exist, or
is invisible, as suggested by Melanie Joy in her theory of Carnism.
The responses of X are often related to cultural beliefs. See here her response indicating her
viewpoint on veganism,
“X: I think it’s a minority compared to the rest” 193
According to Melanie Joy our perception plays a large part in how we construct our reality,
and our perceptions are shaped by schemas. She defines schema as a “psychological framework that
shapes, and is shaped by, our beliefs, ideas, perceptions and experiences”, and describes its function
as that of the organization and interpretation of data. Here, X, suggests that her perception is that 194
veganism, or more specifically, not eating meat, is outside of the norm as established by her
experience.
Christy, in her conversation with Kate, also brings up culture as a significant influence on
the decision to adopt, and then maintain, a vegan lifestyle, from the perspective of one who has
made an effort to espouse vegan principles and practices. She discusses the change in terms of
sacrifice and loss, not of food, but of relationships,
188 Rudolph (2013) 189 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 190 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 191 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 192 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 193 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 194 Joy (2011)
33
“All their surroundings and culture and friends and everything have to do with this
certain kind of lifestyle and to make the choices outside of that means that they have
to kind of leave that whole lifestyle and there is like a grieving if you will that goes
on there.” 195
What Christy is describing here is a potential loss of identity that comes with committing to lifestyle
that is at this point still culturally marginal. Suddenly certain social situations become inconvenient
or inappropriate, resulting in a possibly anxious detachment from once familiar settings.
Access to vegan products is an additional obstacle that one must overcome. Christy
discusses how her busy “chaotic” schedule as a resident of the city of New York affects her ability
to make healthy food choices. She outlines her struggle with the availability of food here,
“society tells us what’s good for us, what we should be doing, what we should be eating, every corner has a barbecue or pizza, whatever fast food.” 196
This is an extremely common argument both for those who are currently vegan and those that are
not, and for good reason. Diet in Western society is still centered around the consumption of meat,
or animal products. Dr. Hanna Schösler, a researcher for The Institute of Environmental Studies in
Amsterdam, states, “The dominant social-cultural norm in the West is meat consumption,” going on
to warn, “people who want to shift to a more vegetarian diet find they face physical constraints and
mental constraints. It’s not very accepted in our society not to eat meat.” The physical constraints 197
are immediate, and manifest themselves in the form of ease of access, cost, and taste preferences.
Take Megan Salisbury, a student from Phoenix, Arizona, who prefers non-animal based products,
but is only able to achieve this 75% of the time citing limited options at her campus cafeteria, and a
20 minute drive to buy vegan products for cooking at home. Add the time spent in the acquisition of
these products to a cost of increase of 300%, to 400% over their meat or dairy equivalent, and for 198
many, the price tag is simply to high.
An additional constraint faced by those who wish to migrate towards a more plant based diet
is that all too often our perceived social, or familial obligations prohibit us from operating as we
would if we had only our own interests to consider. Many people feel that compromise is a
necessity for maintaining a congenial, cooperative environment. Mary Bandrowski, 50, of
Bainbridge Island in Washington has been eating a primarily vegetarian diet for years, and has
195 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 196 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 197 Parker-Pope (2012) 198 Parker-Pope (2012)
34
recently shifted towards eliminating animal products entirely. She would like the same for the rest
of her family as according to Mary the health benefits are clearly apparent, but moderates her hope
for change because of her husband’s lack of interest, claiming, “Coming home to vegetable-stuffed
green peppers doesn’t turn him on as much as a steak and baked potato would.” This lack of 199
harmony within familial units can be particularly hard to work through because the typical
expectation that one has of one’s family is to be supportive and understanding, but because of the
subversive influence of carnism, a challenge to the “normality” of eating meat produces defensive
responses characterized by ridicule, or even hostility. Ms. Salisbury recounts making an effort to
introduce her family to some non-animal options by baking vegan doughnuts only to be mocked.
Their responses included, “ ‘I’m going to go eat some eggs now,’ ” she said. “They were very
condescending. They don’t understand and don’t make any effort to understand.” Earthling Ed 200
describes a similar clash with his family in his video testimonial, Difficulties with Non-Vegan
Friends & Family (Is My Family Vegan?). In this video Ed describes his father antagonising him, 201
or suggesting that his mother antagonise him, by cheerfully eating meat in front of him for the
express purpose of upsetting him. This antagonism or hostility although upsetting is not unexpected,
as Melanie Joy suggests, that it challenges directly the hidden ideology of carnism which has
shaped most people’s dietary choices for the entirety of their lives. Behavior researcher France
Bellisle agrees that overriding taste preferences is difficult given that they have been imprinted on
the brain over a lifetime of eating, claiming, “In most American adults, meat intake has been
associated since childhood with pleasurable nutritional effects.” 202
Now that the difficulties of the individual in a more intimate way have been discussed, we,
in the next part, investigate on what forms these difficulties take in broader and more social aspects.
6.2.2 Group level
Looking at the difficulties of adopting and maintaining a vegan lifestyle, there are various
factors that are taking place on a group level. The difficulties seem to occur, when vegans and
carnists hit each other. Vegans being under themselves appear to have a supportive effect on the
process of maintaining the vegan lifestyle:
199 Parker-Pope (2012) 200 Parker-Pope (2012) 201 Earthling Ed (2017a) 202 Parker-Pope (2012)
35
Christy: “Back when Kate was living in New York we had kind of like supported each other
and I did give up meat for about a year.” 203
According to the Transtheoretical Model, Christy already had managed to go through the six
months of action and reached the fifth stage of maintenance. As in this stage she had to work hard
to prevent a relapse and falling back into her old behaviour, she states, that her friend Kate helped
her to do so. This goes hand in hand with findings of a study (N = 111) from Povey, Wellens, and
Conner (2001), which shows that the participants displayed most positive attitudes and beliefs
towards their own diets, and most negative attitudes and beliefs towards the diet most different form
their own. (48) 204
Therefore, it seems that the main difficulties appear between vegans and carnists. They are
expressing themselves in the communication and behaviour and can be sorted in roughly two
categories: vegans expressing their attitude towards the eating habit of carnists and carnists voicing
their perspective on the vegan diet;
At first, the difficulties vegans experience when meeting carnists shall be examined, starting with a
testimony from Kate:
Kate: “I definitely think that socially it is difficult, and the most difficult thing is not, where
am I going out to eat or how can I get food here and there […] so it is not that part that is
difficult. It is not being malnourished that’s difficult, it’s dealing with people who don’t want
you to be vegan, like they have a problem with it. Like [being]vegan is hard enough! It is…
we are going against the grain, we are going against the asses here. It is already difficult
[…]. My point is the hardest part about [being] vegan is dealing with people not wanting
you to be vegan or not understanding why you are vegan. And people not just not
understanding it, but like hating on it… please don’t hate on vegans […], vegans are vegans
because they care about the animals on the planet. They have compassion for other beings
on the planet and the planet itself, the environment, which matters.” 205
A first explanation for the described behaviour of carnists offers the Transtheoretical Model:
Concerning the six stages of change, carnists are still in the first stage of precontemplation.
Prochaska and DiClemente suggest, that people are lacking information and motivation in this
phase. Carnists do not know the extent of the effects of eating meat and dairy on their health or the
203 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 204 Povey, Wellens, and Conner (2001) 205 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2]
36
consequences of eating meat for the planet and the animals, who are suffering. A second,
conceptual explanation is provided by Melanie Joy’s theory about carnism: Carnists are denying
unconsciously these facts, as the truth would cause them pain. To uphold the invisibility of the
consequences of consuming animal products and the view of meat as something normal, natural and
needed, carnists try to defend themselves by showing microaggressions towards vegans. The term
microaggression was characterized by “subtle and stunning offensive language used towards
Blacks.” The existing research investigating the microaggressions towards vegans concludes that 206
vegans and vegetarians are often exposed to micro aggressive comments and questions regarding
their vegan lifestyle. LeRette’s interviewed in her own studies vegans and vegetarians, who 207 208
like Kate, reported experiencing micro insults about practicing veganism or vegetarianism. Some of
the comments are listed here to give an impression, how the micro aggression occurs.
“Oh, gee, too bad you can’t have this delicious steak,”
“Oh, this is really good. You should try this. This is … boy is this good!”
“You’re a vegan. Okay, what does that mean? You don’t eat food?”
“You’re crazy! You’re nuts. How can you eat this way?”
“How come you don’t support the starving people in Africa? Why don’t you give your food to them
before you care about saving some kind of an animal? Why are you not more into human rights?”
209
These microaggressions cause according to LeRette’s findings that some vegetarians and
vegans do not want to reveal that they are vegans or vegetarians. They do not want to talk about
their eating lifestyle with carnists and avoid therefore conversations in order to prevent a conflict.
Thus, “their voice becomes silenced.” 210
Secondly, it shall be looked at the difficulties of the communication when vegans address
the eating habit of carnists. “Earthling Ed”, who is a vegan activist, talks regularly to (non-vegan)
passers by on the street about veganism and their habit of eating meat. In response to his attempt to
fight against the invisibility of carnism and the defence mechanisms used by carnists, he is met with
the statement:
206 LeRette (2015), p. 11 207 Kahn (2011) 208 LeRette (2015) 209 LeRette (2015) 210 LeRette (2015)
37
X: “[…] I respect, it’s just not my personal opinion, but I respect your opinion […] Well it’s an
individual decision more than a collective decision. […] yes, it is just up to what people want. If
people want to eat meat that’s fine with them. But that doesn’t mean you go around and you know
make other people not eat meat, they’re allowed to.” 211
As already mentioned, LeRette found that many vegans do not seek the confrontation with
carnists and are even hiding their eating lifestyle. Some of them do agree with “X” and believe it is
a personal choice. They do not want to “preach vegetarianism” or want to convert anyone. 212
Others, like Ed, do not think that it is a personal decision:
Ed: “What about the animal’s decision? Do they get a decision in the matter or are they excluded
from that moral value?” 213
Ed: “But what about that your choice has a victim? Individual decision that has a victim. So, you
have a choice between having a victim or not having a victim in your diet.” 214
Likewise, in LeRette’s interviews, two vegans stated, that when they adopted a vegan lifestyle, they
reacted negatively towards carnists. But after some time, they recognized that their attitude was
doing more harm than good and want to “unite one another, instead of divide each other because of
eating lifestyles”. 215
To conclude, as the two ideologies oppose one another so strongly, when they meet face to
face, conflicts started by both parties can easily erupt. When people are adopting a vegan lifestyle,
this potential for conflict lays bare the difficulty the person has to cope with.
Now that we have looked at the individual itself and at how they cope in social interactions,
we will look at a bigger picture which are the structures that surround the subject and their potential
influence.
6.2.3 Structural level
211 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 212 LeRette (2015) 213 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 214 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 215 LeRette (2015)
38
In addition to being seemingly cultural, eating meat and consuming animal products in
general has, over the years, been perpetrated by society and the government, which makes it harder
for vegans to fit in or for non vegans to consider veganism a credible option. In this part, we are
going to look at how the economic side of the meat and dairy industry seems to be controlling the
advertising and dietary guidelines, and at how this affects our thoughts.
a) Hidden truths and sponsorships
In video n°1, the interviewees take the fact that some animals had a good life as they were
raised outdoors, which brought us to look into those labels such as “free range”, “ organic”, “ grass
fed”. In that video, the people seem to think that it was okay to kill them because they had a life
outdoors. Some also hear about those researches saying that meat is unhealthy and look for healthier
alternatives in those labels. According to PETA, the “organic” and “free range “ labels are myths
and misleading. Indeed, animals raised under those labels most likely spent as much time indoors as
factory animals, because while the U.S Department of Agriculture states that those animals should
have access to an outside area, it does not specify how much time nor how much space is required.
As mentioned earlier, 20,000 hens in one barn would still be considered “free-range”. Those 216
same animals still receive the same treatment as factory animals, such a debeaking, castration
without painkiller, dehorning, etc, and will be slaughtered in the same slaughterhouses as factory
farmed animals, where they can still be subject to the same bacterias and diseases. Furthermore, 217
the USDA also stated that they “make no claim that organically produced food is safer or more
nutritious than conventionally produced food.”
In a report called Whitewashed: How Industry and Government Promote Dairy Junk Food
by the health lawyer Michele Simon, she states that schools account for 7 to 8% of overall milk
consumption, which is equal to 1,000,000,000 dollars in milk sales. Barbara O’Brien, Senior
Executive Vice President of Dairy Management, states about milk in school that it is “a sizable and
important piece of business. Those sales are crucial to lifelong dairy consumption and keeping
people positively inclined to our products and our industry.” But if we consider the health factor of
milk and dairy products in general from earlier in our paper, we can see that milk is not as healthy
as one might think, and money seems to be the prime factor of milk consumption. Some producers
216 Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ([Not given]d) 217 Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ([Not given]d)
39
still play the health card when talking about milk, for example, Jim Mulhern, president and CEO of
the National Milk Producers Federation, stated that “When kids don’t drink milk, it’s extremely
difficult for them to get sufficient amounts of three of the four major nutrients most lacking in
children’s diets: calcium, potassium, and vitamin D”, but a cup of whole milk only supplies for 7%
of daily value of potassium (322mg/cup), while a cup of coconut water supplies for almost double
of that amount (600mg/cup). Furthermore, cow milk is not naturally a source of vitamin D as most
of the US milk supply is purposely fortified with it, and so is many plant based beverages. It is 218
also relevant to mention that 11% of all sugar in the US goes in dairy products, the most popular
school milk that is TruMoo, contains 21g of sugar. Taking this into consideration, it does not seem
like the health “benefits” is the main function of milk within the dairy industry.
In the first video, the person states that it is necessary for us to eat meat, and also mention
dieticians advices to do so. In an interview with Dr Neal Barnard, President of the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Health, he states that “[they]’ve had to fight the government quite a
lot.” Indeed, in 2000, Barnard’s committee filed a lawsuit against the USDA because the dietary 219
guidelines adviser which makes the food recommendations for americans, but who, according to
Barnard, have an influence all over the world, was made out of 11 persons and 6 of them were
funded by the industry (especially dairy, but also egg and meat). As stated by Barnard, “you cannot
let the industry dictate what people eat”, and while it is getting better, the industry still tries hard to
influence these guidelines. Another example given by Barnard would be when the dairy industry 220
was promoting the fact that dairy would help to lose more weight when in a low calorie diet.
According to him, the data was “quite suspect” and they decided to file a complaint which they won
even though it took over 2 years for the government to actually decide to remove those ads. A last
example given was about the egg industry and a very expensive campaign promoting the fact that
cholesterol did not matter, and as the egg industry was funding the food advisors within the
committee, the campaign was accepted. Barnard, in this interview, states that the industry is a big
barrier that holds people back from knowledge and the vegan movement from growing faster
because this industry influence our culture which is, according to him, the biggest barrier, and the 221
testimonies in the videos we used are an example of how culture as a big impact on people’s diets,
but also on the way they think. He also states that without consuming animal products, “animals are
218 Mic. the Vegan (2017) 219 Plant based News (2016) 220 Plant based News (2016) 221 Plant based News (2016)
40
happier, earth breathes easier, and your coronary arteries are in better health”, and, about
veganism, that “many doctors are trying it, the rest knows that they should.” 222
In the next part we will look at what influence these advertisements have had on how animal
products are seen and considered by consumers, but also at how consumers view themselves in
regard to animals and vegans.
b) Myths regarding animal products
As Melanie Joy put it, the perception we have towards animal consumption seems to be
largely shaped by the culture we live in. Indeed, while some animals are seen as pets, some as wild,
and some as food. To her, people make a choice every day without knowing that they have one,
because it is so implemented in our culture and way of life that most people do not question it.
Carnism presents us with the fact that “there is an invisible belief system or ideology that conditions
us to eat certain animals.” In other words, the myths surrounding animal eating are
institutionalised. In the first video, when the people are asked why they eat meat, the answer is that
it is natural, that it’s a part of our culture. But when they are asked if they find it moral to kill
animals while it is not necessary to do so, they do agree that it is not. There seems to be, if we
follow the lines of Carnism, a contradictory choice that is made by those people. Paradoxically,
while they think it is natural to eat meat as a part of the culture, they rarely think that it is moral to
kill animals. That is where the sets of defense to justify animal consumption come to distort the
perception of farmed animals, and as Joy puts it, “blinding to the absurdities of the system”. This
distortion can be seen with several examples taken from the first video:
- “If you ask an animal “would you like to be eaten or not?“ They’re never going to respond”
223
- “I mean the relationship that I can build with a horse I can’t build with a cow” 224
In those two excerpts, we can see that a distance is taken from farmed animals, they’re seen as less
valuable than us humans, but also as less than other animals. The woman states that she cannot
build the same relationship with a cow than with a horse, and that looks to be the reason why she
222 Plant based News (2016) 223 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 224 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1]
41
eats the former and not the latter. It is no surprise as horses are, in our culture, more considered as
pets or friends that one can ride, while cows are largely perceived as food and/or milk producers in
western culture. Indeed, while the number of non-dairy cows hit 12 million in 2014 , there is an 225
estimate of 250,000 horses slaughtered each year in the European Union. Furthermore, in the 226
United Kingdom in 2014 the total of cattle holdings were of 40,601, while the horses’ were of 227
6,410 in 2013. 228
In another video that is not transcribed but comes from the same vegan activist (Earthling 229
Ed), the young man discusses with a farmer, and as Ed asks him why he supports eating meat and
not dog fights, is that, in his words “eating meat is much more morally accepted.” As the discussion
goes on, we could perceive that there are stereotypes that have been built up in the farmer’s mind,
and they seem to be largely culturally influenced. Indeed, when the farmer is asked why he isn’t a
vegan, he states: “I go by culture’s norms, I’m a normal person, I don’t wanna be one of these out
there people [vegans]”, he later refers to vegans as “hippies”. His decision seems contradictory as
he states later on that he doesn’t actually like killing animals, and doesn’t think it is moral. Another
example of this could be taken from video n°1, where, when the woman is asked if she thinks it is
moral to kill animals unnecessarily, she answers: “It’s wrong, it’s wrong. But it stays a minority
[veganism] so I’m not going to stop eating…” 230
Culture, and what Joy calls the “myths of carnism” that we are taught to be normal seem to
have a big influence, both on what people do and think, but also on the sets of defense that are used
to justify the slaughter and consumption of farmed animals and animal products in general in
Western Society today.
225 Marquer, Rabade, and Forti (2015) 226 Humane Society International/Europe ([Not given]) 227 AHDB Beef & Lamb (2016) 228 Humane Society International/Europe ([Not given]) 229 Earthling Ed (2017d) 230 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1]
42
7 Discussion
7.1 Interpretation
The thematic analysis showed, that there are three main motivations. This is also supported
by the existing literature and even by the testimonies of one interviewee.
The ethic-based motivation shows that the interviewed vegans are not willing to let animals
suffer for them. They describe, like Kate, that “My values just changed and the things that I became
aware of really shifted what was important to me”. or like Ed puts it “I kind of realised that all 231
animals want to live, and all animals feel pain, it is not just the animals I love. I know all the
animals in nature in the animals are still wanting to live their life and it wasn’t my right to take that
from them just because I enjoyed eating their flesh.” . Going hand in hand with the ethic-based 232
motivation follows the environment-based. Vegans do not only not want animals to suffer from
their consumption of animal-based products but furthermore, want environment not to suffer. As
described the impact of meat and dairy consumption on the environment is huge. The third
motivation – health – differs from the other two motivations. Here the motivation is not “external”,
caring about animals and environment, but “internal”, as the consequences of consuming animal
products are affecting humankind’s health dramatically.
Viewing all the motivations together, the motivations seem reasonable, understandable, and
one could even say valuable and held with great respect. To have empathy with other living beings
and the world we live in, lies in human nature. Moreover, to avoid food that makes us unwell, sick
and possibly even life-threatening makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. This overview
of the motivations makes one wonder, why there are so many and severe difficulties to cope with.
The three levels of difficulties generated through the thematic analysis are intense.
The individual level shows that some vegans are viewing a plant-based diet as “giving up”
of something they really enjoyed. As Christy describes it: “[…] that means that they [vegans] have
to kind of leave that whole lifestyle and there is like a grieving if you will that goes on there, when
you have to let go of something that’s being so familiar to you for so long.” . Furthermore, the 233
given conditions of her daily life are increasing the effort of being vegan: “But when I go back to
New York City and I am running in-between jobs and there’s dollar pizza at the corner I am going
231 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 232 Earthling Ed (2017b) [Video no.1] 233 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2]
43
to be tempted, […]” . But it seems to help her to be surrounded by other vegans: “Back when Kate 234
was living in New York we had kind of like supported each other and I did give up meat for about a
year”. The group level includes the difficulties, which occur when vegans and non-vegans come 235
into conflict with one another. The testimonies from the data used and other studies show, that
vegans often have to face microaggressions. They even experience the encounters with other vegans
as “the hardest part about [being] vegan” (Kate). However, in addition, the non-vegans are 236
claiming, that what they eat is their own decision, and do not want to have to discuss their eating
habits with vegans. On a structural level, the influence of government and society in general are
comprised. Christy describes, that “to go vegetarian or vegan […] it is big change when you have
not been brought up this way, when your whole culture and everything in society tells us what’s
good for us, what we should be doing, what we should be eating, […]” . In addition, the industry 237
is a big factor, as Kate explains, that “the meat and dairy industry is a much, much, much bigger
cooperation that you could really fathom and the amount of influence they have on everything from
the food pyramid to some of the articles you see to the research that’s done, is definitely, definitely
influenced by money […]” . 238
On the whole, the difficulties are multi-layered and complex. They illuminate, why the
majority of people are not vegan. Despite the overwhelming motivations vegans have which could
also serve as reasons for non-vegans to adopt a vegan lifestyle, the difficulties seem to have a huge
impact. Here, the two chosen theories take the explanation further: The process of changing an
unwanted behaviour, which is characterized by the six stages of the Transtheoretical Model, is by
itself a difficult undertaking through which to persevere. This is quite accurately explained by the
interviewees: They struggle to maintain a vegan lifestyle and describe situations in which they have
to have some coping strategies at hand not to relapse. Also, Joy’s concept of Carnism outlines some
of the obstacles. Kate and Christy name difficulties like the influence of society and government, or
the impact of education and parenting. Here, they touch the surface of Joy’s concept. Joy, however,
takes these difficulties deeper and frames them in a broader concept. She defines the neologism
Carnism and describes with it a whole ideology around the habit of consuming animal products.
234 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 235 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 236 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 237 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2] 238 Kate Flowers (2016) [Video no.2]
44
7.2 Limitations
Despite these interpretations, several limitations of the present paper have to be named. The
first limitation is, that some of the authors are vegans themselves, which implies some bias. A
positive view on veganism could have influenced the whole work, affecting the analysis and
conclusion. However, every human is biased by the experience he or she has made in his or her life.
It is always the task of a researcher to limit the personal bias as far as possible. Therefore, in the
present paper, the authors also tried to reduce the bias e.g. by using studies with many participants
and driven from government or associations.
The second limitation is, that the theme veganism often is emotional and heated discussed.
Here again, we assured a professional and scientific approach by using studies close to the state of
the art. We inserted numerous revision loops to check if we are answering the research question and
using as objective a perspective as possible.
While using premade videos helped us gain time and made us able to have our focus on
analysis, we are aware that the limited number of videos used did not permit us to explore all the
areas that surround veganism in society today which put a frame to our field of enquiry. Although,
we were still able to take out and make sense of the themes that seemed redundant and primary to
our analysis.
8 Conclusion and Perspectives
The clustering of the testimonies through the thematic analysis revealed a structure of
motivations and difficulties of adopting a vegan lifestyle. This structure can be used to have a closer
look at some of them. xxx While our primary purpose was to investigate those motivations and
difficulties, our research led us to also touch upon an educational procedure which could help in
having a more sensitive approach to, and a better understanding of veganism itself.
In the last years, the number of vegans has increased steadily and there is no hint that this
trend will change or stop. Therefore, even though, as of today, the majority of people are not vegan,
vegans are recognized and valued as a growing part of society. Research should address this trend
by investigating more into the topic of veganism as a lifestyle. Scientific research can help to reduce
45
the tension between vegans and non-vegans through understanding, and also suggesting solutions.
To do so, the reasons behind veganism but also carnism have to be further explored. Joy did some
pioneer work by not only looking at vegans - which is also a new research field - but even more to
look at the opposite: carnists. The present paper, applied her innovative perspective and theories to
collected data and revealed clustered motivations and difficulties. Future research can use this work
as base and build on it.
46
References
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectics of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford
University Press
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1974). La dialectique de la Raison: fragments
philosophiques, Paris: Gallimard
AHDB Beef & Lamb. (2016). UK Yearbook 2016 Cattle. Warwickshire.
Ambrosius Madsen, U. (2017, October). Modernity and its problems. Theory of Science,
Roskilde.
American Cancer Society. (2016). Cancer facts and figures - 2016. Atlanta: American
Cancer Society Inc.
Amstell, S. (2017). Carnage: Swallowing the Past. United Kingdom.
Andersen, K., & Kuhn, K. (2014). Cowspiracy: The sustainability secret. Santa Rosa,
California: A.U.M. Films and Media.
Andersen, K., & Kuhn, K. (2017). What the health: The health film that health
organizations don't want you to see. Santa Rosa: A.U.M. Films and Media.
Animal Equality. ([Not given]a). Food. Retrieved from http://www.animalequality.net/food
Animal Equality. ([Not given]b). What we do. Retrieved from http://www.animalequality.
net/what-we-do
Aotearoa Magazine. (1996). The Importance of Rainforests. Retrieved from http://www.
rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/the_imp.htm
Bastide, N. M., Pierre, F. H. F., & Corpet, D. E. (2011). Heme iron from meat and risk of
colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis and a review of the mechanisms involved. Cancer prevention
research (Philadelphia), 4(2), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0113
Bong, J.-h., & Ronson, J. (2017). Okja. International, South Korea: Netflix; Next
Entertainment World.
Boyatzis, Richard, E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and
Code Development. New Delhi: Sage.
Brannen, P. (2017). Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction: “As scientists we
have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends-of-the-world/529545/
Branson, E. J. (Ed.). (2008). Fish welfare. Oxford, Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Pub. Retrieved
from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10297842
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
47
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cambridge University Press. (2017). Cambridge online dictionary: Cambridge Dictionary
online.
Campbell, T. C., & M.D. Thomas M. Campbell II. (2016). The China Study: Revised and
Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the (Revised
and Expanded Edition). Dallas: BenBella Books.
Canadian Cancer Society. (2017). Prostate cancer: Risk factors for prostate cancer.
Retrieved from http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/prostate/risks/?region=on
Canadian dairy Information Centre. (2015). Global Consumption of Dairy Products.
Retrieved from http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=cons&s3=consglo
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002). Iron-Status Indicators: National Report
on Biochemical Indicators of Diet and Nutrition in the U.S. Population 1999-2002. Atlanta.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). National Antimicrobial Resistance
monitoring System for Enteric Bacteria. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq.html
Cole, M., & Morgan, K. (2011). Vegaphobia: Derogatory discourses of veganism and the
reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers. The British journal of sociology, 62(1),
134–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01348.x
Dhanwal, D. K., Dennison, E. M., Harvey, N. C., & Cooper, C. (2011). Epidemiology of hip
fracture: Worldwide geographic variation. Indian journal of orthopaedics, 45(1), 15–22.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.73656
Earthling Ed. (2017a). Difficulties with Non-Vegan Friends & Family (Is My Family
Vegan?). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHi9VF_0CFM
Earthling Ed. (2017b). Every argument against veganism. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDx0DW8GN_w&t=1s
Earthling Ed. (2017c). Vegan visits dairy farm. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL9QJEm_SJY&t=1s
Earthling Ed. (2017d). Vegan vs. angry farmer: I finally lost my cool. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdPcvOM4vXk&t=2s
Esselstyn, C., Gendy, G., Doyle, J., Golubic, M., & Roizen, M. F. (2014). A way to reverse
CAD? Journal of Family Practice. (63 (7)), 356–364.
Fatsecret - calorie counter app. (2017). Cholesterol in Fish. Retrieved from
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/food/fish/cholesterol
Festinger, L. (2001). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Reissued by Stanford Univ. Press in
48
1962, renewed 1985 by author). Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.
Fischer, P., Asal, K., & Krueger, J. I. (2014). Sozialpsychologie für Bachelor: Lesen, Hören,
Lernen im Web. Bachelor. Berlin: Springer.
Flegal, K. M. (2002). Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2000.
JAMA, 288(14), 1723. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.14.1723
Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations. (2006). Livestock's Long
Shadow. Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
Friedrich, A.-S. (2014). Die South-Beach-Diät - Abnehmen wie die Stars. Retrieved from
http://www.glamour.de/beauty/abnehmen-fitness/die-south-beach-diaet-abnehmen-wie-die-stars
Fryar, C. D., Carroll, M. D., Ogden, C. L., & Division of Health and Nutrition Examination
Surveys. (2016). Prevalence of Overweight, Obesity, and Extreme Obesity Among Adults Aged 20
and Over: United States, 1960–1962 Through 2013–2014.
Fulkerson, L. (2011). Forks over knives. Warning - This movie could save your life! New
York: Virgil Films and Entertainment.
Gao, X., LaValley, M. P., & Tucker, K. L. (2005). Prospective studies of dairy product and
calcium intakes and prostate cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
97(23), 1768–1777. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji402
Garner, R. (2016). Animal Rights: The Changing Debate, New York: Springer
Geer, A. (2014). You Will Never Eat Eggs Again After Reading This. Retrieved from
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/scary-egg-facts/
Gibert, M., & Desaulniers, É. (2013). Carnism. In P. Thompson & D. Kaplan (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Berlin: Springer.
Greger, M. (2012). Vitamin B12. Retrieved from https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/
vitamin-b12/
Greger, M., & Stone, G. (2015). How not to die: Discover the foods scientifically proven to
prevent and reverse disease. London: Pan Books.
Gridwain, j. (2016). 16 Ways to Lose Weight Fast. Retrieved from http://www.health.com
/health/gallery/0,,20501331,00.html#tweak-your-lifestyle
Horta, O. (2010). What is Speciesism? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
23(3), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9205-2
Humane Society International/Europe. ([Not given]). Horse Slaughter and the Horsemeat
Trade in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.hsi.org/world/europe/work/horse_slaughter/
factsheets/horse_slaughter_europe.html
49
World Health Organization. (2015). IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of read meant
and processed meat. Lyon, France.
Joy, M. (2003). Psychic numbing and meat consumption: The psychology of carnism
(Dissertation). Saybrook University, San Francisco. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ep
.fjernadgang.kb.dk/docview/305239590?accountid=13607
Joy, M. (2011). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism.
Newburyport: Red Wheel Weiser. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
/lib/kbdk/detail.action?docID=1788144.
Kahn, R. (2011). Towards an animal standpoint: Vegan education and the epistemology of
ignorance. In E. Milewski & N. Jaramillo (Eds.), Epistemologies of ignorance in education..
Charlotte: Information Age.
Kate Flowers. (2016). Day 9: Meat eaters, denial? Conversation with my Non-vegan friend.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4KDY9tJ0U
Keller, M. (2014). UGBforum spezial: Vegan und vollwertig essen: Eisen - pflanzlich gut
versorgt. Retrieved from https://www.ugb.de/ernaehrungsplan-praevention/eisen-vegetarisch
-gut-versorgt/?eisen-eisenmangel
Kroenke, C. H., Kwan, M. L., Sweeney, C., Castillo, A., & Caan, B. J. (2013). High- and
low-fat dairy intake, recurrence, and mortality after breast cancer diagnosis. Journal of the National
Cancer Institute, 105(9), 616–623. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt027
La-Philo. (2012). Adorno/Horkeimer, ou la haine de l’industrie culturelle. Retrieved from
https://la-philosophie.com/adorno-horkheimer-industrie-culturelle
LeRette, D. E. (2015). Stories of microaggressions directed toward vegans and vegetarians
in social settings. ProQuest, 75(7).
Lewin, J. ([Not given]). The health benefits of eggs. Retrieved from
https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/ingredient-focus-eggs
Mannes, J. (2017). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion des Fleischkonsums. Und die
Formierung des Karnismus-Habitus. Soziologiemagazin, 10(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.3224
/soz.v10i1.28498
Marquer, P., Rabade, T., & Forti, R. (2015). Meat production statistics. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Meat_production_statistics
Maurischat, C. (2001). Erfassung der „ Stages of Change“ im Transtheoretischen Modell
Prochaska`s - eine Bestandsaufnahme. Forschungsberichte des Psychologischen instituts der
Albert-Ludwig-Universität Freiburg I. Br. (154).
50
McDonald, B. (2000). "Once You Know Something, You Can't Not Know It": An Empirical
Look at Becoming Vegan. Society and Animals, 8(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1163/
156853000510961
Mendes, E. (2013). An application of the transtheoretical model to becoming vegan. Social
work in public health, 28(2), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2011.561119
Mic. the Vegan. (2017). Milking the System: Dairy Industry in Schools. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAIV_JHr6_o
Michaëlsson, K., Wolk, A., Langenskiöld, S., Basu, S., Warensjö Lemming, E., Melhus, H.,
& Byberg, L. (2014). Milk intake and risk of mortality and fractures in women and men: Cohort
studies. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 349, g6015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6015
Mintel. (2017). Brits carve their meat intake: 28% of Brits have cut back their meat
consumption over the last six months. Retrieved from http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/
food-and-drink/28-of-brits-have-cut-back-their-meat-consumption-over-the-last-six-months
Mokdad, A. H., Ford, E. S., Bowman, B. A., Nelson, D. E., Engelgau, M. M., Vinico, F., &
Marks, James, S. (2000). Diabetes Trends in the U.S.: 1990–1998. Diabetes Care. (23), 1278–1283.
Monson, S. (2005). Earthlings. New York: Nation Earth
Mozaffarian, D., Benjamin, E. J., Go, A. S., Arnett, D. K., Blaha, M. J., Cushman, M.,
Turner, M. B. (2016). Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2016 Update: A Report From the
American Heart Association. Circulation, 133(4), e38-360. https://doi.org/10.1161
/CIR.0000000000000350
Narins, E. (2016). 16 Healthy Eating Rules You Should Always Follow. Retrieved from
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/a51036/healthy-cleanse/
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2017). National
Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017: Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States.
National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. (2016). Iron Fact Sheet for
Consumers.
O'Neill, J. (2005). Antimicrobials in agriculture and the environment: Reducing
unnecessary use and waste.
Oxford University Press. ([Not given]). Definition of ethics in English. Retrieved from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ethics
Parker-Pope, T. (2012). The Challenge of Going Vegan. The New York Times. Retrieved
from https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/the-challenge-of-going-vegan/
Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. ([Not given]a). About PETA. Retrieved
51
from https://www.peta.org/about-peta/
Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. ([Not given]b). Animal-Derived
Ingredients List. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/living/other/animal-ingredients-list/
Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. ([Not given]c). Beauty Brands You
Thought Were Cruelty-Free But Aren’t. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/
living/beauty/companies-test-on-animals/
Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. ([Not given]d). The Organic and
‘Free-Range’ Myths. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/
free-range-organic-meat-myths/
Plant based News. (2016). Why doctors don't recommend veganism: Interview with Dr.
Neal Barnard. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLeee0HRyHM
Post, R., Budak, C., Canavan, J., Duncan-Harrington, T., Jones, B., Jones, S., Kegle, M.
(2007). A guide to federal food labeling requirements for meat, poultry, and egg products.
Washington.
Povey, R., Wellens, B., & Conner, M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian
and vegan diets: An examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, 37(1), 15–26.
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2001.0406
Prochaska, J. O. (1996). A stage paradigm for integrating clinical and public health
approaches to smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors, 21(6), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0306-4603(96)00031-7
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more
integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 19(3), 276–288.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088437
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (2016). The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior
Change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/
10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38
Redneck2vegan. (2016). Honey is not vegan, honey is brutal, honey is bee vomit. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtTv41p2-Cw
Rizzo, N. S., Jaceldo-Siegl, K., Sabate, J., & Fraser, G. E. (2013). Nutrient profiles of
vegetarian and nonvegetarian dietary patterns. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,
113(12), 1610–1619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2013.06.349
Rudolph, U. (2013). Motivationspsychologie kompakt: Mit Online-Materialien (3., überarb.
Aufl.). Psychologie 2013. Weinheim: Beltz. Retrieved from http://www.content-select.com/
52
index.php?id=bib_view&ean=9783621280938
Schlüter, H. ([Not given]). Geschichte des vegetarismus und veganismus. Retrieved from
https://vebu.de/veggie-fakten/geschichte-des-vegetarismus-und-veganismus/
Singer, P. (1977). Animal liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. A Discus
book. New York: Avon Books.
SKOPOS GmbH & Co. KG. (2016). 1,3 Millionen Deutsche leben vegan. Retrieved from
https://www.skopos.de/news/13-millionen-deutsche-leben-vegan.html
Spence, J. D., Jenkins, D. J. A., & Davignon, J. (2012). Egg yolk consumption and carotid
plaque. Atherosclerosis, 224(2), 469–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.07.032
Spencer, N. (2017). PETA: China's new regulation removes animal testing procedure.
Retrieved from https://www.cosmeticsdesign-asia.com/Article/2017/01/24/PETA-China-s-new-
regulation-removes-animal-testing-procedure
Steinfeld, H. ([Not given]). Introduction to the study livestock-environment interactions:
Livestock and Global Change. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/
lead/x6130e/x6130e02.htm
TEDx Talks. (2015). Toward Rational, Authentic Food Choices. Melanie Joy. TEDx:
München. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg
The Vegan Society. ([Not given]). Definition of Veganism. Retrieved from https://www.
vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
The Vegan Society. (2016). There are three and half times as many vegans as there were in
2006, making it the fastest growing lifestyle movement. Retrieved from https://www.
vegansociety.com/whats-new/news/find-out-how-many-vegans-are-great-britain
The Vegetarian Resource Group. ([Not given]). Protein in the Vegan Diet. Retrieved from
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers'
willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3), 674–682.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2004). What You Need to Know About Mercury in
Fish and Shellfish. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants
/metals/ucm351781.htm
Umweltbundesamt. (2012). Europaweit Mütter und Kinder auf Schadstoffe untersucht:
Quecksilberbelastung steigt mit Fischkonsum. Dessau-Roßlau. Retrieved from http://www.
umweltbundesamt.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/europaweit-muetter-kinder-auf-schadstoffe
53
United States Environmental protection Agency. (2017). Fish Tissue Data Collected by
EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/fish-tech/fish-tissue-data-collected-epa
Vevolution. (2017). 10 Big Moments For Veganism In 2017 (So Far). Retrieved from
http://www.vevolution.co/blog1/2017/5/23/big-vegan-moments-of-2017
Wang, F., Zheng, J., Yang, B., Jiang, J., Fu, Y., & Li, D. (2015). Effects of Vegetarian Diets
on Blood Lipids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Journal of the American Heart Association, 4(10), e002408. https://doi.org/10.1161/
JAHA.115.002408
Weitzenfeld, A & Joy, M. (2014). An overview of anthropocentrism, humanism, and
speciesism in critical animal theory. In A. J. Nocella III, J. Sorenson, K. Socha, & A. Matsuka
(Eds.), Defining critical animal studies. An intersectional social justice approach for liberation (pp.
3-27). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
54