"Best of both worlds": How do former vegetarians justify (re)introducing meat into their diet?

Abstract

Many people go vegetarian in response to ethical, environmental, and health concerns surrounding meat consumption. However, research suggests that approximately 84% of vegetarians (re)introduce meat into their diet at some point in their lives. Understanding why people do not stay vegetarian is crucial for reducing societal meat consumption, yet literature on former vegetarians is scarce. Using an inductive thematic analysis, the present study aimed to understand how former vegetarians justify their current meat consumption. Online interviews were conducted with eight former vegetarians. Five themes were identified and discussed. Vegetarianism was constructed as a morally superior diet (1), but as an eating practice that makes socialising difficult (2). Participants also justified consuming meat by emphasising the importance of what their body needs (3), discussing how you can be an ethical meat eater (4) and how a meat diet gives you freedom (5). The rigidity of vegetarian diets constructed by participants indicated that further emphasis on reduction rather than removal of meat for health and the environment might be more beneficial for those struggling to go, or stay, vegetarian. Overall, this paper demonstrates the complex reasons why vegetarians do not necessarily stay vegetarian in the long-term. In exploring transitions out of vegetarianism, it sheds further light on barriers many people face in their journeys toward consistent meat abstention. Insights are relevant to activists, consumers and policymakers looking to reduce societal meat consumption.

Disentangling the Meat Paradox: A Comparative Review of Meat-Related Ambivalence and Dissonance

“…We therefore argue that when veg*ans eat meat, their commitment to eating meat in a given situation leads to dissonance because it contradicts their (moral) attitudes and beliefs. In fact, when veg*ans eat meat, they seem to engage in dissonance reduction, such as motivated reasoning (Buurman et al, 2022;Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2019). Interestingly, such dietary violations become more DISENTANGLING THE MEAT PARADOX 18 frequent the more ambivalent veg*ans are, especially due to evaluations pulling them away from moralizing their attitudes (Buttlar, Pauer, Ruby, et al, 2023).…”

Two sides of the same fence: A model of the origins and consequences of meat-related conflict in omnivores and veg*ans

“…For now, we must refer to qualitative studies that investigate why and when veg*ans violate their diets, such as the research by Buttlar et al, (2023) or Rosenfeld and Tomiyama (2019). (Buurman et al, 2022). In future research, this should also be investigated quantitatively.…”

The Model of Ambivalent Choice and Dissonant Commitment: An Integration of Dissonance and Ambivalence Frameworks

“…The AC/DC model describes the interactions between ambivalence and dissonance in detail and thereby helps to develop a better understanding of cognitive conflicts. The AC/DC model, for example, provides insights into why people who usually avoid certain behaviors (such as veg*ans) sometimes also engage in conflict reduction strategies such as motivated reasoning (Buurman et al, 2022;Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2019). So far, research on meat-related dissonance assumed an absence of experiences of meat-related dissonance in veg*ans because they presumably lack a commitment to eating meat (Bastian & Loughnan, 2017;Rothgerber, 2020).…”