Why Is Eating Meat So Emotionally and Ethically Challenging?
'The Meat Paradox' explores the psychological forces shaping our diets.
The food we choose to consume—who and what we choose to eat—is a hot topic
given the serious ethical questions that arise and the global environmental
damage for which industrial farming is clearly responsible. Discussions
about "Should we eat animals?” and the cognitive dissonance associated with
the choices we make have moved from the ivory tower into the homes of people
worldwide. This is why I was keenly interested in Rob Percival's new book
The Meat Paradox: Eating, Empathy, and the Future of Meat, an excellent
follow-up to Roanne van Voorst's discussion of Once Upon a Time We Ate
Animals: The Future of Food.
Rob is an expert in the politics of meat. Here's what he had to say about
the psychological forces behind our meal plans.1,2
What does the title of your book The Meat Paradox refer to?
The term was coined by Steve Loughnan, Brock Bastian and Nick Haslam in a
2010 paper published in the journal Appetite. It refers to the apparent
contradiction between people’s enjoyment of meat and their concern for
animal welfare. We like eating animal foods, but we dislike the harm caused
to animals. Or stated as a question: Given that we dislike causing harm to
animals, why do we consume so much meat, mostly from industrial farming
systems, which cause so much harm?
...
Please read the
ENTIRE INTERVIEW HERE (PDF).
Rob Percival is Head of Policy at the Soil Association, Britain’s leading food and farming charitable organization. He has been shortlisted for the Guardian’s International Development Journalism Prize as well as the Thompson Reuters Food Sustainability Media Award. He lives in Britain.
Return to Book Reviews