Men, Woman, and Quiche

It is common knowledge that vegetarianism is more common with women.  Hank Rothgerber reveals some of the underlying factors in these gender differences.

Rothberger studued undergraduates and found that assertive defenses of meat eating were more common in males and associated with feelings of masculinity. Specifically more masculine indivduals were were likely to use justifications such as that eating meat is healthy, justified by religion and allowed by animals' lower status. More feminine individuals tends to have strategies of avoidance such as not thinking to much about where meat comes from.

It is interesting to see that  part of the masculine strategy that seems out of character is the denial of animal suffering in meat production.  This strikes me as more a strategy pf avoidance--assuming lack of suffering rather than really trying to assess the degree of suffering that may or may not occur.  This both masculine and feminine strategies can be said to embrace a degree of denial and dissociation for the animal. Overall masculine individuals are more unapologetic meat eaters but also apparently less interested in the welfare aspects of how meat is produced, or as Rothberger phrased it "hostile to animal welfare".

The author goes on to present various pro-vegetarian arguments phrased in a more masculine way (e.g. rational, non-conformist) but they do not look at how being in denial about animal welfare issues--whether one eats meet or not--is not a macho orientation but a weak 'head in the sand' position in contrast to either fixing the problems or changing which food products to support (within or beyond the meat category).

Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14 (4), 363-375 DOI: 10.1037/a0030379

Cloned Animals

A cloned animal is one that is born with the full genotype of an already living animal.

There are serious ethical issues associated with abnormalities that cause fetal or neonatal death and other abnormalities.  Clone may also demonstrated accelerated aging.

However a cloned animal, if born without defect, is no different from a naturally conceived animal in its general conformation and behavior (Archer et al, 2003).

References:

• Archer, G.S. et al (2003). behavioral variation among cloned pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 321-331.

Xenotransplantation

Public Acceptance
There are very few uses of animals, other than food, that involve taking part of a non-human animal into our body.  Thus it is not surprising that Michael and Brown, 2004) found strong connections between how people understand eating meat, and their attitudes to xenotransplantation (the use of an animal body part to replace a fail human body part).

The authors argue that any new phenomenon is initially understood with reference to something familiar.  Because animals are used and understood in such diverse ways, and meat represents the closest equivalent for a situation such as the use of pig as donors of cells, valves, and potentially organs. However meat itself is frequently seen as a source of concern based on intensive farming, disease issues and animal transportation methods.  So this comparison is not entirely unproblematic.

Michael and Brown carried out focus groups and extracted three main types of argument: whether people involved in the process are trustworthy, whether ones opinion carries an weight, and how needing a life-saving procedure would change one's willingness to use a xenotransplanted organ. The focus groups exchanges around meat eating show how it provides a familiar model for understanding the option of using animal parts for human purposes--in situations where the literal need may be much greater than eating meat, which is rarely absolutely necessary for continued health and life.

Conversely, it has been suggested that if swine are more widely accepted as organ donors people may feel more 'closely related' to pigs and become less willing to eat them (Glein, 2002).

Risks
The immediate problem with transplantion from a non-human donor is rejection.  Research is underway to try and develop donor animals and anti-immune regimes that will allow a wider array of organs and tissues to be donated by non-human animals. 

This is also a longer term risk of the transfer of infection agents and the development of dangerous zoonotic diseases (Glein, 2002).

References:

• Glein, H. (2002). Custom made piggeries in Norway? View of the meat producing industry. Acta. Vet. Scand., Suppl 99, 51-52.
• Michael, M., Brown, N. (2004). The meat of the matter:grasping and judging xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 379-397.

Dietary Restriction and Illness

Diet elimination studies typically use small groups suffering from the health issue under investigate, with a control time period or group, and a time period or group under the influence of on a restricted diet, typically for a period of 2-8 weeks.

Migraines
A small study employed phases with diets where any foods that patient had IgG positivity for were eliminated, and another where they were deliberately increased.  these foods varied between patients but commonly included seafood and cheese, and for some patients included eggs, milk and meat.  Diet was shown to effect migraine frequency ( Alpay et al, 2010).

Asthma
A small study of asthmatic children in the United Kingdom gives some credence to the idea that a milk and egg-free diet can improve their symptom. Thirteen experimental and nine control children were studies over an 8 week period and the children on a restricted diet showed improvements in IgC antibodies, and in some cases lung function and overall health as self-reported and confirmed by a pediatrician.

References:

• Alpay K, Ertas, M, Orhan E, Ustay DK, Lieners C, Baykan B. (2010) Cephalalgia, 30, 829-837.
• Yusoff, N.A.M., Hampton, S.M., Dickerson, J.W.T., Morgan, J.B. (2004). The effects of exclusions of dietary egg and milk in the management of asthmatic children: a pilot study. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 124, 74-80.

Why Do People Eat Meat?

Why Do People Eat Meat?

Flavor
It seems that taste is the main driver of meat consumption. Meat is consumed predominantly for the pleasure derived from consumption (Becker et al, 2004; Verbecke et at, 2004).

Becker et al (2004) studied the attitudes of members of the general public and found some interesting correlations: 1) The main reason people eat meat is for its taste, and 2) people who eat more meat feel less in control (both of their own health and the conditions under which meat-producing animals are kept).  In fact, the more people ate conventionally produced meat, the less interested they were in pursuing improvements to the meat production system.

So, we seem to be in a situation where the key consumers and enjoyers of meat products are also the most likely actively disinterested in eating in a way that improves their health and the welfare of farmed animals.  This, frankly, needs to change.

Why Do People Not Eat Meat?
A minority of people identify themselves as vegetarian (e.g. 2.3%, Gossard and York, 2003). If you look at why some people do not eat meat--it often includes an objection to modern farming methods. Thus local, sustainable and welfare-friendly farming practises may be sufficient to convince some vegetarians to enjoy meat in moderation (Lennon, 2007).  This may partially explain why some people who identify as vegetarian do eat some meat (Gossard and York, 2003).

Which People Eat Meat?
A study of US consumers found that meat consumption is positively associated with being male, Black and Asian ethnicities and being employed as a laborer.  It is negatively associated with level of education and age, and unrelated to income and geography (Gossard and York, 2003).

A survey in Belgium found that 57% of people eat fresh  (versus prepared/pre-cooked) meat dailly.  The population could be divided into 'straightforward meat lovers' and those who were 'concerned' or 'cautious' due to safety issues such as dioxins and BSE.  The difference between these groups is that 'concerned' consumers are reducing their meat intake in terms of quantity and seeking higher quality. There is also a group is 'indifferent consumers' who are not driven by high enjoyment of meat but are not worried about the issues either, low price is their main concern.

References:

• Becker, R., Kals, E., Frohlich, P. (2004). meat consumption and commitments on meat policy: combining individual and public health. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 143-155.
• Gossard MH, York R. (2003). Social structiral influences on meat consumption. Research in Human Ecology, 10, 1-9.
• Lennon, C. (2007) Why vegetarians eat meat. Food and Wine, August, 60-61.
• Verbeke, W; Vackier, I. (2004). Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science, 67, 159-168.

Milk, Honey, and Big Macs

In "Weight Control in a Land of Milk and Honey" Lisa Terre paints a picture of an America in which unhealthy foods are pushed, in abundance, through relentless "predatory advertising practices".  These two factors leading to spiralling levels of obesity-combined with a disempowering bias against the obese and attribution of their problems simply to a lack of self-control.  Discounting the temporary effects of dieting Terre points instead to a more general pushback against this unhealthy climate.  However, how can health focused initiative be made effective? In the mean time the only solution for those suffering ill effects of being overweight seems to be careful self-monitoring and incremental lifestyle changes--with an overall 5-10% BMI reduction being a realistic goal.

References:

• Terre, L. (2007). Weight control in a land of milk and honey. Behavioral Medicine Review,1, 447-450.

Eating Emu in America

Emu meat is marketed as a healthy red meat with relatively low fat (2.5% versus over 5% for beef, Shao et al, 1999) and cholesterol.  Emus are farmed predominantly in the United States and Australia (Dingle, 1997). However a large scale market for this products has not developed.

Adams et al (2000) argue that emu meat is best marketed as a 'game animal' meat similar to duck and quail.  that is to say, most people would not buy it at the supermarket, but might be willing to try it in a restaurant setting. 

Their survey results suggest that the willingness of people to eat a new meat product, even in a fine dining context, is strongly affected by wider 'social acceptability'.  And at the time of the study the social acceptability of eating emu was consider somewhat low.  Based on its absence from restaurant menus (as far as I have observed) this still seems to be the case.

References:

• Adams, C.R., Hoover, L.C., Arnett. D.B. and Thomspon, L.D. (2000). Social acceptability's role in an expanded rational expectation model of intention to consume an innovative meat product in a restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24, 252-262.
• Dingle, J.G. (1997). Emu and Ostrich production and its consequences for human nutrition. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia, 21, 37-43.
• Shao, C.H., Avens, J.S., Schmidt, G.R., Maga, J.A. (1999). Functional, sensory, and microbiological properties of restructured beef and emu steaks. Journal of Food Science, 64, 1052-1054.

Student Attitudes to GM Food

A survey of 372 students found that factors such as age, gender, bio tech knowledge, politics, religion and trust in government or industry had no consistent relation with willingness to eat transgenicc meat.  Fifty percent of the students indicated that they would eat transgenic meat. These students were also more likely to read labels when shopping, and they had higher trust that scientists are truthful about transgenic meat.

It is interesting that although the FDA and GM animal producers oppose labeling of BM products, as this study suggests that people who attend most to labels are also most accepting of GM meat products.  However this small student self-report study may not reflect actual shopping behavior, or the attitudes of the wider general public.

Sources:

• Ibrahim, M., Johnson, F. Brewer, A. (2010). Student response to transgenic meat: an analysis of a Fort Valley State University survey. 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida. [Full Text]