In this file:


·         Just say no to Veganuary

Veganism isn’t a diet – it’s a cult of purity.


·         The Psychology Of Vegetarianism

... many psychologists believe that vegetarianism is its own distinct social identity...



Just say no to Veganuary

Veganism isn’t a diet – it’s a cult of purity.


Patrick West, Columnist, Spiked

11th January 2019


In case you hadn’t noticed, this January has otherwise gone by the name of ‘Veganuary’, a month in which we have been exhorted to forgo the consumption and usage of animal products. Or perhaps that should be ‘Smuguary’, ‘Selfrightuary’, ‘Egotistuary’, or any other comparably ungainly neologism. Because such terms would encapsulate the fad du jour, veganism: a narcissistic cult and exercise in self-regard in an age of identity politics.


One report from Plymouth this month betrays the essence of the movement. One 23-year-old declared himself all in a swoon after a branch of Pizza Hut mistakenly served him dairy ice-cream purporting to be vegan-friendly. ‘This is appalling. I am outraged, heartbroken in fact. I feel like my lifestyle has been mocked. It’s a mistake that shouldn’t have happened’, said the vegan. Pizza Hut responded with a grovelling apology.


The indignancy on display by our vegan is not incidental, nor is it unusual. It is intrinsic to a movement that has appropriated and commandeered the ethics of similarly superior and sanctimonious anti-human worldviews: the animal-rights movement and militant environmentalism. Veganism has become a kind of umbrella alliance of malcontents who sermonise that eating or wearing animals is not only cruel, but also a violation of the rights and dignity of non-human beings, while also being bad for the planet.


Vegans can thus denounce eating eggs, drinking milk or wearing wool as not just wrong, but thrice-times evil. This is why vegans are not content quietly to forego certain foods, as is the case with most civilised vegetarians, but feel the need to evangelise about why they do so, condemning as wicked and immoral those deviants who don’t.


One means to demonise the impure, demonic unbeliever is the street protest, usually against shops that sell fur, where activists repeat slogans such as ‘compassion not fashion’. On New Year’s Day, animal-rights activists in Toronto protested against newly inaugurated Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, who plans to privatise parts of the Amazon rainforest. They staged a ‘die-in’ near the Brazilian consulate, performing a play called ‘If the Amazon rainforest dies, we all die!’. A similar tactic is plain hooliganism. ‘They are serving many animals in that restaurant, many animals that did not want to die thrashed and screamed for their lives’, pronounced one protester in October, when he and other animal-rights activists stormed a restaurant in Perth, Western Australia.


Militant vegans stalk the internet looking to ‘meat-shame’ clean-eating and vegetarian food bloggers who post pictures of recipes containing eggs or milk. They are singled out on account of their moral vacillation. With that dreadful joy of vengeance, these outrage goblins declare, ‘My food didn’t die screaming’ or ‘Fur is worn by heartless hags’.


Humour is not tolerated by these believers, as was made evident when Waitrose Food magazine sacked its editor, William Sitwell, after he made jokes about killing vegans. Nor do they have a sense of their own ridiculousness, as we saw last month when PETA issued a list of animal-friendly alternatives to traditional sayings, such as replacing ‘kill two birds with one stone’ with ‘feed two birds with one scone’.


Many of you may have been tempted to take up the ‘Veganuary’ challenge on ethical or dietary grounds. This is an error...





The Psychology Of Vegetarianism


by Daniel Rosenfeld, Science Trends

January 7, 2019


It seems like more and more people are going vegetarian nowadays, giving up meat and jumping aboard the bandwagon of plant-based dieting. Shifts in consumer preferences are accompanying the introduction of new plant-based products, from lab-grown meat alternatives to a plethora of dairy-free milk, cheeses, and ice creams.


Vegetarianism has long garnered interest from the academic fields of philosophy and nutritional science, as philosophers ponder the ethics of whether or not people should eat animals as meat, and as nutritional scientists investigate whether vegetarian dieting holds the key to optimal health. Yet the food choices we make reflect more than our philosophical stances and impact more than our physical health — rather, what we eat plays a powerful role in a wide range of psychological phenomena that shape how we think about ourselves and our everyday social experiences. In a recent review paper in the journal Appetite, I summarize what more than 150 studies have revealed about the psychological nuances of vegetarianism.


First off, it’s helpful to understand what vegetarianism is and why people subscribe to it. Vegetarianism is broadly defined as the practice of refraining from eating meat. But a lot of different types of vegetarian diets exist, varying in how restrictive they are. At the less restrictive end of the vegetarian continuum are pescatarians — those who don’t eat red meat or poultry but do eat fish. Since fish is technically considered to be a form of meat, though, a debate does exist as to whether pescatarians are truly a type of vegetarian. The prototypical vegetarian is what we’d call a lacto-ovo vegetarian, or someone who doesn’t eat any form of meat but does eat egg and dairy products. At the more restrictive end of the vegetarian continuum are vegans, those who refrain from eating any animal products.


Just as vegetarians are a diverse group of folks in terms of what foods they will or won’t eat, so too are they diverse in terms of their dietary motivations. Psychologists have taken a keen interest in understanding what motivates people to go vegetarian. In a culture, such as the United States, where the overwhelming majority of people eat meat, it almost always takes some specific motivation to propel people to go vegetarian. Reviewing many studies in which researchers have surveyed vegetarians on their motivations, I found that the three most common reasons why people go vegetarian are for (1) animals, (2) its health benefits, (3) and its lower impact on the environment.


Personally, as a psychology researcher, I think it’s fascinating to think about what motivates people to eat in certain ways. But more than that, why does it matter whether someone eats a vegetarian diet for one reason or another? Does that tell us anything important about their attitudes, behaviors, or other psychological phenomena? It most certainly does. A number of studies have suggested that what motivates someone to go vegetarian effects how disgusted they are by meat, how strictly they adhere to their diets, and even what attitudes meat-eaters have toward them.


A recurrent finding across studies is that many vegetarians actually eat meat on occasion. Not only does this paradox challenge the precise definition of a vegetarian, but it also begs the question of why some vegetarians follow their diets strictly while others follow their diets more flexibly. Apparently, motivation matters quite a lot when it comes to dietary adherence. Specifically, vegetarians who follow their diets out of a moral concern for animals are much more likely to follow their diets strictly than are vegetarians motivated by either health or environmental reasons. Why might this be? Why would someone’s motivation for giving up meat influence how closely they stick to that dietary aim?


Research suggests that a probable factor is disgust: Vegetarians motivated by a concern for animals feel more disgusted by meat, and that greater feeling of disgust may lead them to follow their diets particularly strictly. Health-motivated and environmentally motivated vegetarians, meanwhile, aren’t so grossed out by meat. One reason for this may be related to what psychologists call animal-meat association. The fact that meat comes from animals is, well, rather disgusting to many people, so people like to forget that meat comes from an animal — that is, they dissociate meat from its animal origins.


People who go vegetarian for animal rights or welfare, on the other hand, tend to view the meat people eat as a direct product of the animals from which that meat came. Linking meat to its animal origins elicits a disgust response, and disgust is a powerful emotion that informs what foods we’re willing to eat or not eat. If you’re grossed out by a food, that’s basically evolution’s way of telling you that eating that food probably isn’t the safest move.


What motivation a vegetarian has for giving up meat can also affect what attitudes meat-eaters have toward him or her. It’s true that some meat-eaters don’t have the fondest views toward vegetarians. Yet a vegetarian’s motivation matters: Meat-eaters tend to have the most positive attitudes toward health-motivated vegetarians, more negative attitudes toward environmentally-motivated vegetarians, and the most negative attitudes toward animal-motivated vegetarians. Although meat-eaters generally have positive impressions of vegetarians overall, many meat-eaters do have negative biases against vegetarians, holding a range of unfavorable stereotypes about those who choose a plant-based diet.


But why might meat-eaters disparage vegetarians who give up meat for animals and the environment the most, more than vegetarians who do so for health? A probable reason is that animal and environmental motivations are moral motivations. By giving up meat, vegetarians inherently challenge the omnivorous status quo, and challenges to conventional views of morality may be more threatening than challenges to norms about health. Essentially, morally motivated vegetarians are threatening to some meat-eaters, as they inherently make salient the question of whether it is right or wrong to eat meat. Some research has found that meat-eaters think vegetarians are judgmental — much more judgmental than vegetarians truly are — and this unfounded belief can cause meat-eaters to denigrate vegetarians as a means of defending their own self-image from imagined moral threats.


Matters of morality aside, the fact that people possess distinct beliefs about and stereotypes toward vegetarians, along with the paradoxical fact that many people call themselves vegetarian yet eat meat from time to time, have led psychologists to propose the notion that being a vegetarian is intertwined with one’s sense of identity. More than that, though, many psychologists believe that vegetarianism is its own distinct social identity...


more, including links