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 (mtcb@ruc.dk)

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