How Beliefs About Animal Welfare Influence The Experience Of Eating Meat
As many vegetarians and vegans who used to eat meat can attest to, our beliefs about food can significantly influence not only our consumption behaviors but also our perceptions about that food. For example, we may have once found a product like steak or bacon tasty and aromatic, but having learned about the many negative consequences of meat production now find these products unpalatable and foul-smelling. This paper, published in PLOS ONE, investigates the link between beliefs and perceptions about meat originating from factory farms and so-called “humane” farms.
In the first study, 146 college students were asked to eat and rate two identical samples of beef jerky that were labeled and described as either coming from animals raised on factory farms or humane farms. Results showed that participants found the factory farm sample less pleasant along all consumption dimensions including look, taste, and smell. They also found that participants ate less of the factory farmed sample and indicated they would be willing to pay less for it.
In the second study, the authors asked 259 passersby at an outdoor location to eat and rate only one of four samples of roast beef. The samples were identical but included one of four labels: a control with no mention of animals, a humane farm description focused solely on animal welfare, a factory farm description focused solely on animal welfare, and a “factory farm +” description highlighting the affordability of products from factory farms. Results showed that participants liked both of the factory farm samples less than the humane farm and control samples, which they rated similarly.
The third study sought to test whether beliefs about meat can influence basic sensory properties of flavor. In the experiment, 117 college students ate and rated three identical samples of ham that included a control with no label and both factory farm and humane farm labels that featured “evocative descriptions involving text and pictures of animals.” Results showed that the factory farmed sample was rated as significantly less pleasant compared to the humane and control samples, which were rated relatively equally. Additionally, participants indicated they would be less likely to consume the factory farmed sample again and would be willing to pay significantly less for it than the other samples. In regards to taste, participants found the humane sample to be less salty and greasy than the others and the factory farmed sample less fresh.
The authors conclude that the three studies confirm their hypothesis that the conditions in which farm animals are raised impacts consumers’ perception of meat products. As an explanation for why the humane meat and control samples received similar ratings, they suggest that “while negative beliefs (factory farms) reduced enjoyment, positive beliefs (humane farms) did not increase enjoyment.” They note that this finding is consistent with other studies showing that negative information is more impactful than positive information. They also speculate that because many people “do not typically think about where meat comes from, any reminder that meat comes from animals is unpleasant.”
While many advocates promote abstention from eating meat rather than consumption of meat from so-called “humane farms,” the findings indicate that consumers are more likely to change both their perceptions and consumption of meat based on negative rather than positive messages. Advocates might consider emphasizing the cruelty involved in factory farming instead of the positive benefits of not eating meat. They might also consider using shock advocacy tactics displaying graphic and unpleasant images.