Meat Justifications Based On Age

People have been raising and eating certain animals for many years, while at the same time, loving other animals as companions. This creates a moral conflict for people who value animals but also eat meat, called the “meat paradox.”  While this conflict has been studied in adults, less is known about how children think about eating animals and animal products. It’s important to understand this because some experts believe that we are taught to normalize eating meat from a young age. 

Research has found that meat eaters typically justify eating meat using the “4 Ns” — in other words, that it is natural, normal, necessary, and nice (i.e., tasty). Yet, little research has been done to understand the reasons people may think it is not okay to eat animals, and how these reasons may differ and change with age. 

In this study, researchers wanted to know whether adults and children use similar reasoning styles for eating (or not eating) animals and animal products. In addition, they studied whether people’s moral beliefs about eating animal products are influenced by whether the products require the death of animals. They recruited 479 adults (ages 18-21 and 29-59) and children (ages 9-11) from the U.K. to participate in a survey.  Most followed an omnivorous diet (82%), while some followed vegetarian or vegan diets (18%). Participants were mostly white British (80%), and most were not religious (71%). Some had animals at home (63%), while others did not (37%). 

To understand their thinking, participants were asked whether they thought it was okay to eat animals and animal products like eggs, milk, and cheese, and to explain their reasoning using four dimensions: social-conventional (e.g., the “4 Ns” or religious motives), moral (e.g., environmental concern, animal rights and welfare arguments), personal (e.g., niceness/tastiness of meat), and mixed (e.g., beliefs about ethical production and humane slaughter). 

Eating Animals

More adults than children said that eating animals is okay (77% vs. 51%, respectively), whereas children were more likely than adults to say it’s not okay (49% vs. 23%). Among those who said it was okay to eat animals, children were more likely than adults to use moral reasoning (31% of children vs. 8% of adults), whereas adults used mostly social reasoning (66% of adults vs. 45% of children). Specifically, adults tended to focus on the naturalness and necessity of eating animals, while children’s reasoning was often grounded in animal welfare (for example, by saying that animals have a life, even if they believed eating them was okay).

Among those who said it’s not okay to eat animals, “animal welfare” was cited as the reason by 50% of adults and 46% of children. Only 2% of adults and 21% of children who said it is okay to eat animals gave a reason that addressed animal welfare.

Eating Animal Products

Almost all adults (94%) and children (89%) said it’s okay to eat animal products (e.g., milk and cheese), citing ethical production and humane slaughter (44%) and the “4 Ns” (32%) as reasons. Those who said it’s not okay to eat animal products largely based their reasoning on animal welfare (76%). Unlike meat consumption, the acceptability of eating other animal products did not differ significantly between children and adults.

Advocacy Takeaways

The results suggest that people’s acceptance of eating animals is at least partially influenced by age-based reasoning. However, no matter the age, eating animal products seems to be considered acceptable because people believe that animals are not harmed or killed in the process. In general, this means that children are likely a prime demographic for targeting humane education and vegan advocacy campaigns. Advocacy messaging about the treatment of animals in food systems, especially during childhood, might change how people rationalize eating animals and motivate more morally-driven, plant-based choices in the future.