Why Do Vegetarians Continue Eating Cheese And Dairy?
Many researchers have tried to understand the “meat paradox,” which describes the cognitive dissonance between caring about animals and eating them. However, researchers tend to overlook the fact that many vegetarians avoid eating slaughtered animals, yet still consume animal products that cause harm to animals in other ways. Like meat-eaters, it’s possible that vegetarians are experiencing a form of cognitive dissonance in their dietary habits.
This study examines vegetarians’ rationale behind consuming non-meat animal products (NMAPs). The authors point out that NMAPS share many of the same ethical concerns as meat — for example, NMAPs come from violent industries that harm and kill animals after they are no longer profitable.
According to the authors, most studies on vegetarians ask questions about why they choose not to eat meat, not why they choose to eat NMAPs. To begin to fill this gap in the research, they formed three research questions:
- Do vegetarians view eggs and dairy as an ethical issue?
- Why do vegetarians include NMAPs in their diet?
- Is cognitive dissonance involved in vegetarians’ NMAP consumption, and if so, how do they overcome it?
They interviewed 12 vegetarians based in the U.K., mostly from Europe. It’s important to note that participants were recruited through a “snowballing” technique, where the researchers began with personal connections and were referred to by others through their networks. Because of this, the sample size (in addition to being small) wasn’t representative of vegetarians in Europe or the United Kingdom. In addition, the authors identified as vegans and noted that some participants were aware of this. As a result, it’s possible that interviewees framed their answers to be more favorable to the researchers.
Like many meat-eaters, the authors found that participants tended to justify their NMAP consumption using three of the “4Ns” — that it’s nice, normal, and necessary, but not natural. The authors identified four themes in the data: “acknowledging harm,” “personal benefits,” “social norms,” and “neutralizing dissonance.”
Regarding the “acknowledging harm” theme, participants cited different reasons for becoming vegetarian, but all of them had ethical concerns about animals in the dairy and egg industries. Despite eating NMAPs, they acknowledged that animals used for eggs and dairy may live in gruesome conditions and are killed after they’re done being used. Some people also noted the links between the meat and the NMAP industry. Therefore, in response to the first research question, respondents were generally aware of the ethical harms of eggs and dairy.
In line with theme two, participants discussed the personal benefits of consuming NMAPs, especially cheese, which many portrayed as “addictive.” They justified eating these products for other reasons, including perceived health benefits, convenience, cost, and taste. The authors argue that these personal benefits are influenced by social norms and institutions that reinforce the consumption of NMAPs, leading to the next theme.
The “social norms” theme was evident in the data as respondents cited cultural norms and pressure to consume some animal products and stigma around not eating certain foods. Many explained that they think being a vegetarian is easier and more socially acceptable than excluding all animal products. These respondents described vegetarianism as a compromise and a way to avoid conflict over moral values in social settings. Together, “personal benefits” and “social norms” provide insight into the second research question.
The final theme was “neutralizing dissonance,” where the researchers identified potential ways that participants manage their cognitive dissonance around eating NMAPs (in line with the final research question). They found that participants raised more ethical concerns about consuming milk than consuming cheese, even though the study notes that 10 liters of milk are required to produce one kilogram of cheese. The authors wonder whether this is because cheese is farther removed from the cow, more processed, and easier to rationalize. Like the meat paradox, this “cheese paradox” is another type of cognitive dissonance that keeps negative feelings at bay, which can happen whether someone is aware of it or not.
Participants also talked about purposefully not wanting to know and avoiding unpleasant information that could lead them to question their behavior. Other ways that participants justified their consumption of NMAPs included weighing their perceived costs against their perceived benefits, telling themselves that eliminating all animal products is impossible, and focusing on the positive progress they’d made to reduce their egg and dairy consumption.
The authors believe that the “cheese paradox” is an important finding because it puts a spotlight on a major barrier to turning vegetarians into vegans. If advocates can better understand why cheese is so difficult to give up, it may be easier to address this barrier more effectively.
This research can be used to inform NMAP-reduction strategies. One idea for advocates is to publicize how cheese is connected to the cows it comes from, to increase empathy toward cows. Because of the limited convenience sample, the authors suggest recreating the study with a larger sample to include more perspectives, along with a quantitative study of the cheese paradox. They believe that we can also learn from vegans who were vegetarian in the past to find out why they eventually gave up NMAPs. Finally, they advocate for plant-based nutrition to receive more attention in education and other institutions to help people overcome both personal and social barriers to change.