When a plate of steak is served at the dinner table, the meal looks like a familiar dish, cooked and garnished. It’s far-removed from the image of a cow grazing on a field.
However, the steak being plated and served doesn’t change the fact that what we’re eating was once a living creature. Some people justify eating meat by believing commonly-eaten animals don’t suffer or that animals aren’t worth moral concern.
For people who don’t utilize such justifications, especially those who are strongly concerned about animal welfare, the reality can be more jarring. This cognitive dissonance – loving animals and eating them at the same time – is known as the meat paradox.
Even as Americans care for animals, they still consume large amounts of meat. According to the University of Illinois’ Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, from 1999 to 2020, meat consumption in the U.S. averaged 252 pounds per person. Meanwhile, 62% of Americans own a pet, and 97% of pet owners consider their pets to be part of their family, according to Pew Research.
People often feel disgust or discomfort at the thought of various steps of handling livestock, ranging from the conditions where animals are raised, to the slaughtering of animals. According to the Sentience Institute, a significant portion of Americans support banning factory farming of animals, banning slaughterhouses, or all animal farming.
While feelings of disgust or discomfort are normal, it is still necessary to remember that much of the animals Americans eat go through those very subpar living conditions and slaughterhouses they oppose. Most of the meat we consume isn’t ethically sourced. According to Our World in Data, around 99% of U.S.-farmed animals coming from factory farms, otherwise known as concentrated animal feeding operations.
Meat eaters deal with the discomfort arising from the origins of meat in a variety of ways. Linguistically, the word beef is used instead of cow, pork instead of pig, lamb instead of sheep. Rationally, meat consumption is justified by the “4Ns”– eating meat is necessary for protein, natural for humans due to evolution, normal because many other people do it, and tastes nice.
Our attempts to separate the meat we eat from the animals we care for is a way to blindly ignore dietary choices that conflict with our moral ideals. Whether or not one wishes to eat meat is a choice up to personal preference, but the depth of consideration behind this choice is heavily hindered by the meat paradox.
The disconnection between meat and living animals has also grown as a result of urbanization, as the number of farms and farmers has decreased, according to the American Farmland Trust.
As U.S. populations are increasingly separated from agricultural and livestock production, they are further separated from the process of raising and slaughtering livestock, only seeing meat in packaged and prepared forms.
Justifications involved in the meat paradox are further complicated by the fact that human lifestyles have been able to address the concerns associated with not eating meat.
Scientists and paleontologists are questioning the importance of eating meat in evolutionary history and modern diets, where nutrition can be supplemented via plant-based food. More Americans are opting out of meat, with vegans increasing by 500% between 2014 and 2017, making it more “normal” to not eat meat.
In a world where the fourth N of the 4Ns, nice, is increasingly the biggest justification for eating meat, and meat consumption has faced criticism for other issues such as environmental damage, it is more important than ever to confront the origins of meat, not just the final product.
This editorial reflects the views of the Editorial Board and was written by Michelle Chen. The Editorial Board voted 5 in agreement, 7 somewhat in agreement, 2 in disagreement, and 4 refrained from voting.
