Minding some animals but not others: Strategic attributions of mental capacities and moral worth to animals used for food in pescatarians, vegetarians, and omnivores.

While moral concern for animals has become increasingly important for both consumer food choice and food policy makers, previous research demonstrated that meat eaters attribute lower moral status and mental capacities to animals raised for meat compared to non-food animals. The current research investigated whether this strategic flexibility in moral concern and mind perceptions also occurs when considering aquatic food animals and animals used for dairy and egg products, and the degree to which these concerns and perceptions are evident in pescatarians and vegetarians. We compared perceptions (mind attributions and moral concern) of land food animals versus aquatic food animals, and of animals in the meat versus dairy and egg industry between omnivores (n = 122), pescatarians (n = 118), vegetarians (n = 138), vegans (n = 120), and flexitarians (n = 60). Pescatarians scored lower than other dietary groups on moral concern and mind attribution for aquatic animals relative to farmed land animals. Unlike the other dietary groups, pescatarians and vegetarians scored lower on moral concern and mind attribution for dairy than beef cows and for layer chickens than broiler chickens. These findings demonstrate that pescatarians and vegetarians were flexible in their moral thinking about different types of food animals in ways that suited their consumption habits, even when the same animal was evaluated (e.g., dairy vs beef cows). This research highlights the psychological barriers that might prevent people from reducing animal product consumption and may need to be addressed in interventions to encourage transitioning towards more plant-based diets.

Similarities and differences between vegetarians and vegans in motives for meat-free and plant-based diets.

Plant-based diets are quickly gaining popularity for their benefits to animal welfare, the environment, and public health. Compared to meat-eaters, meat-abstainers such as vegetarians and vegans are especially motivated by animal rights and the environment. However, little is known about the motivational and psychological factors that distinguish vegetarians from vegans, and what prevents vegetarians to shift towards a fully plant-based diet. In a sample of vegans (n = 335) and vegetarians (n = 182), we investigated a) motives for reducing or quitting meat consumption and b) motives for reducing or quitting animal product (dairy and egg products) consumption, as well as moral psychological and social-contextual factors that may explain potential differences. Results demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans tend to be similar in their motives to abstain from meat consumption and are most strongly motivated by animal rights. However, vegetarians are less motivated by health, environmental, and especially animal rights for dairy/egg reduction compared to meat reduction and compared to vegans. Lower moral concern for animals, stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals, and heightened veganism threat among vegetarians (vs. vegans) partly explained why vegetarians were less strongly motivated by animal rights for dairy/egg reduction. Human supremacy beliefs also explained differences between vegetarians and vegans in health and environmental motives for dairy/egg reduction. Furthermore, vegetarians reported significantly less social support for plant-based diets and perceived more practical barriers to plant-based diets than vegans. These findings reveal meaningful differences in the motivational and psychological profiles of vegetarians and vegans and highlight the value of distinguishing between motives for meat-free diets and motives for plant-based diets.

Ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy: An identity-based motivational account.

Animal-based diets in Western countries are increasingly regarded as unsustainable because of their impact on human health, environmental and animal welfare. Promoting shifts toward more plant-based diets seems an effective way to avoid these harms in practice. Nevertheless, claims against the consumption of animal products contradict the ideology of the omnivorous majority known as carnism. Carnism supports animal-product consumption as a cherished social habit that is harmless and unavoidable and invalidates minorities with plant-based diets: vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns). In this theoretical review, we integrate socio-psychological and empirical literature to provide an identity-based motivational account of ideological resistance to veg*n advocacy. Advocates who argue against the consumption of animal products often make claims that it is harmful, and avoidable by making dietary changes toward veg*n diets. In response, omnivores are likely to experience a simultaneous threat to their moral identity and their identity as consumer of animal products, which may arouse motivations to rationalize animal-product consumption and to obscure harms. If omnivores engage in such motivated reasoning and motivated ignorance, this may also inform negative stereotyping and stigmatization of veg*n advocates. These "pro-carnist" and "counter-veg*n" defenses can be linked with various personal and social motivations to eat animal products (e.g., meat attachment, gender, speciesism) and reinforce commitment to and ambivalence about eating animal products. This does not mean, however, that veg*n advocates cannot exert any influence. An apparent resistance may mask indirect and private acceptance of advocates' claims, priming commitment to change behavior toward veg*n diets often at a later point in time. Based on our theoretical account, we provide directions for future research.

Review: Feed demand landscape and implications of food-not feed strategy for food security and climate change.

The food-feed competition is one of the complex challenges, and so are the ongoing climate change, land degradation and water shortage for realizing sustainable food production systems. By 2050 the global demand for animal products is projected to increase by 60% to 70%, and developing countries will have a lion's share in this increase. Currently, ~800 million tonnes of cereals (one-third of total cereal production) are used in animal feed and by 2050 it is projected to be over 1.1 billion tonnes. Most of the increase in feed demand will be in developing countries, which already face many food security challenges. Additional feed required for the projected increased demand of animal products, if met through food grains, will further exacerbate the food insecurity in these countries. Furthermore, globally, the production, processing and transport of feed account for 45% of the greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock sector. This paper presents approaches for addressing these challenges in quest for making livestock sector more sustainable. The use of novel human-inedible feed resources such as insect meals, leaf meals, protein isolates, single cell protein produced using waste streams, protein hydrolysates, spineless cactus, algae, co-products of the biofuel industry, food wastes among others, has enormous prospects. Efficient use of grasslands also offers possibilities for increasing carbon sequestration, land reclamation and livestock productivity. Opportunities also exist for decreasing feed wastages by simple and well proven practices such as use of appropriate troughs, increase in efficiency of harvesting crop residues and their conversion to complete feeds especially in the form of densified feed blocks or pellets, feeding as per the nutrient requirements, among others. Available evidence have been presented to substantiate arguments that: (a) for successful and sustained adoption of a feed technology, participation of the private sector and a sound business plan are required, (b) for sustainability of the livestock production systems, it is also important to consider the consumption of animal products and a case has been presented to assess future needs of animal source foods based on their requirements for healthy living,