Skip to content
Surprising Science —

You Love Bacon, But Do You Know Why?

We don’t need to eat meat, and yet we still do. Researchers sought to find out how people defended their meat-eating habits.
Sign up for the Smarter Faster newsletter
A weekly newsletter featuring the biggest ideas from the smartest people

We don’t need to eat meat. With things like beans, nuts, quinoa, and tofu available to us in modern grocery stores, we have all the nutritional substitutes we need to replace the nutrients we’d normally get from animal meat. So, why can’t most of us stay away?

A team of Dutch researchers said a while back that it’s, in part, due to the fact that we can’t say no when we smell foods containing carbohydrates and amino acids cooking over a grill — we gotta have it. But that alone shouldn’t save us from the fact that we’re unnecessarily killing and consuming animals. Even after seeing various food documentaries showing the horrors that happen within those industrial chicken and cow farms, we still eat that stuff. So, how do we continue to convince ourselves that this food is OK to eat?

Jared Piazza approached the topic of eating meat from a moral standpoint, wondering how people justifying their actions when they don’t need to eat animals. Piazza made his case in a press release, where he said:

“The relationships people have with animals are complicated. While most people enjoy the company of animals and billions of dollars are spent each year on pet care and maintenance, most people continue to eat animals as food. People employ a number of strategies to overcome this apparent contradiction in attitude and behavior.”

His team of researchers distributed surveys to find out how meat-eaters sleep at night, and they found the typical response among adults and students usually fit into one of four categories: “Humans are natural carnivores,” “Meat provides essential nutrients,” “I was raised eating meat,” and, of course, because “[it’s] delicious.”

“One important and prevalent strategy is to rationalize that meat consumption is natural, normal, necessary, and nice.”

Marion Nestle, nutritionist and academic who specializes in the politics of food, explains that from a health and environmental standpoint it’s better to go vegetarian. However, in her mind, she says either way of life would be fine; just eating less meat would be better.

Read more at Science Daily.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

Sign up for the Smarter Faster newsletter
A weekly newsletter featuring the biggest ideas from the smartest people
Related
Culture & Religion
Jonathan Safran Foer Says “Lay Off the Meat”
  Novelist Jonathan Safran Foer wants you to stop eating meat—not because he cares so much about the fluffy animals, but because it’s killing the environment. In his Big Think interview Foer shared with us just how devastating the factory farm industry is, something he learned while researching his first work of non-fiction, Eating Animals. “Animal agriculture is the number one cause of global warming, and yet very few people, including people who are normally quite political and quite moral and moralizing, talk about it.  And even fewer people act on their concerns about where food comes from.” The reason changing Americans’ eating habits is so difficult is because eating meat is ingrained in our cultural narratives as Americans. “Food is not just fact and it’s not just reason; it’s culture, it’s personal identity,” Foer says. “It’s what our parents and our grandparents fed us, it’s how we think of ourselves, and it’s always attached to some kind of a story.  And that confuses things.  The Thanksgiving turkey confuses things.  The Christmas ham confuses things.  Every family has its own version.” And creating a new narrative that excludes meat will be tough largely because Americans are subsidized to eat this way. American farm subsidies lower the price of meat while encouraging inhumane and environmentally damaging farming practices, so much so that the real cost of a 50-cent hamburger, factoring in environmental costs, is actually $200. Plus, the subsidies hamstring farmers that use traditional, non-industrial methods of farming: “We have now created an economic system which is very advantageous to feed animals unnaturally, house them unnaturally, and raise genetic stocks that are destined for illness,” Foer says.  “And the small farmers, who are really the heroes of my book, farmers at places like Niman Ranch, farmers like Frank Reese at Good Shepard, farmers like Paul Willis, are at a severe economic disadvantage for doing things the right way; for being environmentally responsible; for treating their animals like animals rather than like rocks or pieces of wood.” Foer told us that change is very necessary but possible, debunking the idea that industrialized factory farming is necessary to feed the world. The idea that factory farming is necessary to feed the nearly 7 billion inhabitants of earth is “not only untrue, it’s the opposite of the truth,” he says. “It takes seven calories of food input into an animal to produce one calorie of food output.  It’s an extraordinarily inefficient way to produce food.” And if the Chinese and Indians begin to eat like American do, which has been the trend in the developing world, “we’re going to have to farm twice as many animals as we do now.” That would amount to 100 billion animals every year.  Foer also spoke to us about his fiction work, telling us that he values the freedom of fiction but that the same freedom is what makes fiction so difficult. And he gave us his take on the film adaptation of his debut novel “Everything Is Illuminated” as well as his thoughts about the form of the novel in the age of the iPad. Literature has always been “slower than the other art forms to grapple with technological and cultural changes…and I think that’s one of the things that people love so much about it,” he said. Whereas music and the visual arts have changed dramatically in the past 100 years, literature has remained largely the same. “Maybe it’s been the saving grace of literature to be so conservative,” Foer muses. “But maybe it will contribute to its death.”    
Up Next