Contesting the meat–animal link and the visibility of animals killed for food: a focus group study in Finland

Promoting ‘pro’, ‘low’, and ‘no’ meat consumption in Switzerland: The role of emotions in practices

“…Entrails and giblets, often linked to the idea of 'less of better meat' as they are understood as reducing food waste, are an example of food with many different interpretations. For some participants, neglected or forgotten meat pieces were not seen as problematic, as it was usual to eat the whole animal during their or their parents' childhood -as also found in a study in Finland (Kupsala 2018). For others, who have never been in contact with such food, the thought was revolting and they said they would rather quit eating meat than eating entrails, drawing a clear line between what can and cannot be ingested.…”

“…Previous research showed how moral disengagement is a way to solve the 'meat paradox', which designates the discomfort induced by enjoying eating meat while being aware of animal suffering (Buttlar and Walther 2019). Moral disengagement is in part rendered possible by attributing animals with low mental capacities, and denying their ability to suffer (Loughnan et al 2010;Ang et al 2019), or seeing animals solely as a food commodity (Kupsala, 2018). This is reflected in Elias' work, where meat is a highly emotional and moralized issue.…”

Dissociating Meat from its Animal Origins: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Given the increased separation of meat production and consumption in many societies during the last decades, another question involves the role of age or generational (cohort) differences in the experiences of dissociation. Kupsala (2018) found differences between the groups with the highest and lowest average age. The youngest group, which consisted of supermarket costumers, expressed the least awareness of the meat-animal link, and the highest need and motivation to dissociate.…”

“…Women in the study were more likely than men to state that they would have preferred to avoid these conversations with their children, and they felt more conflicted about eating meat themselves. Convergent evidence comes from Kupsala (2018) who also identified some gender differences in her qualitative material. The study included five focus groups of gastronomes, hunters, organic consumers, rural women and supermarket customers.…”

“…Rural parents had little problems talking about the issue because farming realities and food production were more familiar and commonplace for them. Kupsala (2018) included a focus group with rural women that was compared to an urban supermarket customer group in which all but one participant had little contact with the meat production process. The informants in the different groups talked very differently about preferences for meat.…”