The Meat Paradox Connecting the Head and the Heart

Maneka Sanjay Gandhi says that people consuming meat shy away from making the connection that animals have been harmed in the process. Meat eaters and sellers resolve this dilemma by deliberately dissociating meat from its animal origins.

- Maneka Sanjay Gandhi

In India, most animal welfare people are vegetarians. We, in People for Animals, insist on that. But most meat-eaters, whether they are animal people or not, have a hesitant relationship with the idea of killing animals for food. They enjoy the taste of meat but shy away from making the connection that animals have been harmed grievously in the process. This moral conflict is referred to, in psychological terms, as the ‘meat paradox’. The carnivorous individual simply does not want to feel responsible for his/her actions. Meat eaters and sellers try and resolve this dilemma by adopting the strategy of mentally dissociating meat from its animal origins. For instance, ever since hordes of young people have started shunning meat, the meat companies and their allies in the government and nutraceutical industry have deliberately switched to calling it ‘protein’. This is an interesting manipulation of words and a last-ditch attempt to influence consumer behavior.

For centuries, meat has been a part of people’s diet in many cultures. Global meat-eating rose hugely in the 20th century caused by urbanization and developments in meat production technology. And, most importantly, the strategies used by the meat industry to dissociate the harming of animals from the flesh on the plate. Researchers say: ‘These strategies can be direct and explicit such as denial of animals’ pain, moral status or intelligence, endorsement of a hierarchy in which humans are placed above non-human animals.’