Non-vegans "wilfully disregard" pandemic risk of factory farming
People who love eating animal flesh frequently say things like ‘but bacon is delicious’ when confronted with evidence of the cruelty of intensive animal farming or of the intelligence and emotional complexity of animals. In doing so, they disregard information which may make them morally uncomfortable in order to continue enjoying meat. Now a new study has found that they may engage in similar “motivated skepticism [sic]” to willfully ignore the pandemic risks of factory farming and meat consumption.
Those who believe that the global wildlife trade and Asian ‘wet markets’ - where live animals, sometimes taken from the wild, are sold and slaughtered - are the likeliest source of the next pandemic aren’t really at fault for that belief. This has been the overriding message from the mainstream media and governmental organisations for the past year. Indeed, only last month the World Health Organisation (WHO) called for a complete ban on the sale of live animals in such markets to help prevent future outbreaks of zoonotic diseases - those that jump from animals to humans - like Covid-19.
While this is a good move, it’s striking that there has been no similar call for a ban on factory farms from the WHO or governments, even though in all likelihood they will be the source of future pandemics. But as the new study found, having more information about the health risks of factory farming won’t necessarily convince people that reducing animal agriculture is a sensible solution.
The researchers surveyed 302 British adults to establish the public perception of potential factors in the spread of zoonotic diseases - those which jump from animals to humans - and of potential solutions to prevent future pandemics. They found that participants with a higher commitment to meat were “significantly less likely” than those with a lower “meat commitment to consider factory farms and global meat consumption (a) to be part of the problem of zoonotic disease, and (b) in need of changing to prevent future disease outbreaks.”
All participants considered “reactionary solutions” such as improving responses and preparedness to emerging diseases as the most useful type of solution across all participants, followed by solutions targeting wild animal trade and consumption (e.g. banning wild animal ‘wet’ markets), and finally by solutions targeting factory farming and global meat consumption (e.g. banning the intensive confinement of animals). But the more meat-committed were significantly less convinced than those with lower meat commitment by solutions that would reduce factory farming and meat consumption.
To check whether knowledge of the risks of factory farming were a factor in these perceptions, the researchers conducted a second study of 194 adults in which they randomly gave participants a text highlighting the risks of zoonotic diseases from wild animal markets or factory farms.
While there was more consistency across participants’ endorsement of both preventive and reactionary solutions regarding wild animal markets, when it came to factory farms those with a high commitment to eating animals were notably less keen on preventive solutions.
The researchers conclude: “People who enjoy meat and who cannot imagine replacing it in their diet find it less believable that factory farming poses a serious risk to public health. This is consistent with the notion of willful disregard for the credibility or relevance of information that has implications for a troublesome practice.”
The fact that many people are not willing to accept that their consumption of animal flesh is problematic and needs to change is not surprising. As the researchers note, “Attitudes towards meat share many qualities with sacred values. People hold beliefs about meat in a protective manner and engage in a range of justification strategies to defend their meat consumption behaviour.”
We saw this defensiveness play out in the US recently with the uproar over an imaginary plan by President Biden to cut the meat consumption of Americans by 90 per cent. Eating animals is so central to the identity of many Americans as well as British people that challenging it is bound to touch a nerve. But increasingly, there are people willing to make that change across different areas, from the recipe website Epicurious cutting beef from its ingredients to the non-profit that has issued a legal challenge to the UK government to ban factory farming. And whether flesh-eaters believe it or not, factory farming does need to end, for all our sakes.
Claire Hamlett is a freelance journalist, writer and regular contributor at Surge. Based in Oxford, UK, Claire tells stories that challenge systemic exploitation of and disregard for animals and the environment and that point to a better way of doing things.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES