A new study by the University of Stirling has questioned why vegetarians consume animal products as it explores an issue which researchers have dubbed the ‘cheese paradox’.
The ‘cheese paradox’ was named so in tribute to a separate 2010 study which coined the phrase ‘meat paradox’, as it described a conflict caused by a person’s love for animals and desire to eat meat.
An introduction to the Stirling study reads: "Researchers interested in animal ethics have proposed the ‘meat paradox’, [a] psychological discomfort arising from people's affinity for animals and conflicting desire to consume their flesh.
"Yet what can be said about the psychology of consuming an animal's non-meat products, in an age where most beings in these industries are harmed, and ultimately killed?
"This study looks at vegetarians to address this gap, because they are more likely to show empathetic concern for animals than meat-eaters, yet actively choose to include these products in their diet, a conflict ripe for exploration."
READ MORE: How good for your health is a 'planet-friendly' diet? Scientists think they know
After conducting in-depth interviews with 12 participants, researchers are said to have noted some vegetarians acknowledging that consuming products such as cheese, eggs and milk can be harmful to animals as a result of intensive farming.
They do, however, continue to consume them on a regular basis.
When comparing attitudes towards different products, some also claimed that it is easier to forgo milk while still enjoying cheese despite the fact that they are both dairy-based.
Researchers have said that one explanation for this could be a degree of ‘cognitive dissonance’ which was strongly demonstrated in the data gathered.
Co-author Dr Carol Jasper, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Stirling, said: “We discovered that, whilst vegetarians dislike animal cruelty, and often express disgust for liquid milk, they routinely consume cheese which is, of course, milk in its solid form.
“One way in which this cheese paradox could be explained is the process of dissociation, whereby the further a product is removed from its animal origin, the more willingly people consume it.
“Fluid milk triggers empathy as it looks almost identical to when it was taken from the cow, compared to cheese which has undergone various stages of industrial processing, changing shape, colour, taste and texture in the process.”
The study’s findings are said to have highlighted “specific personal and social barriers” which may need to be addressed before people “feel able or willing to take the next step” in adopting a fully plant-based diet.
Psychology tutor, and co-author, Devon Docherty added: “Industry, particularly plant-based food manufacturers, can benefit from our research by understanding the needs and wants of people who are still consuming non-meat animal products, which will greatly aid in the design, uptake, and impact of their products.”
READ MORE: Scots bar owner tells of 'smoke and ash' after being forced to close Rhodes bar
Dr Jasper has said that the exploratory study is “intended to be food for thought” and “not representative of the entire vegetarian population” due to a small sample size of participants.
She concluded: “We welcome the exploration of our ideas in future studies.”
'The cheese paradox: How do vegetarians justify consuming non-meat animal products?' was published in the international research journal, Appetite, and can be found here.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel