The divide between animals and plants in dietary policies and media portrayal has become overly simplistic. This binary categorization ignores the underlying complexities of food groups. The roots of this division can be traced back to 19th-century ideologies promoted by religious sects and temperance movements. Since, livestock have been framed as scapegoats by evangelic vegetarians, demonized for their impact on health and the environment. This animal/plant binary is further shaped by societal anxieties, political ideologies, and a desire for status and virtue signalling. Mass media plays a significant role in reinforcing the binary through sensationalism and simplification of scientific evidence. The post-truth era exacerbates the situation, promoting advocacy and manipulation of dietary discourse, even in certain scientific communities.
This article addresses the following five question:
- What is at the origin of the plant/animal binary and why is livestock a scapegoat?
- Why is this binary particularly present in the cities of the Anglosphere?
- How is the binary reinforced by societal anxieties?
- How is the binary reinforced by mass media in a post-truth setting?
- How is the binary reinforced by scientific and technocratic communities?
_________________________________
- What is at the origin of the plant/animal binary and why is livestock a scapegoat?
Contemporary dietary discourse is filled with contradictions and exaggerations. Animal source foods (ASFs) are particularly controversial, being described as both beneficial and detrimental to health, which can be approached by the philosophical concept of "pharmakon", an ambiguous status that can heal or poison. Livestock and ASFs are increasingly being portrayed as scapegoats ("pharmakos"), creating an intimidating binary of "bad" (ASFs) versus "good" (plants). Crusading vegan activists often vilify livestock by using derogatory terms and references. This reflects a conceptual tension rooted in a worldview based on problematic binaries such as Life/Death, Nature/Culture, Pure/Toxic, Good/Evil, and others.
Further reading (summary of the scientific literature):
Dietary discourse is ridden by exaggerations and contradictions. A cookbook analysis has shown that 40 out of 50 common ingredients have been associated with either cancer protection or risk [Schoenfeld & Ioannidis 2013]. Animal source foods (ASFs), in particular, are described as both beneficial and detrimental to our health [Leroy et al. 2018]. The idea that something simultaneously heals and poisons us is referred to in philosophy as pharmakon, an ambiguous status that also entails the 'purifying' concept of the pharmakos (scapegoat). Animals have a historical and ritualized role as scapegoats, carrying the sins of humanity, on which the livestock-destroys-the-planet narrative seems to be building [Leroy 2019; Leroy et al. 2020].Livestock and ASFs are markedly shifting from the pharmakon into the pharmakos status. In other words, a transition is seen from playful ambiguity into an intimidating ASFs (bad) vs. plants (good) binary, from which the 'bad' needs to be expelled (i.e., scapegoated). Characteristically, scapegoats are stereotyped as monstrous and indicative of the common Other, who is proclaimed 'guilty' by a frenzied mob, yet is unable to retaliate [Girard 2017]. As societal insiders/outsiders, animals fulfil this role to perfection. References to the monstrosities of blood and manure, planet-heating 'cow farts' and 'belches', ‘chicken periods’ (eggs), and ‘milk pus’ are typically used by crusading vegan activists to vilify livestock [Leroy et al. 2020]. These are the same anti-speciesist activists who wish to embrace livestock animals as their equals, which may either be read as a paradox or as a reflection of self-disgust. In any case, all this is indicative of conceptual tension caused by a worldview constructed on a problematic series of binaries (Life/Death, Nature/Culture, Pure/Toxic, Good/Evil, etc.) [see elsewhere].
- Why is this binary particularly present in the cities of the Anglosphere?
The animal/plant divide originated in the 19th century when the belief that meat is harmful to human health became an institutionalized ideology, propagated by religious sects and temperance movements. They promoted a plant-based diet, contrasting the sinfulness of red meat with the virtue of whole grains. These moralized dietary choices persisted even as religious influence waned, shaping lasting beliefs. Food reformist beliefs integrated into household economics, shaping public dietary narratives with moralizing elements. Health practitioners, like John H. Kellogg, idealized vegetarianism as a progressive and healthy lifestyle. This may have contributed to the "healthy user bias" in today's nutritional epidemiology, with wealthier, healthier individuals being more prone to adhere to guidelines, thereby reinforcing the pattern. Vegan and vegetarian movements are particularly influential in urban English-speaking countries, possibly due to their legacy of Calvinistic liberalism and utilitarianism, emphasizing self-ownership of the body. These dietary choices are driven by self-preservation and individual salvation, even among liberal vegetarian atheists, focusing on personal virtue and righteousness.
Further reading (summary of the scientific literature):
To understand the contemporary animal/plant divide, an exploration of its origins and dynamics is needed [Leroy & Hite 2020]. Some historical examples of dietary asceticism and mysticism aside, the idea that ASFs corrupt human health took shape as an institutionalized ideology in the 19th century with the first 'Vegetarian Societies', founded by religious sects and temperance movements in England and the USA [Spencer 2009; Barkas 2014; Shprintzen 2015]. By rejecting earthly life, Cowherdites, Bible Christians, Grahamites, and Seventh-Day Adventists began promoting a Garden-of-Eden diet, which was occasionally connected to a romanticized interpretation of Hindu vegetarianism by Theosophists [see elsewhere]. Symbolizing richness and sensuality, red meat was fully at odds with a world-renouncing vision of restraint, and therefore portrayed as sinful compared to the blandness of 'virtuous' whole grains. Since, crusading vegetarians have been referring to meat eating as a morally deficient and unnecessary perversion in terms of 'corpse consumption' [Plumwood 2000]. Even now that such religious teachings have become less relevant, their lasting influence on dietary beliefs is noticeable.Due to zealous insistence within a receptive Zeitgeist that was characterized by social anxieties, Food Reformist beliefs entered the emerging field of household economics. As a result, they have contributed to the shaping of public dietary narratives, while moralizing and politicizing them [Biltekoff 2013; Veit 2013; Finn 2017; see elsewhere]. Influential health practitioners, such as John H. Kellogg who had a Seventh-Day Adventist background, have effectively contributed to the amalgamation of ideological, dietary, medical, and political discourse [Wilson 2014]. Vegetarianism was thereby idealized as an expression of biological living, against a background of science and progress.It has been hypothesized that this evolution may be at the origin of what is today's healthy user bias [Leroy & Hite 2020], creating a cultural artifact in the data obtained from the scientific domain of 'nutritional epidemiology of chronic disease'. This seems particularly relevant in the US, but not (or less so) in other cultural contexts [see elsewhere]. Upper-middle class Americans, who are healthier to begin with, typically eat less red meat and favor whole grains. As such, they are more susceptible to 'moral eating' and obedient adherence to dietary guidelines. This pattern is captured by observational studies which, in a positive feedback loop, further confirm and strengthen the original dietary advice.It may be no coincidence, therefore, that vegan and vegetarian movements are especially influential in the urban areas of English-speaking countries. Most of them have a legacy of Calvinistic liberalism and Anglo-Saxon utilitarianism, emphasizing the concept of self-ownership of the body [Plumwood 2000]. Self-preservation becomes the aim, so that 'death' is a target for domination and a site of individual (rather than shared) salvation, even in liberal vegetarian atheists. Notions of temptation, individual fall, personal virtue, and righteousness often are at the heart of militant forms of vegetarianism.
- How is the binary reinforced by societal anxieties?
Moral vegetarianism is a personal choice based on ethical concerns, but its prevalence is at least partly attributed to societal unease and status anxieties among the Western middle classes. Proponents often engage in "moral" eating and discourse on dietary purity, linked to virtue-signalling, social causes, and political activism. Vegetarianism is typically associated with progressive ideologies, but it can also be found in ecofascist or ecoauthoritarian contexts. The loss of individual purpose in a status-oriented society leads to resentment and scapegoating reactions, resulting in a transvaluation of values. Historically positive associations with animal-derived foods are inverted, and meat avoidance becomes a way to demonstrate superiority. References to common threats like "planetary catastrophe" or "moral decline" unify the movement and create a sense of homogeneity. Animals and animal-derived foods are sometimes used as scapegoats in public health and environmental debates. In ethical discourse, meat is portrayed as "murder," and adherence to herd beliefs may be motivated more by social rewards than factual correctness.
Further reading (summary of the scientific literature):
Although moral vegetarianism can be an informed and conscious personal choice based on ethical concerns [see elsewhere], some authors have argued that at least part of its current prevalence is due to a wider dynamic rooted in societal unease. Proponents of vegetarianism are frequently part of the Western middle classes, and thus prone to status anxieties driven by an increasing wealth gap with the elites. This typically finds its expression in 'moral' eating and discourses on dietary purity, intertwined with virtue-signalling, advocacy for social causes, and political activism.Usually, this is done from a 'progressive' angle, blending vegetarianism with feminism, socialism, anti-racism, etc. [Veit 2015, Finn 2017; Leroy & Hite 2020]. In contrast, the refusal or incapability to adopt and maintain vegetarian diets is often said to typify conservatives and people with a right-wing political mindset [Hodson & Earle 2018]. Some go as far as portraying the consumption of ASFs as an oppresive act of 'white supremacy' [Adams 2022]. However, vegetarianism can as well appeal to the ultra-right side of the political spectrum, giving expression to ecofascism [Devi 1959; de Coning 2017; Forchnter & Tominc 2017; Buscemi 2015, 2018a,b; Wikipedia]. It is not uncommon that an ecological rationale is offered in support, as to convert those who are not sufficiently convinced by the health or animal rights arguments [Kortetmäki & Oksanen 2020]. In its radical political version, this may lead to manifestations of ecoauthoritarianism [Beeson 2010].
Loss of individual purpose in a status-oriented society mirrors resentment, amplified by 'mimetic desire' [Girard 1972] and increasing wealth gaps between the middle classes and elites. This is bound to trigger scapegoating reactions and a 'transvaluation of values' (what was good and strong is turned into vile and sick) [Leroy 2019; Leroy et al. 2020]. The transvaluation mechanism consists of a demonization of all conventional representations of power, sensuality, and lust, and a glorification of the miserable condition of victimhood, usually including a hatred of life, asceticism, a denial of the realities of human nature, and a wish to purge resentment through revenge [Nietzsche 1886, 1887].
In the process of transvaluation, historically benign connotations of ASFs, such as strength, abundance, sensuality, and generosity, which are particularly valid for red meat [Leroy & Praet 2015], are inverted into ones of death, infertility, debauchery, and selfishness [Leroy et al. 2020]. Purity accumulates with every single act of meat avoidance, as one is demonstrating superiority by being able to refuse what was historically seen as the most nutritious foods. Violation of that sanctified state, accidentally or due to 'weakness', not only creates disgust but also collapse of spiritual capital. This may explain why moral vegetarians often do not find it worthwhile to continue after a transgression [Levy 2015].
References to a common threat, such as 'planetary catastrophe' or 'moral decline', act as a unifying narrative to shape mob homogeneity (and thus to dissolve inter-individual differences and inequalities) [Girard 1972]. As argued above, animals (and ASFs) have a longstanding legacy as scapegoats. That function is now recycled, leading to excessive blaming in both the public health [see elsewhere] and environmental debates [see elsewhere]. In ethical discourse, meat becomes 'murder' [see elsewhere]. Part (if not most) of the public is less interested in factual correctness than in social rewards coming from upholding such herd beliefs [cf. Lomborg 2019; Clear].
- How is the binary reinforced by mass media in a post-truth setting?
Animal husbandry and diets heavy in animal-derived foods have contextual effects on health and the planet. However, nuanced debates on these matters are scarce in the public space. Mass media's click-bait dynamics and the 'attention economy' lead to sensationalism and misrepresentation of scientific evidence, whereas the influence of vested interests is also noticeable. Newspapers tend to promote one-sided views on the food system, sometimes favouring livestock farming and other times being hostile and biased against it. The global media's focus on adverse impacts of animal-derived foods now overshadows the positive contributions of livestock to health, ecosystems, and livelihoods. Simplified slogans are used to increase the persuasive power of messages, and repetition leads to the illusion of truth. Frequent references to 'scientific authorities' also add confusion, as studies may be misread or scientists wrongly assumed to be always rational and unbiased.
Further reading (summary of the scientific literature):
Animal husbandry and ASF-heavy diets are not without problems, but their effects on health [see elsewhere] and the planet [see elsewhere] are contextual [Leroy et al. 2020]. Unfortunately, there is little room for nuanced debate within the public space. Mass media are driven by click-bait dynamics and the so-called 'attention economy', leading to sensationalism and sweeping misrepresentations of the scientific evidence [Leroy et al. 2018]. Moreover, certain newspapers are financed by ideological and politico-economic agendas [see elsewhere] to promote one-dimensional views on the food system. Although these views are sometimes supportive of livestock farming, they can also be hostile and structurally biased (e.g., the Guardian's 'Animals Farmed' series). Global media reporting on adverse impacts of ASFs now overshadows the coverage of livestock's positive contributions to health, ecosystems, and livelihoods [Leroy et al. 2018; Marchmont Com 2019].To make matters worse, the post-truth era [Scheffer et al. 2021], and its reliance on social and mass media, has paved the way for quackery, advocacy, and manipulation of dietary discourse [Leroy et al. 2018; Marton et al. 2020]. Because intricacy hampers the process of societal conversion into a dietary belief system, the use of slogans is widespread. Such simplifications aim at increasing the persuasive power of the messages to be transferred. Due to the 'illusory truth effect', repetition of the same messages eventually equates with truth [Dreyfuss 2017]. The frequent references to 'scientific authorities' further troubles the waters [Leroy et al. 2018], either because studies are misread or because it is erroneously assumed that scientists are at all times rational and unbiased. As argued below, this is far from being the case.
- How is the binary reinforced by scientific and technocratic communities?
Various biases can be detected in the way certain scientists approach the topic of animal source foods (ASFs) in their work. Often, 'myside bias' can be discerned among ideologically committed scientists, who unknowingly adopt beliefs influenced by their social affiliations. Moreover, 'white hat bias' distorts information to align with perceived moral righteousness and leading to biased conclusions. Governmental funders' interference and pressure on researchers can compromise impartiality in public-good research. Manipulating data to suit political agendas is concerning, especially when health departments invest heavily in specific interventions and policies. The setup and/or use of models that are used by such scientists in food systems simulations may be flawed, emphasizing desired outcomes selectively. Eventually, the danger is that the outcomes of such studies are adopted by policy makers and lead to reckless top-down approaches, while neglecting unexpected events and leading to harmful interventionist policies and ethical repercussions. Encouraging a balanced approach in discussions about ASFs, sustainable diets, and public policy-making is vital. Radical changes in food production and eating may negatively affect nutritional security and broader societal well-being.
Further reading (summary of the scientific literature):
Several forms of cognitive bias are known to contaminate the scientific community, and can be summarized as 1) my experience is a reasonable reference, 2) I make correct assessments of the world, 3) I am good, 4) my group is a reasonable reference, 5) my group is good, and 6) people's attributes (not context) shape outcomes [Oeberst & Imhoff 2023]. Higher educated population groups and scientists that are strongly committed to an ideological viewpoint are particularly prone to 'myside bias', unable to realize that they have derived their beliefs from the social groups they belong to [Stanovich 2020]. This is amplified by 'white hat bias', i.e., the distortion of information in the service of what may be perceived to be righteous ends [Cope & Allison 2010]. Moreover, governmental funders are known to interfere with public-good research, by putting pressure on the impartiality of researchers [McCrabb et al. 2021]. Manipulation of data 'to fit with political concerns' is particularly problematic when governmental health departments are heavily invested in the health intervention and its associated policy advice [Watson 2021]. In food science, all this may result in a reliance on a Manichean animal/plant division, leaving little room for nuances and middle ground.As a result, the scientific assessment of the harms and benefits of animal agriculture has become a highly biased activity with little room for nuance and context. ASFs are now portrayed by various scientists as intrinsically harmful [Leroy et al. 2023]. In contrast, healthy and sustainable eating is equated to 'plant-based' diets, almost by definition [Leroy & Hite 2020], while the latter of course depends on the nature of the diet rather than its plant or animal origin [Gallagher et al. 2021]. Red meat is sometimes specifically labelled as an 'unhealthy food' together with sugar and refined grains, even by some of the leading nutritionists [e.g., Willett et al. 2019], contrasting with its longstanding contribution to humanity's biosocial needs (including health) [Leroy & Praet 2015]. In addition to being excessively blamed for environmental damage, ASFs are targeted for the outbreak of zoonoses and related diseases, including the COVID-19 pandemic [Sp. Correspondent 2020].To scientists with an anti-livestock focus, the goal often seems to justify the means, with a continuous shifting of goalposts to keep the animal/plant binary intact. Since, upon scrutiny, the actual harm caused by livestock on both health [see elsewhere] and the environment [see elsewhere] was shown to be less catastrophic than previously claimed, the debate is now shifting to one on 'opportunity costs', i.e., what could be seen as benefits obtained without livestock farming [e.g., Hayek et al. 2020]. The latter requires a 'food systems' approach and the use of global models to simulate and suggest 'optimal' scenarios. Such models are not only unable to capture all real-world complexities, they are also relatively flexible to accommodate the desired outcome by specifically selecting for supportive metrics and underlying parameters. This is, for instance, the case with respect to land use assumptions [see elsewhere] or the nutritional interchangeability of meat and pulses [see elsewhere].Various authors have criticized the reckless use of top-down approaches to systems of all sorts [Gall 2012; Leroy et al. 2020; Scott 2020], and their negligence of black swan events [Taleb 2010]. They lead to scientism at the level of public policy making and, specifically, to nutritionism in the case of diets [cf. Scrinis 2013]. The concern is that this may result in harmful interventionist policies [see elsewhere]. This is not to be considered as anodyne; in a biopolitical context, such public interventions can have serious ethical repercussions on individual responsibility and freedom, cause iatrogenic harm, and affect societal well-being [Mayes & Thompson 2015]. The eventual impact of a radical change in food production and eating may be devastating indeed, for nutritional security specifically [see elsewhere], but also at a broader societal level [see elsewhere].
