Women are more likely to lose their appetite for meat after seeing images of cute baby farm animals

For many people, the act of consuming meat is done without much thought for where it comes from.

But, when presented with images of baby farm animals, that appetite can quickly break down – especially for women.

Researchers have found that the feelings of tenderness and warmth sparked by baby animals is often enough to make women lose their hunger for meat, while men had less of a problem going on to chow down afterward.

 

For many people, the act of consuming meat is done without much thought for where it comes from. But, when presented with images of baby farm animals, that appetite can quickly break down. File photo

‘Feeling tenderness towards a baby animal appears to be an oppositional force on appetite for meat for many people, especially women,’ said psychologist Dr Jared Piazza of Lancaster University in the UK.

In the study, the researchers presented men and women with images of baby animals, including calves, joeys (baby kangaroos), piglets, and lambs.

They were also shown an image of a cooked meat dish, and told it came from the animal it was paired with.

Both men and women reacted to the animal images, and found them to be ‘cute and vulnerable,’ the researchers say.

Women, however, had a stronger response than men.

‘We found that men and women differed in how appetizing they considered the meat dishes when the meat was paired with a baby animal image, with women’s appetite for meat much lower than men’s appetite, regardless of whether the meat was from a familiar or exotic source,’ Dr Piazza said.

Researchers have found that the feelings of tenderness and warmth sparked by baby animals is often enough to make women lose their hunger for meat, while men had less of a problem going on to chow down afterward

Researchers have found that the feelings of tenderness and warmth sparked by baby animals is often enough to make women lose their hunger for meat, while men had less of a problem going on to chow down afterward

According to the researchers, the differences may come down to both natural inclinations and pressures that have developed from societal expectations.

‘Our findings may reflect women’s greater emotional attunement towards babies and, by extension, their tendency to empathize more with baby animals,’ says Dr Piazza.

‘Also, meat is associated with masculinity and images of tough men who consume meat for muscle building protein, along with prehistoric ideas of the male as the hunter.

‘Women have a much more ambivalent attitude towards meat and their identity is not bound up with it in the same way.’

According to the researchers, the differences in our attitudes towards meat may come down to both natural inclinations and pressures that have developed from societal expectations

According to the researchers, the differences in our attitudes towards meat may come down to both natural inclinations and pressures that have developed from societal expectations

In a follow-up study, the researchers asked participants to rate their appetite for meat under different scenarios.

For this, they were shown either a calf, a cow, or no animal at all.

Again, the researchers found that meat was less appetising to people who had looked at images of the baby animal.

But, there was little difference between those who were shown a grown cow and those who were not shown any animal.

According to the researchers, the results ‘highlight a tension within some omnivores between caring for baby animals and appetite for meat.’

HOW DOES MEAT CONSUMPTION AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT? 

Eliminating consumption of meat and dairy is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on Earth, a new study has found.

Scientists from Oxford University and the Swiss agricultural research institute, Agroscope examined 40,000 farms and 1,600 processors, packaging types, and retailers in 119 countries.

The study marks the most comprehensive analysis yet of damage farming does to the planet.

It also assessed how different production practices and geographies lead to different environmental impacts for 40 major foods.

They found that without meat and dairy consumption, global agricultural land would be reduced by 76 percent. 

This equates to the size of the US, China, European Union and Australia combined, and there would still be enough food to feed the world.

A small number of producers create much of the impact: Just 15 percent of beef production creates approximately 1.3 billion tons of CO2 equivalents and uses about 950 million hectares of land.

They found that without meat and dairy consumption, global agricultural land would be reduced by 76 percent. This equates to the size of the US, China, European Union and Australia combined, and there would still be enough food to feed the world

Researchers found that found that without meat and dairy consumption, global agricultural land would be reduced by 76 percent



Read more at DailyMail.co.uk