Blog post
BLOG - The horsemeat affair: one meat is not another
The current commotion around horsemeat is not just about some firm sneaking horsemeat into food without mentioning it on the label. More subtle and subjective issues are all too easily overlooked. At the heart of the matter is the question why consumers reject horsemeat but have absolutely no aversion to beef. It obviously can’t be about flavour – the horsemeat scam didn’t come to light because consumers reported that they couldn’t taste beef.
Humans may be omnivorous but that doesn’t mean that we eat anything. One meat is not another. What makes people decide which meat to eat and which to avoid? Without giving decisive answers, the article ‘Too close to home: factors predicting meat avoidance’ (Appetite, 2012) by Canadian psychologists Matthew Ruby and Steven Heine may offer a few clues.
Disgust, which is crucial to what we do and do not devour, proves how important our stomach is as a food watchdog. That certainly applies to meat. But where does disgust come from? First, it has something to do with the characteristics of the animal in question.
Disgust seems to arise sooner when animals are ‘humanised’. The more intelligence and emotional complexity we associate with an animal, the greater our moral discomfort when we eat it. Anyone who regards an animal as an intelligent or beautiful creature interferes with the notion that it’s a sign of good taste to have this animal on your plate. Accordingly, the (moral) status of the animal is diminished – or, you might say, ‘thingified’. When an animal is reduced to a thing, our disgust recedes and that animal is easier to eat. So the offer of pre-sliced meat in neat packaging increases the distance from the animal as raw material, and takes the wind out of the sails of disgust.
Caressabilty and edibility are often poles apart. Our taboo on eating adored pets like dogs and cats, or on sitting down to a plate of mice or ants is a classic illustration. But there is no consistency. What is more endearing than a spring lamb and what is more mouth-watering than rack of lamb? Why do we enjoy eating ‘non-human’ creatures like mussels and oysters and shudder at the thought of eating insects?
Baffling contradictions – so typical of food.
Another starting point that might help to unravel the love of one type of meat from the disgust towards another is social conditioning. The fact that eating horses is just ‘not done’ in the eyes of many people in the UK is not only tied in with the image of a gracious four-footer that is too noble to consume. The aversion to horsemeat is also fed by the perception of the end product; the edibility of the animal – horse in this case – is enhanced as the presence of the meat – horsemeat in this case – increases and becomes more normal. One factor that could help to explain why horsemeat and beef are perceived differently is the marketing levels. The idea that buying and eating beef is seen as the most normal thing in the world is reflected in the stocks on the supermarket shelves. This, in turn, reinforces the social norm et cetera. The frequency of consumption by ourselves and the people in our social circle is a significant factor when deciding what we find acceptable and appetizing in our diet.
The less we eat certain types of meat and the more ‘dignified’ the animal, the greater our disgust when meat from that animal ends up in our food. Aside from the deception aspects, this goes some way to explaining the indignation in the Netherlands and the UK about the horsemeat affair.