ASFs an Livestock

The animal/plant divide in the post-truth era

Contemporary dietary and environmental policies often rely on a simplified distinction between animal- and plant-based foods. While ‘plant-based’ diets are widely praised, livestock is frequently criticized as inherently harmful to human health and the environment. However, just as some livestock operations are problematic, so too are certain crop production practices, with the sustainability of both depending on the systems in which they operate. Ideally, crops and animals should be integrated into sustainable food systems. Similarly, the healthiness of animal- or plant-derived foods depends on their individual nutritional qualities and wholesomeness, and whether or not they are part of well-formulated diets. Such binary animal/plant thinking is more cultural than pragmatic, and often highly moralizing. Its origins trace back to 19th-century ideologies championed by temperance movements, religious sects, and Food Reformers, later institutionalized in household economics and dietetics. Today, mass media perpetuates this oversimplification through sensationalism and distorted interpretations of scientific evidence. In the post-truth era, dietary discourse is further skewed by zealotry and manipulation, even within scientific communities.

This article addresses the following elements:

What is the moral animal/plant divide?
Origins of the animal/plant divide
Societal anxieties and crusading vegetarianism
Role of mass media and the post-truth era
Recommended resources

What is the moral animal/plant divide?

Contemporary dietary discourse is filled with contradictions and exaggerations. Animal source foods are particularly controversial, being described as both beneficial and detrimental to health. As such, they function as a pharmakon, which is a philosophical concept implying that something can be both remedy and poison, and often end up being a pharmakos, or a scapegoat, when that ambiguity collapses. In today’s dietary wars, everyday foods are depicted as moral absolutes, categorized as either 'bad' (e.g., processed meats) or 'good' (e.g., whole grains). This mirrors a worldview built on dichotomies like Culture/Nature, Toxic/Pure, and Death/Life. Crusading vegetarians often overlay these concepts onto the animal/plant binary, portraying meat as unnecessary, unnatural, abnormal, unhealthy, disgusting, or outright evil.

CLICK HERE for background

The pharmakon: beneficial and harmful

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, in particular, are described as both beneficial and detrimental to our health, depending on the study, expert, or journalist [Leroy et al. 2018]. Such ambiguity is not due to poor data or judgement alone [see elsewhere], but also relates to the fact that the health impact of any given food will depend on context (i.e., dose, individual needs, vulnerabilities, type of background diet, etc.) Moreover, foods can indeed simultaneously exert harmful and beneficial effects, either through superimposed mechanisms or by acting on different health outcomes. The idea that something both heals and poisons is referred to in philosophy as a 'pharmakon'. Such a confusing status of ambiguity is difficult to uphold for many, provoking a collapse into an oversimplified good/evil binary. Once the 'evil' has been defined and categorized, it will need to be expelled. This is why the 'pharmakon' is related to the purifying concept of 'pharmakos' (i.e., scapegoat). The same problem is valid for environmental outcomes, which are projected upon the health binary. While certain livestock operations can be problematic, some crop production practices also raise concerns, as the sustainability of both relies on the systems in which they function. Ideally, crops and animals should be integrated into sustainable food systems.

The pharmakos: animals as scapegoats

Animals have a historical and ritualized role as scapegoats, atoning for the sins of humanity. This may well be the fundament on which the 'livestock-destroys-the-planet' is building [Leroy 2019; Leroy et al. 2020]. 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 often used by crusading vegetarians to vilify livestock farming [Leroy et al. 2020]. In such worldview, animal flesh may be symbolically associated to representations of blood and death, having a traumatic impact [Albertelli et al. 2023]. At the same time, however, an anti-speciesist ideology may prevail, whereby livestock animals are embraced as equals, which may either be read as a paradox or as a reflection of self-disgust. In any case, all this seems to be indicative of conceptual tension caused by a worldview constructed on an intertwined series of pre-existing binaries (Life/Death, Nature/Culture, Pure/Toxic, Good/Evil, etc.)

The key questions are: when and where did the animal/divide first come into prominent existence, and why and by whom were plants proclaimed as the privileged side of the binary? Also, why is this increasingly becoming toxic?

Origins of the animal/plant divide

The animal/plant divide took root in the 19th century amid growing concerns about the perceived dangers of meat to human health. Religious sects like the Bible Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists, and movements such as the Grahamites and early vegetarians promoted a Garden-of-Eden diet centred around fruits, nuts, and seeds. Whole grains were celebrated for their plainness and virtue, while red meat, seen as vibrant and sensual, was denounced as a harmful luxury (some early vegetarians even claimed it corrupted children, incited violence, and stirred sexual desire). These ideas coalesced in the Food Reform movement, shaping the emerging fields of ‘household economics’ and ‘dietetics’ and influencing public dietary narratives. This legacy underpins the modern ‘healthy user bias’, where wealthier, healthier individuals are more likely to follow dietary guidelines. Nutritional epidemiology captures these behaviors as ‘associations’, reiterating and consolidating them into dietary guidelines, and thus perpetuating the bias through a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

CLICK HERE for background

Origins of modern vegetarianism

To understand the contemporary animal/plant divide, an exploration of its origins is needed [Leroy & Hite 2020]. The idea that meat corrupts 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; see elsewhere].

As food accessibility improved during this period, efforts emerged to curb excesses by framing the issue as one of ‘civilized appetites’ [Mennell 1987; Fixsen 2024]. Althouh the initial rationale was to react to external constraints on food availability, these constraints were rapidly internalized by a moralizing emphasis on personal choices in diet, hygiene, and exercise [Fixsen 2024]. The resulting dietary beliefs involved the importance of self-discipline, individual responsibility, and social distinction based on idealized body norms and dietary standards, as well as the commercialization of dietary health [Gracia-arnaiz 2010; Fixsen 2024].

Due to zealous insistence within such a receptive Zeitgeist 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.

Origins of the healthy user bias?

It has been hypothesized that the adoption of vegetarian dietary advice by parts of the middle classes of the Anglosphere may be at the origin of what is today's healthy user bias [Leroy & Hite 2020], creating a cultural artefact 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 favour 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.

Societal anxieties and crusading vegetarianism

Moral vegetarianism is a personal choice based on ethical concerns, but its prevalence can at least be partly attributed to societal unease and status anxieties among the Western middle classes. Militant advocates of vegetarianism see dietary choices as moral and political acts, while often also advocating for dietary purity. This perspective is frequently linked with virtue signalling, engagement in social causes, and political activism. While vegetarianism is commonly associated with progressive ideologies, it can also emerge in eco-fascist or eco-authoritarian 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.

CLICK HERE for background

Crusading vegetarianism as psychotype

For many, adopting vegetarianism serves as a means of affirming their social identity [Plante et al. 2019], positioning themselves in contrast to the broader majority that shows little interest in transitioning to more plant-based diets [Lehmann et al. 2024]. Although it can be an informed and conscious personal choice based on ethical concerns [see elsewhere], part of the current prevalence of vegetarianism manifests itself as a 'crusading' variant. The latter seems to be due to a dynamic rooted in societal unease. Crusading vegetarians are frequently individuals who are part of the Western middle classes and are prone to status anxieties (e.g., caused by an increasing wealth gap with the elites). It has been theorized that such unease is generated by 'mimetic desire', ultimately leading to a loss of individual purpose, resentment, mob formation, and scapegoating [cf. Girard 1972]. Practically, these frustrations find their expression in 'moral' eating and evangelic discourses on dietary purity, intertwined with virtue-signalling, advocacy for social interventionism, and political activism.

The psychotype of crusading vegetarians seems to overlap with that of militant environmental activists. The latter has been linked to two of the three dark triad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism and narcissism) as well as to left-wing authoritarianism (in particular antihierarchical aggression and anticonventionalism) [Zacher 2024]. People with dark triad traits may use their activism as a smokescreen for actions that aim at satisfying ego-focused needs and obtaining status gain and dominance [Bertrams & Krispenz 2023]. A dark triad variant known as ‘vulnerable dark triad’ has been proposed, which may involve interpersonal and affective instability, depleted self-image and identity impairment, inner feelings of shame, hypersensitivity and impulsivity, anger and envy, self-harming and suicidality, antisocial lifestyles, and nonplanfulness [Gamache et al. 2023; Maheux Caron et al. 2024]. This vulnerable dark triad personality is characterized at its core by by emotional instability [Bonfá-Araujo & Schermer 2024] and may result in religious fundamentalism and cultish behaviour [Unterrainer et al. 2016]. In addition, the proclivity for left-wing authoritarianism results in a readiness to accept submission to authorities who champion the cause [Milfont & Osborne 2023].

It is important to bear in mind, however, that the ‘cursading vegetarian’ psychotype is only characterizing a subset of militant vegetarians - albeit a very manifest one - that should not be generalized to the entire population of vegetarians.

Meat's transvaluation of values

Crusading vegetarianism involves a transvaluation of values driven by 'slave morality' (what was good and strong is turned into vile and sick) [Leroy 2019; Leroy et al. 2020]. The 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]. Historically benign connotations of animal source foods, 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].

Livestock and scapegoating

To dissolve the interindividual differences and inequalities that gave rise to mimetic desire and resentment, a homogenous mob needs to be created so that atomized individuals can find a sense of belonginess and purpose. References to a common threat, such as 'planetary catastrophe' or 'moral decline', act as a unifying narrative. Typically, this goes hand in hand with scapegoating strategies [Girard 1972]. As argued above, animals (and the food derived thereof) 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].

Politicization of vegetarianism

Crusading forms of vegetarianism are often coming from a 'progressive' angle, as a dietary statement in support of feminism, socialism, anti-racism, etc. [Veit 2015, Finn 2017; Leroy & Hite 2020]. The refusal or incapability to adopt and maintain vegetarian diets is therefore said to typify conservatives and people with a right-wing political mindset [Hodson & Earle 2018]. Some go as far as portraying the consumption of animal source foods as an oppressive act of 'white supremacy' [Adams 2022]. However, vegetarianism also appeals to some within 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].

Role of mass media and the post-truth era

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. Vested interests, the 'attention economy’, and click-bait dynamics in mass media lead to sensationalism and misrepresentation of scientific evidence. The use of simplified slogans, often with reference to ‘scientific authorities’, increases the impact and persuasive power of messages, whereas repetition leads to the illusion of truth. 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.

CLICK HERE for background

Click-bait dynamics and agendas

Animal husbandry and diets heavy in animal source foods 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]. The problem becomes worse when academic press releases feed them with exaggerated statements on health effects [Sumner et al. 2014]. 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). Another example is Vox Media, funded by Animal Charity Evaluators [ACE 2023a], founded in 2013 as Effective Animal Activism in Oxford, England, and merged with the US-based Justice for Animals [ACE 2023 b]. 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].

The post-truth era and the illusion of truth

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]. Opinions, as dietary politics and pedagogies in general, have grown more contentious with increasingly diversified and mediated foodscapes [Fixsen 2024]. In this polarized arena, different factions compete over what should be conisdered ‘food facts’, with the loudest and most aggressive voices being more effective in their control over discourse [Fixsen 2024]. Because intricacy hampers the process of societal conversion into a dietary belief system, the use of slogans is widespread. Such simplifications increase 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 always rational and unbiased. As argued elsewhere, this is far from being the case. Biases frequently shape how scientists approach the topic of animal source foods in their research, resulting in a selective interpretation of evidence. Biases can be subconscious and ideological, rather than driven by financial conflicts of interest. My-side bias occurs when scientists adopt beliefs from their social circles; white-hat bias involves the distortion of evidence in a zealous attempt ‘to do good’. 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.

Recommended resources

Leroy (2019) Meat as a pharmakon: an exploration of the biosocial complexities of meat consumption. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research.
Leroy & Hite (2020) The place of meat in dietary policy: an exploration of the animal/plant divide. Meat and Muscle Biology.
Leroy et al. (2018) Meat in the post-truth era: mass media discourses on health and disease in the attention economy. Appetite.
Leroy et al. (2020) Livestock in evolving foodscapes and thoughtscapes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems

Share this page on: