Jump to content

Carnism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
redundancy: "dead animal food" already means "meat", being coined in 2009 implies neologism
partial rv, carnism not necessarily about moral reasoning, "or humans" not relevant here (see speciesisim for that), neologism obvious since coined recently, all sources present meat "paradox" as an objective one
Line 15: Line 15:
'''Carnism''' is the prevailing belief system that supports the killing of certain species of animals for food and other purposes.<ref name="Gibert2014">{{cite book | chapterurl=http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-0929-4_83 | title=Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics | chapter = Carnism | publisher=Springer Netherlands | author=Gibert, Martin; Desaulniers, Élise| year=2014 | pages=292–298 | isbn=978-94-007-0929-4}}</ref><ref name="Gutjahr2013">{{cite book | chapterurl=http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_61#page-1 | title=The ethics of consumption | publisher=Wageningen Academic Publishers | author=Gutjahr, J. | year=2013 | pages=379-385 | isbn=978-90-8686-784-4 | chapter=The reintegration of animals and slaughter into discourses of meat eating}}</ref><ref name="Rothgerber2014">{{cite journal | url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666314001688 | title=Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters | author=Rothgerber, Hank | journal=Appetite | year=2014 | month=August | volume=79 | pages=32-41 | doi=10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003}}</ref><ref name="Braunsberger2015">{{cite book | chapterurl=http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-10873-5_201 | title=The Sustainable Global Marketplace | publisher=Springer International Publishing | author=Braunsberger, Karin; Flamm, Richard O. | year=2015 | pages=345 | isbn=978-3-319-10873-5 | chapter=Consumer Identities: Carnism Versus Veganism}}</ref> It has been described as a dominant but invisible paradigm, a [[hegemony]] and an "unquestioned default."<ref name=Freemanp103/><ref name="JoyDPC"/>{{rp|30}}<ref name="DeMello2012">{{cite book | title=Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-animal Studies | publisher=Columbia University Press | author=DeMello, Margo | year=2012 | isbn=978-0-231-15294-5}}</ref>{{rp|136}}
'''Carnism''' is the prevailing belief system that supports the killing of certain species of animals for food and other purposes.<ref name="Gibert2014">{{cite book | chapterurl=http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-0929-4_83 | title=Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics | chapter = Carnism | publisher=Springer Netherlands | author=Gibert, Martin; Desaulniers, Élise| year=2014 | pages=292–298 | isbn=978-94-007-0929-4}}</ref><ref name="Gutjahr2013">{{cite book | chapterurl=http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_61#page-1 | title=The ethics of consumption | publisher=Wageningen Academic Publishers | author=Gutjahr, J. | year=2013 | pages=379-385 | isbn=978-90-8686-784-4 | chapter=The reintegration of animals and slaughter into discourses of meat eating}}</ref><ref name="Rothgerber2014">{{cite journal | url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666314001688 | title=Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters | author=Rothgerber, Hank | journal=Appetite | year=2014 | month=August | volume=79 | pages=32-41 | doi=10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003}}</ref><ref name="Braunsberger2015">{{cite book | chapterurl=http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-10873-5_201 | title=The Sustainable Global Marketplace | publisher=Springer International Publishing | author=Braunsberger, Karin; Flamm, Richard O. | year=2015 | pages=345 | isbn=978-3-319-10873-5 | chapter=Consumer Identities: Carnism Versus Veganism}}</ref> It has been described as a dominant but invisible paradigm, a [[hegemony]] and an "unquestioned default."<ref name=Freemanp103/><ref name="JoyDPC"/>{{rp|30}}<ref name="DeMello2012">{{cite book | title=Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-animal Studies | publisher=Columbia University Press | author=DeMello, Margo | year=2012 | isbn=978-0-231-15294-5}}</ref>{{rp|136}}


Central to this belief system is a classification of only certain species as food, such as cattle and pigs in the West, which justifies treating them in ways that would be regarded as immoral if applied to species not regarded as food, such as dogs or humans. This classification is culturally relative, so that in China dogs can be slaughtered for meat, while in much of India cows are inviolate.<ref name="Gibert2014" />
Central to this belief system is a classification of only certain species as food, such as cattle and pigs in the West, which justifies treating them in ways that would be regarded as [[animal cruelty]] if applied to species not regarded as food, such as dogs. This classification is culturally relative, so that in China dogs can be slaughtered for meat, while in much of India cows are inviolate.<ref name="Gibert2014" />


The term ''carnism'' and was coined by social psychologist [[Melanie Joy]] and popularized by her 2009 book, ''[[Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows]]''.<ref name=Gibert2014 /><ref name="Kool2009">Kool, V. K.; Agrawal, Rita (2009). "The Psychology of Nonkilling," in Joám Evans Pim (ed.), ''Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm'', Center for Global Nonkilling, pp. 349–370. ISBN 978-0-9822983-1-2.</ref><ref name="JoyDPC">Joy, Melanie (2011) [2009]. ''Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows''. Conari Press. ISBN 1573245054.</ref> Joy stated that she wrote the book to examine perceived inconsistencies in most people's behavior toward animals.<ref name="Joy2010Interview">{{cite web | url=http://our-compass.org/2010/10/09/my-conversation-with-melanie-joy-on-why-we-love-dogs-eat-pigs-and-wear-cows/ | title=My Conversation With Melanie Joy on “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows” | publisher=PlanetGreen | date=9 October 2010}}</ref><ref>Iacobbo, Karen; Iacobbo, Michael (2006). ''Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today'', Praeger, pp. 162–164.</ref>
The term ''carnism'' was coined by social psychologist [[Melanie Joy]] and popularized by her 2009 book ''[[Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows]]''.<ref name=Gibert2014 /><ref name="Kool2009">Kool, V. K.; Agrawal, Rita (2009). "The Psychology of Nonkilling," in Joám Evans Pim (ed.), ''Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm'', Center for Global Nonkilling, pp. 349–370. ISBN 978-0-9822983-1-2.</ref><ref name="JoyDPC">Joy, Melanie (2011) [2009]. ''Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows''. Conari Press. ISBN 1573245054.</ref> Joy stated that she wrote the book to examine an apparent paradox in most people's behavior toward animals&nbsp;– that they exhibit compassion toward some species while eating others.<ref name="Joy2010Interview">{{cite web | url=http://our-compass.org/2010/10/09/my-conversation-with-melanie-joy-on-why-we-love-dogs-eat-pigs-and-wear-cows/ | title=My Conversation With Melanie Joy on “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows” | publisher=PlanetGreen | date=9 October 2010}}</ref><ref>Iacobbo, Karen; Iacobbo, Michael (2006). ''Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today'', Praeger, pp. 162–164.</ref>


One consequence of carnism is the '''meat paradox''', in which people who oppose harming animals in principle nonetheless engage in behavior that requires them to be harmed.<ref name=Loughnan2014>Loughnan, Steve; Bastian, Brock; Haslam, Nick (2014). [https://foodethics.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Loughnan__S._2014_And_Bastian._..The_Psychology_of_Eating_Animals._In._CURRENT_DIRECTIONS_IN_PSYCHOLOGICAL_SCIENCE.pdf "The Psychology of Eating Animals"], ''Current Directions in Psychological Science'', 23(2), April, pp. 104–108. {{doi|10.1177/0963721414525781}}</ref><ref name="Benz-Schwarzburg2015">{{cite book | chapter-url=http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/abs/10.3920/978-90-8686-813-1_34 | title=Know Your Food: Food Ethics and Innovation | publisher=Wageningen Academic Publishers | editors=Diana Elena Dumitras, Ionel Mugurel Jitea| author=Benz-Schwarzburg, J., Nawroth, C. | year=2015 | pages=233–240 | isbn=978-90-8686-813-1 | chapter=Know your pork – or better don't: debating animal minds in the context of the meat paradox}}</ref> Psychologists suggest that this is enabled by the "four Ns," the perception that meat-eating is "natural, necessary, normal, and nice."<ref name="Piazza2015">{{cite journal | url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315001518 | title=Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns | author=Piazza, Jared, et al. | journal=Appetite | year=2015 | month=August | volume=91 | pages=114-128}}</ref><ref name="Goodyer1Jun2015">{{cite web | url=http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/meat-eaters-justify-diet-using-four-ns-natural-necessary-normal-nice-20150531-ghd5le.html | title=Meat eaters justify diet using 'Four Ns': natural, necessary, normal, nice | date=1 June 2015 | author=Goodyer, Paula |work = Sydney Morning Herald}}</ref><ref name="Singal25Jun2015">{{cite web | url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/health/rationalize-eating-meat/ | title=How people rationalize eating meat | publisher= CNN |date=25 June 2015 | author=Singal, Jesse}}</ref> Other enabling strategies include avoidance of the issue and ascribing reduced sentience to food animals.<ref name="Rothberger2014"/>
This phenomenon is known as the '''meat paradox''', in which people who would otherwise oppose harming animals engage in behavior that requires them to be harmed.<ref name=Loughnan2014>Loughnan, Steve; Bastian, Brock; Haslam, Nick (2014). [https://foodethics.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Loughnan__S._2014_And_Bastian._..The_Psychology_of_Eating_Animals._In._CURRENT_DIRECTIONS_IN_PSYCHOLOGICAL_SCIENCE.pdf "The Psychology of Eating Animals"], ''Current Directions in Psychological Science'', 23(2), April, pp. 104–108. {{doi|10.1177/0963721414525781}}</ref><ref name="Benz-Schwarzburg2015">{{cite book | chapter-url=http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/abs/10.3920/978-90-8686-813-1_34 | title=Know Your Food: Food Ethics and Innovation | publisher=Wageningen Academic Publishers | editors=Diana Elena Dumitras, Ionel Mugurel Jitea| author=Benz-Schwarzburg, J., Nawroth, C. | year=2015 | pages=233–240 | isbn=978-90-8686-813-1 | chapter=Know your pork – or better don't: debating animal minds in the context of the meat paradox}}</ref> Psychologists suggest that this is enabled by the "four Ns," the perception that meat-eating is "natural, necessary, normal, and nice."<ref name="Piazza2015">{{cite journal | url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315001518 | title=Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns | author=Piazza, Jared, et al. | journal=Appetite | year=2015 | month=August | volume=91 | pages=114-128}}</ref><ref name="Goodyer1Jun2015">{{cite web | url=http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/meat-eaters-justify-diet-using-four-ns-natural-necessary-normal-nice-20150531-ghd5le.html | title=Meat eaters justify diet using 'Four Ns': natural, necessary, normal, nice | date=1 June 2015 | author=Goodyer, Paula |work = Sydney Morning Herald}}</ref><ref name="Singal25Jun2015">{{cite web | url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/health/rationalize-eating-meat/ | title=How people rationalize eating meat | publisher= CNN |date=25 June 2015 | author=Singal, Jesse}}</ref> Other enabling strategies include avoidance of the issue and ascribing reduced sentience to food animals.<ref name="Rothberger2014"/>


== Earlier ideas ==
== Earlier ideas ==

Revision as of 11:58, 7 July 2015

Carnism
The National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation, in which the American president pardons a turkey, has been cited as an illustration of carnism.[1]
DescriptionDominant belief system that supports the killing of certain species of animals for food and other purposes
Term coined byMelanie Joy, 2001[2]
Related ideasEthics of eating meat, speciesism, veganism, vegetarianism

Carnism is the prevailing belief system that supports the killing of certain species of animals for food and other purposes.[3][4][5][6] It has been described as a dominant but invisible paradigm, a hegemony and an "unquestioned default."[1][7]: 30 [8]: 136 

Central to this belief system is a classification of only certain species as food, such as cattle and pigs in the West, which justifies treating them in ways that would be regarded as animal cruelty if applied to species not regarded as food, such as dogs. This classification is culturally relative, so that in China dogs can be slaughtered for meat, while in much of India cows are inviolate.[3]

The term carnism was coined by social psychologist Melanie Joy and popularized by her 2009 book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows.[3][9][7] Joy stated that she wrote the book to examine an apparent paradox in most people's behavior toward animals – that they exhibit compassion toward some species while eating others.[10][11]

This phenomenon is known as the meat paradox, in which people who would otherwise oppose harming animals engage in behavior that requires them to be harmed.[12][13] Psychologists suggest that this is enabled by the "four Ns," the perception that meat-eating is "natural, necessary, normal, and nice."[14][15][16] Other enabling strategies include avoidance of the issue and ascribing reduced sentience to food animals.[17]

Earlier ideas

The idea that humanity's use of animals involves learned prejudice dates back at least to Plutarch, who in the first century CE sought to shift the burden of evidence onto those who opposed vegetarianism, writing:

Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived.[3][18]

For most of history, however, it has been tacitly assumed that human domination of animals, including their use as food, is natural and normal. Beginning in the 17th century and until very recently, Cartesian mechanism, which denied animal consciousness and compared animals to "autonomous robots which merely react to external stimulation", was a prevailing philosophy in the West. This once-dominant argument is at odds with the predominant view of modern neuroscientists, who, notwithstanding the philosophical problem of defining consciousness, now generally hold that animals are conscious.[19][20]

Speciesism

In the 1970s orthodox views on the moral standing of animals were notably challenged by Richard D. Ryder and Peter Singer, who introduced the notion of speciesism, which they defined as discrimination on the basis of species for what they saw as morally irrelevant reasons. Carnism can be understood as a type of speciesism, involving a particular form of species-based discrimination.[3] Radical abolitionist Gary Francione argues that the concept of carnism is based on false premises. His position is that some humans treat some animals as food and others as family, not because of an invisible ideology, but because they consciously decide that animals are property and that they may value them as they please. He argues that the idea of carnism deflects attention from broader issues of speciesism, and may thereby inadvertently promote welfarist ideas.[21]

Attributes of carnism

Meat in a supermarket

In recent decades, psychologists have conducted experiments to identify who meat-eaters are and what mental states are involved in the practice.[12]: 107 

The conflict many people face between their food choices and beliefs about animal welfare leads to cognitive dissonance.[22][17] Meat-eaters attempt to moderate this moral dissonance in a number of ways.[17]

Cognitive avoidance

An important, even "central", carnist strategy for moderating moral discomfort consists of avoiding consideration of the provenance of animal products.[3][23] This omission is supported by the news media.[1][7]: 105  For example, a study of press coverage of the American National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation, a natural opportunity to discuss the relationship between living animals and meat, found that most coverage trivialized this link while celebrating the commercial poultry industry.[1]

Denial of animal mind or capacity for suffering

Another important dissonance-reduction strategy involves minimizing the ability of food animals to experience pain and suffering, as well as consciousness and sentience.[17]

A 2010 study randomly assigned college students to eat either beef jerky or cashews, then assigned them the task of judging the moral relevance and cognitive abilities of a variety of animals. Compared to students who were given cashews, those who ate beef jerky expressed significantly less moral concern for animals, and assigned cows a diminished ability to have mental states that entail the capacity to experience suffering.[24]

Subsequent studies in 2011 similarly found that people were more inclined to feel it was appropriate to kill an animal for food when they perceived that it had diminished mental capacities; that, conversely, they perceived animals as having diminished mental capacities when told they were used as food; and once again that eating meat caused participants to ascribe fewer mental abilities to animals. Separately, subjects who read a description of an exotic animal rated it as less sympathetic and less able to experience suffering if they were told that native people ate the animal, regardless of whether they were told that the animal was hunted or that it was scavenged.[12][22][25] These findings confirm Joy's theory that categorization as food itself diminishes moral concern for animals.[3] Carnism may involve further categories, such as "pets," "vermin," "entertainment animals" and so forth, which also color subjective perceptions of sentience and intelligence.[4]

The "four Ns"

A series of studies of moral reasoning around the meat paradox found that the "four Ns" accounted for the great majority of American and Australian meat eaters' stated justifications for consuming meat. Arguments included that humans are omnivores (natural), that vegetarian diets are lacking in nutrients (necessary), that most people eat meat (normal), and that meat tastes good (nice).[14][15][16] People who endorsed such arguments were found to have less moral concern for animals and attribute less consciousness to them, to be more supportive of social inequality and hierarchical ideologies, and to be less proud of their consumer choices. However, meat-eaters who expressed these views more strongly reported less guilt about their dietary habits, suggesting that they are an effective strategy for resolving the cognitive dissonance.[14]

Vegan discourse

As a set of ideas that legitimate the common uses of animals, carnism can be seen as the opposing ideology to ethical veganism.[3][6] From this perspective, it plays a role in animal ethics analogous to that of patriarchy in feminist theory, as a dominant normative ideology that goes unrecognized because of its ubiquity.[3][9][8] Vegans may argue that carnism is based on the objectification of animals, in that meat is perceived as a thing rather than part of a creature, and in that meat-eaters may deny animals consciousness.[14][26]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Packwood-Freeman, Carrie; Perez, Oana Leventi (2012). "Pardon Your Turkey and Eat Him Too," in Joshua Frye, Michael S. Bruner (eds.), The Rhetoric of Food: Discourse, Materiality, and Power, Routledge, p. 103ff.
  2. ^ Joy, Melanie (2001). "From Carnivore to Carnist: Liberating the Language of Meat", Satya, 18(2), September, pp. 126–127.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i Gibert, Martin; Desaulniers, Élise (2014). "Carnism". Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer Netherlands. pp. 292–298. ISBN 978-94-007-0929-4. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b Gutjahr, J. (2013). "The reintegration of animals and slaughter into discourses of meat eating". The ethics of consumption. Wageningen Academic Publishers. pp. 379–385. ISBN 978-90-8686-784-4. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Rothgerber, Hank (2014). "Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters". Appetite. 79: 32–41. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. ^ a b Braunsberger, Karin; Flamm, Richard O. (2015). "Consumer Identities: Carnism Versus Veganism". The Sustainable Global Marketplace. Springer International Publishing. p. 345. ISBN 978-3-319-10873-5. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ a b c Joy, Melanie (2011) [2009]. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. Conari Press. ISBN 1573245054.
  8. ^ a b DeMello, Margo (2012). Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-animal Studies. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15294-5. Cite error: The named reference "DeMello2012" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b Kool, V. K.; Agrawal, Rita (2009). "The Psychology of Nonkilling," in Joám Evans Pim (ed.), Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm, Center for Global Nonkilling, pp. 349–370. ISBN 978-0-9822983-1-2.
  10. ^ "My Conversation With Melanie Joy on "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows"". PlanetGreen. 9 October 2010.
  11. ^ Iacobbo, Karen; Iacobbo, Michael (2006). Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today, Praeger, pp. 162–164.
  12. ^ a b c Loughnan, Steve; Bastian, Brock; Haslam, Nick (2014). "The Psychology of Eating Animals", Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), April, pp. 104–108. doi:10.1177/0963721414525781
  13. ^ Benz-Schwarzburg, J., Nawroth, C. (2015). "Know your pork – or better don't: debating animal minds in the context of the meat paradox". Know Your Food: Food Ethics and Innovation. Wageningen Academic Publishers. pp. 233–240. ISBN 978-90-8686-813-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ^ a b c d Piazza, Jared; et al. (2015). "Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns". Appetite. 91: 114–128. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  15. ^ a b Goodyer, Paula (1 June 2015). "Meat eaters justify diet using 'Four Ns': natural, necessary, normal, nice". Sydney Morning Herald.
  16. ^ a b Singal, Jesse (25 June 2015). "How people rationalize eating meat". CNN.
  17. ^ a b c d Rothberger, H. (2014). "Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters". Appetite. 79: 32–41. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  18. ^ Plutarch, translated by W. Heinemann (1957). De esu carnium (On Eating Meat), Loeb Classical Library Ed., Vol. XII. Harvard University Press. p. 541.
  19. ^ "The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness" (PDF). Consciousness in Human and Non-human Animals, Francis Crick Memorial Conference. 7 July 2012.
  20. ^ Bekoff, Marc (10 August 2012). "Scientists Finally Conclude Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious Beings".
  21. ^ Francione, Gary L. (2 October 2012). "'Carnism'? There Is Nothing 'Invisible' About The Ideology Of Animal Exploitation"], abolitionistapproach.com.
  22. ^ a b Bastian, Brock; et al. (2012). "Don't Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38 (2): 247–256. doi:10.1177/0146167211424291. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  23. ^ Webster, A.J.F. (Aug 1994). "Meat and right: the ethical dilemma" (PDF). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 54. pp. 263–270. doi:10.1079/PNS19940031. Retrieved 5 Jul 2015. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  24. ^ Loughnan, S.; et al. (2010). "The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals". Appetite. 55 (1): 156–159. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  25. ^ Bratanova, B.; et al. (2011). "The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals". Appetite. 57 (1): 193–196. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020. PMID 21569805. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  26. ^ Greenebaum, J. (2012). "Managing Impressions: "Face-Saving" Strategies of Vegetarians and Vegans". Humanity & Society. 36 (4): 309–325. doi:10.1177/0160597612458898. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnism&oldid=670348682"