Contesting the meat–animal link and the visibility of animals killed for food: a focus group study in Finland

Abstract

Dissociating meat from its animal origins has been considered a central strategy omnivores employ to sustain their meat consumption despite their concerns for animal welfare. In recent years, the dissociation strategy has become increasingly contested as short food-chain movements promote consumer contact with farmed animals as a means to more ethical eating. This article examines how different groups of Finnish consumers construct the meat–animal link based on focus groups with gastronomes, hunters, organic consumers, rural women, and supermarket customers. The theoretical approach is based on Noëlie Vialles’s concepts of the sarcophage and zoophage logic of meat eating and on the literature on animal categorization. Supermarket customers preferred to dissociate meat from the animal, while gastronomes and rural residents regarded the presence of the animal in meat as important for its quality. Hunters valued game meat highly as animals were transformed into meat through their own effort. Although rural women and some organic consumers personalized certain farmed animals due to their proximity, these animals were still edible and killable. The research suggests that challenging dissociation does not in itself necessarily imply an increased moral valuation of animals if the objectification of animals is not confronted.

Keywords:

• Animal categorization
• animal visibility
• dissociation
• ethical omnivores
• focus groups
• meat
• proximity

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the focus group participants for volunteering to participate in the group discussions; Pekka Jokinen and Markus Vinnari for participating in designing and conducting the focus groups and for commenting on the manuscript in its different phases; Elisa Aaltola and Anna Valros for providing expert advice when designing the focus group study, and Elisa Aaltola for giving helpful comments about the manuscript; Marika Bäckman, Taru Anttonen, Annika Kettunen, and Pasi Pohjolainen for transcribing the group discussions and assisting in conducting the focus groups; Philip Line for making helpful suggestions to improve the language of the paper; and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions.

Notes

1. Vialles takes the term from the ancient Greek word for a stone coffin, sarcophagus (Fr. sarcophage), meaning flesh-eater (Gr. σαρκοφάγος from σάρξ, sarx, “flesh,” and φαγεῖν, phagein, “to eat”). In her analogy, just as limestone sarcophagi were thought to consume the flesh of corpses deposited in them, so in the sarcophage logic animal flesh is consumed subconsciously

2. “Une substance culinaire,” “vers sa destination et ses effets,” paragraph 9.

3. Two participants in the organic group did not eat meat, but consumed fish, and one identified herself as vegetarian, but mentioned eating meat on certain occasions when she considered it ethically acceptable.

4. Fourteen women replied to the focus group call, and nine were invited to participate. Because we used several recruiting channels, which included both female and male audiences, and because the group discussion was scheduled soon after the closing of the focus group call, we decided not to do further recruiting to attract male participants. In Finland, women are more interested in organic foods and buy them more frequently than men (Saarnivaara 2015), and this may explain why women showed more interest in participating in the research.

5. The age distribution of the rural women and gastronomes is similar to that of the Martha Organization and the Chaîne des Rôtisseurs Finlande: more than 70 percent of their members are aged fifty and over (Chaîne des Rôtisseurs 2015; e-mail from Anna-Maija Palosuo, the Martha Organization, March 15, 2017). The age and gender distribution of the hunters was typical of their reference group; 43 percent of Finnish hunters are forty-one to sixty years old and 95 percent are men (Toivonen 2009). However, the hunters were notably more educated than Finnish hunters on average (Toivonen 2009). Better educated people tend to buy organic foods more frequently than people with less education (Saarnivaara 2015), which may explain why the organic consumers were well-educated.

6. Persons of Finnish background and speaking domestic languages as their first language comprise 94 percent of Finland’s population (Statistics Finland 2017). In the research project, no special effort to reach various ethnic groups was made by the study design and recruiting channels. For instance, participation in the focus group discussion required proficient Finnish-language skills. Consequently, this study does not examine how the growing multiculturalism in Finland is reflected in Finns’ attitudes to meat and animals.

7. Barn-raised hens have more space and more opportunities to perform species-specific behaviors than caged hens, although high densities can impair movement (Lay et al. 2011). In foie gras production, force feeding cause distress, pain, and injuries to birds, and birds also suffer from impaired health and mobility because of an enlarged liver and obesity (AVMA 2014).

8. English translation by Jonas Simola. The original French text is available online in Terrain at http://terrain.revues.org/2932.

9. “Manducation du même, du semblable.”