# Carnism > Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Carnism > Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Carnism.md > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism > Source revision: 1331069308 > License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) {{Short description|Ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products}} {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2017}} {{Infobox | title = Carnism | titlestyle = background-color:#E5E4E2; | above-style = background-color: | image = 300px | caption = [Joshua Norton](/source/Emperor_Norton) eating meat, watched by [street dog](/source/street_dog)s [Bummer and Lazarus](/source/Bummer_and_Lazarus) in San Francisco in the 1860s | headerstyle = background-color: | label2 = Description | data2 = Psychological theory about the ideology of animal use | label3 = Term coined by | data3 = [Melanie Joy](/source/Melanie_Joy), 2001 | label4 = Related ideas | data4 = [Anthrozoology](/source/Anthrozoology), [ethics of eating meat](/source/ethics_of_eating_meat), [psychology of eating meat](/source/psychology_of_eating_meat), [speciesism](/source/speciesism), [veganism](/source/veganism), [vegetarianism](/source/vegetarianism) }} {{Animal rights sidebar}} '''Carnism''' is a concept used in discussions of humanity's relation to other animals, defined as a prevailing [ideology](/source/ideology) in which people support the use and consumption of [animal product](/source/animal_product)s, especially [meat](/source/meat).{{refn|group=n|Gibert, Martin; Desaulniers, Élise (2014): "Carnism refers to the ideology conditioning people to consume certain animal products. It is essentially the opposite of veganism."}} Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of [defense mechanisms](/source/defense_mechanisms) and mostly unchallenged assumptions.{{cite book | title=Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies | publisher=New York: Columbia University Press | author=DeMello, Margo | year=2012 | page = [https://books.google.com/books?id=92Ct9iD1QTYC&pg=PA138 138]}}Dhont, Kristof; Hodson, Gordon (2014). [https://kar.kent.ac.uk/41689/1/Dhont&Hodson%202014%20PAID.pdf "Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption?"], ''Personality and Individual Differences'', 64, July (pp. 12–17), p. 4. {{doi|10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002}}Kool, V. K.; Agrawal, Rita (2009). "The Psychology of Nonkilling", in Joám Evans Pim (ed.),''Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm'', [Center for Global Nonkilling](/source/Center_for_Global_Nonkilling), pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=TzDZYc8SGigC&pg=PA353 353–356]. As a dominant ideological system of which [meat consumption](/source/Ethics_of_eating_meat) and [animal exploitation](/source/animal_exploitation) are a part, it prescribes norms and beliefs about animal treatment.{{cite journal | last1 = Dhont | first1 = Kristof | last2 = Hodson | first2 = Gordon | author-link = | title = Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption? | journal = Personality and Individual Differences | volume = 64 | issue = | pages = 12–17 | publisher = | date = July 2014 | doi = 10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002 | language = | url = https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886914000944 | jstor = | issn = | access-date = 28 December 2025}} The term ''carnism'' was coined by social psychologist and author [Melanie Joy](/source/Melanie_Joy) in 2001 and popularized by her book ''[Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows](/source/Why_We_Love_Dogs%2C_Eat_Pigs%2C_and_Wear_Cows)'' (2009).[Joy, Melanie](/source/Melanie_Joy) (2011) [2009]. ''Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism''. Conari Press, p. 9. {{ISBN|1573245054}}.Rose, Marla (8 November 2010). [http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2010/11/interview-dr-melanie-joy-on-why-we-love-dogs-eat-pigs-and-wear-cows/ "An Interview with Dr. Melanie Joy"], ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Advocacy for Animals.[Schott, Ben](/source/Ben_Schott) (11 January 2010). [http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/carnism/ "Carnism"], Schott's Vocab, ''The New York Times''. Central to the ideology is the acceptance of meat-eating as "natural", "normal", "necessary", and (sometimes) "nice", known as the "Four Ns".{{refn|group=n|Joy introduced the "Three Ns of Justification", namely that meat-eating is regarded as "normal, natural, and necessary".Joy 2011, p. 96. A 2015 paper developed this into the "Four Ns": "natural, normal, necessary, and nice".Singal, Jesse (4 June 2015). [http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06/4-ways-people-rationalize-eating-meat.html "The 4 Ways People Rationalize Eating Meat"], ''New York Magazine''.}} An important feature of carnism is the classification of only particular species of animal as food, and the acceptance of practices toward those animals that would be rejected as unacceptable [cruelty](/source/Cruelty_to_animals) if applied to other species. This classification is culturally relative, so that, for example, dogs are eaten by some people in [Korea](/source/Korea) but may be pets in the West, while cows are eaten in the West but [protected](/source/Cattle_in_religion) in much of [India](/source/India). ==History== {{see also|Animal industrial complex|Ethics of eating meat|History of vegetarianism}} Analyzing the history of vegetarianism and opposition to it from ancient Greece to the present day, literary scholar [Renan Larue](/source/Renan_Larue) found certain commonalities in what he described as carnist arguments. According to him, carnists typically held that vegetarianism is a ludicrous idea unworthy of attention, that mankind is invested with dominion over animals by divine authority, and that abstaining from violence against animals would pose a threat to humans. He found that the views that farmed animals do not suffer, and that slaughter is preferable to death by disease or predation, gained currency in the nineteenth century, but that the former had precedent in the writings of [Porphyry](/source/Porphyry_(philosopher)), a vegetarian who advocated the humane production of animal products which do not require animals to be slaughtered, such as wool.{{cite web | url=http://penseravantdouvrirlabouche.com/2015/01/30/le-vegetarisme-et-ses-ennemis-entrevue-avec-renan-larue/ | title=Le végétarisme et ses ennemis: entrevue avec Renan Larue | date=30 January 2015 | access-date=6 August 2015 | author=Desaulniers, Élise| author-link=Élise Desaulniers }} [[File:Melanie Joy, TEDX, 2015.jpg|left|thumb|[Melanie Joy](/source/Melanie_Joy) coined the term ''carnism'' in 2001]] In the 1970s, traditional views on the moral standing of animals were challenged by [animal rights](/source/animal_rights) advocates, including psychologist [Richard Ryder](/source/Richard_D._Ryder), who in 1971 introduced the notion of [speciesism](/source/speciesism). This is defined as the assignment of value and rights to individuals solely on the basis of their [species](/source/species) membership.[Ryder, Richard D.](/source/Richard_D._Ryder) (1971). "Experiments on Animals", in Stanley Godlovitch, Roslind Godlovitch, John Harris (eds.), ''Animals, Men and Morals'', Grove Press.Ryder, Richard D. (2009). "Speciesism", in [Marc Bekoff](/source/Marc_Bekoff) (ed.), ''Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare'', Greenwood[Diamond, Cora](/source/Cora_Diamond) (2004). "Eating Meat and Eating People", in [Cass Sunstein](/source/Cass_Sunstein), [Martha Nussbaum](/source/Martha_Nussbaum) (eds.), ''Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions'', Oxford University Press, p. 93. In 2001, psychologist and animal rights advocate Melanie Joy coined the term ''carnism'' for a form of speciesism that she argues underpins using animals for food, and particularly killing them for meat.[Joy, Melanie](/source/Melanie_Joy) (2001). [http://www.satyamag.com/sept01/joy.html "From Carnivore to Carnist: Liberating the Language of Meat"], ''Satya'', 18(2), September, pp. 126–127; Joy, Melanie (2003). ''Psychic Numbing and Meat Consumption: The Psychology of Carnism'', doctoral dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School, San Francisco. Joy compares carnism to [patriarchy](/source/patriarchy), arguing that both are dominant normative ideologies that go unrecognized because of their ubiquity:{{cite book | title=Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics | chapter = Carnism | chapter-url=https://martingibert.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/gibert-desaulniers-2013-carnism.pdf| publisher=Springer Netherlands |author1=Gibert, Martin | author2-link = Élise Desaulniers |author2=Desaulniers, Élise| year=2014 | pages=292–298 | isbn=978-94-007-0929-4| doi=10.1007/978-94-007-0929-4_83 }} {{blockquote|We don't see meat eating as we do vegetarianism – as a choice, based on a set of assumptions about animals, our world, and ourselves. Rather, we see it as a given, the "natural" thing to do, the way things have always been and the way things will always be. We eat animals without thinking about what we are doing and why, because the belief system that underlies this behavior is invisible. This invisible belief system is what I call ''carnism''.}} Sandra Mahlke argues that carnism is the "central crux of speciesism" because the eating of meat motivates ideological justification for other forms of animal exploitation.{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F6hPAwAAQBAJ | title=Das Machtverhältnis zwischen Mensch und Tier im Kontext sprachlicher Distanzierungsmechanismen: Anthropozentrismus, Speziesismus und Karnismus in der kritischen Diskursanalyse | publisher=Diplomica Verlag | author=Mahlke, Sandra | year=2014 | isbn=978-3-8428-9140-1}} [Abolitionist](/source/Abolitionism_(animal_rights)) [Gary Francione](/source/Gary_Francione) argues against this that carnism is not a hidden ideology, but a conscious choice; in his view some animals are viewed as food and others family because humans regard non-humans as [property](/source/property), and they may value that property as they please.{{cite web|author=Francione, Gary L.|date=1 October 2012|url= http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/carnism-there-is-nothing-invisible-about-the-ideology-of-animal-exploitation/#.VaRgmjg3RGk|title='Carnism'? There is nothing 'invisible' about the ideology of animal exploitation|publisher= abolitionistapproach.com}} ==Features== ===Edible or inedible=== {{multiple image|caption_align=center | align = right | header = Examples of cultural differences | direction = vertical | width = 220 | image1 = Surabhi Cow Vrindavan.jpg | alt1 = | caption1 = A cow rests in the street in [Vrindavan](/source/Vrindavan). In some Eastern cultures, cows are [revered](/source/Cattle_in_religion), whereas in other cultures they are eaten as [beef](/source/beef). | image2 = Dog on a stick.jpg | alt2 = | caption2 = Cooked dog and poultry in China. In some Western cultures, dogs are not eaten as meat but poultry is, whereas in some Eastern cultures dogs are eaten as [dog-meat](/source/dog_meat). }} A central aspect of carnism is that animals are categorized as edible, inedible, pets, [vermin](/source/vermin), predators, or entertainment animals, according to people's [schemata](/source/Schema_(psychology)) – mental classifications that determine, and are determined by, our beliefs and desires. There is cultural variability regarding which animals count as food: Dogs are eaten in China and South Korea, but elsewhere are not viewed as food, either because they are loved, or, as in the Middle East and parts of India, regarded as unclean.Herzog, Hal (2011). [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201106/having-your-dog-and-eating-it-too "Having Your Dog and Eating It Too?"], ''Psychology Today''. Cows are eaten in the West but revered in much of India. Pigs are rejected by Muslims and Jews but widely regarded by other groups as edible.{{cite book|author=Robert L. Winzeler|title=Anthropology and Religion: What We Know, Think, and Question|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mREqLR4uqp8C&pg=PA63|year=2012|publisher=AltaMira Press|isbn=978-0-7591-2191-1|page=63}} Joy and other psychologists{{who|date=January 2023}} argue that these taxonomies determine how the animals within them are treated, influence subjective perceptions of their sentience and intelligence, and reduce or increase [empathy](/source/empathy) and moral concern for them.Joy 2011, pp. 14, 17. ===Meat paradox=== {{main|Psychology of eating meat#Meat paradox}} Jeff Mannes writes that carnism is rooted in a paradox between most people's values and actions: they oppose harming animals, and yet eat them. He argues that this conflict leads to [cognitive dissonance](/source/cognitive_dissonance), which people attempt to attenuate through [psychic numbing](/source/psychic_numbing).{{cite book | chapter-url=http://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-2232-4/lexikon-der-mensch-tier-beziehungen | title=Lexikon der Mensch-Tier-Beziehungen | chapter = Karnismus | publisher=Transcript Verlag | author=Mannes, Jeff| year=2015 | pages=191–193 | isbn=978-3-8376-2232-4}} The apparent conflict between caring about animals and embracing diets which require them to be harmed has been termed the "[meat paradox](/source/Psychology_of_eating_meat)".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}}{{cite journal | title=The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals | author=Loughnan, Steve| journal=Appetite |year=2010 | volume=55 | issue=1 | pages=156–159 | doi=10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043 | pmid=20488214| s2cid=29487745|display-authors=etal}}Fawcett, Anne (2013). "Euthanasia and morally justifiable killing in a veterinary clinical context", in Jay Johnston, Fiona Probyn-Rapsey (eds.), ''Animal Death'', Sydney: Sydney University Press, p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=BaGUOm2SRngC&pg=PA215 215]. There is experimental evidence supporting the idea that the meat paradox induces cognitive dissonance in Westerners.{{cite journal | title=Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters | author=Rothgerber, Hank | journal=Appetite |date=August 2014 | volume=79 | pages=32–41 | doi=10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003| pmid=24727102 | s2cid=12089867 }}Hodson, Gordon (3 March 2014). [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/without-prejudice/201403/the-meat-paradox-loving-exploiting-animals "The Meat Paradox: Loving but Exploiting Animals"], ''Psychology Today''. Westerners are more willing to eat animals which they regard as having lesser mental capacities and moral standing, and conversely, to attribute lesser mental faculties and moral standing to animals which are eaten.{{cite journal | url=https://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~uqbbast1/Bastian%20et%20al%20PSPB%20in%20press.pdf|doi=10.1177/0146167211424291 |pmid=21980158 | title=Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption | author=Bastian, Brock| journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin |date=2011 | volume=38 | issue=2 | pages=247–256|s2cid=22757046 |display-authors=etal}} Furthermore, the relationship is causative: the categorization of animals as food or not affects people's perception of their mental characteristics, and the act of eating meat itself causes people to attribute diminished mental capacity to animals. For example, in one study people rated an unfamiliar exotic animal as less intelligent if they were told native people hunted it, and in another they regarded cows as less intelligent after eating beef jerky. Avoiding consideration of the provenance of [animal product](/source/animal_product)s is another strategy.{{cite book|last1=Plous|first1=Scott|editor1-last=Plous|editor1-first=Scott|title=Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination|date=2002|publisher=McGraw Hill Higher Education|isbn=978-0-07-255443-4|pages=509–528|chapter-url=http://www.understandingprejudice.org/pdf/animals.pdf?logged=true|access-date=9 August 2015|chapter=Is there such a thing as discrimination towards animals?}} Joy argues that this is why meat is rarely served with the animal's head or other intact body parts.Joy 2011, p. 16. {{anchor|4 Ns}} ===Justification=== Joy introduced the idea of the "Three Ns of Justification", writing that meat-eaters regard [meat consumption](/source/meat_consumption) as "normal, natural, and necessary". She argues that the "Three Ns" have been invoked to justify other ideologies, including slavery and denying women the right to vote, and are widely recognized as problematic only after the ideology they support has been dismantled.Joy 2011, p. 97. The argument holds that people are conditioned to believe that humans evolved to eat meat, that it is expected of them, and that they need it to survive or be strong. These beliefs are said to be reinforced by various institutions, including religion, family, and the media. Although scientists have shown that humans can get enough protein in their diets without eating meat,{{cite web | url = http://nutritionfacts.org/video/do-vegetarians-get-enough-protein/ | title = Do vegetarians get enough protein? | first1 = Michael | last1 = Greger | date = 6 June 2014}} the belief that meat is required persists. Moreover, a 2022 study published in ''[PNAS](/source/PNAS)'' calls into question the impact of meat consumption on shaping the evolution of the human species.{{cite news |last=Sloat |first=Sarah |date=January 24, 2022 |title=Did eating meat make us human? New research casts some doubt |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/eating-meat-make-us-human-new-research-casts-doubt-rcna13315 |work=[NBC News](/source/NBC_News) |location= |access-date=January 25, 2022}}{{cite journal |last1=Barr |first1=W. Andrew |last2=Pobiner |first2=Briana |display-authors=etal. |date=2022 |title=No sustained increase in zooarchaeological evidence for carnivory after the appearance of Homo erectus |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |volume=119 |issue=5 |article-number=e2115540119 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2115540119 |doi-access=free |pmid=35074877 |pmc=8812535 |bibcode=2022PNAS..11915540B }} Building on Joy's work, psychologists conducted a series of studies in the United States and Australia, published in 2015, that found the great majority of meat-eaters' stated justifications for consuming meat were based on the "Four Ns" – "natural, normal, necessary, and nice". The arguments were that humans are [omnivore](/source/omnivore)s (''natural''), that most people eat meat (''normal''), that [Vegan](/source/Veganism) diets are lacking in nutrients (''necessary''), and that meat tastes good (''nice'').{{cite journal | title=Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns | author=Piazza, Jared| journal=Appetite |date=August 2015 | volume=91 | pages=114–128 | doi=10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011|display-authors=etal | pmid=25865663| url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/24434085/Piazza_etal_A_2015_Rationalizing_Meat_Consumption_The_4Ns.pdf| hdl=20.500.11820/9cf94fc6-b4a9-4066-af4a-9c53d2fd3122| s2cid=11686309| hdl-access=free}}{{paragraph break}} [http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/news/articles/2015/how-people-defend-eating-meat/ "How people defend eating meat"], Lancaster University, 15 May 2015.{{cite web |author=Goodyer |first=Paula |author-link=Paula Goodyer |date=1 June 2015 |title=Meat eaters justify diet using 'Four Ns': natural, necessary, normal, nice |url=http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/meat-eaters-justify-diet-using-four-ns-natural-necessary-normal-nice-20150531-ghd5le.html |work=Sydney Morning Herald}} Meat-eaters who endorsed these arguments more strongly reported less guilt about their dietary habits. They tended to objectify animals, have less moral concern for them and attribute less consciousness to them. They were also more supportive of [social inequality](/source/social_inequality) and hierarchical ideologies, and less proud of their [consumer choice](/source/consumer_choice)s. Helena Pedersen, in her review of Joy's original book, suggested Joy's theory was too broad and did not account for variation in people's beliefs and attitudes; for example, Pedersen argues that Joy's argument that people dissociate animal products from their animal origins cannot account for some hunters who make explicit connection between the two as a justification for consumption or for former [Vegans](/source/Veganism) who have changed their attitudes towards the consumption of animal products. Pedersen also says that Joy seems to present the consumption of animal-products as arising from ignorance of how they are produced, however Pedersen disagrees that people would simply change their consumption if they were more informed.Pedersen, Helena. "Critical Carnist Studies." Society & Animals 20, no. 1 (2012): 111–112. ==="Saved from slaughter" narratives=== [[File:Biden Turkey Pardon 2021.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|The [National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation](/source/National_Thanksgiving_Turkey_Presentation), in which the American president pardons a turkey, has been cited as an illustration of carnism.]] An illustration of dissonance reduction is the prominence given to "saved from slaughter" stories, in which the media focus on one animal that evaded slaughter, while ignoring the millions that did not. Joy wrote that this dichotomy is characteristic of carnism.Joy 2011, pp. 135, 150 Animals at the center of these narratives include Wilbur in ''[Charlotte's Web](/source/Charlotte's_Web)'' (1952); the eponymous and fictional star of ''[Babe](/source/Babe_(film))'' (1995); Christopher Hogwood in [Sy Montgomery](/source/Sy_Montgomery)'s ''The Good, Good Pig'' (2006);Mizelle, Brett (2015). "Unthinkable Visibility: Pigs, Pork and the Spectacle of Killing and Meat", in Marguerite S. Shaffer, Phoebe S. K. Young (eds.), ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=AXoJCgAAQBAJ Rendering Nature: Animals, Bodies, Places, Politics]'', University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 264; Mizelle, Brett (2012). ''Pig'', Reaktion Books, pp. 105–106. the [Tamworth Two](/source/Tamworth_Two); [Emily the Cow](/source/Emily_(cow)) and [Cincinnati Freedom](/source/Cincinnati_Freedom). The American [National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation](/source/National_Thanksgiving_Turkey_Presentation) is cited as another example. A 2012 study found that most media reporting on it celebrated the [poultry industry](/source/Poultry_farming) while marginalizing the link between living animals and meat.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, pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=IR9woMrfFs4C&pg=PA103 103ff]. ==Non-academic reception== Opinion pieces in ''[The Huffington Post](/source/The_Huffington_Post)'', ''[The Statesman](/source/The_Statesman_(India))'', and ''[The Drum](/source/The_Drum_(TV_program))'' praised the idea, saying the term made it easier to discuss, and challenge, the practices of animal exploitation.{{cite web|last1=Spencer|first1=Stephan|title=Friend or Food? The Ideology of How We Decide|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephan-spencer/carnism_b_1876600.html|website=The Huffington Post: The Blog|date=13 Sep 2013|access-date=19 August 2015}}{{cite web|last1=Gandhi|first1=Maneka|title=From cuisine to corpses to 'carnism'|url=http://www.thestatesman.com/mobi/news/8th-day/from-cuisine-to-corpses-to-carnism/73696.html|publisher=The Statesman|date=5 Jul 2015|access-date=19 August 2015}}{{cite web|last1=Fox|first1=Katrina|title=Eating meat isn't natural: it's carnism|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-18/35008|website=The Drum|publisher=ABC|date=28 Sep 2010|access-date=19 August 2015}} An article in the beef industry outlet ''Drovers Cattle Network'' criticized the use of the term, saying it implied that eating animal foods was a "psychological sickness".{{cite web|last1=Murphy|first1=Dan|title=Commentary: The carnist conundrum|url=http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Commentary-The-carnist-conundrum-128069853.html|publisher=Drovers Cattle Network|access-date=19 August 2015|date=19 Aug 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160815055750/http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Commentary-The-carnist-conundrum-128069853.html|archive-date=15 August 2016}} ==See also== * [Food studies](/source/Food_studies) * [Moral psychology](/source/Moral_psychology) *[Non-vegetarian](/source/Non-vegetarian)ism * [Psychology of eating meat](/source/Psychology_of_eating_meat) * [Speciesism](/source/Speciesism) * [Taboo food and drink](/source/Taboo_food_and_drink) * [Veganism](/source/Veganism) * [List of vegan media](/source/List_of_vegan_media) ==Notes== {{reflist|group=n}} ==References== {{reflist|26em}} ==Further reading== * Castricano, Jodey, and Rasmus R. Simonsen, eds. (2016). ''Critical Perspectives on Veganism''. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. * Kanerva, Minna (2021). [https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-5433-2 ''The New Meatways and Sustainability'']. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag. * Herzog, Hal (2010). ''Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat''. New York: Harper Collins. * Joy, Melanie (2015). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg "Beyond carnism and toward rational, authentic food choices"], [TEDx talk](/source/TED_(conference)). * Monteiro, Christopher A., Tamara D. Pfeiler, Marcus D. Patterson and Michael A. Milburn (2017). "The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals". ''Appetite'' 113: 51–62. {{doi|10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011}}. * Potts, Annie, ed. (2016). ''Meat Culture''. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. * Vialles, Noëlie (1994). ''Animal to Edible''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. {{Animal rights}} {{Meat}} {{Vegetarianism}} {{Sustainability}} {{Authority control}} Category:Animal rights Category:Animal welfare Category:Carnivory Category:Animal ethics Category:Ethical schools and movements Category:Philosophy of biology Category:Prejudices Category:Psychological concepts Category:Sustainable food system Category:Vegetarianism Category:Veganism --- Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Carnism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.