1 in 10 Americans say they don’t eat meat – a growing share of the population | Hacker News Reader

1 in 10 Americans say they don’t eat meat – a growing share of the population

theconversation.com

49 pointspseudolus31 comments

Yet unlike other American social trends, it doesn't seem to be spreading to some countries that fast. I'm somewhat interested in being vegetarian but ended up marrying someone from another culture who absolutely refuses to have a main meal without meat in it.

Living with her, and in other countries, also forced me to realize how weird and distanced American culture is toward meat. Growing up, I was sort of taught / sort of allowed to be grossed out by many cuts of meat. E.g. on a chicken, I'd be kind of horrified by the bits near the bones and focus on the rather anonymous bits like the breast, where you can almost pretend it's not meat. Organs, cartilage, tendon, etc were all utterly unthinkable. Even particularly dark pieces of meat (again, on chicken) were kind of just... avoided.

Not so much in other cultures. My wife gleefully eats just about any part of an animal. And as I've come around to trying things I've discovered that all those weird bits are wonderful. Even intestine, in the right preparation.

Which presents a quandary. What if we split up and I wanted to try being vegetarian, with fake meat / meat substitutes? Well, those fakes are decent at replacing something like chicken breast, or a piece of sausage. But I can't imagine that anyone is rushing to find an alternative to fried cartilage, or sliced liver, or marrow in the bone, or stewed tendon. And I'd miss the hell out of those things, now that I've learned to enjoy them.

A friend of the family will absolutely refuse to eat chicken on the bone. When my wife was visiting recently, the grocery store was out of boneless chicken pieces, so she bought bone-in thighs instead. Our friend was horrified until my wife said she was planning on deboning them. Very strange mindset.

I grew up eating chicken on the bone, and it was just understood that you eat around the gristly bits. I guess eating nothing but nuggets and tenders warps your sense of what food is.

It's because a vast majority of modern meat eaters don't ever get it into their heads (thanks to the neat packaging) that they are eating a once living being which has a similar body structure to theirs.

The grossing out is purely subconscious thought about this reality. Of course, for those that do enjoy even the cringy bits, this thought is pushed even further deep down. There is not much difference between closing the eyes and eating what ever is kept in the mouth purely relying on sense of taste and opening the eyes and eating a living thing when the sense of taste is dominating everything else.

Eh, I dunno about that. If I, say, flip over a chicken thigh and eat the kidney that's nestled on the back side (which can be found there depending on butchering method), seeing that organ inevitably makes me think of where it was, and what its function was, in the living creature.

Without having done the butchering myself -- I've seen my meal walking around a couple hours before eating it, and thought about the living animal while I was eating its dead body. That's not really a thought that's "pushed down". I seriously doubt the farmers I'm eating with, who actually are killing the animal and taking it apart, have any difficulty at all with the facts of what they're doing. (Of course, on the other end, people who work in commercial-scale meat processing plants do sometimes have issues with it, but that's a very different environment.)

There is an argument that we should feel disgusted, that there should be a flinching away or buried horror to eating meat, but should does not always result in is or does.

Farming is a way for folks who work with their hands to achieve some degree of self-sovereignty and freedom — laudable goals. Unfortunately, this is often accomplished through gross ethical violations.

All we can do is educate consumers about the benefits of a whole food plant-based (WFPB) diet.

I challenge anyone to watch both The Dominion [1] and Forks Over Knives [2], and not walk away from the experience at least semi-curious about WFPB.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtnlwqEii2I

I've now been taught to rip right into the gristly bits. That cartilage cap on the end of a chicken leg is nice and crunchy. The tips of chicken wings are great when they're crisped. But yeah, I was also taught to kind of navigate around those.

The weird thing is, my mom was from Pennsylvania German culture and had been raised to eat all kinds of off cuts. So in theory, I should have learned from her. I guess my family got caught up in some kind of wider American zeitgeist about food (probably the same one that foisted Red Delicious apples and white eggs on us).

After 7 years being vegan, I've learned that most people actually dislike the idea of eating sentient beings, but years of mental dissonance and conditioning trained them to be fine with eating meat and meat products, so long they don't resemble the able.

> I've learned that most people actually dislike the idea of eating sentient beings

Sentient being is a very flimsy and arbitrary definition.

To me veganism is just another attempt to be on a high horse of morality and look down upon those who dont follow your values as evil, basically a kind christianity.

This is a consequence of poor (starving) vs. rich (affluent) nation histories. The scarcity mindset affects its people long term and sticks to the culture. Ex: "rich ppl problems"

Hypothesis: Maybe this is why there seems to be a propensity for the affluent to treat animals better than humans.

Note: Please don't downvote just because you disagree, bring meaningful discussion, thanks

Wouldn't be quite correct to say her country of origin is "starving". A very small percentage of the population may be at that point, but not the majority. However, meat was (prior to her generation) a status symbol. Now it's more of a class signifier; people won't be impressed, per se, but the fact you're eating a lot of meat places you in a particular group.

It's not that wide a gulf. "A chicken in every pot" was a popular slogan in the USA 2-3 generations back. But I doubt history will take exactly the same course in these other countries that are experiencing commoditized meat for the first time. American food is increasingly seen as bland and boring, rather than some ideal to aspire to.

I haven’t knowingly eaten an animal product in over 10 years, but in that same time, I’ve met many people who will tell you they’re vegan but when you go out to eat with them, they’ll suggest that it’s ok if they just have a little meat or dairy.

That experience (though anecdotal) makes it hard for me to trust this article’s title.

Just anecdata but almost every vegetarian I have met has a cheat they allow themselves.

Been a vegetarian for ~25 years, I don't cheat as my 'beliefs' (or whatever you want to call it) out-way my desire to eat bacon.

For me, at a certain point it became psychological and would be really hard for me to cheat.

i.e. I've tried those better-burger (or derivatives) and mentally I have to keep reminding myself it's not meat as it's a small step in throwing up. I pretty much don't order them any more). In the early days, the smell of bacon was the most tempting, but now it also turns my stomach and I have to leave the room. I can't imagine even trying those fake-meat prawns.

I am, and the cheats I allow myself are for convenience, for example when I go out or invited somewhere. I am not going to be that guy and be picky, i'll just eat whatever is there.

I'm a vegetarian who has a 'cheat' but it's based on ethics, not a way of getting something I want.

If a significant item of meat will go to waste due to something out of someone's control, then I might eat the meat. The ethical evaluation I'd do is to ask whether the benefit of showing that I do not want to contribute to meat being made for me is outweighed by the waste of simply throwing it away.

A similar reasoning would apply to, say, turning up at a dinner and the host had made a mistake and has no useful alternatives. They'll be embarrassed enough already, they'll be told I'm vegetarian but that I'll happy to eat the meat on that occasion. I'm not there to make it worse for them. But if there's plenty of veg so it's not a problem, I'll just have the veg. On the other hand if the host didn't care and had made meat knowing I don't (want to) eat meat, then I'd decline to eat. I can go a few days without food if I have to.

Also I'm tolerant of preparation mistakes, like meat arriving in a takeaway dish where it would be more trouble than it's worth to replace it (but I'd still seek a refund).

All the above together happened about 3 times in the last 10 years I think. I like doing it when it happens, because it reminds me and others that my vegetarianism is an active choice for me, that I make without feeling compelled to.

That said, I'm really not used to eating meat any more, and like my sibling commenter, if a fake meat seems realistic it makes me worry that I've been served the real stuff by mistake. I'd probably finish it but I'd really want to know.

I think I consider being vegatarian instead of vegan a cheat. Cheese and eggs are just too good. But alternatives are getting better these days, and I tend to eat vegan pizzas now.

Well the headline is about people's claims that they don't eat meat, not about whether that claim matches your definition of what a vegetarian is.

Similarly there are cultural and possibly generational differences to these things. In the US people seem to use a very strict definition, but I have lived in places where a meal without meat in it is considered vegetarian, even if it contains animal products like lard. These people might not be vegetarian according to your standards, but if they consider themselves to be how should they answer the question on a survey?

Plus I mean, it is ok. It is. If someone asks me I will tell them I don't smoke because my identity is as a nonsmoker, even though I had a cigarette a few months ago. Individuals could reject my claim based on their view of what that cigarette means, but that doesn't make me wrong to make the claim or identify in this way.

> Well the headline is about people's claims that they don't eat meat, not about whether that claim matches your definition of what a vegetarian is.

I simply used my personal experience to highlight that people can’t be trusted to give accurate information around how they consume animal products. I used veganism (not vegetarianism) because it has a rather well-defined criteria, and is what I have the most experience with.

> If someone asks me I will tell them I don't smoke because my identity is as a nonsmoker, even though I had a cigarette a few months ago.

Certainly, this depends on the question, but a good survey question won’t leave ambiguity.

It will likely specify a time frame and give you choices on how many cigarettes you’ve used, as well as asking if you identify as a smoker.

If I asked you “are you a smoker?”, your answer would rightfully be “no” since the definition of “smoker” requires regular use. If I asked “have you smoked tobacco products anytime in the last six months?”, I’d expect your answer to be “yes”.

With veganism, you can be directly told “I’m a vegan too” when someone hears you’re vegan. If they also choose to consume animals products during a casual meal with many vegan options, there’s no definition of the word “vegan” that they’d fit.

Agreed. I was recently dating someone who introduced and held herself out as a vegetarian. Our first date: sushi. She ate oodles of meat. Subsequent meals included lots of bacon (‘I don’t eat it that often’) and steak, occasionally. Really, she just didn’t like chicken. I know loads of people that fit this mold.

Yeah this is the problem with surveys, the discrepancy between what people say and what they actually do.

Same happens with religion surveys. Call it lying or hypocrisy, it is just human nature.

Not an expert, but in UX research you can go deeper by asking "why", but even then you need to confirm this (by consilience) with watching behavior, analytics or other methods. Human behavior is highly unreliable and irrational

This is a consequence of the proliferation of identity based politics, where having titles and labels grants people special status.

Why does it matter? If someone's reducing their meat consumption by a large amount, that's still a meaningful change. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

I'm not vegetarian or vegan but "Meat is a treat not a staple" has been my thing.

As a culture we don't necessarily need to go vegetarian, but we do need to let go of the last couple decades of food industry propaganda, advertising, and lobbying.

I switched to "mostly vegan" a few years ago. My health dramatically improved. Bad cholesterol was halved. I will continue with what works for me. Having a cheeseburger once a year was a treat until the last time I tried one and got physically ill from it. That episode helped me realize how my body had changed and what I was doing to it by eating meat. Dairy products weren't helping, either. I've found oatmilk and almond milk tolerable.

Dabbling in Keto, a burger is one of the impacts I feel the most. The grease, salt, and buns - often served with a carb side like fries - and the portions

I'm trying to reduce my meat consumption. I doubt I'll ever fully go vegetarian or even vegan by choice. I'm cutting down on meat and sugar, and I'm upgrading my whole grains and vegetables.

I call bullshit on this. All you have to do is visit a supermarket anywhere to see it. Go to restaurants. Maybe 1 in 10 cut back on their meat consumption ( and even that should be met with skepticism ) but the idea that 1 in 10 don't eat meat sounds like so many outrageous vegan propaganda on social media.

Meat production has been increasing in the US through 2019.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Meat_Animals_PDI/l...

Don't have pandemic numbers and I'm sure the pandemic put a dent in it, but 10%, come on.

Should be normalised for pricing.

'Supply and Demand' is real, meat is expensive now and it definitely changes the equation a bit.

This number is suspicious. That seems like an insanely high % based on what I know of my country

It's a big country, and this is a purely cultural, elective phenomenon. It seems likely to be something that forms clusters. You may simply have experience with areas where it's not prevalent.

The article says they only surveyed 930 Americans, and the survey was done online. They say the margin of error is only +-2% but I think it is much higher given the low sample size, the way the survey was administered, and no information on the geographic distribution of the participants.

That’s 10% more steaks for me then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com