The animal/plant divide in the post-truth era

Contemporary dietary discourse is filled with contradictions and exaggerations. Animal source foods are particularly controversial, being described as both beneficial and detrimental to health. In today’s dietary wars, everyday foods are depicted as moral absolutes, categorized as either 'bad' (e.g., meat) 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 unnatural, unhealthy, or outright evil.

The animal/plant divide originated in the 19th century with the institutionalization of the belief that meat is harmful to human health. This ideology was spread by religious sects and temperance movements, later integrated into household economics by 'food reformists,' ultimately shaping public dietary narratives and contributing to today's healthy user bias. Wealthier, healthier individuals are more prone to adhere to dietary guidelines, which is then captured as an 'association' by nutritional epidemiology, thereby reinforcing the pattern through a positive feedback loop.

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.

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.

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. The setup and/or use of models that are used by such scientists in food systems simulations may be flawed, emphasizing desired outcomes selectively. Eventually, the danger is that the outcomes of such studies are adopted by policy makers and lead to reckless top-down approaches, while neglecting unexpected events and leading to harmful interventionist policies and ethical repercussions.