New omnivorism is a term coined by Andy Lamey to refer to arguments that – paradoxically – our duties towards animals require us to eat some animal products. Lamey’s claim to have identified a new, distinctive position in food ethics is problematic, however, for some of his interlocutors are not new (e.g., Leslie Stephen in the nineteenth century), not distinctive (e.g., animal welfarists), and not obviously concerned with eating animals (e.g., plant neurobiologists). It is the aim of this paper to (...) bolster Lamey’s argument that he has identified a novel, unified, and intriguing position (or set of positions) in animal ethics and the philosophy of food. We distinguish new omnivorism from four other non-vegan positions and then differentiate three versions of new omnivorism based on the kinds of animal products they propose we consume. We conclude by exploring a range of argumentative strategies that could be deployed in response to the new omnivore. (shrink)

The present study seeks to introduce the European Christian community to the debate on environmental degradation while displaying its important role and theological perspectives in the resolution of the environmental crisis. The fundamental question authors have asked here is if Christianity supports pro-environmental attitudes compared to other religions, in a context where religion, in general, represents the ethical foundation of our civilization and, thus, an important behavior guide. The discussion becomes all the more interesting as many voices have identified the (...) Christian theological tradition as ecologically bankrupt, while others as a source for environmental ethics. In seeking to refute or to confirm the Lynne White’s thesis, firstly, we aimed to rediscover the biblical ecological consciousness and the theology of care. Secondly, following the literature evidence on relevant differences between countries and the influence that religion has on approaching environmental issues, we considered the religion-environmental correlation within a particular country context. For this, data from the European Values Study survey were used, by including 20 European countries. One novelty of this contribution is to highlight the influence of the legacy of the former political regime on pro-environmental attitude and religious practices. The study testifies that the search for a common language for environmental stewardship is a difficult task and fundamental to how we behave. Despite this, within this frame of discussion, we argue that Christianity, as a major social actor, co-exists with and can enhance the interest in and respect for nature. (shrink)

Marcus William Hunt argues that when co-parents disagree over whether to raise their child (or children) as a vegan, they should reach a compromise as a gift given by one parent to the other out of respect for his or her authority. Josh Millburn contends that Hunt’s proposal of parental compromise over veganism is unacceptable on the ground that it overlooks respect for animal rights, which bars compromising. However, he contemplates the possibility of parental compromise over ‘unusual eating,’ of animal-based (...) foods obtained without the violation of animal rights. I argue for zero parental compromise, rejecting a rights-oriented approach, and propose a policy that an ethical vegan parent and a non-vegan co-parent should follow to determine how to raise their children. (shrink)

Given the substantial contribution of livestock agriculture to global greenhouse gas emissions, significant changes in that sector will likely occur as part of a comprehensive climate mitigation and adaptation plan. One option for reducing the sector’s climate footprint is the development and introduction of new forms of plant-based and lab-grown meat alternatives that accurately replicate the sensory and nutritional qualities of meat. Since the current global trend is toward increased meat consumption, these products are designed to appeal primarily to meat-eaters (...) with the intention of enticing them to reduce or eliminate their consumption of animal meat. While this technology promises the undeniable benefits of reducing GHG and animal suffering, I argue that its widespread adoption could exacerbate global inequity, particularly between affluent and poor individuals and nations. To make my case, I identify four potential sources of inequity: the creation of luxury foods, an expansion of food deserts, increased economic disparity between the Global North and South, and the awarding of patents on the technology to multinational corporations. In light of economic pressures and dietary trends, it is likely these new meat alternatives will be introduced into the global market. As such, I do not argue against their development, but conclude by outlining some policies aimed at mitigating their negative social impacts and promoting food equity. (shrink)

The consumption of traditional meat is currently being challenged by the rise of meat alternatives claimed to be more beneficial for the environment and non-human animals. One of the peculiarities of these products lies in their attempt to replace meat through the close imitation of its sensory qualities, which poses relevant philosophical questions: What are the purported reasons that motivate this imitation, instead of the promotion of different but sustainable foods that break with the imagery of meat eating? And, if (...) eating meat is considered morally wrong, what is the moral status of the simulation of a wrong act? Our aim is to address these questions to shed new light on the ethical claims that constitute, in fact, one of the major advantages of these products. Firstly, we introduce the aims and functions of simulating meat sensory qualities. Subsequently, we investigate whether the imitation of meat can be found morally acceptable on consequentialist grounds. Lastly, we raise the question of whether there is room for claiming that imitating meat is morally wrong even if its consequences are overall better, from the point of view of non-consequentialist ethical frameworks. We conclude that there are not compelling reasons for considering meat imitation as morally undesirable. (shrink)

Increasing concerns for climate change call for radical changes in food systems. There is a need to pay more attention to the entangled changes in technological development, food production, as well as consumption and consumer demand. Consumer and market interest in alternative meat and milk products—such as plant based milk, plant protein products and cultured meat and milk—is increasing. At the same time, statistics do not show a decrease in meat consumption. Yet alternatives have been suggested to have great transitional (...) potential, appealing to different consumer segments, diets, and identities. We review 123 social scientific journal articles on cell-based and plant-based meat and milk alternatives to understand how the positioning of alternatives as both same and different in relation to animal-based products influences their role within the protein transition. We position the existing literature into three themes: promissory narratives and tensions on markets, consumer preferences, attitudes, and behavioral change policies, and the politics and ethics of the alternatives. Based on our analysis of the literature, we suggest that more research is needed to understand the broader ethical impacts of the re-imagination of the food system inherent in meat and milk alternatives. There is also a need to direct more attention to the impacts of meat and milk alternatives to the practices of agricultural practices and food production at the farm-level. A closer examination of these research gaps can contribute to a better understanding of the transformative potential of alternatives on a systemic level. (shrink)

Synthetic meat products promise to serve as inexpensive substitute proteins that can replace meat made through conventional animal agriculture. At least some of the excitement about these products stems from ethical and moral concerns regarding animal welfare, environmental costs, and human health. A governing idea behind the creation of substitute meat is that consumers will recognize the ethical and moral concerns of conventional production and substitute one (better) product for another (worse) product. This approach, however, overlooks a much more practical (...) complication: the problem of indifference. That is,--consumer demand does not in practice greatly hinge on the well-known moral issues in conventional animal agriculture, as evident by the immense scale of the current meat market. In this paper, we ask how consumer indifference and producer strategy might influence the uptake of clean meat in the economic market. We suggest that thinking about the challenge in this way reveals powerful presuppositions that confuse our thinking about the potential of synthetic meat. Rather than understanding synthetic meat in terms of its substitution value, we propose approaching the challenge of synthetic meat from the standpoint of reasons-for and reasons-against. Doing so, we suggest, exposes the complications of “causal indeterminacy” that in turn implicate our thinking both about moral responsibility and the broader nature of technocratic solutions to environmental problems. We argue instead that synthetic meat offers an exciting and novel product, but likely not a substitute that will displace the conventional protein industry. (shrink)

We argue for the existence of a moral dilemma– the ‘Puzzle of Lab-Grown Meat’– which challenges those who would endorse the moral permissibility of eating lab-grown meat, such as lab-grown chicken. The puzzle is that it is unclear why the moral permissibility of eating lab-grown meat should not extend to all lab-grown meat, such as white rhino or human, yet intuitively, we consider such meat morally impermissible to consume. To reject this challenge forces an endorsement of one of two implausibly (...) strong positions: either that all lab-grown meat is morally impermissible to eat or that all lab-grown meat is morally permissible to eat. To accept this challenge, is to attempt to solve the puzzle by providing a morally relevant distinction between ‘fair-game’ and ‘off-limits’ lab-grown meat. We consider a range of solutions but argue that each fails to solve the puzzle. (shrink)