Research report

The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumptionCorrina A Tucker School of People Environment and Planning Massey University Palmerston North New Zealand

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article historyReceived 16 March 2014Received in revised form 9 June 2014Accepted 17 June 2014Available online 19 June 2014

KeywordsNew ZealandSensory perceptionEnvironmentFoodProtein consumption

A B S T R A C T

Reducing meat (over-)consumption as a way to help address environmental deterioration will require arange of strategies and any such strategies will benefit from understanding how individuals might respondto various meat consumption practices To investigate how New Zealanders perceive such a range of prac-tices in this instance in vitro meat eating nose-to-tail entomophagy and reducing meat consumptionfocus groups involving a total of 69 participants were held around the country While it is the damagingenvironmental implications of intensive farming practices and the projected continuation of increasingglobal consumer demand for meat products that has propelled this research when asked to considervariations on the conventional meat-centric diet common to many New Zealanders it was the sensoryappeal of the areas considered that was deemed most problematic While an ecological rationale for con-sidering these lsquomeatrsquo alternatives was recognised and considered important by most transforming thisvalue into action looks far less promising given the recurrent sensory objections to consuming differentprotein-based foods or of reducing meat consumption This article considers the responses of focus groupparticipants in relation to each of the dietary practices outlined and offers suggestions on ways to en-courage a more environmentally viable diet

copy 2014 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

Introduction

Animal-derived proteins are the most resource intensive andhence environmentally damaging of all food types to produce(Buttriss 2011 Carlsson-Kanyama amp Gonzaacutelez 2009 Delgado 2003Horrigan Lawrence amp Walker 2002 Vinnari amp Tapio 2012) As notedby Stockzkiewicz (as cited in Chemnitz amp Becheva 2014 p 7)ldquonothing epitomizes what is wrong with our food and farming morethan the livestock sector and the quest for cheap and plentiful meatrdquoand in the words of Vinnari and Tapio (2012 p 46) ldquomeat con-sumption is often identified as the most environmentally harmfulfoodstuff to produce rdquo Moreover those in wealthy developedcountries such as New Zealand consume far more meat than is nec-essary and while demand for meat has peaked or is peaking in manydeveloped countries it is continuing to grow globally due to thegrowing middle-classes in rapidly developing countries notably IndiaChina and Brazil (Chemnitz amp Becheva 2014 Delgado 2003 Fiala2008 Gerbens-Leenes Nonhebel amp Krol 2010 Kanaly ManzaneroFoley Panneerselvam amp Macer 2010 Myers amp Kent 2003 OECD2011 Vinnari amp Tapio 2009) In short the food consumption prac-tices of the wealthy and rapidly developing nations are a consid-erable factor in the overuse or misuse of non-renewable resources(de Boer Boersema amp Aiking 2009 Marlow et al 2009) Explor-ing individualsrsquo responses to unconventional or novel food pro-

teins and eating practices to understand more acutely what factorsmay hinder or alternately encourage a more environmentally ben-eficial diet where meat consumption is reduced is therefore a worthypursuit (Schoumlsler de Boer amp Boersema 2012) In particular the socio-cultural context of New Zealand in shaping participant responsesto a range of consumption practices that can be related to reduc-ing meat consumption is explored

Farming the environment and meat demand

Animal derived food goods are the most resource intensive foodsavailable and as such are environmentally problematic (Chemnitzamp Becheva 2014 Connor amp Miacutenguez 2012 Horrigan et al 2002Marlow et al 2009 Science News 2010) In turn agricultural pro-duction is one of the most critical environmental issues facing theplanet given the widespread nature of the detrimental implica-tions (Chemnitz amp Becheva 2014 Laskawy 2010 Leckie 1997Marlow et al 2009) A report by the UN Environment Programmefrom 2010 described agriculture and food consumption as amongthe most important issues when it comes to environmental pres-sures and that these pressures ldquoare expected to increase substan-tially due to population growth increasing consumption of animalproductsrdquo (Science News 2010 p 1)

A range of New Zealandrsquos environmental issues emanate fromagriculture around 48 of the total amount of greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions and water and land based pollution from increased fer-tiliser use along with urine and manure from stock running off into E-mail address ctuckermasseyacnz

httpdxdoiorg101016jappet2014060220195-6663copy 2014 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

Appetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite

journal homepage wwwelseviercom locate appet

water are prime examples (Ministry for the Environment [MfE] 20072009 New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre[NZAGGRC] 2010 Ramos-Elorduy 1997) Given pasture land for ag-riculture occupies around 40 of New Zealand land it is not sur-prising that the environmental implications are large with freshwater quality in particular being a recurrent area of concern (es-pecially with intensive dairy production) (McDowell et al 2011)The increasing intensification and extension of agriculture has es-sentially been made possible by neglecting environmental healthand concentrating instead on economy and efficiency in the bid toproduce more food at cheaper costs (Rivera-Ferre 2009)

Animal protein foods are at the top of the food chain in rela-tion to the resources required to produce them and also in rela-tion to cost (Benning 2014 as cited in Chemnitz amp Becheva 2014Goodland 1997 Rivera-Ferre 2009) As such meat (and dairy) con-sumption has tended to be the preserve of wealthier people in de-veloped countries although the growth in meat demand is easingsomewhat in the worldrsquos industrialised nations (Buttriss 2011Delgado Rosegrant Steinfeld Ehui amp Courbis 1999 White 2000)But with increasing wealth in many developing nations (and sub-sequent increasing meat consumption) it is expected that globalmeat consumption will continue to climb (Buttriss 2011 Connoramp Miacutenguez 2012 Delgado 2003 Fiala 2006 Gerbens-Leenes et al2010 Horrigan et al 2002 McAlpine Etter Fearnside Seabrookamp Laurance 2009 Myers amp Kent 2003) Fiala (2008) has sug-gested that if meat consumption patterns continue along the samepath as they have been then consumption rates will be 72 higherthan 2000 levels by the year 2030 The forecast from the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO (2002) howeversuggested that growth in the world demand for meat would beslower in the years to 2030 (15 per year) than it had been in theyears 1970 to 2000 (at 22) Nonetheless meat production and con-sumption will both continue to grow (FAO 2002) This will likelymean a continuation of agricultural intensification with the aid ofnew technologies alongside continuing environmental degrada-tion issues (Vinnari amp Tapio 2012 Yates-Doerr 2012)

Many researchers agree on the need for some change in how ag-ricultural production is performed (Beddington 2010 Delgado 2003Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO] 2009Fiala 2006 Goodland 1997 Halweil 2008 Marlow et al 2009Matson Parton Power amp Swift 1997 McAlpine et al 2009 Pluhar2010 Reijnders amp Soret 2003 White 2000 Yen 2009) On the otherhand the question of meat demand from a consumer perspectiverequires addressing which is the focus of this article

I take the view shared by a number of others that a reductionin global meat consumption ndash or generally less reliance on animalbased proteins ndash can provide an important part of the solution toreducing the environmental harms associated with intensive agri-cultural production (Chemnitz amp Becheva 2014 Girod amp de Haan2009 Goodland 1997 Schoumlsler et al 2012 Tobler Visschers ampSiegrist 2011 Vinnari amp Tapio 2012) It is important to note alsothat it is meat reduction rather than vegetarianism (or veganism)that is argued for here to move too far in the direction of meat re-duction to elimination would likely raise a whole further raft ofissues (Gussow 1994) While reducing meat consumption is im-portant so too is the consideration of various alternate lsquomeatrsquo prod-ucts or diet types In this instance it is eating nose-to-tailentomophagy (or insect consumption which is common practicein a number of countries in Africa Asia and South America in par-ticular) and in vitro meat (laboratory or cultured meat that is grownusing tissue-engineering technology) along with reducing meat con-sumption that are discussed These various consumption prac-tices and possibilities may help shape a reduction in animal proteinreliance in the future which is the reason why participants in thisresearch were asked to provide their views on them What didhowever emerge in this research was that it is the sensory appeal

of these various dietary elements that is the main determinant formost participants regarding how willing they are to change theirdietary protein preferences

Sensory appeal and the New Zealand cultural palate

New Zealanders are some of the biggest meat consumers in theworld (Pereltsvaig 2013 The Economist 2012) As of 2009 the meatmost favoured by New Zealanders was poultry (35) followed bybeef and veal (31) pig meat (22) lamb (8) then mutton (4)(Beef and Lamb NZ 2013)1 Moreover the average per capita con-sumption of meat products (excluding fish and seafood) for NewZealanders according to the OECDrsquos (2013) provisional data for 2013is 806 kg ndash or 22082 grams per day New Zealandrsquos strong exportmarket in meat (worth NZD5 3045 million in 2012) combined withthe nationrsquos high meat consumption means that the country hasquite a significant stake in the future of meat consumption

Food consumption choices are made based upon a diverse andcomplex array of factors including for example food neophobia per-sonal values familiarity disgust and nutritional factors which canvary according to context (Baumlckstrom Pirttilauml-Backman amp Tuorila2003 Korzen amp Lassen 2010 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner2006 Prescott Young OrsquoNeill Yau amp Stevens 2002 Rozin 1996Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tivadar amp Luthar 2005) Ramos-Elorduy (1997p 249) describes how what we eat and the ways we eat and makedecisions about what is desirable or not are ldquoclosely bound to a pe-oplersquos history and their geographic origin and evolve in relation tolifestyle tradition and educationrdquo Also if we consider Bourdieursquos(1984 p 487) work food can be viewed as symbolic and as markinga means by which different groups in society can distinguishthemselves

One only has to bear in mind that goods are converted into dis-tinctive signs which may be signs of distinction but also of vul-garity as soon as they are perceived relationally to see that therepresentation which individuals and groups inevitably projectthrough their practices and properties is an integral part of socialreality

In simple terms our socialisation in a given time and place arecrucial to the habits formed around food tastes and are also usedas identifiers of ourselves within society (DeFoliart 1999 Miele1999) Meat (or meat-like products) is one of those areas wherebypreferences and dislikes appear exacerbated compared with otherfood types with a range of factors influencing why certain itemsmight be eaten or avoided (Holm amp Moslashhl 2000)

Hoek et al (2011) undertook research that looked at how to en-courage consumers to eat more meat substitutes (for example soybased products like tofu and tempeh) and found that the barriersto this included the unfamiliarity with the products their lowersensory appeal and for those that didnrsquot currently consume sub-stitutes there was a higher likelihood to avoid new foods Hoek et al(2011) as such argued that to encourage the consumption of meatsubstitutes emphasis should be placed on improving productsrsquosensory appeal which includes making the products look more likemeat

The sensory appeal (or alternately the element of lsquodisgustrsquo) ofmeat has been ranked as one of the most important determinantsof meat desirability and of avoidance in research undertaken in arange of developed nations including in research that has lookedat New Zealand consumers (Korzen amp Lassen 2010 Lea amp Worsley2001 Prescott et al 2002 Richardson MacFie amp Shepherd 1994Richardson Shepherd amp Elliman 1993 Ruby amp Heine 2012) In fact

1 Fish is not included in these particular statistics

169CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

according to Prescott et alrsquos (2002) cross-cultural comparison ofJapanese Taiwanese Malaysian and New Zealand consumers NewZealanders were more concerned above anything else (including theprice convenience and health implications of food) with the sensoryappeal of foods Moreover they were the only consumers across thesefour nations that gave sensory appeal a high ranking This pointsto the significance of our socialisation in a given culture as deter-mining food choices (Prescott et al 2002 Rozin 1996) and is there-fore an important consideration when thinking about animal proteinalternatives and variations in diet

Even with the widely divergent factors influencing meat pref-erences some patterns have been found when it comes to genderage and geographic location Nath (2011) describes how red meatin particular has been associated with masculinity in Western cul-tures which is suggestive of there being less willingness to reducemeat consumption in their diets Research has also found that menare more willing than their female counterparts to try new orunusual foods (Alley amp Burroughs 1991 Frank amp van der Klaauw1994) while women are more concerned than men about nutri-tion health and the perceived safety of foods (Baumlckstrom et al 2003Holm amp Moslashhl 2000 Lea amp Worsley 2001) With regard to age olderindividuals have been found to believe more strongly in the neces-sity of meat in the human diet (Lea amp Worsley 2001) On a slightlydifferent note Flight Leppard and Coxrsquos (2003) research on Aus-tralian teenagers and food neophobia found that adolescents wholived in a city environment were less neophobic than those in ruralareas which indicates that those in urban locations would be morewilling to try different food types

Although my research interests in meat consumption (and pro-duction) ndash or more specifically in reducing the negative environ-mental impacts of meat production by looking at consumptionalternatives ndash are the underpinning driver of this research re-search indicates that an environmental ethic has little influence indietary habits around meat consumption (de Boer Schoumlsler ampBoersema 2013 Richardson MacFie amp Shepherd 1994 RichardsonShepherd amp Elliman 1993 Tobler et al 2011) The sensory appealof food and the challenges involved in sourcing and getting infor-mation about how to prepare or cook new foods appear much morecritical in determining what (protein) foods people will eat Howthen does sensory appeal or repugnance feature in the various meatconsumption practices and alternatives examined in this re-search What are the critical factors in determining what meat con-sumption practices or alternatives are more appealing or converselymore unappealing The following provides a description and outlineof research related to nose-to-tail eating entomophagy in vitro meatand reduced meat consumption

Meatrsquos past present and future

Eating all parts of animal inside and out has been and contin-ues to be (in some parts of the world such as Italy and France) acommon practice (Yang 2002) This nose-to-tail eating practice isdeemed less wasteful (Tuffrey 2012) which probably in part ac-counts for the popularity that eating offal had during the early tomid-1900s in New Zealand (given the Great Depression and fru-gality that was encouraged during the Great War years) (Robinson2012) As well as less wasteful and a relatively cheap meatoption it is also described by aficionados as very tasty(Fearnley-Whittingstall 2004 Yang 2002) However highly re-garded eating nose-to-tail is by its enthusiasts it is regarded by manyothers as something quite repulsive (Hoskins 2007) Much of thisrevulsion argues Hoskins (2007) is particularly relevant to youngergenerations of British and Irish (Anglo-Celtic) descent who also attimes associate offal and other less-desired animal parts as beingthe domain of the lower classes ndash even though there is a recent re-surgence in popularity of offal eating (Mirosa as cited in Robinson

2012) In a similar vein Ruby and Heine (2012) have found that itis in individualistic cultures where repugnance is more likely (suchas Euro-Canada and Euro-America)

Not only is there widespread aversion to eating offal hooves eyesand the like among people in individualistic cultures Leo Moulin(as cited in Hoskins 2007) found that there are varying levels ofrepulsion liver and kidneys are the more acceptable animal partswhile testicles and eyes were found to be the least A range of factorscontribute to the varying levels of aversion including sensory per-ception (from appearance to smell and perceptions of texture andtaste) and the close association of the item to the animal ndash or theldquolivingnessanimalnessrdquo factor (Hoskins 2007 Lupton 1996 Martinsamp Pliner 2006 75 Ruby amp Heine 2012) Furthermore along withthe appearance of certain animal-derived foods Ruby and Heine(2012) have discussed how perceptions of an animalrsquos intelli-gence also act as primary disgust predictor The latter factors ndashlivingnessanimalness and an animalrsquos intelligence ndash are attri-butes that are in keeping with a sarcophagan logic when it comesto eating meat and other animal parts a preference to completelydisassociate the body part to be eaten from the animal it came from(Hoskins 2007 Ruby amp Heine 2012) Therefore the more like ananimal a food item lsquolooksrsquo the less appealing it will be to some Onthe flipside of sarcophagan logic is zoophagan whereby individu-als are acutely aware of the connection between the flesh theyconsume and the living animal and as such are more accepting ofeating items that others may consider more repulsive (there wouldalso be those who given their inability or unwillingness to sepa-rate the meat from the animal would opt to not eat the food item)(Hoskins 2007 Lupton 1996)

Similar in some respects to the desire (or lack of) to eat nose-to-tail is the practice of entomophagy ndash eating insects Aroundtwo billion people eat insects as part of their traditional diets withan estimated 1900 to 2000 different species being considered edible(Ramos-Elorduy 1997 Van Huis et al 2013) These insects providevital sources of nutrients to peoples in parts of Africa Asia andLatin America primarily with certain insects being considered adelicacy in some countries such as leafcutter ants in Colombia(DeFoliart 1999 Summers 2013) As well as their nutrient valueinsect consumption can be a useful practice during times of foodshortages and can be environmentally beneficial (Dossey 2013Ramos-Elorduy 1997 Sekularac 2011 Van Huis et al 2013) Insectscould be a new form of minilivestock minilivestock to feed biggerlivestock and people at negligible environmental (or economic) costsin relation to the potential benefits (DeFoliart 1999 Van Huis et al2013) Yet as Yen (2009 p 290) has noted this practice is rare inWestern nations such as New Zealand given the attitude to insecteating being either ldquofear and abhorrence or curiosityrdquo whichas with nose-to-tail eating may be linked to the sarcophagan logicAgain some similarities in attitudes are evident toward the pros-pect of eating in vitro meat as with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy

In vitro lab-grown cultured or test-tube meat as it is alternate-ly known came to widespread media attention in 2013 when thefirst in vitro meat beef burger was created and served in Londonwith a price tag of pound250000 (Coghlan 2013 Dragani 2013 Ghosh2013 Jha 2013 Russell 2013) In vitro meat is basically lean musclewhich is grown in a laboratory environment is lsquoexercisedrsquo and nour-ished with a nutrient-rich serum (or some alternative as an examplemaitake mushroom extract) (Bhat amp Fayaz 2011 EdelmanMcFarland Mironov amp Matheny 2005 Nishitani 2011) This meatis argued to hold many benefits including nutritionally in terms offood safety and lack of animal cruelty but also environmentally (Bhatamp Fayaz 2011 Edelman et al 2005 Nishitani 2011) Coghlan (2013)cites the work of Tuomisto and de Mattos who compared the coststo the environment of producing 1000 kilograms of farmed versusin vitro meat Their conclusion was that in vitro meat would require

170 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

less than 1 of the land about 4 of the water around 4 of theGHG emissions and would require only half the energy requiredfor the production of farmed beef

At this stage though while definitely not something out of somescience fiction movie it is something that is some years yet awayfrom commercialisation and there are a number of reasons for this(Coghlan 2013 Edelman et al 2005) At present the science is stillin relative infancy so production costs are high given the cost ofmaterials needed and there is still technical development workneeded in order to improve the structure of the meat (Bhat amp Fayaz2011 Edelman et al 2005 Nishitani 2011) Another challenge forthe commercialisation of in vitro meat will be finding consumer ac-ceptance of the product which has been described as repulsive andas containing a ldquoyuck factorrdquo (Bhat amp Fayaz 2011 Coghlan 2013Ghosh 2013 p 1) Nonetheless the beneficial possibilities and ever-progressing technology involved in in vitro meat development willlikely mean that it will become a viable commercial reality at somepoint in the not too distant future

On a quite different note is reducing meat consumption as a wayto help address the negative implications of increasing levels of in-tensive agriculture around the globe As aforementioned New Zea-landers consume a significant amount of meat Compared to therecommended daily protein allowance which is 46 grams per dayfor women aged 19 years and over and 56 grams per day for malesin the same age range this is an excessive amount (Centers forDisease Control and Prevention 2012) As such New Zealanders areconsuming an average of over four times the recommended dailyallowance of protein in animal-based proteins alone ndash and as notedabove that is excluding fish ndash which indicates that there is certain-ly the capacity to reduce the consumption of meat considerably inthis country

Both Tobler et al (2011) and Lea and Worsleyrsquos (2001) re-search found that health is a key driver for reducing meat con-sumption along with ethical motives Encouraging meat reductionwould require addressing concerns about iron and protein inad-equacies in a meat-reduced diet a lack of knowledge around beingable to prepare vegetarian meals (what to cook and how) as wellas perceptions of inconvenience in preparing vegetarian meals (Leaamp Worsley 2001 Schoumlsler et al 2012) As well as these points thereis also the simple fact that many people simply enjoy eating meator experience ldquomeat appreciationrdquo (Lea amp Worsley 2001 p 130)A gender difference has also been found regarding willingness toreduce meat in diets with Tobler et al (2011) finding that womenare more willing than men to consider environmental reasons foradopting different food consumption practices In short there is ev-idence that promoting the health benefits of a meat-reduced dietwould be one of the most constructive avenues to go down towardencouraging meat reduction while having products available thatsimulate the taste and other features such as texture of meat(without lsquodisgustrsquo) would be useful In the following section I outlinethe research methodology before progressing on to look at how re-search participants perceived each of the different meat consump-tion alternatives outlined

Methodology

Participants

A series of 19 focus groups with a total of 69 participants wereconducted around New Zealand with a geographically varied anddemographically diverse range of participants To conduct the re-search four field work trips were planned in order to incorporatea range of different geographic areas in New Zealand as such focusgroups took place from as north as Kaitaia to as far south as BalcluthaThere were slightly more females (n = 37) than males (n = 32) andof the individuals that nominated an ethnicity the majority were

New Zealand Europeanpakeha (763) followed by Maori (132)2

There was wide variation in the age of respondents 29 were aged16ndash19 years old 324 were 20ndash35 years old the majority were aged36ndash65 years old (426) while 221 were aged 66 years or over (therewas one non-response) In terms of location nearly half of respon-dents identified their location as a city (478) while 362 werefrom a town 87 were rural and 72 lived in a peri-urban area(or lifestyle block)3

Participants were also asked about their experiences with farmingin New Zealand Just over 39 of individuals noted having closefamily involved in farming while 462 said that they had lived ona farm themselves for at least one year of their lives Participantswere further asked to provide information about the amount of meatthey consumed Most participants were regular meat eaters definedas eating meat at least four days per week (652) 246 were re-stricted meat eaters (eats meat three days or less per week) whilethe remaining 88 were non-meat eaters (there was one missingvariable) Of the non-meat eaters one was vegan and three werevegetarian

Research participants were recruited using a variety of methods(1) randomly calling individuals in areas where focus groups werescheduled using the telephone directory (2) identifying smallchurches or clubs in areas where focus groups were planned andasking if they could advertise and disseminate information aboutthe focus groups and (3) through the use of personal contacts knownto the primary researcher and research assistants

The focus groups

This project was based on pilot research undertaken two yearsprior which made use of images to facilitate conversations aboutindividual views on a range of meat (and meat alternative) con-sumption and production practices A series of coloured handoutsfeaturing seven different sets of images (on intensive agriculturalproduction lsquoalternativersquo [low input] farming production genetic mod-ification in agriculture in vitro meat nose-to-tail eating extend-ing the living protein range [to include insect eating or entomophagyfor example] and reducing meat consumption) were used each timepresented in the order shown here followed by a handout that fea-tured seven quotes taken from the pilot run of the research project

After a short introduction to the research project participantswere asked to consider in turn each set of images and how theyviewed these practices both on a personal level and in relation toit as a general practice that could be adopted or continued (de-pending on what was referred to) across New Zealand as a way tohelp address meat over-consumption (or assist in meat reduc-tion) Each series of images was introduced by the researcher byproviding a brief description of the practice including the under-stood positive and negative aspects and implications of each Whilethe order that the sets of images were given out was constantthroughout focus groups the way in which focus group partici-pants were probed for their responses varied depending on the di-rection that discussion took Nonetheless for each set of imagesparticipants were asked to discuss whether they liked the prac-tice and why or why not as well as whether they see it as being asolution to reducing meat consumption into the future and whyor why not In addition participants were asked to consider thesequestions in a broader New Zealand context As well as these base

2 Participants were asked to nominate an ethnicity rather than choosing from cat-egories this resulted in only 551 of respondents supplying this information Assuch results relating to correlations with ethnicity are not pursued

3 There were a few participants whose residence did not neatly fit the options pro-vided these participantsrsquo residences were therefore allocated to the option that bestmatched their situation

171CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

questions certain sets of images had additional questions as de-scribed in the following

bull Genetic modification in agriculture Whether participants wouldconsume genetically modified produce and why or why not aswell as which particular products they would consume and whyor why not

bull In vitro meat Whether participants would consume in vitro meatand why or why not

bull Nose-to-tail eating Whether and what participants wouldconsume in terms of products that come under the nose-to-tail eating practice and why or why not

bull Extending the living protein range Whether and what partici-pants would consume in terms of products that can come underthis category (including insects feral cats and rabbits possumsand garden snails) and why or why not

At times discussion was spontaneous while at other timesprompting was used to elicit discussion in order to ensure that eachof the areas described above was addressed When it came to con-sidering the quotes participants were asked to respond to each inturn stating whether they agreed or disagreed and why or why notHowever for the purposes of this article only responses elicited fromdiscussion of four of the image sets are utilised in vitro meat nose-to-tail eating extending the living protein range and reduced meatconsumption

Each focus group had a maximum of four participants (initiallythis was five but given the tendency for participants to talk overeach other I then lowered the maximum) and lasted 15ndash2 hoursAll participants consented to being audio recorded and to the tran-scription of the audio recordings being used for publication pur-poses Socio-demographic information and questions relating to theirfarming experience and dietary preferences was collected from eachindividual at the conclusion of the focus group

Data analysis

Data were organised and analysed in two different ways Firstlythe focus group transcripts were organised and coded based on theframework method ndash a thematic organisation method for qualita-tive data (Ritchie Spencer amp OrsquoConnor 2003) Spreadsheets wereused to organise the data according to different themes that oc-curred within each of the image sets and according to the re-sponses to each of the different quotes Secondly socio demographicinformation as well as quantifiable data was inputted into theIBM SPSS quantitative data software programme in order to easilylook at simple statistics including data cross-tabulation andfrequencies

The small sample size of this research means that results are notgeneralisable Nonetheless a rich array of data featuring some quitedistinct patterns emerged One such area relates to the theme thatdeveloped around the significance of sensory perceptions indetermining individualsrsquo willingness to change food consumptionpractices

Results

While the results for each of the areas of inquiry vary there arenonetheless patterns and similarities across each of the differentfour areas looked at Nose-to-tail eating entomophagy in vitro meatand reduced meat consumption are each considered in turn beforemoving onto a discussion about how these results can be under-stood in a New Zealand context In each section that follows I beginby outlining participantsrsquo overall positions on the consumption prac-ticesrsquo general appeal as a practice that can aid with addressing meatover-consumption in New Zealand before breaking this down in

order to consider the positions in relation to participantsrsquo socio-demographics Then the factors influencing respondents overall im-pressions which included both personal and more abstract orfunctional views are outlined

Nose-to-tail eating

When asked about their views of nose-to-tail eating partici-pants were overwhelmingly positive about the practice as some-thing that could be taken up across New Zealand Of the validresponses 754 viewed eating nose-to-tail positively 158 neg-atively while 88 of responses were mixed No significant rela-tionship between gender and position was found but there was astrong correlation between age and positive views of nose-to-taileating 92 of those aged 66 or older viewed nose to tail eating pos-itively followed by 77 in the 36ndash65 year old age group having anoverall positive view 66 in the 20ndash35 year old age range with theone valid response in the 16ndash19 year old range being overall neg-ative This indicates that older participants tended to have a morepositive view of nose-to-tail eating An interesting finding also oc-curred with respect to income and views on nose-to-tail eating themajority view for all income categories other than the highest incomebracket measured ndash a household income of more than $120000 peryear ndash was overall positive Of those responding in the highest house-hold income bracket 43 were overall positive while the remain-der were overall negative toward nose-to-tail eating

Those who have close family in farming are more likely to havea positive view (88) than those who do not (63) Similarly thosewho have lived on a farm for at least one year during their livestended to view nose-to-tail eating overall more positively (84) thanthose who have not (69) Seemingly in keeping with these resultsis that negativity toward nose-to-tail eating is highest for those livingin cities (22) while no mixed or overall negative responses wereexpressed at all by those in peri-urbanlifestyle or rural locationsParticipants in town locations were 80 positive overall

Participant responses to nose-to-tail eating in relation to theamount of meat in their diets showed that 455 of regular meateaters 147 of restricted meat eaters and 29 of non-meat eaterswere overall positive about the concept of nose-to-tail eating (eventhough they may personally not wish to eat nose-to-tail) Most ofthe overall negative views toward nose-to-tail also came from thoseparticipants who were regular meat eaters 73

When probed as to the reasons why individuals held their par-ticular view of the nose-to-tail eating practice participants con-veyed a range of responses Sensory appeal was both the main reasonput forward for why this practice was seen positively but also whyit was seen negatively Overall however while those who found thepractice personally appealing also tended to view it as generallypositive a number of individuals (as indicated by the 754overall positive view aforementioned) who personally found thepractice repugnant nonetheless saw the practice as generallyadvantageous

The main reason for expressing positive views toward nose-to-tail eating were based on sensory appeal in particular the taste ofspecific foods as stated by these individuals ldquoSheep face ndash I eat reg-ularly as a roast trotters boil-up chicken feet ndash gorgeousrdquo (39f)4ldquoPigrsquos cheeks are beautiful really nice Chickens feet ndash didnrsquot mindthem theyrsquore actually quite nice ndash chewy ndash theyrsquore funny thingsrdquo(20f) and ldquoit sounds really gross but my favourite part of the fishhead is actually the eyeballs because itrsquos got all the flavour and yoursquoresucking [on them] and yoursquore like lsquooh itrsquos so nicersquo rdquo (47f) Overall

4 The bracketed code refers to a random number allotted to the individual par-ticipant and the letter (f or m) refers to the gender of the participant m = malef = female

172 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

44 of participants mentioned sensory appeal as a reason for beingin favour of nose-to-tail eating Second to this were reasons basedon an lsquoethicrsquo of utilising (and therefore) eating the entire animalTypical of the kind of responses here was ldquoAt least they use everybit of the creature I feel that nose-to-tail eating is honouring theanimal by using every little bitrdquo (24f) and ldquoIf you donrsquot use all partsof the animal itrsquos a waste and quite disrespectful to the animalrdquo (29f)Economic reasons for favouring this consumption practice were madeby nine participants (or 13) while only three participants men-tioned environmental reasons specifically such as ldquoItrsquos a better useof resourcesrdquo (12f)

The more critical views of nose-to-tail eating can be summarisedas falling into two categories lack of sensory appeal (40 of re-spondents) and difficulty with obtaining and knowing how toprepare certain foods (16) In relation to the former commentssuch as the following were made ldquoI have a problem with seeingsomething on a plate that is recognisable like a fish eye or nose Iwill eat it but these bits need to be hiddenrdquo (12f) ldquo seeing youknow a pigs head it represents too much of that animalrdquo (18f) andldquoI canrsquot even imagine eating that stuff (offal) now ndash or anything witha different texturerdquo (43f) There were also certain foods that weremore frequently mentioned than others as either more or less ac-ceptable lamb tails (29) and pig trotters (20) were noted mostfrequently as items that were more acceptable while chicken feet(16) along with fish heads kidneys and brains (each 13) werecited more frequently than other items as unappealing The mostoften cited rationale from a sensory point of view for rejection ofcertain items was based on how they looked and the lsquoidearsquo of whatthe food is and where it is from

In relation to the present time a number of individuals com-mented that New Zealanders are essentially spoilt for choice nowhence widespread rejection of nose-to-tail eating

People in New Zealand are far too rich therersquos too much choiceWe only want the best cuts of beef and lobster and we throwaway the rest because we have this idea that nose-to-tail eatingmight be yucky But this standard of living wonrsquot last forever(22m)

Although eating nose-to-tail may not be so popular at presentit was also noted that there may be a lsquoreturnrsquo to eating more nose-to-tail food items

Because wersquore a multicultural country now in New Zealandtherersquos probably a lot of people that you know like if they camefrom France might like to see the snout of a pig coming out ofthe pot I donrsquot know but I think there is a lot of diversity in foodnow that wersquove been exposed to (17f)

One individual took a much more polarised view of why differ-ent people eat different things in New Zealand ldquoThere are two com-pletely different schools within New Zealand those who are moreconservative and like traditional foods and those that are more ad-venturous and are eating different thingsrdquo (61m) All in all the ideasaround nose-to-tail eating tell a story of a nation where only smallernumbers of people eat this way at present even though a few gen-erations ago it was much more popular And yet there is perhapsa shift toward diversifying food tastes once again given increasingmulticulturalism which may in turn mean that more elements ofa nose-to-tail diet become (re)incorporated into regular cuisine infuture

Entomophagy

Entomophagy was explored in this research as part of lookingmore broadly at extending the living protein range to include foodsnot commonly eaten in Western developed nations such as NewZealand The idea of taking up entomophagy across New Zealand

ndash though not necessarily as a personal preference ndash was viewed pos-itively overall by 60 of participants 218 had overall mixed viewsand 182 expressed an overall negative view There was also a stronggender pattern in relation to participantsrsquo overall general posi-tions on entomophagy males (40 overall positive versus 36overall negative) were much more favourable toward insect con-sumption than females (20 overall positive versus 145 overallnegative) In terms of participant location the largest proportionof overall positive responses came from city participants (667 ofthe positive responses) ndash which is also where the largest propor-tion of the overall negative responses emanated from (417)however only one of the five rural based participants who re-sponded was overall positive The most division across responseswere from town based participants 242 of the positive re-sponses 50 of the negative responses and 333 of the mixed re-sponses There were no significant patterns found in relation to othersocio-demographic factors including age household income in-volvement in farming and amount of meat in an individualsrsquo diet

Positive responses were largely shaped by participantsrsquo acknowl-edgement of the nutritional qualities of insect-eating with the over-riding reason being the protein-rich nutrient value of insects ldquotheamount of protein is so high in locusts and cricketsrdquo (61m) Whenit came to the negative responses however there were a range ofchallenges put forward by participants around things like the dif-ficulty involved in insect eating ldquoItrsquod be difficult gathering insectsrdquo(65f) and ldquothe tricky part is getting enough of them and knowinghow to cook themrdquo (51m) Others just simply didnrsquot like the ideaof insect-eating ldquoI wouldnrsquot eat insects They freak me out I heardwe should eat insects but I couldnrsquot ndash mental blockrdquo (9m) Four par-ticipants also commented on possible environmental issues whichwere all linked to not eating anything native namely weta becausethey are native to New Zealand and given that giant weta weredeemed endangered5

For the most part while perceived as an overall positive direc-tion to take eating insects was also widely recognised as very chal-lenging ldquoI think it would take a good deal of hard times for themajority of people to start considering alternative food sources [likeinsects]rdquo (13m) There was also some concurrency around the notionthat to eat insects would involve needing to disguise the appear-ance in some way ldquoI would have no difficulty with eating insectsas long as it was processed I donrsquot think Irsquod pick up a weta andeat it but weta burger if itrsquos been processed and mashed up inother words Irsquod give it a gordquo (15m) on the other hand this indi-vidual while saying that he would not eat insects at the same timesaid that in fact he would so long as he was not told about it Helater went on to say though that if it was good for him and it didnrsquotlook like an insect then he would consider eating insects

Well if itrsquos got a head and stuff and legs I donrsquot want to eat thatDeep fried cockroaches ndash eww Itrsquos like yeah just donrsquot tell mewhat it is I think the whole thing about eating bugs is that ifyou didnrsquot tell me what it is I would eat it If it was really goodfor you ndash like it was really nutritious and it didnrsquot look like [aninsect] Irsquod eat it (2f)

Clearly there are some mixed feelings around eating insects theirappearance is problematic but there is also the acknowledge-ment of their providing a good lean source of protein One of thevegetarian participants commented on the virtues of eating insectsnoting that it is difficult to see an insect as an animal per se

I think as a vegetarian I can hear that itrsquos a good idea and I thinkI would consider it in the future because it doesnrsquot feel like itrsquos

5 There are over 70 weta species in New Zealand and 16 of these are at risk(Department of Conservation (DoC) 2014)

173CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

an animal if itrsquos an insect quite as much Irsquom still holding backIrsquom not eating insects at the moment but I can see that it wouldbe a step Irsquod be willing to take rather than eating meat I thinkAnd theyrsquore high in protein and there are a lot of them aboutand I think yeah it seems quite sensible (48f)

While not willing to eat insects at the moment this individualcan imagine eating them at some future point and in particularwould prefer them over meat which is at least in part given herview that insects donrsquot quite seem so much like animals

Some of the more liberal minded individuals in terms of theirwillingness to eat a range of protein foods that were quite novelto them still could not imagine really doing so any time soon orwith any regularity Insect eating was deemed more something thatwould occur as either (a) only out of necessity ndash and as one par-ticipant noted hopefully not in their lifetime ldquoThat could come inand be quite normal when wersquore dead and buried I hope ndash not beforendash please not beforerdquo (32f) or (b) as a novel experience in a dif-ferent culture ldquothese things are normal in different places itrsquos acultural thingrdquo (22m)

When it came then to considering who would in fact eat insectsthemselves the results were fairly even in terms of lsquoyesrsquo (52) andlsquonorsquo (48) However there was a gender difference of those sayingthat they would eat insects 78 were male and of those saying nothey wouldnrsquot eat insects 61 were females In conjunction withthe earlier reference to the gender pattern apparent with partici-pantsrsquo overall positions on eating insects it is quite clear that malesmore than females are more open to the idea of eating insects

Similarly to nose-to-tail eating while entomophagy is not a partof New Zealand cuisine at present there was the view that with in-creasing multiculturalism this practice too may become morepopular As one participant noted ldquoBritish or English sensibilities[which] seems to be the prevailing ideas that have come across hererdquoare the reason for why entomophagy is not a practice in NewZealand as ldquoNew Zealanders still seem to have a British way of think-ingrdquo (24f)

In vitro meat

Unlike with entomophagy there was an overall negative viewtaken toward in vitro meat consumption as a direction that NewZealanders could venture down as part of reducing lsquostandardrsquo meatconsumption 55 of participants were opposed to in vitro meatbecoming a part of the New Zealand diet 325 were generallyfavourable while the remaining 125 had mixed feelings about itThere was a strong gender correlation regarding participantsrsquo overallpositions on in vitro meat of those having an overall positive viewof in vitro meat 69 were male and of those with an overall neg-ative view of in vitro meat 86 were female (80 of those holdingmixed views were female also) With age there was a notable aver-sion to in vitro meat in the 36ndash65 year old age group with 579having an overall negative position on in vitro meat (368 had anoverall positive view while 53 had a mixed view) and in the65 years and over group with 55 taking an overall negative view(325 were overall more favourable and 125 had mixed views)Across the 20ndash35 year old age group views were more evenly spread30 positive 40 negative and 30 mixed The only individual inthe 16ndash19 year old age group to respond to this question was pos-itive about it Hence there is a relationship between age and overallviews of in vitro meat where the older the participant the morelikely they are to hold a more negative view In relation to incomethose at the lower and the higher ends of the income spectrum wereless favourable toward in vitro meat (for example 647 of thosein the $14000ndash48000 income range were overall negative and 80in the $120000 or more range were overall negative)

A pattern was evident with overall perceptions of in vitro meatin relation to the participantsrsquo locations No individuals living intowns or rural areas held a positive view on in vitro meat while60 of those in peri-urbanlifestyle locations had an overall nega-tive view City based participants however held overwhelming pos-itive views 63 of city dwellers were overall positive 10 had mixedresponses and the remaining 28 held negative views Further-more with regard to the overall position of participantsrsquo meat-related dietary habits regular meat eaters were much more negative(375) than restricted (125) and non-meat eaters (5) No notablecorrelations existed between involvement in farming and in vitromeat perceptions and preferences

The main reasons cited as to why in vitro meat is a good thingwere in relation to animal ethics (n = 10) and the capacity to in-crease protein productivity (n = 9) On animal ethics participantscomments mainly revolved around the idea that given it is not ananimal per se then it is not problematic ldquoTherersquos no ethical prob-lems because therersquos no painrdquo (68m) and ldquoTherersquos no central nervoussystem no brain is attached so therersquos no cruelty involvedrdquo (41f)On the other hand were much more practical points made aroundproductivity ldquoWe may need to use it to feed people in bulkrdquo (50f)and ldquoItrsquos the same efficiency as battery farmed but there are lessethical issuesrdquo (67m)

While there was recognition of these benefits nearly all of theparticipants rejected in vitro meat on a personal level on the basisof their sensory perceptions of it Moreover participants at timestended to conflate their personal views on in vitro meat withwhether they believed it would be a good thing for New Zealandto pursue overall The perceived texture of in vitro meat was deemedunpalatable ldquoItrsquos not appetising It creeps me out the texturewould probably be different ndash it would put me offrdquo (43f) the lookof in vitro meat was also deemed problematic ldquoIt looks absolute-ly revolting to me ndash just revoltingrdquo (39f) and

You would have to close your eyes to eat that itrsquos not normalItrsquos not meat I mean even if it tasted really wonderful I wouldnrsquoteat it if I knew it was in vitro meat Just knowing itrsquos artificialwould put you right off Irsquod go vegetarian I think if that wasall there was (21f)

Also some individuals commented that they simply did not seeit as meat ndash it was something not natural and by association there-fore possibly unhealthy ldquoI donrsquot think of this as meat I would rathereat lsquorealrsquo meatrdquo (34f) and ldquoIf my wife cooked something like thatitrsquod be grounds for divorce Itrsquos an insult to meat rdquo (19m) Of par-ticular relevance given the basis for this research were the fre-quent comments made regarding how individuals would rather eatless meat or be vegetarian than eat things like in vitro meat ldquoPer-suading people to eat less meat so that they donrsquot have to do thiswould be easier ndash would you really want to eat it Itrsquos sadrdquo (25f)Generally participants did not see in vitro meat as having a placein New Zealand society in the future ldquoI donrsquot see it having any placein New Zealandrsquos futurerdquo (37f)

Reduced meat consumption

The discussion on reducing meat consumption (by having moremeatless meals or smaller portions of meat in meals) as a practiceto help address the environmental issues involving meat produc-tion was mainly viewed quite favourably as a general practice forNew Zealanders to adopt 697 of responses were overall posi-tive about it and just 3 were overall negative Responses were notsignificantly patterned by gender but regarding age the greatestproportion of lsquomixed views overallrsquo toward reducing meat con-sumption were in the 20ndash35 year old age group (50) while the mostpositive overall responses were in the 36ndash65 year old group (50)A relationship existed whereby the higher the household income

174 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

the less positive participants were about reducing meat consump-tion least positive overall were the highest household income($120000 and over) at just 286 followed by 444 ($70000ndash120000) 818 ($48000ndash70000) 821 ($14000ndash48000) and 889(less than $14000) In relation to participant location there tendedto be a much higher representation of lsquomixedrsquo views for those locatedin cities (over 55 of those holding mixed views were located incities) with the only overall negative positions coming from par-ticipants located in city and town locations The two individuals withoverall negative views of reducing meat consumption were regularmeat consumers However most regular meat eaters (n = 45) werepositive overall about reducing meat consumption (64) No sig-nificant patterns were noted for participant location or involve-ment in farming in relation to reducing meat consumption

The main reasons put forward by participants for favouringreduced meat consumption across New Zealand which were largelybased on personal views that tended to be generalised by partici-pants to the wider population were economic (n = 23) due to thetaste or appeal of reduced meat or meatless meals (n = 19) and forhealth or nutritional benefits (n = 18) Just ten participants madecomments about environmental benefits of reduced meat con-sumption In terms of economics most of the participants that com-mented noted the relatively (and increasingly) expensive cost ofmeat ldquoItrsquos heaps cheaper to eat vegetarian Irsquove seen people on TVdoing household budgets saying that you donrsquot have to have meatevery nightrdquo (10m) and ldquoI think meat is going to be unsustainablebecause the price will go up and will prompt people to eat less meatrdquo(59m) On the appeal of meatless or reduced-meat meals partici-pants commented on the way such meals (can) look and also onthe texture ldquoIrsquod love to eat [the vegetarian meals pictured on thehand out] all the time ndash every night ndash for sure Gorgeousrdquo (39f)and ldquoI think taste for me is important but itrsquos also about textureIf yoursquore going to buy a meat replacement eggplant is so meaty andyou donrsquot really have to eat meatrdquo (47f) Comments related to healthor nutritional reasons in favour of a reduced meat diet tended toeither extoll the virtues of more vegetables and fruits in the dietfor example ldquoMore fresh vegetables in your diet makes you feelbetterrdquo (8m) or point out the health issues associated with too muchmeat consumption ndash or consumption of unhealthy meat types

In our household itrsquos health reasons for eating less meat becauseI have got diabetes So I look now at less meat and lower fat andall that kind of stuff you know itrsquos a healthy diet and itrsquos notlike yoursquore missing out on anything itrsquos just less red meat andmore of your lower GI carbs and things like that (21f)

Environmentally participant comments reflected concerns aboutthe environmental implications of agricultural production ldquoI donrsquotthink the way we eat meat on this planet is sustainable for our healthor the planet [Meat production] is a pollutant to waterways andsoilrdquo (41f)

Opposition to reducing meat consumption was mainly ex-pressed in relation to the difficulties involved in cooking withoutmeat (rather than with less meat) (n = 22) as well as with the healthor nutritional value of meat (n = 17) and due to economic reasons(n = 13) The difficulties noted with a reduced (or meat-less) dietwere based on three main factors first the notion that meat is moreconvenient (and meatless meals less so) ldquoThatrsquos all very well ifyoursquove got the time on your hands to do it rdquo (39f) second wasthat many people stated they didnrsquot know how to cook (appeal-ing) meals without meat ldquoVegetarian food can be delicious but itrequires more time and knowledgerdquo (62m) and third were per-ceptions that it would be very difficult ndash even impossible ndash to en-courage males to eat vegetarian meals ldquoBeing on a farm you couldnrsquothave a meatless day because the head of the household wouldprotest Men eat big portions of meat to be machordquo (35f)

A number of rationales were provided as to why meat is a ne-cessity in the diet including the need for animal based healthy pro-teins and why on the other hand a vegetarian diet could be bad

The vegetarian lsquocheese on cheesersquo phenomenon where every-thing has cheese slathered all over it itrsquos not good for them[Research] says that if you eat some meat you probably wouldbe okay [and not get] all these cancers that people get but if youeat a lot of cheese dairy you are in big trouble (41f)

Another often cited reason was based on satiety (and often linkedto protein as well) ndash that growing young people and those engagedin physical labour in particular ndash need to have animal based foodsto get and keep them feeling full

If yoursquove got a young family yoursquove got to think that basicallytheyrsquore filling up with food for a certain length of time but notfor long Itrsquos a bit like Chinese food Chinese food is nice but itdoesnrsquot last long Theyrsquove got to have protein to fill them espe-cially since they are growing which comes back to needing meat(20f)

Other reasons for opposition to a reduced meat diet included howhumans are biologically meant to eat meat as omnivores and thatnot eating meat can lead to ill health

Overall there was a firm view that it would be quite difficult toreduce meat consumption in New Zealand given that it is such anentrenched aspect of peoplersquos lives and upbringing ldquo itrsquos prob-ably quite engrained Wersquove been brought up with meat and therersquosnot a lot of advertising for other ideas and itrsquos so easy to slap some-thing on the barbecuerdquo (46f) The barbecue as a New Zealand meatphenomenon was mentioned multiple times as described by thisperson as a meal consisting of ldquotwo sausages steak and potatordquo (44f)Another participant commented on the centrality of meat to thehealthy lsquofood pyramidrsquo6 ldquoI think [meat is] so much a part of ourculture the food pyramid always taught meat as part of a bal-anced dietrdquo (66m)

Not everyone though saw meat as so entrenched but took theview as aforementioned that the New Zealand diet is changing ldquoTheculture was one of meat eaters and itrsquos changed towards less meatand more variety exploring non-meat food Reduced meat con-sumption is the way New Zealand is goingrdquo (13m) The shift towardless meat was also linked to increasing cosmopolitanism

I think our identity these days is cosmopolitan wersquore gettinginto a lot of diverse and interesting ways to eat like whorsquod havethought that we would have chickpeas on the market and thoseother things I mean it takes the place of meat and thatrsquos whata lot of people are doing these days cutting down on meat (17f)

The degree to which meat would remain entrenched ndash and forhow long ndash was the main point of differentiation between partici-pants when it came to discussing reducing meat consumption ina New Zealand context

Discussion

Food consumption is a socially significant act people in differ-ent places and at different times eat differently have different setsand kinds of constraints on what they eat and have different foodtaboos or alternately preferences A critical element then to under-standing the various perceptions of meat and animal-based pro-

6 Originally developed in the 1960s and now considered somewhat outdated thehealthy food pyramid model has been used as a guideline in New Zealand to educatepeople (especially children) about healthy eating it suggests that meat and otherlean protein-rich foods constitute 2ndash3 food servings per day (Shaw 2013 VitalChiropractic 2014)

175CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

teins in diets in this research is in considering the socio-historiccharacteristics of New Zealand

New Zealand was occupied for centuries by Maori who sub-sisted on the abundance of foods that were readily available Aftercolonisation by England in the 1840s the country gradually cameto be known as a nation of farmers hence a meat-heavy diet becamethe norm once farming was established in particular for the lsquowhitersquosettlers Over time traditional food fare of Maori has become largelyperipheral to or absent from the diets of New Zealanders in general(Carter amp Maynard 2001) but with the multiculturalism that nowcharacterises urban centres particularly an increasingly diversi-fied diet has now become usual for many Hence reflected in thisresearch are historically evolved food consumption patterns that arebeing challenged at present by an increasing diversification of foodstuffs which is opening up possibilities for the introduction (or re-introduction) of currently non-standard meat or meat-substitutefoods Looking at participant socio-demographics provides a meansby which to further scrutinise the dietary preference findings

In relation to gender males were more favourably disposedtoward the idea of embracing in vitro meat and entomophagy Thisechoes Baumlckstrom et alrsquos (2003) findings in that there is reluc-tance by women to try certain food based on perceptions of howsafe the food is and it also links with the work of Frank and vander Klaauw (1994) along with Alley and Burroughs (1991) wherebywomen will more often not want to try new foods while men willmore actively seek to do so This may be understood in relation tothe norms that exist around (western) hegemonic masculinity andfood whereby stereotypical masculine qualities including beingtough ndash or daring ndash could explain the increased willingness toventure into new food realms (Nath 2011)

Regarding age this research shows that the age-old practice ofnose-to-tail eating was viewed more positively by the older par-ticipants while futuristic in vitro meat was not The older partici-pants were much more familiar with nose-to-tail eating and offalin particular had been standard fare for many of these peoplegrowing up given in particular that it was a cheap form of nour-ishment (Robinson 2012) Hence there is a familiarity there for olderpeople with nose-to-tail eating which didnrsquot resonate for youngerpeople The aversion to in vitro meat which was noted most fre-quently by older participants can be understood then as perhapsdue to its unfamiliarity

The findings in relation to household income show three pat-terns participants from wealthier households were least positiveabout nose-to-tail eating and reducing meat consumption and alongwith the lowest income households were least positive toward invitro meat consumption Bourdieursquos (1984) work on taste and dis-tinction is a useful lens through which to view these findings ashe argued that consumer choices are made to reflect a kind of hi-erarchy that distinguishes one class from another As noted aboveeating offal was a cheap form of nourishment and it has been as-sociated with the poorer classes (Beardsworth amp Keil 1997 Robinson2012) In keeping with Bourdieursquos (1990) work and the argumentput forward by Beardsworth and Keil (1997) food preferences ofdifferent social classes change over time As such a possible expla-nation for the relationships found here are that having wealth firstof all allows for more expensive meat products to be purchased andconsumed and moreover that the ability to do so is a way of sig-nifying onersquos social class (despite the fact that offal eating has beenargued to be making a lsquocomebackrsquo in New Zealand see for exampleRobinson [2012]) The dislike noted toward in vitro meat foundamong the higher income households may be linked with this alsoas it was noted by a range of participants that in vitro meat maywell be a way to feed those who cannot afford to purchase muchlsquonormalrsquo meat Understanding why in vitro meat was also viewedquite negatively by those in the lowest household income bracketis something that requires further enquiry perhaps given that it was

suggested as a food product which could be most useful for lowersocio-economic homes

Findings related to participant location showed that those inurban locations were more positive about entomophagy and in vitromeat and were the most averse to nose-to-tail eating This sug-gests that there may be less food neophobia for those in city loca-tions than for those located in town or rural areas although thisdoesnrsquot apply for nose-to-tail eating (which was viewed more neg-atively) However having lived on a farm or having family in-volved in farming were most strongly associated with beingfavourable toward nose-to-tail eating which hence suggests thatit is those more familiar with this practice who are more favourablewhich does help explain why those resident in cities were leastfavourable

The results found for the relationship between the amount ofmeat in diet and the different consumption practices are perhapsthe most interesting that regular meat eaters were the most neg-ative about nose-to-tail eating and in vitro meat but the most pos-itive about reducing meat consumption This finding suggests thatmeat-eaters in New Zealand have become accustomed to being ableto purchase better quality cuts of meat and these are the cuts thatare seen as most desirable at present That regular meat eaters werethe most positive about reducing meat consumption probably in partreflects the fact that participants were aware7 that New Zealand-ers on average are heavy meat consumers and this particular dietarypractice was presented to research participants after all the othersby which stage there was a feeling expressed by many that theywould rather eat less meat than eat any of the other food stuffs pre-sented Also there was the aforementioned recognition that foodoptions and diet diversity is increasing in New Zealand and as suchthere are increasing opportunities to shift away from the meat-centric meals of the past

Research limitations and future directions

While this research did span a geographical and socio-demographic range of individuals and some clear patterns emergedfrom the findings the qualitative focus group nature of the re-search method means that findings should be treated with cautionA possible future approach to this kind of research could insteadinclude a more formalised administered survey approach that in-cludes closed and open-ended response options in order to incor-porate a larger number of participants and also to elicit responsesthat can be more easily coded and compared in order to build astronger quantitative element into the research

With respect to the different food possibilities presented to par-ticipants in the lsquoextending living protein rangersquo (which includeentomophagy) and nose-to-tail handouts it may well be benefi-cial to consider each of these in more depth given that there wassignificant variation in responses within each of these categoriesThis would allow more a more sophisticated analysis of those factorsthat make certain foods more appealing or repugnant than others

The various meat consumption practices considered here do pointoverall toward a changed and changing cultural palette It was clearalso though that the extent to which it will shift in what ways andwhen are very much debateable While participants noted that meatreduction is occurring more frequently in New Zealand and al-though many stated that the meat-centric nature of predomi-nantly Anglo-Saxon heritage remains strong in this country therewas also a widespread sense that meat consumption would con-

7 Part of the introduction to the focus groups involved telling participants thatNew Zealanders have consistently ranked in the top ten countries over the last decadefor high meat consumption

176 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

according to Prescott et alrsquos (2002) cross-cultural comparison ofJapanese Taiwanese Malaysian and New Zealand consumers NewZealanders were more concerned above anything else (including theprice convenience and health implications of food) with the sensoryappeal of foods Moreover they were the only consumers across thesefour nations that gave sensory appeal a high ranking This pointsto the significance of our socialisation in a given culture as deter-mining food choices (Prescott et al 2002 Rozin 1996) and is there-fore an important consideration when thinking about animal proteinalternatives and variations in diet

Even with the widely divergent factors influencing meat pref-erences some patterns have been found when it comes to genderage and geographic location Nath (2011) describes how red meatin particular has been associated with masculinity in Western cul-tures which is suggestive of there being less willingness to reducemeat consumption in their diets Research has also found that menare more willing than their female counterparts to try new orunusual foods (Alley amp Burroughs 1991 Frank amp van der Klaauw1994) while women are more concerned than men about nutri-tion health and the perceived safety of foods (Baumlckstrom et al 2003Holm amp Moslashhl 2000 Lea amp Worsley 2001) With regard to age olderindividuals have been found to believe more strongly in the neces-sity of meat in the human diet (Lea amp Worsley 2001) On a slightlydifferent note Flight Leppard and Coxrsquos (2003) research on Aus-tralian teenagers and food neophobia found that adolescents wholived in a city environment were less neophobic than those in ruralareas which indicates that those in urban locations would be morewilling to try different food types

Although my research interests in meat consumption (and pro-duction) ndash or more specifically in reducing the negative environ-mental impacts of meat production by looking at consumptionalternatives ndash are the underpinning driver of this research re-search indicates that an environmental ethic has little influence indietary habits around meat consumption (de Boer Schoumlsler ampBoersema 2013 Richardson MacFie amp Shepherd 1994 RichardsonShepherd amp Elliman 1993 Tobler et al 2011) The sensory appealof food and the challenges involved in sourcing and getting infor-mation about how to prepare or cook new foods appear much morecritical in determining what (protein) foods people will eat Howthen does sensory appeal or repugnance feature in the various meatconsumption practices and alternatives examined in this re-search What are the critical factors in determining what meat con-sumption practices or alternatives are more appealing or converselymore unappealing The following provides a description and outlineof research related to nose-to-tail eating entomophagy in vitro meatand reduced meat consumption

Meatrsquos past present and future

Eating all parts of animal inside and out has been and contin-ues to be (in some parts of the world such as Italy and France) acommon practice (Yang 2002) This nose-to-tail eating practice isdeemed less wasteful (Tuffrey 2012) which probably in part ac-counts for the popularity that eating offal had during the early tomid-1900s in New Zealand (given the Great Depression and fru-gality that was encouraged during the Great War years) (Robinson2012) As well as less wasteful and a relatively cheap meatoption it is also described by aficionados as very tasty(Fearnley-Whittingstall 2004 Yang 2002) However highly re-garded eating nose-to-tail is by its enthusiasts it is regarded by manyothers as something quite repulsive (Hoskins 2007) Much of thisrevulsion argues Hoskins (2007) is particularly relevant to youngergenerations of British and Irish (Anglo-Celtic) descent who also attimes associate offal and other less-desired animal parts as beingthe domain of the lower classes ndash even though there is a recent re-surgence in popularity of offal eating (Mirosa as cited in Robinson

2012) In a similar vein Ruby and Heine (2012) have found that itis in individualistic cultures where repugnance is more likely (suchas Euro-Canada and Euro-America)

Not only is there widespread aversion to eating offal hooves eyesand the like among people in individualistic cultures Leo Moulin(as cited in Hoskins 2007) found that there are varying levels ofrepulsion liver and kidneys are the more acceptable animal partswhile testicles and eyes were found to be the least A range of factorscontribute to the varying levels of aversion including sensory per-ception (from appearance to smell and perceptions of texture andtaste) and the close association of the item to the animal ndash or theldquolivingnessanimalnessrdquo factor (Hoskins 2007 Lupton 1996 Martinsamp Pliner 2006 75 Ruby amp Heine 2012) Furthermore along withthe appearance of certain animal-derived foods Ruby and Heine(2012) have discussed how perceptions of an animalrsquos intelli-gence also act as primary disgust predictor The latter factors ndashlivingnessanimalness and an animalrsquos intelligence ndash are attri-butes that are in keeping with a sarcophagan logic when it comesto eating meat and other animal parts a preference to completelydisassociate the body part to be eaten from the animal it came from(Hoskins 2007 Ruby amp Heine 2012) Therefore the more like ananimal a food item lsquolooksrsquo the less appealing it will be to some Onthe flipside of sarcophagan logic is zoophagan whereby individu-als are acutely aware of the connection between the flesh theyconsume and the living animal and as such are more accepting ofeating items that others may consider more repulsive (there wouldalso be those who given their inability or unwillingness to sepa-rate the meat from the animal would opt to not eat the food item)(Hoskins 2007 Lupton 1996)

Similar in some respects to the desire (or lack of) to eat nose-to-tail is the practice of entomophagy ndash eating insects Aroundtwo billion people eat insects as part of their traditional diets withan estimated 1900 to 2000 different species being considered edible(Ramos-Elorduy 1997 Van Huis et al 2013) These insects providevital sources of nutrients to peoples in parts of Africa Asia andLatin America primarily with certain insects being considered adelicacy in some countries such as leafcutter ants in Colombia(DeFoliart 1999 Summers 2013) As well as their nutrient valueinsect consumption can be a useful practice during times of foodshortages and can be environmentally beneficial (Dossey 2013Ramos-Elorduy 1997 Sekularac 2011 Van Huis et al 2013) Insectscould be a new form of minilivestock minilivestock to feed biggerlivestock and people at negligible environmental (or economic) costsin relation to the potential benefits (DeFoliart 1999 Van Huis et al2013) Yet as Yen (2009 p 290) has noted this practice is rare inWestern nations such as New Zealand given the attitude to insecteating being either ldquofear and abhorrence or curiosityrdquo whichas with nose-to-tail eating may be linked to the sarcophagan logicAgain some similarities in attitudes are evident toward the pros-pect of eating in vitro meat as with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy

In vitro lab-grown cultured or test-tube meat as it is alternate-ly known came to widespread media attention in 2013 when thefirst in vitro meat beef burger was created and served in Londonwith a price tag of pound250000 (Coghlan 2013 Dragani 2013 Ghosh2013 Jha 2013 Russell 2013) In vitro meat is basically lean musclewhich is grown in a laboratory environment is lsquoexercisedrsquo and nour-ished with a nutrient-rich serum (or some alternative as an examplemaitake mushroom extract) (Bhat amp Fayaz 2011 EdelmanMcFarland Mironov amp Matheny 2005 Nishitani 2011) This meatis argued to hold many benefits including nutritionally in terms offood safety and lack of animal cruelty but also environmentally (Bhatamp Fayaz 2011 Edelman et al 2005 Nishitani 2011) Coghlan (2013)cites the work of Tuomisto and de Mattos who compared the coststo the environment of producing 1000 kilograms of farmed versusin vitro meat Their conclusion was that in vitro meat would require

170 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

less than 1 of the land about 4 of the water around 4 of theGHG emissions and would require only half the energy requiredfor the production of farmed beef

At this stage though while definitely not something out of somescience fiction movie it is something that is some years yet awayfrom commercialisation and there are a number of reasons for this(Coghlan 2013 Edelman et al 2005) At present the science is stillin relative infancy so production costs are high given the cost ofmaterials needed and there is still technical development workneeded in order to improve the structure of the meat (Bhat amp Fayaz2011 Edelman et al 2005 Nishitani 2011) Another challenge forthe commercialisation of in vitro meat will be finding consumer ac-ceptance of the product which has been described as repulsive andas containing a ldquoyuck factorrdquo (Bhat amp Fayaz 2011 Coghlan 2013Ghosh 2013 p 1) Nonetheless the beneficial possibilities and ever-progressing technology involved in in vitro meat development willlikely mean that it will become a viable commercial reality at somepoint in the not too distant future

On a quite different note is reducing meat consumption as a wayto help address the negative implications of increasing levels of in-tensive agriculture around the globe As aforementioned New Zea-landers consume a significant amount of meat Compared to therecommended daily protein allowance which is 46 grams per dayfor women aged 19 years and over and 56 grams per day for malesin the same age range this is an excessive amount (Centers forDisease Control and Prevention 2012) As such New Zealanders areconsuming an average of over four times the recommended dailyallowance of protein in animal-based proteins alone ndash and as notedabove that is excluding fish ndash which indicates that there is certain-ly the capacity to reduce the consumption of meat considerably inthis country

Both Tobler et al (2011) and Lea and Worsleyrsquos (2001) re-search found that health is a key driver for reducing meat con-sumption along with ethical motives Encouraging meat reductionwould require addressing concerns about iron and protein inad-equacies in a meat-reduced diet a lack of knowledge around beingable to prepare vegetarian meals (what to cook and how) as wellas perceptions of inconvenience in preparing vegetarian meals (Leaamp Worsley 2001 Schoumlsler et al 2012) As well as these points thereis also the simple fact that many people simply enjoy eating meator experience ldquomeat appreciationrdquo (Lea amp Worsley 2001 p 130)A gender difference has also been found regarding willingness toreduce meat in diets with Tobler et al (2011) finding that womenare more willing than men to consider environmental reasons foradopting different food consumption practices In short there is ev-idence that promoting the health benefits of a meat-reduced dietwould be one of the most constructive avenues to go down towardencouraging meat reduction while having products available thatsimulate the taste and other features such as texture of meat(without lsquodisgustrsquo) would be useful In the following section I outlinethe research methodology before progressing on to look at how re-search participants perceived each of the different meat consump-tion alternatives outlined

Methodology

Participants

A series of 19 focus groups with a total of 69 participants wereconducted around New Zealand with a geographically varied anddemographically diverse range of participants To conduct the re-search four field work trips were planned in order to incorporatea range of different geographic areas in New Zealand as such focusgroups took place from as north as Kaitaia to as far south as BalcluthaThere were slightly more females (n = 37) than males (n = 32) andof the individuals that nominated an ethnicity the majority were

New Zealand Europeanpakeha (763) followed by Maori (132)2

There was wide variation in the age of respondents 29 were aged16ndash19 years old 324 were 20ndash35 years old the majority were aged36ndash65 years old (426) while 221 were aged 66 years or over (therewas one non-response) In terms of location nearly half of respon-dents identified their location as a city (478) while 362 werefrom a town 87 were rural and 72 lived in a peri-urban area(or lifestyle block)3

Participants were also asked about their experiences with farmingin New Zealand Just over 39 of individuals noted having closefamily involved in farming while 462 said that they had lived ona farm themselves for at least one year of their lives Participantswere further asked to provide information about the amount of meatthey consumed Most participants were regular meat eaters definedas eating meat at least four days per week (652) 246 were re-stricted meat eaters (eats meat three days or less per week) whilethe remaining 88 were non-meat eaters (there was one missingvariable) Of the non-meat eaters one was vegan and three werevegetarian

Research participants were recruited using a variety of methods(1) randomly calling individuals in areas where focus groups werescheduled using the telephone directory (2) identifying smallchurches or clubs in areas where focus groups were planned andasking if they could advertise and disseminate information aboutthe focus groups and (3) through the use of personal contacts knownto the primary researcher and research assistants

The focus groups

This project was based on pilot research undertaken two yearsprior which made use of images to facilitate conversations aboutindividual views on a range of meat (and meat alternative) con-sumption and production practices A series of coloured handoutsfeaturing seven different sets of images (on intensive agriculturalproduction lsquoalternativersquo [low input] farming production genetic mod-ification in agriculture in vitro meat nose-to-tail eating extend-ing the living protein range [to include insect eating or entomophagyfor example] and reducing meat consumption) were used each timepresented in the order shown here followed by a handout that fea-tured seven quotes taken from the pilot run of the research project

After a short introduction to the research project participantswere asked to consider in turn each set of images and how theyviewed these practices both on a personal level and in relation toit as a general practice that could be adopted or continued (de-pending on what was referred to) across New Zealand as a way tohelp address meat over-consumption (or assist in meat reduc-tion) Each series of images was introduced by the researcher byproviding a brief description of the practice including the under-stood positive and negative aspects and implications of each Whilethe order that the sets of images were given out was constantthroughout focus groups the way in which focus group partici-pants were probed for their responses varied depending on the di-rection that discussion took Nonetheless for each set of imagesparticipants were asked to discuss whether they liked the prac-tice and why or why not as well as whether they see it as being asolution to reducing meat consumption into the future and whyor why not In addition participants were asked to consider thesequestions in a broader New Zealand context As well as these base

2 Participants were asked to nominate an ethnicity rather than choosing from cat-egories this resulted in only 551 of respondents supplying this information Assuch results relating to correlations with ethnicity are not pursued

3 There were a few participants whose residence did not neatly fit the options pro-vided these participantsrsquo residences were therefore allocated to the option that bestmatched their situation

171CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

questions certain sets of images had additional questions as de-scribed in the following

bull Genetic modification in agriculture Whether participants wouldconsume genetically modified produce and why or why not aswell as which particular products they would consume and whyor why not

bull In vitro meat Whether participants would consume in vitro meatand why or why not

bull Nose-to-tail eating Whether and what participants wouldconsume in terms of products that come under the nose-to-tail eating practice and why or why not

bull Extending the living protein range Whether and what partici-pants would consume in terms of products that can come underthis category (including insects feral cats and rabbits possumsand garden snails) and why or why not

At times discussion was spontaneous while at other timesprompting was used to elicit discussion in order to ensure that eachof the areas described above was addressed When it came to con-sidering the quotes participants were asked to respond to each inturn stating whether they agreed or disagreed and why or why notHowever for the purposes of this article only responses elicited fromdiscussion of four of the image sets are utilised in vitro meat nose-to-tail eating extending the living protein range and reduced meatconsumption

Each focus group had a maximum of four participants (initiallythis was five but given the tendency for participants to talk overeach other I then lowered the maximum) and lasted 15ndash2 hoursAll participants consented to being audio recorded and to the tran-scription of the audio recordings being used for publication pur-poses Socio-demographic information and questions relating to theirfarming experience and dietary preferences was collected from eachindividual at the conclusion of the focus group

Data analysis

Data were organised and analysed in two different ways Firstlythe focus group transcripts were organised and coded based on theframework method ndash a thematic organisation method for qualita-tive data (Ritchie Spencer amp OrsquoConnor 2003) Spreadsheets wereused to organise the data according to different themes that oc-curred within each of the image sets and according to the re-sponses to each of the different quotes Secondly socio demographicinformation as well as quantifiable data was inputted into theIBM SPSS quantitative data software programme in order to easilylook at simple statistics including data cross-tabulation andfrequencies

The small sample size of this research means that results are notgeneralisable Nonetheless a rich array of data featuring some quitedistinct patterns emerged One such area relates to the theme thatdeveloped around the significance of sensory perceptions indetermining individualsrsquo willingness to change food consumptionpractices

Results

While the results for each of the areas of inquiry vary there arenonetheless patterns and similarities across each of the differentfour areas looked at Nose-to-tail eating entomophagy in vitro meatand reduced meat consumption are each considered in turn beforemoving onto a discussion about how these results can be under-stood in a New Zealand context In each section that follows I beginby outlining participantsrsquo overall positions on the consumption prac-ticesrsquo general appeal as a practice that can aid with addressing meatover-consumption in New Zealand before breaking this down in

order to consider the positions in relation to participantsrsquo socio-demographics Then the factors influencing respondents overall im-pressions which included both personal and more abstract orfunctional views are outlined

Nose-to-tail eating

When asked about their views of nose-to-tail eating partici-pants were overwhelmingly positive about the practice as some-thing that could be taken up across New Zealand Of the validresponses 754 viewed eating nose-to-tail positively 158 neg-atively while 88 of responses were mixed No significant rela-tionship between gender and position was found but there was astrong correlation between age and positive views of nose-to-taileating 92 of those aged 66 or older viewed nose to tail eating pos-itively followed by 77 in the 36ndash65 year old age group having anoverall positive view 66 in the 20ndash35 year old age range with theone valid response in the 16ndash19 year old range being overall neg-ative This indicates that older participants tended to have a morepositive view of nose-to-tail eating An interesting finding also oc-curred with respect to income and views on nose-to-tail eating themajority view for all income categories other than the highest incomebracket measured ndash a household income of more than $120000 peryear ndash was overall positive Of those responding in the highest house-hold income bracket 43 were overall positive while the remain-der were overall negative toward nose-to-tail eating

Those who have close family in farming are more likely to havea positive view (88) than those who do not (63) Similarly thosewho have lived on a farm for at least one year during their livestended to view nose-to-tail eating overall more positively (84) thanthose who have not (69) Seemingly in keeping with these resultsis that negativity toward nose-to-tail eating is highest for those livingin cities (22) while no mixed or overall negative responses wereexpressed at all by those in peri-urbanlifestyle or rural locationsParticipants in town locations were 80 positive overall

Participant responses to nose-to-tail eating in relation to theamount of meat in their diets showed that 455 of regular meateaters 147 of restricted meat eaters and 29 of non-meat eaterswere overall positive about the concept of nose-to-tail eating (eventhough they may personally not wish to eat nose-to-tail) Most ofthe overall negative views toward nose-to-tail also came from thoseparticipants who were regular meat eaters 73

When probed as to the reasons why individuals held their par-ticular view of the nose-to-tail eating practice participants con-veyed a range of responses Sensory appeal was both the main reasonput forward for why this practice was seen positively but also whyit was seen negatively Overall however while those who found thepractice personally appealing also tended to view it as generallypositive a number of individuals (as indicated by the 754overall positive view aforementioned) who personally found thepractice repugnant nonetheless saw the practice as generallyadvantageous

The main reason for expressing positive views toward nose-to-tail eating were based on sensory appeal in particular the taste ofspecific foods as stated by these individuals ldquoSheep face ndash I eat reg-ularly as a roast trotters boil-up chicken feet ndash gorgeousrdquo (39f)4ldquoPigrsquos cheeks are beautiful really nice Chickens feet ndash didnrsquot mindthem theyrsquore actually quite nice ndash chewy ndash theyrsquore funny thingsrdquo(20f) and ldquoit sounds really gross but my favourite part of the fishhead is actually the eyeballs because itrsquos got all the flavour and yoursquoresucking [on them] and yoursquore like lsquooh itrsquos so nicersquo rdquo (47f) Overall

4 The bracketed code refers to a random number allotted to the individual par-ticipant and the letter (f or m) refers to the gender of the participant m = malef = female

172 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

44 of participants mentioned sensory appeal as a reason for beingin favour of nose-to-tail eating Second to this were reasons basedon an lsquoethicrsquo of utilising (and therefore) eating the entire animalTypical of the kind of responses here was ldquoAt least they use everybit of the creature I feel that nose-to-tail eating is honouring theanimal by using every little bitrdquo (24f) and ldquoIf you donrsquot use all partsof the animal itrsquos a waste and quite disrespectful to the animalrdquo (29f)Economic reasons for favouring this consumption practice were madeby nine participants (or 13) while only three participants men-tioned environmental reasons specifically such as ldquoItrsquos a better useof resourcesrdquo (12f)

The more critical views of nose-to-tail eating can be summarisedas falling into two categories lack of sensory appeal (40 of re-spondents) and difficulty with obtaining and knowing how toprepare certain foods (16) In relation to the former commentssuch as the following were made ldquoI have a problem with seeingsomething on a plate that is recognisable like a fish eye or nose Iwill eat it but these bits need to be hiddenrdquo (12f) ldquo seeing youknow a pigs head it represents too much of that animalrdquo (18f) andldquoI canrsquot even imagine eating that stuff (offal) now ndash or anything witha different texturerdquo (43f) There were also certain foods that weremore frequently mentioned than others as either more or less ac-ceptable lamb tails (29) and pig trotters (20) were noted mostfrequently as items that were more acceptable while chicken feet(16) along with fish heads kidneys and brains (each 13) werecited more frequently than other items as unappealing The mostoften cited rationale from a sensory point of view for rejection ofcertain items was based on how they looked and the lsquoidearsquo of whatthe food is and where it is from

In relation to the present time a number of individuals com-mented that New Zealanders are essentially spoilt for choice nowhence widespread rejection of nose-to-tail eating

People in New Zealand are far too rich therersquos too much choiceWe only want the best cuts of beef and lobster and we throwaway the rest because we have this idea that nose-to-tail eatingmight be yucky But this standard of living wonrsquot last forever(22m)

Although eating nose-to-tail may not be so popular at presentit was also noted that there may be a lsquoreturnrsquo to eating more nose-to-tail food items

Because wersquore a multicultural country now in New Zealandtherersquos probably a lot of people that you know like if they camefrom France might like to see the snout of a pig coming out ofthe pot I donrsquot know but I think there is a lot of diversity in foodnow that wersquove been exposed to (17f)

One individual took a much more polarised view of why differ-ent people eat different things in New Zealand ldquoThere are two com-pletely different schools within New Zealand those who are moreconservative and like traditional foods and those that are more ad-venturous and are eating different thingsrdquo (61m) All in all the ideasaround nose-to-tail eating tell a story of a nation where only smallernumbers of people eat this way at present even though a few gen-erations ago it was much more popular And yet there is perhapsa shift toward diversifying food tastes once again given increasingmulticulturalism which may in turn mean that more elements ofa nose-to-tail diet become (re)incorporated into regular cuisine infuture

Entomophagy

Entomophagy was explored in this research as part of lookingmore broadly at extending the living protein range to include foodsnot commonly eaten in Western developed nations such as NewZealand The idea of taking up entomophagy across New Zealand

ndash though not necessarily as a personal preference ndash was viewed pos-itively overall by 60 of participants 218 had overall mixed viewsand 182 expressed an overall negative view There was also a stronggender pattern in relation to participantsrsquo overall general posi-tions on entomophagy males (40 overall positive versus 36overall negative) were much more favourable toward insect con-sumption than females (20 overall positive versus 145 overallnegative) In terms of participant location the largest proportionof overall positive responses came from city participants (667 ofthe positive responses) ndash which is also where the largest propor-tion of the overall negative responses emanated from (417)however only one of the five rural based participants who re-sponded was overall positive The most division across responseswere from town based participants 242 of the positive re-sponses 50 of the negative responses and 333 of the mixed re-sponses There were no significant patterns found in relation to othersocio-demographic factors including age household income in-volvement in farming and amount of meat in an individualsrsquo diet

Positive responses were largely shaped by participantsrsquo acknowl-edgement of the nutritional qualities of insect-eating with the over-riding reason being the protein-rich nutrient value of insects ldquotheamount of protein is so high in locusts and cricketsrdquo (61m) Whenit came to the negative responses however there were a range ofchallenges put forward by participants around things like the dif-ficulty involved in insect eating ldquoItrsquod be difficult gathering insectsrdquo(65f) and ldquothe tricky part is getting enough of them and knowinghow to cook themrdquo (51m) Others just simply didnrsquot like the ideaof insect-eating ldquoI wouldnrsquot eat insects They freak me out I heardwe should eat insects but I couldnrsquot ndash mental blockrdquo (9m) Four par-ticipants also commented on possible environmental issues whichwere all linked to not eating anything native namely weta becausethey are native to New Zealand and given that giant weta weredeemed endangered5

For the most part while perceived as an overall positive direc-tion to take eating insects was also widely recognised as very chal-lenging ldquoI think it would take a good deal of hard times for themajority of people to start considering alternative food sources [likeinsects]rdquo (13m) There was also some concurrency around the notionthat to eat insects would involve needing to disguise the appear-ance in some way ldquoI would have no difficulty with eating insectsas long as it was processed I donrsquot think Irsquod pick up a weta andeat it but weta burger if itrsquos been processed and mashed up inother words Irsquod give it a gordquo (15m) on the other hand this indi-vidual while saying that he would not eat insects at the same timesaid that in fact he would so long as he was not told about it Helater went on to say though that if it was good for him and it didnrsquotlook like an insect then he would consider eating insects

Well if itrsquos got a head and stuff and legs I donrsquot want to eat thatDeep fried cockroaches ndash eww Itrsquos like yeah just donrsquot tell mewhat it is I think the whole thing about eating bugs is that ifyou didnrsquot tell me what it is I would eat it If it was really goodfor you ndash like it was really nutritious and it didnrsquot look like [aninsect] Irsquod eat it (2f)

Clearly there are some mixed feelings around eating insects theirappearance is problematic but there is also the acknowledge-ment of their providing a good lean source of protein One of thevegetarian participants commented on the virtues of eating insectsnoting that it is difficult to see an insect as an animal per se

I think as a vegetarian I can hear that itrsquos a good idea and I thinkI would consider it in the future because it doesnrsquot feel like itrsquos

5 There are over 70 weta species in New Zealand and 16 of these are at risk(Department of Conservation (DoC) 2014)

173CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

an animal if itrsquos an insect quite as much Irsquom still holding backIrsquom not eating insects at the moment but I can see that it wouldbe a step Irsquod be willing to take rather than eating meat I thinkAnd theyrsquore high in protein and there are a lot of them aboutand I think yeah it seems quite sensible (48f)

While not willing to eat insects at the moment this individualcan imagine eating them at some future point and in particularwould prefer them over meat which is at least in part given herview that insects donrsquot quite seem so much like animals

Some of the more liberal minded individuals in terms of theirwillingness to eat a range of protein foods that were quite novelto them still could not imagine really doing so any time soon orwith any regularity Insect eating was deemed more something thatwould occur as either (a) only out of necessity ndash and as one par-ticipant noted hopefully not in their lifetime ldquoThat could come inand be quite normal when wersquore dead and buried I hope ndash not beforendash please not beforerdquo (32f) or (b) as a novel experience in a dif-ferent culture ldquothese things are normal in different places itrsquos acultural thingrdquo (22m)

When it came then to considering who would in fact eat insectsthemselves the results were fairly even in terms of lsquoyesrsquo (52) andlsquonorsquo (48) However there was a gender difference of those sayingthat they would eat insects 78 were male and of those saying nothey wouldnrsquot eat insects 61 were females In conjunction withthe earlier reference to the gender pattern apparent with partici-pantsrsquo overall positions on eating insects it is quite clear that malesmore than females are more open to the idea of eating insects

Similarly to nose-to-tail eating while entomophagy is not a partof New Zealand cuisine at present there was the view that with in-creasing multiculturalism this practice too may become morepopular As one participant noted ldquoBritish or English sensibilities[which] seems to be the prevailing ideas that have come across hererdquoare the reason for why entomophagy is not a practice in NewZealand as ldquoNew Zealanders still seem to have a British way of think-ingrdquo (24f)

In vitro meat

Unlike with entomophagy there was an overall negative viewtaken toward in vitro meat consumption as a direction that NewZealanders could venture down as part of reducing lsquostandardrsquo meatconsumption 55 of participants were opposed to in vitro meatbecoming a part of the New Zealand diet 325 were generallyfavourable while the remaining 125 had mixed feelings about itThere was a strong gender correlation regarding participantsrsquo overallpositions on in vitro meat of those having an overall positive viewof in vitro meat 69 were male and of those with an overall neg-ative view of in vitro meat 86 were female (80 of those holdingmixed views were female also) With age there was a notable aver-sion to in vitro meat in the 36ndash65 year old age group with 579having an overall negative position on in vitro meat (368 had anoverall positive view while 53 had a mixed view) and in the65 years and over group with 55 taking an overall negative view(325 were overall more favourable and 125 had mixed views)Across the 20ndash35 year old age group views were more evenly spread30 positive 40 negative and 30 mixed The only individual inthe 16ndash19 year old age group to respond to this question was pos-itive about it Hence there is a relationship between age and overallviews of in vitro meat where the older the participant the morelikely they are to hold a more negative view In relation to incomethose at the lower and the higher ends of the income spectrum wereless favourable toward in vitro meat (for example 647 of thosein the $14000ndash48000 income range were overall negative and 80in the $120000 or more range were overall negative)

A pattern was evident with overall perceptions of in vitro meatin relation to the participantsrsquo locations No individuals living intowns or rural areas held a positive view on in vitro meat while60 of those in peri-urbanlifestyle locations had an overall nega-tive view City based participants however held overwhelming pos-itive views 63 of city dwellers were overall positive 10 had mixedresponses and the remaining 28 held negative views Further-more with regard to the overall position of participantsrsquo meat-related dietary habits regular meat eaters were much more negative(375) than restricted (125) and non-meat eaters (5) No notablecorrelations existed between involvement in farming and in vitromeat perceptions and preferences

The main reasons cited as to why in vitro meat is a good thingwere in relation to animal ethics (n = 10) and the capacity to in-crease protein productivity (n = 9) On animal ethics participantscomments mainly revolved around the idea that given it is not ananimal per se then it is not problematic ldquoTherersquos no ethical prob-lems because therersquos no painrdquo (68m) and ldquoTherersquos no central nervoussystem no brain is attached so therersquos no cruelty involvedrdquo (41f)On the other hand were much more practical points made aroundproductivity ldquoWe may need to use it to feed people in bulkrdquo (50f)and ldquoItrsquos the same efficiency as battery farmed but there are lessethical issuesrdquo (67m)

While there was recognition of these benefits nearly all of theparticipants rejected in vitro meat on a personal level on the basisof their sensory perceptions of it Moreover participants at timestended to conflate their personal views on in vitro meat withwhether they believed it would be a good thing for New Zealandto pursue overall The perceived texture of in vitro meat was deemedunpalatable ldquoItrsquos not appetising It creeps me out the texturewould probably be different ndash it would put me offrdquo (43f) the lookof in vitro meat was also deemed problematic ldquoIt looks absolute-ly revolting to me ndash just revoltingrdquo (39f) and

You would have to close your eyes to eat that itrsquos not normalItrsquos not meat I mean even if it tasted really wonderful I wouldnrsquoteat it if I knew it was in vitro meat Just knowing itrsquos artificialwould put you right off Irsquod go vegetarian I think if that wasall there was (21f)

Also some individuals commented that they simply did not seeit as meat ndash it was something not natural and by association there-fore possibly unhealthy ldquoI donrsquot think of this as meat I would rathereat lsquorealrsquo meatrdquo (34f) and ldquoIf my wife cooked something like thatitrsquod be grounds for divorce Itrsquos an insult to meat rdquo (19m) Of par-ticular relevance given the basis for this research were the fre-quent comments made regarding how individuals would rather eatless meat or be vegetarian than eat things like in vitro meat ldquoPer-suading people to eat less meat so that they donrsquot have to do thiswould be easier ndash would you really want to eat it Itrsquos sadrdquo (25f)Generally participants did not see in vitro meat as having a placein New Zealand society in the future ldquoI donrsquot see it having any placein New Zealandrsquos futurerdquo (37f)

Reduced meat consumption

The discussion on reducing meat consumption (by having moremeatless meals or smaller portions of meat in meals) as a practiceto help address the environmental issues involving meat produc-tion was mainly viewed quite favourably as a general practice forNew Zealanders to adopt 697 of responses were overall posi-tive about it and just 3 were overall negative Responses were notsignificantly patterned by gender but regarding age the greatestproportion of lsquomixed views overallrsquo toward reducing meat con-sumption were in the 20ndash35 year old age group (50) while the mostpositive overall responses were in the 36ndash65 year old group (50)A relationship existed whereby the higher the household income

174 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

the less positive participants were about reducing meat consump-tion least positive overall were the highest household income($120000 and over) at just 286 followed by 444 ($70000ndash120000) 818 ($48000ndash70000) 821 ($14000ndash48000) and 889(less than $14000) In relation to participant location there tendedto be a much higher representation of lsquomixedrsquo views for those locatedin cities (over 55 of those holding mixed views were located incities) with the only overall negative positions coming from par-ticipants located in city and town locations The two individuals withoverall negative views of reducing meat consumption were regularmeat consumers However most regular meat eaters (n = 45) werepositive overall about reducing meat consumption (64) No sig-nificant patterns were noted for participant location or involve-ment in farming in relation to reducing meat consumption

The main reasons put forward by participants for favouringreduced meat consumption across New Zealand which were largelybased on personal views that tended to be generalised by partici-pants to the wider population were economic (n = 23) due to thetaste or appeal of reduced meat or meatless meals (n = 19) and forhealth or nutritional benefits (n = 18) Just ten participants madecomments about environmental benefits of reduced meat con-sumption In terms of economics most of the participants that com-mented noted the relatively (and increasingly) expensive cost ofmeat ldquoItrsquos heaps cheaper to eat vegetarian Irsquove seen people on TVdoing household budgets saying that you donrsquot have to have meatevery nightrdquo (10m) and ldquoI think meat is going to be unsustainablebecause the price will go up and will prompt people to eat less meatrdquo(59m) On the appeal of meatless or reduced-meat meals partici-pants commented on the way such meals (can) look and also onthe texture ldquoIrsquod love to eat [the vegetarian meals pictured on thehand out] all the time ndash every night ndash for sure Gorgeousrdquo (39f)and ldquoI think taste for me is important but itrsquos also about textureIf yoursquore going to buy a meat replacement eggplant is so meaty andyou donrsquot really have to eat meatrdquo (47f) Comments related to healthor nutritional reasons in favour of a reduced meat diet tended toeither extoll the virtues of more vegetables and fruits in the dietfor example ldquoMore fresh vegetables in your diet makes you feelbetterrdquo (8m) or point out the health issues associated with too muchmeat consumption ndash or consumption of unhealthy meat types

In our household itrsquos health reasons for eating less meat becauseI have got diabetes So I look now at less meat and lower fat andall that kind of stuff you know itrsquos a healthy diet and itrsquos notlike yoursquore missing out on anything itrsquos just less red meat andmore of your lower GI carbs and things like that (21f)

Environmentally participant comments reflected concerns aboutthe environmental implications of agricultural production ldquoI donrsquotthink the way we eat meat on this planet is sustainable for our healthor the planet [Meat production] is a pollutant to waterways andsoilrdquo (41f)

Opposition to reducing meat consumption was mainly ex-pressed in relation to the difficulties involved in cooking withoutmeat (rather than with less meat) (n = 22) as well as with the healthor nutritional value of meat (n = 17) and due to economic reasons(n = 13) The difficulties noted with a reduced (or meat-less) dietwere based on three main factors first the notion that meat is moreconvenient (and meatless meals less so) ldquoThatrsquos all very well ifyoursquove got the time on your hands to do it rdquo (39f) second wasthat many people stated they didnrsquot know how to cook (appeal-ing) meals without meat ldquoVegetarian food can be delicious but itrequires more time and knowledgerdquo (62m) and third were per-ceptions that it would be very difficult ndash even impossible ndash to en-courage males to eat vegetarian meals ldquoBeing on a farm you couldnrsquothave a meatless day because the head of the household wouldprotest Men eat big portions of meat to be machordquo (35f)

A number of rationales were provided as to why meat is a ne-cessity in the diet including the need for animal based healthy pro-teins and why on the other hand a vegetarian diet could be bad

The vegetarian lsquocheese on cheesersquo phenomenon where every-thing has cheese slathered all over it itrsquos not good for them[Research] says that if you eat some meat you probably wouldbe okay [and not get] all these cancers that people get but if youeat a lot of cheese dairy you are in big trouble (41f)

Another often cited reason was based on satiety (and often linkedto protein as well) ndash that growing young people and those engagedin physical labour in particular ndash need to have animal based foodsto get and keep them feeling full

If yoursquove got a young family yoursquove got to think that basicallytheyrsquore filling up with food for a certain length of time but notfor long Itrsquos a bit like Chinese food Chinese food is nice but itdoesnrsquot last long Theyrsquove got to have protein to fill them espe-cially since they are growing which comes back to needing meat(20f)

Other reasons for opposition to a reduced meat diet included howhumans are biologically meant to eat meat as omnivores and thatnot eating meat can lead to ill health

Overall there was a firm view that it would be quite difficult toreduce meat consumption in New Zealand given that it is such anentrenched aspect of peoplersquos lives and upbringing ldquo itrsquos prob-ably quite engrained Wersquove been brought up with meat and therersquosnot a lot of advertising for other ideas and itrsquos so easy to slap some-thing on the barbecuerdquo (46f) The barbecue as a New Zealand meatphenomenon was mentioned multiple times as described by thisperson as a meal consisting of ldquotwo sausages steak and potatordquo (44f)Another participant commented on the centrality of meat to thehealthy lsquofood pyramidrsquo6 ldquoI think [meat is] so much a part of ourculture the food pyramid always taught meat as part of a bal-anced dietrdquo (66m)

Not everyone though saw meat as so entrenched but took theview as aforementioned that the New Zealand diet is changing ldquoTheculture was one of meat eaters and itrsquos changed towards less meatand more variety exploring non-meat food Reduced meat con-sumption is the way New Zealand is goingrdquo (13m) The shift towardless meat was also linked to increasing cosmopolitanism

I think our identity these days is cosmopolitan wersquore gettinginto a lot of diverse and interesting ways to eat like whorsquod havethought that we would have chickpeas on the market and thoseother things I mean it takes the place of meat and thatrsquos whata lot of people are doing these days cutting down on meat (17f)

The degree to which meat would remain entrenched ndash and forhow long ndash was the main point of differentiation between partici-pants when it came to discussing reducing meat consumption ina New Zealand context

Discussion

Food consumption is a socially significant act people in differ-ent places and at different times eat differently have different setsand kinds of constraints on what they eat and have different foodtaboos or alternately preferences A critical element then to under-standing the various perceptions of meat and animal-based pro-

6 Originally developed in the 1960s and now considered somewhat outdated thehealthy food pyramid model has been used as a guideline in New Zealand to educatepeople (especially children) about healthy eating it suggests that meat and otherlean protein-rich foods constitute 2ndash3 food servings per day (Shaw 2013 VitalChiropractic 2014)

175CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

teins in diets in this research is in considering the socio-historiccharacteristics of New Zealand

New Zealand was occupied for centuries by Maori who sub-sisted on the abundance of foods that were readily available Aftercolonisation by England in the 1840s the country gradually cameto be known as a nation of farmers hence a meat-heavy diet becamethe norm once farming was established in particular for the lsquowhitersquosettlers Over time traditional food fare of Maori has become largelyperipheral to or absent from the diets of New Zealanders in general(Carter amp Maynard 2001) but with the multiculturalism that nowcharacterises urban centres particularly an increasingly diversi-fied diet has now become usual for many Hence reflected in thisresearch are historically evolved food consumption patterns that arebeing challenged at present by an increasing diversification of foodstuffs which is opening up possibilities for the introduction (or re-introduction) of currently non-standard meat or meat-substitutefoods Looking at participant socio-demographics provides a meansby which to further scrutinise the dietary preference findings

In relation to gender males were more favourably disposedtoward the idea of embracing in vitro meat and entomophagy Thisechoes Baumlckstrom et alrsquos (2003) findings in that there is reluc-tance by women to try certain food based on perceptions of howsafe the food is and it also links with the work of Frank and vander Klaauw (1994) along with Alley and Burroughs (1991) wherebywomen will more often not want to try new foods while men willmore actively seek to do so This may be understood in relation tothe norms that exist around (western) hegemonic masculinity andfood whereby stereotypical masculine qualities including beingtough ndash or daring ndash could explain the increased willingness toventure into new food realms (Nath 2011)

Regarding age this research shows that the age-old practice ofnose-to-tail eating was viewed more positively by the older par-ticipants while futuristic in vitro meat was not The older partici-pants were much more familiar with nose-to-tail eating and offalin particular had been standard fare for many of these peoplegrowing up given in particular that it was a cheap form of nour-ishment (Robinson 2012) Hence there is a familiarity there for olderpeople with nose-to-tail eating which didnrsquot resonate for youngerpeople The aversion to in vitro meat which was noted most fre-quently by older participants can be understood then as perhapsdue to its unfamiliarity

The findings in relation to household income show three pat-terns participants from wealthier households were least positiveabout nose-to-tail eating and reducing meat consumption and alongwith the lowest income households were least positive toward invitro meat consumption Bourdieursquos (1984) work on taste and dis-tinction is a useful lens through which to view these findings ashe argued that consumer choices are made to reflect a kind of hi-erarchy that distinguishes one class from another As noted aboveeating offal was a cheap form of nourishment and it has been as-sociated with the poorer classes (Beardsworth amp Keil 1997 Robinson2012) In keeping with Bourdieursquos (1990) work and the argumentput forward by Beardsworth and Keil (1997) food preferences ofdifferent social classes change over time As such a possible expla-nation for the relationships found here are that having wealth firstof all allows for more expensive meat products to be purchased andconsumed and moreover that the ability to do so is a way of sig-nifying onersquos social class (despite the fact that offal eating has beenargued to be making a lsquocomebackrsquo in New Zealand see for exampleRobinson [2012]) The dislike noted toward in vitro meat foundamong the higher income households may be linked with this alsoas it was noted by a range of participants that in vitro meat maywell be a way to feed those who cannot afford to purchase muchlsquonormalrsquo meat Understanding why in vitro meat was also viewedquite negatively by those in the lowest household income bracketis something that requires further enquiry perhaps given that it was

suggested as a food product which could be most useful for lowersocio-economic homes

Findings related to participant location showed that those inurban locations were more positive about entomophagy and in vitromeat and were the most averse to nose-to-tail eating This sug-gests that there may be less food neophobia for those in city loca-tions than for those located in town or rural areas although thisdoesnrsquot apply for nose-to-tail eating (which was viewed more neg-atively) However having lived on a farm or having family in-volved in farming were most strongly associated with beingfavourable toward nose-to-tail eating which hence suggests thatit is those more familiar with this practice who are more favourablewhich does help explain why those resident in cities were leastfavourable

The results found for the relationship between the amount ofmeat in diet and the different consumption practices are perhapsthe most interesting that regular meat eaters were the most neg-ative about nose-to-tail eating and in vitro meat but the most pos-itive about reducing meat consumption This finding suggests thatmeat-eaters in New Zealand have become accustomed to being ableto purchase better quality cuts of meat and these are the cuts thatare seen as most desirable at present That regular meat eaters werethe most positive about reducing meat consumption probably in partreflects the fact that participants were aware7 that New Zealand-ers on average are heavy meat consumers and this particular dietarypractice was presented to research participants after all the othersby which stage there was a feeling expressed by many that theywould rather eat less meat than eat any of the other food stuffs pre-sented Also there was the aforementioned recognition that foodoptions and diet diversity is increasing in New Zealand and as suchthere are increasing opportunities to shift away from the meat-centric meals of the past

Research limitations and future directions

While this research did span a geographical and socio-demographic range of individuals and some clear patterns emergedfrom the findings the qualitative focus group nature of the re-search method means that findings should be treated with cautionA possible future approach to this kind of research could insteadinclude a more formalised administered survey approach that in-cludes closed and open-ended response options in order to incor-porate a larger number of participants and also to elicit responsesthat can be more easily coded and compared in order to build astronger quantitative element into the research

With respect to the different food possibilities presented to par-ticipants in the lsquoextending living protein rangersquo (which includeentomophagy) and nose-to-tail handouts it may well be benefi-cial to consider each of these in more depth given that there wassignificant variation in responses within each of these categoriesThis would allow more a more sophisticated analysis of those factorsthat make certain foods more appealing or repugnant than others

The various meat consumption practices considered here do pointoverall toward a changed and changing cultural palette It was clearalso though that the extent to which it will shift in what ways andwhen are very much debateable While participants noted that meatreduction is occurring more frequently in New Zealand and al-though many stated that the meat-centric nature of predomi-nantly Anglo-Saxon heritage remains strong in this country therewas also a widespread sense that meat consumption would con-

7 Part of the introduction to the focus groups involved telling participants thatNew Zealanders have consistently ranked in the top ten countries over the last decadefor high meat consumption

176 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

less than 1 of the land about 4 of the water around 4 of theGHG emissions and would require only half the energy requiredfor the production of farmed beef

At this stage though while definitely not something out of somescience fiction movie it is something that is some years yet awayfrom commercialisation and there are a number of reasons for this(Coghlan 2013 Edelman et al 2005) At present the science is stillin relative infancy so production costs are high given the cost ofmaterials needed and there is still technical development workneeded in order to improve the structure of the meat (Bhat amp Fayaz2011 Edelman et al 2005 Nishitani 2011) Another challenge forthe commercialisation of in vitro meat will be finding consumer ac-ceptance of the product which has been described as repulsive andas containing a ldquoyuck factorrdquo (Bhat amp Fayaz 2011 Coghlan 2013Ghosh 2013 p 1) Nonetheless the beneficial possibilities and ever-progressing technology involved in in vitro meat development willlikely mean that it will become a viable commercial reality at somepoint in the not too distant future

On a quite different note is reducing meat consumption as a wayto help address the negative implications of increasing levels of in-tensive agriculture around the globe As aforementioned New Zea-landers consume a significant amount of meat Compared to therecommended daily protein allowance which is 46 grams per dayfor women aged 19 years and over and 56 grams per day for malesin the same age range this is an excessive amount (Centers forDisease Control and Prevention 2012) As such New Zealanders areconsuming an average of over four times the recommended dailyallowance of protein in animal-based proteins alone ndash and as notedabove that is excluding fish ndash which indicates that there is certain-ly the capacity to reduce the consumption of meat considerably inthis country

Both Tobler et al (2011) and Lea and Worsleyrsquos (2001) re-search found that health is a key driver for reducing meat con-sumption along with ethical motives Encouraging meat reductionwould require addressing concerns about iron and protein inad-equacies in a meat-reduced diet a lack of knowledge around beingable to prepare vegetarian meals (what to cook and how) as wellas perceptions of inconvenience in preparing vegetarian meals (Leaamp Worsley 2001 Schoumlsler et al 2012) As well as these points thereis also the simple fact that many people simply enjoy eating meator experience ldquomeat appreciationrdquo (Lea amp Worsley 2001 p 130)A gender difference has also been found regarding willingness toreduce meat in diets with Tobler et al (2011) finding that womenare more willing than men to consider environmental reasons foradopting different food consumption practices In short there is ev-idence that promoting the health benefits of a meat-reduced dietwould be one of the most constructive avenues to go down towardencouraging meat reduction while having products available thatsimulate the taste and other features such as texture of meat(without lsquodisgustrsquo) would be useful In the following section I outlinethe research methodology before progressing on to look at how re-search participants perceived each of the different meat consump-tion alternatives outlined

Methodology

Participants

A series of 19 focus groups with a total of 69 participants wereconducted around New Zealand with a geographically varied anddemographically diverse range of participants To conduct the re-search four field work trips were planned in order to incorporatea range of different geographic areas in New Zealand as such focusgroups took place from as north as Kaitaia to as far south as BalcluthaThere were slightly more females (n = 37) than males (n = 32) andof the individuals that nominated an ethnicity the majority were

New Zealand Europeanpakeha (763) followed by Maori (132)2

There was wide variation in the age of respondents 29 were aged16ndash19 years old 324 were 20ndash35 years old the majority were aged36ndash65 years old (426) while 221 were aged 66 years or over (therewas one non-response) In terms of location nearly half of respon-dents identified their location as a city (478) while 362 werefrom a town 87 were rural and 72 lived in a peri-urban area(or lifestyle block)3

Participants were also asked about their experiences with farmingin New Zealand Just over 39 of individuals noted having closefamily involved in farming while 462 said that they had lived ona farm themselves for at least one year of their lives Participantswere further asked to provide information about the amount of meatthey consumed Most participants were regular meat eaters definedas eating meat at least four days per week (652) 246 were re-stricted meat eaters (eats meat three days or less per week) whilethe remaining 88 were non-meat eaters (there was one missingvariable) Of the non-meat eaters one was vegan and three werevegetarian

Research participants were recruited using a variety of methods(1) randomly calling individuals in areas where focus groups werescheduled using the telephone directory (2) identifying smallchurches or clubs in areas where focus groups were planned andasking if they could advertise and disseminate information aboutthe focus groups and (3) through the use of personal contacts knownto the primary researcher and research assistants

The focus groups

This project was based on pilot research undertaken two yearsprior which made use of images to facilitate conversations aboutindividual views on a range of meat (and meat alternative) con-sumption and production practices A series of coloured handoutsfeaturing seven different sets of images (on intensive agriculturalproduction lsquoalternativersquo [low input] farming production genetic mod-ification in agriculture in vitro meat nose-to-tail eating extend-ing the living protein range [to include insect eating or entomophagyfor example] and reducing meat consumption) were used each timepresented in the order shown here followed by a handout that fea-tured seven quotes taken from the pilot run of the research project

After a short introduction to the research project participantswere asked to consider in turn each set of images and how theyviewed these practices both on a personal level and in relation toit as a general practice that could be adopted or continued (de-pending on what was referred to) across New Zealand as a way tohelp address meat over-consumption (or assist in meat reduc-tion) Each series of images was introduced by the researcher byproviding a brief description of the practice including the under-stood positive and negative aspects and implications of each Whilethe order that the sets of images were given out was constantthroughout focus groups the way in which focus group partici-pants were probed for their responses varied depending on the di-rection that discussion took Nonetheless for each set of imagesparticipants were asked to discuss whether they liked the prac-tice and why or why not as well as whether they see it as being asolution to reducing meat consumption into the future and whyor why not In addition participants were asked to consider thesequestions in a broader New Zealand context As well as these base

2 Participants were asked to nominate an ethnicity rather than choosing from cat-egories this resulted in only 551 of respondents supplying this information Assuch results relating to correlations with ethnicity are not pursued

3 There were a few participants whose residence did not neatly fit the options pro-vided these participantsrsquo residences were therefore allocated to the option that bestmatched their situation

171CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

questions certain sets of images had additional questions as de-scribed in the following

bull Genetic modification in agriculture Whether participants wouldconsume genetically modified produce and why or why not aswell as which particular products they would consume and whyor why not

bull In vitro meat Whether participants would consume in vitro meatand why or why not

bull Nose-to-tail eating Whether and what participants wouldconsume in terms of products that come under the nose-to-tail eating practice and why or why not

bull Extending the living protein range Whether and what partici-pants would consume in terms of products that can come underthis category (including insects feral cats and rabbits possumsand garden snails) and why or why not

At times discussion was spontaneous while at other timesprompting was used to elicit discussion in order to ensure that eachof the areas described above was addressed When it came to con-sidering the quotes participants were asked to respond to each inturn stating whether they agreed or disagreed and why or why notHowever for the purposes of this article only responses elicited fromdiscussion of four of the image sets are utilised in vitro meat nose-to-tail eating extending the living protein range and reduced meatconsumption

Each focus group had a maximum of four participants (initiallythis was five but given the tendency for participants to talk overeach other I then lowered the maximum) and lasted 15ndash2 hoursAll participants consented to being audio recorded and to the tran-scription of the audio recordings being used for publication pur-poses Socio-demographic information and questions relating to theirfarming experience and dietary preferences was collected from eachindividual at the conclusion of the focus group

Data analysis

Data were organised and analysed in two different ways Firstlythe focus group transcripts were organised and coded based on theframework method ndash a thematic organisation method for qualita-tive data (Ritchie Spencer amp OrsquoConnor 2003) Spreadsheets wereused to organise the data according to different themes that oc-curred within each of the image sets and according to the re-sponses to each of the different quotes Secondly socio demographicinformation as well as quantifiable data was inputted into theIBM SPSS quantitative data software programme in order to easilylook at simple statistics including data cross-tabulation andfrequencies

The small sample size of this research means that results are notgeneralisable Nonetheless a rich array of data featuring some quitedistinct patterns emerged One such area relates to the theme thatdeveloped around the significance of sensory perceptions indetermining individualsrsquo willingness to change food consumptionpractices

Results

While the results for each of the areas of inquiry vary there arenonetheless patterns and similarities across each of the differentfour areas looked at Nose-to-tail eating entomophagy in vitro meatand reduced meat consumption are each considered in turn beforemoving onto a discussion about how these results can be under-stood in a New Zealand context In each section that follows I beginby outlining participantsrsquo overall positions on the consumption prac-ticesrsquo general appeal as a practice that can aid with addressing meatover-consumption in New Zealand before breaking this down in

order to consider the positions in relation to participantsrsquo socio-demographics Then the factors influencing respondents overall im-pressions which included both personal and more abstract orfunctional views are outlined

Nose-to-tail eating

When asked about their views of nose-to-tail eating partici-pants were overwhelmingly positive about the practice as some-thing that could be taken up across New Zealand Of the validresponses 754 viewed eating nose-to-tail positively 158 neg-atively while 88 of responses were mixed No significant rela-tionship between gender and position was found but there was astrong correlation between age and positive views of nose-to-taileating 92 of those aged 66 or older viewed nose to tail eating pos-itively followed by 77 in the 36ndash65 year old age group having anoverall positive view 66 in the 20ndash35 year old age range with theone valid response in the 16ndash19 year old range being overall neg-ative This indicates that older participants tended to have a morepositive view of nose-to-tail eating An interesting finding also oc-curred with respect to income and views on nose-to-tail eating themajority view for all income categories other than the highest incomebracket measured ndash a household income of more than $120000 peryear ndash was overall positive Of those responding in the highest house-hold income bracket 43 were overall positive while the remain-der were overall negative toward nose-to-tail eating

Those who have close family in farming are more likely to havea positive view (88) than those who do not (63) Similarly thosewho have lived on a farm for at least one year during their livestended to view nose-to-tail eating overall more positively (84) thanthose who have not (69) Seemingly in keeping with these resultsis that negativity toward nose-to-tail eating is highest for those livingin cities (22) while no mixed or overall negative responses wereexpressed at all by those in peri-urbanlifestyle or rural locationsParticipants in town locations were 80 positive overall

Participant responses to nose-to-tail eating in relation to theamount of meat in their diets showed that 455 of regular meateaters 147 of restricted meat eaters and 29 of non-meat eaterswere overall positive about the concept of nose-to-tail eating (eventhough they may personally not wish to eat nose-to-tail) Most ofthe overall negative views toward nose-to-tail also came from thoseparticipants who were regular meat eaters 73

When probed as to the reasons why individuals held their par-ticular view of the nose-to-tail eating practice participants con-veyed a range of responses Sensory appeal was both the main reasonput forward for why this practice was seen positively but also whyit was seen negatively Overall however while those who found thepractice personally appealing also tended to view it as generallypositive a number of individuals (as indicated by the 754overall positive view aforementioned) who personally found thepractice repugnant nonetheless saw the practice as generallyadvantageous

The main reason for expressing positive views toward nose-to-tail eating were based on sensory appeal in particular the taste ofspecific foods as stated by these individuals ldquoSheep face ndash I eat reg-ularly as a roast trotters boil-up chicken feet ndash gorgeousrdquo (39f)4ldquoPigrsquos cheeks are beautiful really nice Chickens feet ndash didnrsquot mindthem theyrsquore actually quite nice ndash chewy ndash theyrsquore funny thingsrdquo(20f) and ldquoit sounds really gross but my favourite part of the fishhead is actually the eyeballs because itrsquos got all the flavour and yoursquoresucking [on them] and yoursquore like lsquooh itrsquos so nicersquo rdquo (47f) Overall

4 The bracketed code refers to a random number allotted to the individual par-ticipant and the letter (f or m) refers to the gender of the participant m = malef = female

172 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

44 of participants mentioned sensory appeal as a reason for beingin favour of nose-to-tail eating Second to this were reasons basedon an lsquoethicrsquo of utilising (and therefore) eating the entire animalTypical of the kind of responses here was ldquoAt least they use everybit of the creature I feel that nose-to-tail eating is honouring theanimal by using every little bitrdquo (24f) and ldquoIf you donrsquot use all partsof the animal itrsquos a waste and quite disrespectful to the animalrdquo (29f)Economic reasons for favouring this consumption practice were madeby nine participants (or 13) while only three participants men-tioned environmental reasons specifically such as ldquoItrsquos a better useof resourcesrdquo (12f)

The more critical views of nose-to-tail eating can be summarisedas falling into two categories lack of sensory appeal (40 of re-spondents) and difficulty with obtaining and knowing how toprepare certain foods (16) In relation to the former commentssuch as the following were made ldquoI have a problem with seeingsomething on a plate that is recognisable like a fish eye or nose Iwill eat it but these bits need to be hiddenrdquo (12f) ldquo seeing youknow a pigs head it represents too much of that animalrdquo (18f) andldquoI canrsquot even imagine eating that stuff (offal) now ndash or anything witha different texturerdquo (43f) There were also certain foods that weremore frequently mentioned than others as either more or less ac-ceptable lamb tails (29) and pig trotters (20) were noted mostfrequently as items that were more acceptable while chicken feet(16) along with fish heads kidneys and brains (each 13) werecited more frequently than other items as unappealing The mostoften cited rationale from a sensory point of view for rejection ofcertain items was based on how they looked and the lsquoidearsquo of whatthe food is and where it is from

In relation to the present time a number of individuals com-mented that New Zealanders are essentially spoilt for choice nowhence widespread rejection of nose-to-tail eating

People in New Zealand are far too rich therersquos too much choiceWe only want the best cuts of beef and lobster and we throwaway the rest because we have this idea that nose-to-tail eatingmight be yucky But this standard of living wonrsquot last forever(22m)

Although eating nose-to-tail may not be so popular at presentit was also noted that there may be a lsquoreturnrsquo to eating more nose-to-tail food items

Because wersquore a multicultural country now in New Zealandtherersquos probably a lot of people that you know like if they camefrom France might like to see the snout of a pig coming out ofthe pot I donrsquot know but I think there is a lot of diversity in foodnow that wersquove been exposed to (17f)

One individual took a much more polarised view of why differ-ent people eat different things in New Zealand ldquoThere are two com-pletely different schools within New Zealand those who are moreconservative and like traditional foods and those that are more ad-venturous and are eating different thingsrdquo (61m) All in all the ideasaround nose-to-tail eating tell a story of a nation where only smallernumbers of people eat this way at present even though a few gen-erations ago it was much more popular And yet there is perhapsa shift toward diversifying food tastes once again given increasingmulticulturalism which may in turn mean that more elements ofa nose-to-tail diet become (re)incorporated into regular cuisine infuture

Entomophagy

Entomophagy was explored in this research as part of lookingmore broadly at extending the living protein range to include foodsnot commonly eaten in Western developed nations such as NewZealand The idea of taking up entomophagy across New Zealand

ndash though not necessarily as a personal preference ndash was viewed pos-itively overall by 60 of participants 218 had overall mixed viewsand 182 expressed an overall negative view There was also a stronggender pattern in relation to participantsrsquo overall general posi-tions on entomophagy males (40 overall positive versus 36overall negative) were much more favourable toward insect con-sumption than females (20 overall positive versus 145 overallnegative) In terms of participant location the largest proportionof overall positive responses came from city participants (667 ofthe positive responses) ndash which is also where the largest propor-tion of the overall negative responses emanated from (417)however only one of the five rural based participants who re-sponded was overall positive The most division across responseswere from town based participants 242 of the positive re-sponses 50 of the negative responses and 333 of the mixed re-sponses There were no significant patterns found in relation to othersocio-demographic factors including age household income in-volvement in farming and amount of meat in an individualsrsquo diet

Positive responses were largely shaped by participantsrsquo acknowl-edgement of the nutritional qualities of insect-eating with the over-riding reason being the protein-rich nutrient value of insects ldquotheamount of protein is so high in locusts and cricketsrdquo (61m) Whenit came to the negative responses however there were a range ofchallenges put forward by participants around things like the dif-ficulty involved in insect eating ldquoItrsquod be difficult gathering insectsrdquo(65f) and ldquothe tricky part is getting enough of them and knowinghow to cook themrdquo (51m) Others just simply didnrsquot like the ideaof insect-eating ldquoI wouldnrsquot eat insects They freak me out I heardwe should eat insects but I couldnrsquot ndash mental blockrdquo (9m) Four par-ticipants also commented on possible environmental issues whichwere all linked to not eating anything native namely weta becausethey are native to New Zealand and given that giant weta weredeemed endangered5

For the most part while perceived as an overall positive direc-tion to take eating insects was also widely recognised as very chal-lenging ldquoI think it would take a good deal of hard times for themajority of people to start considering alternative food sources [likeinsects]rdquo (13m) There was also some concurrency around the notionthat to eat insects would involve needing to disguise the appear-ance in some way ldquoI would have no difficulty with eating insectsas long as it was processed I donrsquot think Irsquod pick up a weta andeat it but weta burger if itrsquos been processed and mashed up inother words Irsquod give it a gordquo (15m) on the other hand this indi-vidual while saying that he would not eat insects at the same timesaid that in fact he would so long as he was not told about it Helater went on to say though that if it was good for him and it didnrsquotlook like an insect then he would consider eating insects

Well if itrsquos got a head and stuff and legs I donrsquot want to eat thatDeep fried cockroaches ndash eww Itrsquos like yeah just donrsquot tell mewhat it is I think the whole thing about eating bugs is that ifyou didnrsquot tell me what it is I would eat it If it was really goodfor you ndash like it was really nutritious and it didnrsquot look like [aninsect] Irsquod eat it (2f)

Clearly there are some mixed feelings around eating insects theirappearance is problematic but there is also the acknowledge-ment of their providing a good lean source of protein One of thevegetarian participants commented on the virtues of eating insectsnoting that it is difficult to see an insect as an animal per se

I think as a vegetarian I can hear that itrsquos a good idea and I thinkI would consider it in the future because it doesnrsquot feel like itrsquos

5 There are over 70 weta species in New Zealand and 16 of these are at risk(Department of Conservation (DoC) 2014)

173CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

an animal if itrsquos an insect quite as much Irsquom still holding backIrsquom not eating insects at the moment but I can see that it wouldbe a step Irsquod be willing to take rather than eating meat I thinkAnd theyrsquore high in protein and there are a lot of them aboutand I think yeah it seems quite sensible (48f)

While not willing to eat insects at the moment this individualcan imagine eating them at some future point and in particularwould prefer them over meat which is at least in part given herview that insects donrsquot quite seem so much like animals

Some of the more liberal minded individuals in terms of theirwillingness to eat a range of protein foods that were quite novelto them still could not imagine really doing so any time soon orwith any regularity Insect eating was deemed more something thatwould occur as either (a) only out of necessity ndash and as one par-ticipant noted hopefully not in their lifetime ldquoThat could come inand be quite normal when wersquore dead and buried I hope ndash not beforendash please not beforerdquo (32f) or (b) as a novel experience in a dif-ferent culture ldquothese things are normal in different places itrsquos acultural thingrdquo (22m)

When it came then to considering who would in fact eat insectsthemselves the results were fairly even in terms of lsquoyesrsquo (52) andlsquonorsquo (48) However there was a gender difference of those sayingthat they would eat insects 78 were male and of those saying nothey wouldnrsquot eat insects 61 were females In conjunction withthe earlier reference to the gender pattern apparent with partici-pantsrsquo overall positions on eating insects it is quite clear that malesmore than females are more open to the idea of eating insects

Similarly to nose-to-tail eating while entomophagy is not a partof New Zealand cuisine at present there was the view that with in-creasing multiculturalism this practice too may become morepopular As one participant noted ldquoBritish or English sensibilities[which] seems to be the prevailing ideas that have come across hererdquoare the reason for why entomophagy is not a practice in NewZealand as ldquoNew Zealanders still seem to have a British way of think-ingrdquo (24f)

In vitro meat

Unlike with entomophagy there was an overall negative viewtaken toward in vitro meat consumption as a direction that NewZealanders could venture down as part of reducing lsquostandardrsquo meatconsumption 55 of participants were opposed to in vitro meatbecoming a part of the New Zealand diet 325 were generallyfavourable while the remaining 125 had mixed feelings about itThere was a strong gender correlation regarding participantsrsquo overallpositions on in vitro meat of those having an overall positive viewof in vitro meat 69 were male and of those with an overall neg-ative view of in vitro meat 86 were female (80 of those holdingmixed views were female also) With age there was a notable aver-sion to in vitro meat in the 36ndash65 year old age group with 579having an overall negative position on in vitro meat (368 had anoverall positive view while 53 had a mixed view) and in the65 years and over group with 55 taking an overall negative view(325 were overall more favourable and 125 had mixed views)Across the 20ndash35 year old age group views were more evenly spread30 positive 40 negative and 30 mixed The only individual inthe 16ndash19 year old age group to respond to this question was pos-itive about it Hence there is a relationship between age and overallviews of in vitro meat where the older the participant the morelikely they are to hold a more negative view In relation to incomethose at the lower and the higher ends of the income spectrum wereless favourable toward in vitro meat (for example 647 of thosein the $14000ndash48000 income range were overall negative and 80in the $120000 or more range were overall negative)

A pattern was evident with overall perceptions of in vitro meatin relation to the participantsrsquo locations No individuals living intowns or rural areas held a positive view on in vitro meat while60 of those in peri-urbanlifestyle locations had an overall nega-tive view City based participants however held overwhelming pos-itive views 63 of city dwellers were overall positive 10 had mixedresponses and the remaining 28 held negative views Further-more with regard to the overall position of participantsrsquo meat-related dietary habits regular meat eaters were much more negative(375) than restricted (125) and non-meat eaters (5) No notablecorrelations existed between involvement in farming and in vitromeat perceptions and preferences

The main reasons cited as to why in vitro meat is a good thingwere in relation to animal ethics (n = 10) and the capacity to in-crease protein productivity (n = 9) On animal ethics participantscomments mainly revolved around the idea that given it is not ananimal per se then it is not problematic ldquoTherersquos no ethical prob-lems because therersquos no painrdquo (68m) and ldquoTherersquos no central nervoussystem no brain is attached so therersquos no cruelty involvedrdquo (41f)On the other hand were much more practical points made aroundproductivity ldquoWe may need to use it to feed people in bulkrdquo (50f)and ldquoItrsquos the same efficiency as battery farmed but there are lessethical issuesrdquo (67m)

While there was recognition of these benefits nearly all of theparticipants rejected in vitro meat on a personal level on the basisof their sensory perceptions of it Moreover participants at timestended to conflate their personal views on in vitro meat withwhether they believed it would be a good thing for New Zealandto pursue overall The perceived texture of in vitro meat was deemedunpalatable ldquoItrsquos not appetising It creeps me out the texturewould probably be different ndash it would put me offrdquo (43f) the lookof in vitro meat was also deemed problematic ldquoIt looks absolute-ly revolting to me ndash just revoltingrdquo (39f) and

You would have to close your eyes to eat that itrsquos not normalItrsquos not meat I mean even if it tasted really wonderful I wouldnrsquoteat it if I knew it was in vitro meat Just knowing itrsquos artificialwould put you right off Irsquod go vegetarian I think if that wasall there was (21f)

Also some individuals commented that they simply did not seeit as meat ndash it was something not natural and by association there-fore possibly unhealthy ldquoI donrsquot think of this as meat I would rathereat lsquorealrsquo meatrdquo (34f) and ldquoIf my wife cooked something like thatitrsquod be grounds for divorce Itrsquos an insult to meat rdquo (19m) Of par-ticular relevance given the basis for this research were the fre-quent comments made regarding how individuals would rather eatless meat or be vegetarian than eat things like in vitro meat ldquoPer-suading people to eat less meat so that they donrsquot have to do thiswould be easier ndash would you really want to eat it Itrsquos sadrdquo (25f)Generally participants did not see in vitro meat as having a placein New Zealand society in the future ldquoI donrsquot see it having any placein New Zealandrsquos futurerdquo (37f)

Reduced meat consumption

The discussion on reducing meat consumption (by having moremeatless meals or smaller portions of meat in meals) as a practiceto help address the environmental issues involving meat produc-tion was mainly viewed quite favourably as a general practice forNew Zealanders to adopt 697 of responses were overall posi-tive about it and just 3 were overall negative Responses were notsignificantly patterned by gender but regarding age the greatestproportion of lsquomixed views overallrsquo toward reducing meat con-sumption were in the 20ndash35 year old age group (50) while the mostpositive overall responses were in the 36ndash65 year old group (50)A relationship existed whereby the higher the household income

174 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

the less positive participants were about reducing meat consump-tion least positive overall were the highest household income($120000 and over) at just 286 followed by 444 ($70000ndash120000) 818 ($48000ndash70000) 821 ($14000ndash48000) and 889(less than $14000) In relation to participant location there tendedto be a much higher representation of lsquomixedrsquo views for those locatedin cities (over 55 of those holding mixed views were located incities) with the only overall negative positions coming from par-ticipants located in city and town locations The two individuals withoverall negative views of reducing meat consumption were regularmeat consumers However most regular meat eaters (n = 45) werepositive overall about reducing meat consumption (64) No sig-nificant patterns were noted for participant location or involve-ment in farming in relation to reducing meat consumption

The main reasons put forward by participants for favouringreduced meat consumption across New Zealand which were largelybased on personal views that tended to be generalised by partici-pants to the wider population were economic (n = 23) due to thetaste or appeal of reduced meat or meatless meals (n = 19) and forhealth or nutritional benefits (n = 18) Just ten participants madecomments about environmental benefits of reduced meat con-sumption In terms of economics most of the participants that com-mented noted the relatively (and increasingly) expensive cost ofmeat ldquoItrsquos heaps cheaper to eat vegetarian Irsquove seen people on TVdoing household budgets saying that you donrsquot have to have meatevery nightrdquo (10m) and ldquoI think meat is going to be unsustainablebecause the price will go up and will prompt people to eat less meatrdquo(59m) On the appeal of meatless or reduced-meat meals partici-pants commented on the way such meals (can) look and also onthe texture ldquoIrsquod love to eat [the vegetarian meals pictured on thehand out] all the time ndash every night ndash for sure Gorgeousrdquo (39f)and ldquoI think taste for me is important but itrsquos also about textureIf yoursquore going to buy a meat replacement eggplant is so meaty andyou donrsquot really have to eat meatrdquo (47f) Comments related to healthor nutritional reasons in favour of a reduced meat diet tended toeither extoll the virtues of more vegetables and fruits in the dietfor example ldquoMore fresh vegetables in your diet makes you feelbetterrdquo (8m) or point out the health issues associated with too muchmeat consumption ndash or consumption of unhealthy meat types

In our household itrsquos health reasons for eating less meat becauseI have got diabetes So I look now at less meat and lower fat andall that kind of stuff you know itrsquos a healthy diet and itrsquos notlike yoursquore missing out on anything itrsquos just less red meat andmore of your lower GI carbs and things like that (21f)

Environmentally participant comments reflected concerns aboutthe environmental implications of agricultural production ldquoI donrsquotthink the way we eat meat on this planet is sustainable for our healthor the planet [Meat production] is a pollutant to waterways andsoilrdquo (41f)

Opposition to reducing meat consumption was mainly ex-pressed in relation to the difficulties involved in cooking withoutmeat (rather than with less meat) (n = 22) as well as with the healthor nutritional value of meat (n = 17) and due to economic reasons(n = 13) The difficulties noted with a reduced (or meat-less) dietwere based on three main factors first the notion that meat is moreconvenient (and meatless meals less so) ldquoThatrsquos all very well ifyoursquove got the time on your hands to do it rdquo (39f) second wasthat many people stated they didnrsquot know how to cook (appeal-ing) meals without meat ldquoVegetarian food can be delicious but itrequires more time and knowledgerdquo (62m) and third were per-ceptions that it would be very difficult ndash even impossible ndash to en-courage males to eat vegetarian meals ldquoBeing on a farm you couldnrsquothave a meatless day because the head of the household wouldprotest Men eat big portions of meat to be machordquo (35f)

A number of rationales were provided as to why meat is a ne-cessity in the diet including the need for animal based healthy pro-teins and why on the other hand a vegetarian diet could be bad

The vegetarian lsquocheese on cheesersquo phenomenon where every-thing has cheese slathered all over it itrsquos not good for them[Research] says that if you eat some meat you probably wouldbe okay [and not get] all these cancers that people get but if youeat a lot of cheese dairy you are in big trouble (41f)

Another often cited reason was based on satiety (and often linkedto protein as well) ndash that growing young people and those engagedin physical labour in particular ndash need to have animal based foodsto get and keep them feeling full

If yoursquove got a young family yoursquove got to think that basicallytheyrsquore filling up with food for a certain length of time but notfor long Itrsquos a bit like Chinese food Chinese food is nice but itdoesnrsquot last long Theyrsquove got to have protein to fill them espe-cially since they are growing which comes back to needing meat(20f)

Other reasons for opposition to a reduced meat diet included howhumans are biologically meant to eat meat as omnivores and thatnot eating meat can lead to ill health

Overall there was a firm view that it would be quite difficult toreduce meat consumption in New Zealand given that it is such anentrenched aspect of peoplersquos lives and upbringing ldquo itrsquos prob-ably quite engrained Wersquove been brought up with meat and therersquosnot a lot of advertising for other ideas and itrsquos so easy to slap some-thing on the barbecuerdquo (46f) The barbecue as a New Zealand meatphenomenon was mentioned multiple times as described by thisperson as a meal consisting of ldquotwo sausages steak and potatordquo (44f)Another participant commented on the centrality of meat to thehealthy lsquofood pyramidrsquo6 ldquoI think [meat is] so much a part of ourculture the food pyramid always taught meat as part of a bal-anced dietrdquo (66m)

Not everyone though saw meat as so entrenched but took theview as aforementioned that the New Zealand diet is changing ldquoTheculture was one of meat eaters and itrsquos changed towards less meatand more variety exploring non-meat food Reduced meat con-sumption is the way New Zealand is goingrdquo (13m) The shift towardless meat was also linked to increasing cosmopolitanism

I think our identity these days is cosmopolitan wersquore gettinginto a lot of diverse and interesting ways to eat like whorsquod havethought that we would have chickpeas on the market and thoseother things I mean it takes the place of meat and thatrsquos whata lot of people are doing these days cutting down on meat (17f)

The degree to which meat would remain entrenched ndash and forhow long ndash was the main point of differentiation between partici-pants when it came to discussing reducing meat consumption ina New Zealand context

Discussion

Food consumption is a socially significant act people in differ-ent places and at different times eat differently have different setsand kinds of constraints on what they eat and have different foodtaboos or alternately preferences A critical element then to under-standing the various perceptions of meat and animal-based pro-

6 Originally developed in the 1960s and now considered somewhat outdated thehealthy food pyramid model has been used as a guideline in New Zealand to educatepeople (especially children) about healthy eating it suggests that meat and otherlean protein-rich foods constitute 2ndash3 food servings per day (Shaw 2013 VitalChiropractic 2014)

175CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

teins in diets in this research is in considering the socio-historiccharacteristics of New Zealand

New Zealand was occupied for centuries by Maori who sub-sisted on the abundance of foods that were readily available Aftercolonisation by England in the 1840s the country gradually cameto be known as a nation of farmers hence a meat-heavy diet becamethe norm once farming was established in particular for the lsquowhitersquosettlers Over time traditional food fare of Maori has become largelyperipheral to or absent from the diets of New Zealanders in general(Carter amp Maynard 2001) but with the multiculturalism that nowcharacterises urban centres particularly an increasingly diversi-fied diet has now become usual for many Hence reflected in thisresearch are historically evolved food consumption patterns that arebeing challenged at present by an increasing diversification of foodstuffs which is opening up possibilities for the introduction (or re-introduction) of currently non-standard meat or meat-substitutefoods Looking at participant socio-demographics provides a meansby which to further scrutinise the dietary preference findings

In relation to gender males were more favourably disposedtoward the idea of embracing in vitro meat and entomophagy Thisechoes Baumlckstrom et alrsquos (2003) findings in that there is reluc-tance by women to try certain food based on perceptions of howsafe the food is and it also links with the work of Frank and vander Klaauw (1994) along with Alley and Burroughs (1991) wherebywomen will more often not want to try new foods while men willmore actively seek to do so This may be understood in relation tothe norms that exist around (western) hegemonic masculinity andfood whereby stereotypical masculine qualities including beingtough ndash or daring ndash could explain the increased willingness toventure into new food realms (Nath 2011)

Regarding age this research shows that the age-old practice ofnose-to-tail eating was viewed more positively by the older par-ticipants while futuristic in vitro meat was not The older partici-pants were much more familiar with nose-to-tail eating and offalin particular had been standard fare for many of these peoplegrowing up given in particular that it was a cheap form of nour-ishment (Robinson 2012) Hence there is a familiarity there for olderpeople with nose-to-tail eating which didnrsquot resonate for youngerpeople The aversion to in vitro meat which was noted most fre-quently by older participants can be understood then as perhapsdue to its unfamiliarity

The findings in relation to household income show three pat-terns participants from wealthier households were least positiveabout nose-to-tail eating and reducing meat consumption and alongwith the lowest income households were least positive toward invitro meat consumption Bourdieursquos (1984) work on taste and dis-tinction is a useful lens through which to view these findings ashe argued that consumer choices are made to reflect a kind of hi-erarchy that distinguishes one class from another As noted aboveeating offal was a cheap form of nourishment and it has been as-sociated with the poorer classes (Beardsworth amp Keil 1997 Robinson2012) In keeping with Bourdieursquos (1990) work and the argumentput forward by Beardsworth and Keil (1997) food preferences ofdifferent social classes change over time As such a possible expla-nation for the relationships found here are that having wealth firstof all allows for more expensive meat products to be purchased andconsumed and moreover that the ability to do so is a way of sig-nifying onersquos social class (despite the fact that offal eating has beenargued to be making a lsquocomebackrsquo in New Zealand see for exampleRobinson [2012]) The dislike noted toward in vitro meat foundamong the higher income households may be linked with this alsoas it was noted by a range of participants that in vitro meat maywell be a way to feed those who cannot afford to purchase muchlsquonormalrsquo meat Understanding why in vitro meat was also viewedquite negatively by those in the lowest household income bracketis something that requires further enquiry perhaps given that it was

suggested as a food product which could be most useful for lowersocio-economic homes

Findings related to participant location showed that those inurban locations were more positive about entomophagy and in vitromeat and were the most averse to nose-to-tail eating This sug-gests that there may be less food neophobia for those in city loca-tions than for those located in town or rural areas although thisdoesnrsquot apply for nose-to-tail eating (which was viewed more neg-atively) However having lived on a farm or having family in-volved in farming were most strongly associated with beingfavourable toward nose-to-tail eating which hence suggests thatit is those more familiar with this practice who are more favourablewhich does help explain why those resident in cities were leastfavourable

The results found for the relationship between the amount ofmeat in diet and the different consumption practices are perhapsthe most interesting that regular meat eaters were the most neg-ative about nose-to-tail eating and in vitro meat but the most pos-itive about reducing meat consumption This finding suggests thatmeat-eaters in New Zealand have become accustomed to being ableto purchase better quality cuts of meat and these are the cuts thatare seen as most desirable at present That regular meat eaters werethe most positive about reducing meat consumption probably in partreflects the fact that participants were aware7 that New Zealand-ers on average are heavy meat consumers and this particular dietarypractice was presented to research participants after all the othersby which stage there was a feeling expressed by many that theywould rather eat less meat than eat any of the other food stuffs pre-sented Also there was the aforementioned recognition that foodoptions and diet diversity is increasing in New Zealand and as suchthere are increasing opportunities to shift away from the meat-centric meals of the past

Research limitations and future directions

While this research did span a geographical and socio-demographic range of individuals and some clear patterns emergedfrom the findings the qualitative focus group nature of the re-search method means that findings should be treated with cautionA possible future approach to this kind of research could insteadinclude a more formalised administered survey approach that in-cludes closed and open-ended response options in order to incor-porate a larger number of participants and also to elicit responsesthat can be more easily coded and compared in order to build astronger quantitative element into the research

With respect to the different food possibilities presented to par-ticipants in the lsquoextending living protein rangersquo (which includeentomophagy) and nose-to-tail handouts it may well be benefi-cial to consider each of these in more depth given that there wassignificant variation in responses within each of these categoriesThis would allow more a more sophisticated analysis of those factorsthat make certain foods more appealing or repugnant than others

The various meat consumption practices considered here do pointoverall toward a changed and changing cultural palette It was clearalso though that the extent to which it will shift in what ways andwhen are very much debateable While participants noted that meatreduction is occurring more frequently in New Zealand and al-though many stated that the meat-centric nature of predomi-nantly Anglo-Saxon heritage remains strong in this country therewas also a widespread sense that meat consumption would con-

7 Part of the introduction to the focus groups involved telling participants thatNew Zealanders have consistently ranked in the top ten countries over the last decadefor high meat consumption

176 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

questions certain sets of images had additional questions as de-scribed in the following

bull Genetic modification in agriculture Whether participants wouldconsume genetically modified produce and why or why not aswell as which particular products they would consume and whyor why not

bull In vitro meat Whether participants would consume in vitro meatand why or why not

bull Nose-to-tail eating Whether and what participants wouldconsume in terms of products that come under the nose-to-tail eating practice and why or why not

bull Extending the living protein range Whether and what partici-pants would consume in terms of products that can come underthis category (including insects feral cats and rabbits possumsand garden snails) and why or why not

At times discussion was spontaneous while at other timesprompting was used to elicit discussion in order to ensure that eachof the areas described above was addressed When it came to con-sidering the quotes participants were asked to respond to each inturn stating whether they agreed or disagreed and why or why notHowever for the purposes of this article only responses elicited fromdiscussion of four of the image sets are utilised in vitro meat nose-to-tail eating extending the living protein range and reduced meatconsumption

Each focus group had a maximum of four participants (initiallythis was five but given the tendency for participants to talk overeach other I then lowered the maximum) and lasted 15ndash2 hoursAll participants consented to being audio recorded and to the tran-scription of the audio recordings being used for publication pur-poses Socio-demographic information and questions relating to theirfarming experience and dietary preferences was collected from eachindividual at the conclusion of the focus group

Data analysis

Data were organised and analysed in two different ways Firstlythe focus group transcripts were organised and coded based on theframework method ndash a thematic organisation method for qualita-tive data (Ritchie Spencer amp OrsquoConnor 2003) Spreadsheets wereused to organise the data according to different themes that oc-curred within each of the image sets and according to the re-sponses to each of the different quotes Secondly socio demographicinformation as well as quantifiable data was inputted into theIBM SPSS quantitative data software programme in order to easilylook at simple statistics including data cross-tabulation andfrequencies

The small sample size of this research means that results are notgeneralisable Nonetheless a rich array of data featuring some quitedistinct patterns emerged One such area relates to the theme thatdeveloped around the significance of sensory perceptions indetermining individualsrsquo willingness to change food consumptionpractices

Results

While the results for each of the areas of inquiry vary there arenonetheless patterns and similarities across each of the differentfour areas looked at Nose-to-tail eating entomophagy in vitro meatand reduced meat consumption are each considered in turn beforemoving onto a discussion about how these results can be under-stood in a New Zealand context In each section that follows I beginby outlining participantsrsquo overall positions on the consumption prac-ticesrsquo general appeal as a practice that can aid with addressing meatover-consumption in New Zealand before breaking this down in

order to consider the positions in relation to participantsrsquo socio-demographics Then the factors influencing respondents overall im-pressions which included both personal and more abstract orfunctional views are outlined

Nose-to-tail eating

When asked about their views of nose-to-tail eating partici-pants were overwhelmingly positive about the practice as some-thing that could be taken up across New Zealand Of the validresponses 754 viewed eating nose-to-tail positively 158 neg-atively while 88 of responses were mixed No significant rela-tionship between gender and position was found but there was astrong correlation between age and positive views of nose-to-taileating 92 of those aged 66 or older viewed nose to tail eating pos-itively followed by 77 in the 36ndash65 year old age group having anoverall positive view 66 in the 20ndash35 year old age range with theone valid response in the 16ndash19 year old range being overall neg-ative This indicates that older participants tended to have a morepositive view of nose-to-tail eating An interesting finding also oc-curred with respect to income and views on nose-to-tail eating themajority view for all income categories other than the highest incomebracket measured ndash a household income of more than $120000 peryear ndash was overall positive Of those responding in the highest house-hold income bracket 43 were overall positive while the remain-der were overall negative toward nose-to-tail eating

Those who have close family in farming are more likely to havea positive view (88) than those who do not (63) Similarly thosewho have lived on a farm for at least one year during their livestended to view nose-to-tail eating overall more positively (84) thanthose who have not (69) Seemingly in keeping with these resultsis that negativity toward nose-to-tail eating is highest for those livingin cities (22) while no mixed or overall negative responses wereexpressed at all by those in peri-urbanlifestyle or rural locationsParticipants in town locations were 80 positive overall

Participant responses to nose-to-tail eating in relation to theamount of meat in their diets showed that 455 of regular meateaters 147 of restricted meat eaters and 29 of non-meat eaterswere overall positive about the concept of nose-to-tail eating (eventhough they may personally not wish to eat nose-to-tail) Most ofthe overall negative views toward nose-to-tail also came from thoseparticipants who were regular meat eaters 73

When probed as to the reasons why individuals held their par-ticular view of the nose-to-tail eating practice participants con-veyed a range of responses Sensory appeal was both the main reasonput forward for why this practice was seen positively but also whyit was seen negatively Overall however while those who found thepractice personally appealing also tended to view it as generallypositive a number of individuals (as indicated by the 754overall positive view aforementioned) who personally found thepractice repugnant nonetheless saw the practice as generallyadvantageous

The main reason for expressing positive views toward nose-to-tail eating were based on sensory appeal in particular the taste ofspecific foods as stated by these individuals ldquoSheep face ndash I eat reg-ularly as a roast trotters boil-up chicken feet ndash gorgeousrdquo (39f)4ldquoPigrsquos cheeks are beautiful really nice Chickens feet ndash didnrsquot mindthem theyrsquore actually quite nice ndash chewy ndash theyrsquore funny thingsrdquo(20f) and ldquoit sounds really gross but my favourite part of the fishhead is actually the eyeballs because itrsquos got all the flavour and yoursquoresucking [on them] and yoursquore like lsquooh itrsquos so nicersquo rdquo (47f) Overall

4 The bracketed code refers to a random number allotted to the individual par-ticipant and the letter (f or m) refers to the gender of the participant m = malef = female

172 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

44 of participants mentioned sensory appeal as a reason for beingin favour of nose-to-tail eating Second to this were reasons basedon an lsquoethicrsquo of utilising (and therefore) eating the entire animalTypical of the kind of responses here was ldquoAt least they use everybit of the creature I feel that nose-to-tail eating is honouring theanimal by using every little bitrdquo (24f) and ldquoIf you donrsquot use all partsof the animal itrsquos a waste and quite disrespectful to the animalrdquo (29f)Economic reasons for favouring this consumption practice were madeby nine participants (or 13) while only three participants men-tioned environmental reasons specifically such as ldquoItrsquos a better useof resourcesrdquo (12f)

The more critical views of nose-to-tail eating can be summarisedas falling into two categories lack of sensory appeal (40 of re-spondents) and difficulty with obtaining and knowing how toprepare certain foods (16) In relation to the former commentssuch as the following were made ldquoI have a problem with seeingsomething on a plate that is recognisable like a fish eye or nose Iwill eat it but these bits need to be hiddenrdquo (12f) ldquo seeing youknow a pigs head it represents too much of that animalrdquo (18f) andldquoI canrsquot even imagine eating that stuff (offal) now ndash or anything witha different texturerdquo (43f) There were also certain foods that weremore frequently mentioned than others as either more or less ac-ceptable lamb tails (29) and pig trotters (20) were noted mostfrequently as items that were more acceptable while chicken feet(16) along with fish heads kidneys and brains (each 13) werecited more frequently than other items as unappealing The mostoften cited rationale from a sensory point of view for rejection ofcertain items was based on how they looked and the lsquoidearsquo of whatthe food is and where it is from

In relation to the present time a number of individuals com-mented that New Zealanders are essentially spoilt for choice nowhence widespread rejection of nose-to-tail eating

People in New Zealand are far too rich therersquos too much choiceWe only want the best cuts of beef and lobster and we throwaway the rest because we have this idea that nose-to-tail eatingmight be yucky But this standard of living wonrsquot last forever(22m)

Although eating nose-to-tail may not be so popular at presentit was also noted that there may be a lsquoreturnrsquo to eating more nose-to-tail food items

Because wersquore a multicultural country now in New Zealandtherersquos probably a lot of people that you know like if they camefrom France might like to see the snout of a pig coming out ofthe pot I donrsquot know but I think there is a lot of diversity in foodnow that wersquove been exposed to (17f)

One individual took a much more polarised view of why differ-ent people eat different things in New Zealand ldquoThere are two com-pletely different schools within New Zealand those who are moreconservative and like traditional foods and those that are more ad-venturous and are eating different thingsrdquo (61m) All in all the ideasaround nose-to-tail eating tell a story of a nation where only smallernumbers of people eat this way at present even though a few gen-erations ago it was much more popular And yet there is perhapsa shift toward diversifying food tastes once again given increasingmulticulturalism which may in turn mean that more elements ofa nose-to-tail diet become (re)incorporated into regular cuisine infuture

Entomophagy

Entomophagy was explored in this research as part of lookingmore broadly at extending the living protein range to include foodsnot commonly eaten in Western developed nations such as NewZealand The idea of taking up entomophagy across New Zealand

ndash though not necessarily as a personal preference ndash was viewed pos-itively overall by 60 of participants 218 had overall mixed viewsand 182 expressed an overall negative view There was also a stronggender pattern in relation to participantsrsquo overall general posi-tions on entomophagy males (40 overall positive versus 36overall negative) were much more favourable toward insect con-sumption than females (20 overall positive versus 145 overallnegative) In terms of participant location the largest proportionof overall positive responses came from city participants (667 ofthe positive responses) ndash which is also where the largest propor-tion of the overall negative responses emanated from (417)however only one of the five rural based participants who re-sponded was overall positive The most division across responseswere from town based participants 242 of the positive re-sponses 50 of the negative responses and 333 of the mixed re-sponses There were no significant patterns found in relation to othersocio-demographic factors including age household income in-volvement in farming and amount of meat in an individualsrsquo diet

Positive responses were largely shaped by participantsrsquo acknowl-edgement of the nutritional qualities of insect-eating with the over-riding reason being the protein-rich nutrient value of insects ldquotheamount of protein is so high in locusts and cricketsrdquo (61m) Whenit came to the negative responses however there were a range ofchallenges put forward by participants around things like the dif-ficulty involved in insect eating ldquoItrsquod be difficult gathering insectsrdquo(65f) and ldquothe tricky part is getting enough of them and knowinghow to cook themrdquo (51m) Others just simply didnrsquot like the ideaof insect-eating ldquoI wouldnrsquot eat insects They freak me out I heardwe should eat insects but I couldnrsquot ndash mental blockrdquo (9m) Four par-ticipants also commented on possible environmental issues whichwere all linked to not eating anything native namely weta becausethey are native to New Zealand and given that giant weta weredeemed endangered5

For the most part while perceived as an overall positive direc-tion to take eating insects was also widely recognised as very chal-lenging ldquoI think it would take a good deal of hard times for themajority of people to start considering alternative food sources [likeinsects]rdquo (13m) There was also some concurrency around the notionthat to eat insects would involve needing to disguise the appear-ance in some way ldquoI would have no difficulty with eating insectsas long as it was processed I donrsquot think Irsquod pick up a weta andeat it but weta burger if itrsquos been processed and mashed up inother words Irsquod give it a gordquo (15m) on the other hand this indi-vidual while saying that he would not eat insects at the same timesaid that in fact he would so long as he was not told about it Helater went on to say though that if it was good for him and it didnrsquotlook like an insect then he would consider eating insects

Well if itrsquos got a head and stuff and legs I donrsquot want to eat thatDeep fried cockroaches ndash eww Itrsquos like yeah just donrsquot tell mewhat it is I think the whole thing about eating bugs is that ifyou didnrsquot tell me what it is I would eat it If it was really goodfor you ndash like it was really nutritious and it didnrsquot look like [aninsect] Irsquod eat it (2f)

Clearly there are some mixed feelings around eating insects theirappearance is problematic but there is also the acknowledge-ment of their providing a good lean source of protein One of thevegetarian participants commented on the virtues of eating insectsnoting that it is difficult to see an insect as an animal per se

I think as a vegetarian I can hear that itrsquos a good idea and I thinkI would consider it in the future because it doesnrsquot feel like itrsquos

5 There are over 70 weta species in New Zealand and 16 of these are at risk(Department of Conservation (DoC) 2014)

173CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

an animal if itrsquos an insect quite as much Irsquom still holding backIrsquom not eating insects at the moment but I can see that it wouldbe a step Irsquod be willing to take rather than eating meat I thinkAnd theyrsquore high in protein and there are a lot of them aboutand I think yeah it seems quite sensible (48f)

While not willing to eat insects at the moment this individualcan imagine eating them at some future point and in particularwould prefer them over meat which is at least in part given herview that insects donrsquot quite seem so much like animals

Some of the more liberal minded individuals in terms of theirwillingness to eat a range of protein foods that were quite novelto them still could not imagine really doing so any time soon orwith any regularity Insect eating was deemed more something thatwould occur as either (a) only out of necessity ndash and as one par-ticipant noted hopefully not in their lifetime ldquoThat could come inand be quite normal when wersquore dead and buried I hope ndash not beforendash please not beforerdquo (32f) or (b) as a novel experience in a dif-ferent culture ldquothese things are normal in different places itrsquos acultural thingrdquo (22m)

When it came then to considering who would in fact eat insectsthemselves the results were fairly even in terms of lsquoyesrsquo (52) andlsquonorsquo (48) However there was a gender difference of those sayingthat they would eat insects 78 were male and of those saying nothey wouldnrsquot eat insects 61 were females In conjunction withthe earlier reference to the gender pattern apparent with partici-pantsrsquo overall positions on eating insects it is quite clear that malesmore than females are more open to the idea of eating insects

Similarly to nose-to-tail eating while entomophagy is not a partof New Zealand cuisine at present there was the view that with in-creasing multiculturalism this practice too may become morepopular As one participant noted ldquoBritish or English sensibilities[which] seems to be the prevailing ideas that have come across hererdquoare the reason for why entomophagy is not a practice in NewZealand as ldquoNew Zealanders still seem to have a British way of think-ingrdquo (24f)

In vitro meat

Unlike with entomophagy there was an overall negative viewtaken toward in vitro meat consumption as a direction that NewZealanders could venture down as part of reducing lsquostandardrsquo meatconsumption 55 of participants were opposed to in vitro meatbecoming a part of the New Zealand diet 325 were generallyfavourable while the remaining 125 had mixed feelings about itThere was a strong gender correlation regarding participantsrsquo overallpositions on in vitro meat of those having an overall positive viewof in vitro meat 69 were male and of those with an overall neg-ative view of in vitro meat 86 were female (80 of those holdingmixed views were female also) With age there was a notable aver-sion to in vitro meat in the 36ndash65 year old age group with 579having an overall negative position on in vitro meat (368 had anoverall positive view while 53 had a mixed view) and in the65 years and over group with 55 taking an overall negative view(325 were overall more favourable and 125 had mixed views)Across the 20ndash35 year old age group views were more evenly spread30 positive 40 negative and 30 mixed The only individual inthe 16ndash19 year old age group to respond to this question was pos-itive about it Hence there is a relationship between age and overallviews of in vitro meat where the older the participant the morelikely they are to hold a more negative view In relation to incomethose at the lower and the higher ends of the income spectrum wereless favourable toward in vitro meat (for example 647 of thosein the $14000ndash48000 income range were overall negative and 80in the $120000 or more range were overall negative)

A pattern was evident with overall perceptions of in vitro meatin relation to the participantsrsquo locations No individuals living intowns or rural areas held a positive view on in vitro meat while60 of those in peri-urbanlifestyle locations had an overall nega-tive view City based participants however held overwhelming pos-itive views 63 of city dwellers were overall positive 10 had mixedresponses and the remaining 28 held negative views Further-more with regard to the overall position of participantsrsquo meat-related dietary habits regular meat eaters were much more negative(375) than restricted (125) and non-meat eaters (5) No notablecorrelations existed between involvement in farming and in vitromeat perceptions and preferences

The main reasons cited as to why in vitro meat is a good thingwere in relation to animal ethics (n = 10) and the capacity to in-crease protein productivity (n = 9) On animal ethics participantscomments mainly revolved around the idea that given it is not ananimal per se then it is not problematic ldquoTherersquos no ethical prob-lems because therersquos no painrdquo (68m) and ldquoTherersquos no central nervoussystem no brain is attached so therersquos no cruelty involvedrdquo (41f)On the other hand were much more practical points made aroundproductivity ldquoWe may need to use it to feed people in bulkrdquo (50f)and ldquoItrsquos the same efficiency as battery farmed but there are lessethical issuesrdquo (67m)

While there was recognition of these benefits nearly all of theparticipants rejected in vitro meat on a personal level on the basisof their sensory perceptions of it Moreover participants at timestended to conflate their personal views on in vitro meat withwhether they believed it would be a good thing for New Zealandto pursue overall The perceived texture of in vitro meat was deemedunpalatable ldquoItrsquos not appetising It creeps me out the texturewould probably be different ndash it would put me offrdquo (43f) the lookof in vitro meat was also deemed problematic ldquoIt looks absolute-ly revolting to me ndash just revoltingrdquo (39f) and

You would have to close your eyes to eat that itrsquos not normalItrsquos not meat I mean even if it tasted really wonderful I wouldnrsquoteat it if I knew it was in vitro meat Just knowing itrsquos artificialwould put you right off Irsquod go vegetarian I think if that wasall there was (21f)

Also some individuals commented that they simply did not seeit as meat ndash it was something not natural and by association there-fore possibly unhealthy ldquoI donrsquot think of this as meat I would rathereat lsquorealrsquo meatrdquo (34f) and ldquoIf my wife cooked something like thatitrsquod be grounds for divorce Itrsquos an insult to meat rdquo (19m) Of par-ticular relevance given the basis for this research were the fre-quent comments made regarding how individuals would rather eatless meat or be vegetarian than eat things like in vitro meat ldquoPer-suading people to eat less meat so that they donrsquot have to do thiswould be easier ndash would you really want to eat it Itrsquos sadrdquo (25f)Generally participants did not see in vitro meat as having a placein New Zealand society in the future ldquoI donrsquot see it having any placein New Zealandrsquos futurerdquo (37f)

Reduced meat consumption

The discussion on reducing meat consumption (by having moremeatless meals or smaller portions of meat in meals) as a practiceto help address the environmental issues involving meat produc-tion was mainly viewed quite favourably as a general practice forNew Zealanders to adopt 697 of responses were overall posi-tive about it and just 3 were overall negative Responses were notsignificantly patterned by gender but regarding age the greatestproportion of lsquomixed views overallrsquo toward reducing meat con-sumption were in the 20ndash35 year old age group (50) while the mostpositive overall responses were in the 36ndash65 year old group (50)A relationship existed whereby the higher the household income

174 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

the less positive participants were about reducing meat consump-tion least positive overall were the highest household income($120000 and over) at just 286 followed by 444 ($70000ndash120000) 818 ($48000ndash70000) 821 ($14000ndash48000) and 889(less than $14000) In relation to participant location there tendedto be a much higher representation of lsquomixedrsquo views for those locatedin cities (over 55 of those holding mixed views were located incities) with the only overall negative positions coming from par-ticipants located in city and town locations The two individuals withoverall negative views of reducing meat consumption were regularmeat consumers However most regular meat eaters (n = 45) werepositive overall about reducing meat consumption (64) No sig-nificant patterns were noted for participant location or involve-ment in farming in relation to reducing meat consumption

The main reasons put forward by participants for favouringreduced meat consumption across New Zealand which were largelybased on personal views that tended to be generalised by partici-pants to the wider population were economic (n = 23) due to thetaste or appeal of reduced meat or meatless meals (n = 19) and forhealth or nutritional benefits (n = 18) Just ten participants madecomments about environmental benefits of reduced meat con-sumption In terms of economics most of the participants that com-mented noted the relatively (and increasingly) expensive cost ofmeat ldquoItrsquos heaps cheaper to eat vegetarian Irsquove seen people on TVdoing household budgets saying that you donrsquot have to have meatevery nightrdquo (10m) and ldquoI think meat is going to be unsustainablebecause the price will go up and will prompt people to eat less meatrdquo(59m) On the appeal of meatless or reduced-meat meals partici-pants commented on the way such meals (can) look and also onthe texture ldquoIrsquod love to eat [the vegetarian meals pictured on thehand out] all the time ndash every night ndash for sure Gorgeousrdquo (39f)and ldquoI think taste for me is important but itrsquos also about textureIf yoursquore going to buy a meat replacement eggplant is so meaty andyou donrsquot really have to eat meatrdquo (47f) Comments related to healthor nutritional reasons in favour of a reduced meat diet tended toeither extoll the virtues of more vegetables and fruits in the dietfor example ldquoMore fresh vegetables in your diet makes you feelbetterrdquo (8m) or point out the health issues associated with too muchmeat consumption ndash or consumption of unhealthy meat types

In our household itrsquos health reasons for eating less meat becauseI have got diabetes So I look now at less meat and lower fat andall that kind of stuff you know itrsquos a healthy diet and itrsquos notlike yoursquore missing out on anything itrsquos just less red meat andmore of your lower GI carbs and things like that (21f)

Environmentally participant comments reflected concerns aboutthe environmental implications of agricultural production ldquoI donrsquotthink the way we eat meat on this planet is sustainable for our healthor the planet [Meat production] is a pollutant to waterways andsoilrdquo (41f)

Opposition to reducing meat consumption was mainly ex-pressed in relation to the difficulties involved in cooking withoutmeat (rather than with less meat) (n = 22) as well as with the healthor nutritional value of meat (n = 17) and due to economic reasons(n = 13) The difficulties noted with a reduced (or meat-less) dietwere based on three main factors first the notion that meat is moreconvenient (and meatless meals less so) ldquoThatrsquos all very well ifyoursquove got the time on your hands to do it rdquo (39f) second wasthat many people stated they didnrsquot know how to cook (appeal-ing) meals without meat ldquoVegetarian food can be delicious but itrequires more time and knowledgerdquo (62m) and third were per-ceptions that it would be very difficult ndash even impossible ndash to en-courage males to eat vegetarian meals ldquoBeing on a farm you couldnrsquothave a meatless day because the head of the household wouldprotest Men eat big portions of meat to be machordquo (35f)

A number of rationales were provided as to why meat is a ne-cessity in the diet including the need for animal based healthy pro-teins and why on the other hand a vegetarian diet could be bad

The vegetarian lsquocheese on cheesersquo phenomenon where every-thing has cheese slathered all over it itrsquos not good for them[Research] says that if you eat some meat you probably wouldbe okay [and not get] all these cancers that people get but if youeat a lot of cheese dairy you are in big trouble (41f)

Another often cited reason was based on satiety (and often linkedto protein as well) ndash that growing young people and those engagedin physical labour in particular ndash need to have animal based foodsto get and keep them feeling full

If yoursquove got a young family yoursquove got to think that basicallytheyrsquore filling up with food for a certain length of time but notfor long Itrsquos a bit like Chinese food Chinese food is nice but itdoesnrsquot last long Theyrsquove got to have protein to fill them espe-cially since they are growing which comes back to needing meat(20f)

Other reasons for opposition to a reduced meat diet included howhumans are biologically meant to eat meat as omnivores and thatnot eating meat can lead to ill health

Overall there was a firm view that it would be quite difficult toreduce meat consumption in New Zealand given that it is such anentrenched aspect of peoplersquos lives and upbringing ldquo itrsquos prob-ably quite engrained Wersquove been brought up with meat and therersquosnot a lot of advertising for other ideas and itrsquos so easy to slap some-thing on the barbecuerdquo (46f) The barbecue as a New Zealand meatphenomenon was mentioned multiple times as described by thisperson as a meal consisting of ldquotwo sausages steak and potatordquo (44f)Another participant commented on the centrality of meat to thehealthy lsquofood pyramidrsquo6 ldquoI think [meat is] so much a part of ourculture the food pyramid always taught meat as part of a bal-anced dietrdquo (66m)

Not everyone though saw meat as so entrenched but took theview as aforementioned that the New Zealand diet is changing ldquoTheculture was one of meat eaters and itrsquos changed towards less meatand more variety exploring non-meat food Reduced meat con-sumption is the way New Zealand is goingrdquo (13m) The shift towardless meat was also linked to increasing cosmopolitanism

I think our identity these days is cosmopolitan wersquore gettinginto a lot of diverse and interesting ways to eat like whorsquod havethought that we would have chickpeas on the market and thoseother things I mean it takes the place of meat and thatrsquos whata lot of people are doing these days cutting down on meat (17f)

The degree to which meat would remain entrenched ndash and forhow long ndash was the main point of differentiation between partici-pants when it came to discussing reducing meat consumption ina New Zealand context

Discussion

Food consumption is a socially significant act people in differ-ent places and at different times eat differently have different setsand kinds of constraints on what they eat and have different foodtaboos or alternately preferences A critical element then to under-standing the various perceptions of meat and animal-based pro-

6 Originally developed in the 1960s and now considered somewhat outdated thehealthy food pyramid model has been used as a guideline in New Zealand to educatepeople (especially children) about healthy eating it suggests that meat and otherlean protein-rich foods constitute 2ndash3 food servings per day (Shaw 2013 VitalChiropractic 2014)

175CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

teins in diets in this research is in considering the socio-historiccharacteristics of New Zealand

New Zealand was occupied for centuries by Maori who sub-sisted on the abundance of foods that were readily available Aftercolonisation by England in the 1840s the country gradually cameto be known as a nation of farmers hence a meat-heavy diet becamethe norm once farming was established in particular for the lsquowhitersquosettlers Over time traditional food fare of Maori has become largelyperipheral to or absent from the diets of New Zealanders in general(Carter amp Maynard 2001) but with the multiculturalism that nowcharacterises urban centres particularly an increasingly diversi-fied diet has now become usual for many Hence reflected in thisresearch are historically evolved food consumption patterns that arebeing challenged at present by an increasing diversification of foodstuffs which is opening up possibilities for the introduction (or re-introduction) of currently non-standard meat or meat-substitutefoods Looking at participant socio-demographics provides a meansby which to further scrutinise the dietary preference findings

In relation to gender males were more favourably disposedtoward the idea of embracing in vitro meat and entomophagy Thisechoes Baumlckstrom et alrsquos (2003) findings in that there is reluc-tance by women to try certain food based on perceptions of howsafe the food is and it also links with the work of Frank and vander Klaauw (1994) along with Alley and Burroughs (1991) wherebywomen will more often not want to try new foods while men willmore actively seek to do so This may be understood in relation tothe norms that exist around (western) hegemonic masculinity andfood whereby stereotypical masculine qualities including beingtough ndash or daring ndash could explain the increased willingness toventure into new food realms (Nath 2011)

Regarding age this research shows that the age-old practice ofnose-to-tail eating was viewed more positively by the older par-ticipants while futuristic in vitro meat was not The older partici-pants were much more familiar with nose-to-tail eating and offalin particular had been standard fare for many of these peoplegrowing up given in particular that it was a cheap form of nour-ishment (Robinson 2012) Hence there is a familiarity there for olderpeople with nose-to-tail eating which didnrsquot resonate for youngerpeople The aversion to in vitro meat which was noted most fre-quently by older participants can be understood then as perhapsdue to its unfamiliarity

The findings in relation to household income show three pat-terns participants from wealthier households were least positiveabout nose-to-tail eating and reducing meat consumption and alongwith the lowest income households were least positive toward invitro meat consumption Bourdieursquos (1984) work on taste and dis-tinction is a useful lens through which to view these findings ashe argued that consumer choices are made to reflect a kind of hi-erarchy that distinguishes one class from another As noted aboveeating offal was a cheap form of nourishment and it has been as-sociated with the poorer classes (Beardsworth amp Keil 1997 Robinson2012) In keeping with Bourdieursquos (1990) work and the argumentput forward by Beardsworth and Keil (1997) food preferences ofdifferent social classes change over time As such a possible expla-nation for the relationships found here are that having wealth firstof all allows for more expensive meat products to be purchased andconsumed and moreover that the ability to do so is a way of sig-nifying onersquos social class (despite the fact that offal eating has beenargued to be making a lsquocomebackrsquo in New Zealand see for exampleRobinson [2012]) The dislike noted toward in vitro meat foundamong the higher income households may be linked with this alsoas it was noted by a range of participants that in vitro meat maywell be a way to feed those who cannot afford to purchase muchlsquonormalrsquo meat Understanding why in vitro meat was also viewedquite negatively by those in the lowest household income bracketis something that requires further enquiry perhaps given that it was

suggested as a food product which could be most useful for lowersocio-economic homes

Findings related to participant location showed that those inurban locations were more positive about entomophagy and in vitromeat and were the most averse to nose-to-tail eating This sug-gests that there may be less food neophobia for those in city loca-tions than for those located in town or rural areas although thisdoesnrsquot apply for nose-to-tail eating (which was viewed more neg-atively) However having lived on a farm or having family in-volved in farming were most strongly associated with beingfavourable toward nose-to-tail eating which hence suggests thatit is those more familiar with this practice who are more favourablewhich does help explain why those resident in cities were leastfavourable

The results found for the relationship between the amount ofmeat in diet and the different consumption practices are perhapsthe most interesting that regular meat eaters were the most neg-ative about nose-to-tail eating and in vitro meat but the most pos-itive about reducing meat consumption This finding suggests thatmeat-eaters in New Zealand have become accustomed to being ableto purchase better quality cuts of meat and these are the cuts thatare seen as most desirable at present That regular meat eaters werethe most positive about reducing meat consumption probably in partreflects the fact that participants were aware7 that New Zealand-ers on average are heavy meat consumers and this particular dietarypractice was presented to research participants after all the othersby which stage there was a feeling expressed by many that theywould rather eat less meat than eat any of the other food stuffs pre-sented Also there was the aforementioned recognition that foodoptions and diet diversity is increasing in New Zealand and as suchthere are increasing opportunities to shift away from the meat-centric meals of the past

Research limitations and future directions

While this research did span a geographical and socio-demographic range of individuals and some clear patterns emergedfrom the findings the qualitative focus group nature of the re-search method means that findings should be treated with cautionA possible future approach to this kind of research could insteadinclude a more formalised administered survey approach that in-cludes closed and open-ended response options in order to incor-porate a larger number of participants and also to elicit responsesthat can be more easily coded and compared in order to build astronger quantitative element into the research

With respect to the different food possibilities presented to par-ticipants in the lsquoextending living protein rangersquo (which includeentomophagy) and nose-to-tail handouts it may well be benefi-cial to consider each of these in more depth given that there wassignificant variation in responses within each of these categoriesThis would allow more a more sophisticated analysis of those factorsthat make certain foods more appealing or repugnant than others

The various meat consumption practices considered here do pointoverall toward a changed and changing cultural palette It was clearalso though that the extent to which it will shift in what ways andwhen are very much debateable While participants noted that meatreduction is occurring more frequently in New Zealand and al-though many stated that the meat-centric nature of predomi-nantly Anglo-Saxon heritage remains strong in this country therewas also a widespread sense that meat consumption would con-

7 Part of the introduction to the focus groups involved telling participants thatNew Zealanders have consistently ranked in the top ten countries over the last decadefor high meat consumption

176 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

44 of participants mentioned sensory appeal as a reason for beingin favour of nose-to-tail eating Second to this were reasons basedon an lsquoethicrsquo of utilising (and therefore) eating the entire animalTypical of the kind of responses here was ldquoAt least they use everybit of the creature I feel that nose-to-tail eating is honouring theanimal by using every little bitrdquo (24f) and ldquoIf you donrsquot use all partsof the animal itrsquos a waste and quite disrespectful to the animalrdquo (29f)Economic reasons for favouring this consumption practice were madeby nine participants (or 13) while only three participants men-tioned environmental reasons specifically such as ldquoItrsquos a better useof resourcesrdquo (12f)

The more critical views of nose-to-tail eating can be summarisedas falling into two categories lack of sensory appeal (40 of re-spondents) and difficulty with obtaining and knowing how toprepare certain foods (16) In relation to the former commentssuch as the following were made ldquoI have a problem with seeingsomething on a plate that is recognisable like a fish eye or nose Iwill eat it but these bits need to be hiddenrdquo (12f) ldquo seeing youknow a pigs head it represents too much of that animalrdquo (18f) andldquoI canrsquot even imagine eating that stuff (offal) now ndash or anything witha different texturerdquo (43f) There were also certain foods that weremore frequently mentioned than others as either more or less ac-ceptable lamb tails (29) and pig trotters (20) were noted mostfrequently as items that were more acceptable while chicken feet(16) along with fish heads kidneys and brains (each 13) werecited more frequently than other items as unappealing The mostoften cited rationale from a sensory point of view for rejection ofcertain items was based on how they looked and the lsquoidearsquo of whatthe food is and where it is from

In relation to the present time a number of individuals com-mented that New Zealanders are essentially spoilt for choice nowhence widespread rejection of nose-to-tail eating

People in New Zealand are far too rich therersquos too much choiceWe only want the best cuts of beef and lobster and we throwaway the rest because we have this idea that nose-to-tail eatingmight be yucky But this standard of living wonrsquot last forever(22m)

Although eating nose-to-tail may not be so popular at presentit was also noted that there may be a lsquoreturnrsquo to eating more nose-to-tail food items

Because wersquore a multicultural country now in New Zealandtherersquos probably a lot of people that you know like if they camefrom France might like to see the snout of a pig coming out ofthe pot I donrsquot know but I think there is a lot of diversity in foodnow that wersquove been exposed to (17f)

One individual took a much more polarised view of why differ-ent people eat different things in New Zealand ldquoThere are two com-pletely different schools within New Zealand those who are moreconservative and like traditional foods and those that are more ad-venturous and are eating different thingsrdquo (61m) All in all the ideasaround nose-to-tail eating tell a story of a nation where only smallernumbers of people eat this way at present even though a few gen-erations ago it was much more popular And yet there is perhapsa shift toward diversifying food tastes once again given increasingmulticulturalism which may in turn mean that more elements ofa nose-to-tail diet become (re)incorporated into regular cuisine infuture

Entomophagy

Entomophagy was explored in this research as part of lookingmore broadly at extending the living protein range to include foodsnot commonly eaten in Western developed nations such as NewZealand The idea of taking up entomophagy across New Zealand

ndash though not necessarily as a personal preference ndash was viewed pos-itively overall by 60 of participants 218 had overall mixed viewsand 182 expressed an overall negative view There was also a stronggender pattern in relation to participantsrsquo overall general posi-tions on entomophagy males (40 overall positive versus 36overall negative) were much more favourable toward insect con-sumption than females (20 overall positive versus 145 overallnegative) In terms of participant location the largest proportionof overall positive responses came from city participants (667 ofthe positive responses) ndash which is also where the largest propor-tion of the overall negative responses emanated from (417)however only one of the five rural based participants who re-sponded was overall positive The most division across responseswere from town based participants 242 of the positive re-sponses 50 of the negative responses and 333 of the mixed re-sponses There were no significant patterns found in relation to othersocio-demographic factors including age household income in-volvement in farming and amount of meat in an individualsrsquo diet

Positive responses were largely shaped by participantsrsquo acknowl-edgement of the nutritional qualities of insect-eating with the over-riding reason being the protein-rich nutrient value of insects ldquotheamount of protein is so high in locusts and cricketsrdquo (61m) Whenit came to the negative responses however there were a range ofchallenges put forward by participants around things like the dif-ficulty involved in insect eating ldquoItrsquod be difficult gathering insectsrdquo(65f) and ldquothe tricky part is getting enough of them and knowinghow to cook themrdquo (51m) Others just simply didnrsquot like the ideaof insect-eating ldquoI wouldnrsquot eat insects They freak me out I heardwe should eat insects but I couldnrsquot ndash mental blockrdquo (9m) Four par-ticipants also commented on possible environmental issues whichwere all linked to not eating anything native namely weta becausethey are native to New Zealand and given that giant weta weredeemed endangered5

For the most part while perceived as an overall positive direc-tion to take eating insects was also widely recognised as very chal-lenging ldquoI think it would take a good deal of hard times for themajority of people to start considering alternative food sources [likeinsects]rdquo (13m) There was also some concurrency around the notionthat to eat insects would involve needing to disguise the appear-ance in some way ldquoI would have no difficulty with eating insectsas long as it was processed I donrsquot think Irsquod pick up a weta andeat it but weta burger if itrsquos been processed and mashed up inother words Irsquod give it a gordquo (15m) on the other hand this indi-vidual while saying that he would not eat insects at the same timesaid that in fact he would so long as he was not told about it Helater went on to say though that if it was good for him and it didnrsquotlook like an insect then he would consider eating insects

Well if itrsquos got a head and stuff and legs I donrsquot want to eat thatDeep fried cockroaches ndash eww Itrsquos like yeah just donrsquot tell mewhat it is I think the whole thing about eating bugs is that ifyou didnrsquot tell me what it is I would eat it If it was really goodfor you ndash like it was really nutritious and it didnrsquot look like [aninsect] Irsquod eat it (2f)

Clearly there are some mixed feelings around eating insects theirappearance is problematic but there is also the acknowledge-ment of their providing a good lean source of protein One of thevegetarian participants commented on the virtues of eating insectsnoting that it is difficult to see an insect as an animal per se

I think as a vegetarian I can hear that itrsquos a good idea and I thinkI would consider it in the future because it doesnrsquot feel like itrsquos

5 There are over 70 weta species in New Zealand and 16 of these are at risk(Department of Conservation (DoC) 2014)

173CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

an animal if itrsquos an insect quite as much Irsquom still holding backIrsquom not eating insects at the moment but I can see that it wouldbe a step Irsquod be willing to take rather than eating meat I thinkAnd theyrsquore high in protein and there are a lot of them aboutand I think yeah it seems quite sensible (48f)

While not willing to eat insects at the moment this individualcan imagine eating them at some future point and in particularwould prefer them over meat which is at least in part given herview that insects donrsquot quite seem so much like animals

Some of the more liberal minded individuals in terms of theirwillingness to eat a range of protein foods that were quite novelto them still could not imagine really doing so any time soon orwith any regularity Insect eating was deemed more something thatwould occur as either (a) only out of necessity ndash and as one par-ticipant noted hopefully not in their lifetime ldquoThat could come inand be quite normal when wersquore dead and buried I hope ndash not beforendash please not beforerdquo (32f) or (b) as a novel experience in a dif-ferent culture ldquothese things are normal in different places itrsquos acultural thingrdquo (22m)

When it came then to considering who would in fact eat insectsthemselves the results were fairly even in terms of lsquoyesrsquo (52) andlsquonorsquo (48) However there was a gender difference of those sayingthat they would eat insects 78 were male and of those saying nothey wouldnrsquot eat insects 61 were females In conjunction withthe earlier reference to the gender pattern apparent with partici-pantsrsquo overall positions on eating insects it is quite clear that malesmore than females are more open to the idea of eating insects

Similarly to nose-to-tail eating while entomophagy is not a partof New Zealand cuisine at present there was the view that with in-creasing multiculturalism this practice too may become morepopular As one participant noted ldquoBritish or English sensibilities[which] seems to be the prevailing ideas that have come across hererdquoare the reason for why entomophagy is not a practice in NewZealand as ldquoNew Zealanders still seem to have a British way of think-ingrdquo (24f)

In vitro meat

Unlike with entomophagy there was an overall negative viewtaken toward in vitro meat consumption as a direction that NewZealanders could venture down as part of reducing lsquostandardrsquo meatconsumption 55 of participants were opposed to in vitro meatbecoming a part of the New Zealand diet 325 were generallyfavourable while the remaining 125 had mixed feelings about itThere was a strong gender correlation regarding participantsrsquo overallpositions on in vitro meat of those having an overall positive viewof in vitro meat 69 were male and of those with an overall neg-ative view of in vitro meat 86 were female (80 of those holdingmixed views were female also) With age there was a notable aver-sion to in vitro meat in the 36ndash65 year old age group with 579having an overall negative position on in vitro meat (368 had anoverall positive view while 53 had a mixed view) and in the65 years and over group with 55 taking an overall negative view(325 were overall more favourable and 125 had mixed views)Across the 20ndash35 year old age group views were more evenly spread30 positive 40 negative and 30 mixed The only individual inthe 16ndash19 year old age group to respond to this question was pos-itive about it Hence there is a relationship between age and overallviews of in vitro meat where the older the participant the morelikely they are to hold a more negative view In relation to incomethose at the lower and the higher ends of the income spectrum wereless favourable toward in vitro meat (for example 647 of thosein the $14000ndash48000 income range were overall negative and 80in the $120000 or more range were overall negative)

A pattern was evident with overall perceptions of in vitro meatin relation to the participantsrsquo locations No individuals living intowns or rural areas held a positive view on in vitro meat while60 of those in peri-urbanlifestyle locations had an overall nega-tive view City based participants however held overwhelming pos-itive views 63 of city dwellers were overall positive 10 had mixedresponses and the remaining 28 held negative views Further-more with regard to the overall position of participantsrsquo meat-related dietary habits regular meat eaters were much more negative(375) than restricted (125) and non-meat eaters (5) No notablecorrelations existed between involvement in farming and in vitromeat perceptions and preferences

The main reasons cited as to why in vitro meat is a good thingwere in relation to animal ethics (n = 10) and the capacity to in-crease protein productivity (n = 9) On animal ethics participantscomments mainly revolved around the idea that given it is not ananimal per se then it is not problematic ldquoTherersquos no ethical prob-lems because therersquos no painrdquo (68m) and ldquoTherersquos no central nervoussystem no brain is attached so therersquos no cruelty involvedrdquo (41f)On the other hand were much more practical points made aroundproductivity ldquoWe may need to use it to feed people in bulkrdquo (50f)and ldquoItrsquos the same efficiency as battery farmed but there are lessethical issuesrdquo (67m)

While there was recognition of these benefits nearly all of theparticipants rejected in vitro meat on a personal level on the basisof their sensory perceptions of it Moreover participants at timestended to conflate their personal views on in vitro meat withwhether they believed it would be a good thing for New Zealandto pursue overall The perceived texture of in vitro meat was deemedunpalatable ldquoItrsquos not appetising It creeps me out the texturewould probably be different ndash it would put me offrdquo (43f) the lookof in vitro meat was also deemed problematic ldquoIt looks absolute-ly revolting to me ndash just revoltingrdquo (39f) and

You would have to close your eyes to eat that itrsquos not normalItrsquos not meat I mean even if it tasted really wonderful I wouldnrsquoteat it if I knew it was in vitro meat Just knowing itrsquos artificialwould put you right off Irsquod go vegetarian I think if that wasall there was (21f)

Also some individuals commented that they simply did not seeit as meat ndash it was something not natural and by association there-fore possibly unhealthy ldquoI donrsquot think of this as meat I would rathereat lsquorealrsquo meatrdquo (34f) and ldquoIf my wife cooked something like thatitrsquod be grounds for divorce Itrsquos an insult to meat rdquo (19m) Of par-ticular relevance given the basis for this research were the fre-quent comments made regarding how individuals would rather eatless meat or be vegetarian than eat things like in vitro meat ldquoPer-suading people to eat less meat so that they donrsquot have to do thiswould be easier ndash would you really want to eat it Itrsquos sadrdquo (25f)Generally participants did not see in vitro meat as having a placein New Zealand society in the future ldquoI donrsquot see it having any placein New Zealandrsquos futurerdquo (37f)

Reduced meat consumption

The discussion on reducing meat consumption (by having moremeatless meals or smaller portions of meat in meals) as a practiceto help address the environmental issues involving meat produc-tion was mainly viewed quite favourably as a general practice forNew Zealanders to adopt 697 of responses were overall posi-tive about it and just 3 were overall negative Responses were notsignificantly patterned by gender but regarding age the greatestproportion of lsquomixed views overallrsquo toward reducing meat con-sumption were in the 20ndash35 year old age group (50) while the mostpositive overall responses were in the 36ndash65 year old group (50)A relationship existed whereby the higher the household income

174 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

the less positive participants were about reducing meat consump-tion least positive overall were the highest household income($120000 and over) at just 286 followed by 444 ($70000ndash120000) 818 ($48000ndash70000) 821 ($14000ndash48000) and 889(less than $14000) In relation to participant location there tendedto be a much higher representation of lsquomixedrsquo views for those locatedin cities (over 55 of those holding mixed views were located incities) with the only overall negative positions coming from par-ticipants located in city and town locations The two individuals withoverall negative views of reducing meat consumption were regularmeat consumers However most regular meat eaters (n = 45) werepositive overall about reducing meat consumption (64) No sig-nificant patterns were noted for participant location or involve-ment in farming in relation to reducing meat consumption

The main reasons put forward by participants for favouringreduced meat consumption across New Zealand which were largelybased on personal views that tended to be generalised by partici-pants to the wider population were economic (n = 23) due to thetaste or appeal of reduced meat or meatless meals (n = 19) and forhealth or nutritional benefits (n = 18) Just ten participants madecomments about environmental benefits of reduced meat con-sumption In terms of economics most of the participants that com-mented noted the relatively (and increasingly) expensive cost ofmeat ldquoItrsquos heaps cheaper to eat vegetarian Irsquove seen people on TVdoing household budgets saying that you donrsquot have to have meatevery nightrdquo (10m) and ldquoI think meat is going to be unsustainablebecause the price will go up and will prompt people to eat less meatrdquo(59m) On the appeal of meatless or reduced-meat meals partici-pants commented on the way such meals (can) look and also onthe texture ldquoIrsquod love to eat [the vegetarian meals pictured on thehand out] all the time ndash every night ndash for sure Gorgeousrdquo (39f)and ldquoI think taste for me is important but itrsquos also about textureIf yoursquore going to buy a meat replacement eggplant is so meaty andyou donrsquot really have to eat meatrdquo (47f) Comments related to healthor nutritional reasons in favour of a reduced meat diet tended toeither extoll the virtues of more vegetables and fruits in the dietfor example ldquoMore fresh vegetables in your diet makes you feelbetterrdquo (8m) or point out the health issues associated with too muchmeat consumption ndash or consumption of unhealthy meat types

In our household itrsquos health reasons for eating less meat becauseI have got diabetes So I look now at less meat and lower fat andall that kind of stuff you know itrsquos a healthy diet and itrsquos notlike yoursquore missing out on anything itrsquos just less red meat andmore of your lower GI carbs and things like that (21f)

Environmentally participant comments reflected concerns aboutthe environmental implications of agricultural production ldquoI donrsquotthink the way we eat meat on this planet is sustainable for our healthor the planet [Meat production] is a pollutant to waterways andsoilrdquo (41f)

Opposition to reducing meat consumption was mainly ex-pressed in relation to the difficulties involved in cooking withoutmeat (rather than with less meat) (n = 22) as well as with the healthor nutritional value of meat (n = 17) and due to economic reasons(n = 13) The difficulties noted with a reduced (or meat-less) dietwere based on three main factors first the notion that meat is moreconvenient (and meatless meals less so) ldquoThatrsquos all very well ifyoursquove got the time on your hands to do it rdquo (39f) second wasthat many people stated they didnrsquot know how to cook (appeal-ing) meals without meat ldquoVegetarian food can be delicious but itrequires more time and knowledgerdquo (62m) and third were per-ceptions that it would be very difficult ndash even impossible ndash to en-courage males to eat vegetarian meals ldquoBeing on a farm you couldnrsquothave a meatless day because the head of the household wouldprotest Men eat big portions of meat to be machordquo (35f)

A number of rationales were provided as to why meat is a ne-cessity in the diet including the need for animal based healthy pro-teins and why on the other hand a vegetarian diet could be bad

The vegetarian lsquocheese on cheesersquo phenomenon where every-thing has cheese slathered all over it itrsquos not good for them[Research] says that if you eat some meat you probably wouldbe okay [and not get] all these cancers that people get but if youeat a lot of cheese dairy you are in big trouble (41f)

Another often cited reason was based on satiety (and often linkedto protein as well) ndash that growing young people and those engagedin physical labour in particular ndash need to have animal based foodsto get and keep them feeling full

If yoursquove got a young family yoursquove got to think that basicallytheyrsquore filling up with food for a certain length of time but notfor long Itrsquos a bit like Chinese food Chinese food is nice but itdoesnrsquot last long Theyrsquove got to have protein to fill them espe-cially since they are growing which comes back to needing meat(20f)

Other reasons for opposition to a reduced meat diet included howhumans are biologically meant to eat meat as omnivores and thatnot eating meat can lead to ill health

Overall there was a firm view that it would be quite difficult toreduce meat consumption in New Zealand given that it is such anentrenched aspect of peoplersquos lives and upbringing ldquo itrsquos prob-ably quite engrained Wersquove been brought up with meat and therersquosnot a lot of advertising for other ideas and itrsquos so easy to slap some-thing on the barbecuerdquo (46f) The barbecue as a New Zealand meatphenomenon was mentioned multiple times as described by thisperson as a meal consisting of ldquotwo sausages steak and potatordquo (44f)Another participant commented on the centrality of meat to thehealthy lsquofood pyramidrsquo6 ldquoI think [meat is] so much a part of ourculture the food pyramid always taught meat as part of a bal-anced dietrdquo (66m)

Not everyone though saw meat as so entrenched but took theview as aforementioned that the New Zealand diet is changing ldquoTheculture was one of meat eaters and itrsquos changed towards less meatand more variety exploring non-meat food Reduced meat con-sumption is the way New Zealand is goingrdquo (13m) The shift towardless meat was also linked to increasing cosmopolitanism

I think our identity these days is cosmopolitan wersquore gettinginto a lot of diverse and interesting ways to eat like whorsquod havethought that we would have chickpeas on the market and thoseother things I mean it takes the place of meat and thatrsquos whata lot of people are doing these days cutting down on meat (17f)

The degree to which meat would remain entrenched ndash and forhow long ndash was the main point of differentiation between partici-pants when it came to discussing reducing meat consumption ina New Zealand context

Discussion

Food consumption is a socially significant act people in differ-ent places and at different times eat differently have different setsand kinds of constraints on what they eat and have different foodtaboos or alternately preferences A critical element then to under-standing the various perceptions of meat and animal-based pro-

6 Originally developed in the 1960s and now considered somewhat outdated thehealthy food pyramid model has been used as a guideline in New Zealand to educatepeople (especially children) about healthy eating it suggests that meat and otherlean protein-rich foods constitute 2ndash3 food servings per day (Shaw 2013 VitalChiropractic 2014)

175CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

teins in diets in this research is in considering the socio-historiccharacteristics of New Zealand

New Zealand was occupied for centuries by Maori who sub-sisted on the abundance of foods that were readily available Aftercolonisation by England in the 1840s the country gradually cameto be known as a nation of farmers hence a meat-heavy diet becamethe norm once farming was established in particular for the lsquowhitersquosettlers Over time traditional food fare of Maori has become largelyperipheral to or absent from the diets of New Zealanders in general(Carter amp Maynard 2001) but with the multiculturalism that nowcharacterises urban centres particularly an increasingly diversi-fied diet has now become usual for many Hence reflected in thisresearch are historically evolved food consumption patterns that arebeing challenged at present by an increasing diversification of foodstuffs which is opening up possibilities for the introduction (or re-introduction) of currently non-standard meat or meat-substitutefoods Looking at participant socio-demographics provides a meansby which to further scrutinise the dietary preference findings

In relation to gender males were more favourably disposedtoward the idea of embracing in vitro meat and entomophagy Thisechoes Baumlckstrom et alrsquos (2003) findings in that there is reluc-tance by women to try certain food based on perceptions of howsafe the food is and it also links with the work of Frank and vander Klaauw (1994) along with Alley and Burroughs (1991) wherebywomen will more often not want to try new foods while men willmore actively seek to do so This may be understood in relation tothe norms that exist around (western) hegemonic masculinity andfood whereby stereotypical masculine qualities including beingtough ndash or daring ndash could explain the increased willingness toventure into new food realms (Nath 2011)

Regarding age this research shows that the age-old practice ofnose-to-tail eating was viewed more positively by the older par-ticipants while futuristic in vitro meat was not The older partici-pants were much more familiar with nose-to-tail eating and offalin particular had been standard fare for many of these peoplegrowing up given in particular that it was a cheap form of nour-ishment (Robinson 2012) Hence there is a familiarity there for olderpeople with nose-to-tail eating which didnrsquot resonate for youngerpeople The aversion to in vitro meat which was noted most fre-quently by older participants can be understood then as perhapsdue to its unfamiliarity

The findings in relation to household income show three pat-terns participants from wealthier households were least positiveabout nose-to-tail eating and reducing meat consumption and alongwith the lowest income households were least positive toward invitro meat consumption Bourdieursquos (1984) work on taste and dis-tinction is a useful lens through which to view these findings ashe argued that consumer choices are made to reflect a kind of hi-erarchy that distinguishes one class from another As noted aboveeating offal was a cheap form of nourishment and it has been as-sociated with the poorer classes (Beardsworth amp Keil 1997 Robinson2012) In keeping with Bourdieursquos (1990) work and the argumentput forward by Beardsworth and Keil (1997) food preferences ofdifferent social classes change over time As such a possible expla-nation for the relationships found here are that having wealth firstof all allows for more expensive meat products to be purchased andconsumed and moreover that the ability to do so is a way of sig-nifying onersquos social class (despite the fact that offal eating has beenargued to be making a lsquocomebackrsquo in New Zealand see for exampleRobinson [2012]) The dislike noted toward in vitro meat foundamong the higher income households may be linked with this alsoas it was noted by a range of participants that in vitro meat maywell be a way to feed those who cannot afford to purchase muchlsquonormalrsquo meat Understanding why in vitro meat was also viewedquite negatively by those in the lowest household income bracketis something that requires further enquiry perhaps given that it was

suggested as a food product which could be most useful for lowersocio-economic homes

Findings related to participant location showed that those inurban locations were more positive about entomophagy and in vitromeat and were the most averse to nose-to-tail eating This sug-gests that there may be less food neophobia for those in city loca-tions than for those located in town or rural areas although thisdoesnrsquot apply for nose-to-tail eating (which was viewed more neg-atively) However having lived on a farm or having family in-volved in farming were most strongly associated with beingfavourable toward nose-to-tail eating which hence suggests thatit is those more familiar with this practice who are more favourablewhich does help explain why those resident in cities were leastfavourable

The results found for the relationship between the amount ofmeat in diet and the different consumption practices are perhapsthe most interesting that regular meat eaters were the most neg-ative about nose-to-tail eating and in vitro meat but the most pos-itive about reducing meat consumption This finding suggests thatmeat-eaters in New Zealand have become accustomed to being ableto purchase better quality cuts of meat and these are the cuts thatare seen as most desirable at present That regular meat eaters werethe most positive about reducing meat consumption probably in partreflects the fact that participants were aware7 that New Zealand-ers on average are heavy meat consumers and this particular dietarypractice was presented to research participants after all the othersby which stage there was a feeling expressed by many that theywould rather eat less meat than eat any of the other food stuffs pre-sented Also there was the aforementioned recognition that foodoptions and diet diversity is increasing in New Zealand and as suchthere are increasing opportunities to shift away from the meat-centric meals of the past

Research limitations and future directions

While this research did span a geographical and socio-demographic range of individuals and some clear patterns emergedfrom the findings the qualitative focus group nature of the re-search method means that findings should be treated with cautionA possible future approach to this kind of research could insteadinclude a more formalised administered survey approach that in-cludes closed and open-ended response options in order to incor-porate a larger number of participants and also to elicit responsesthat can be more easily coded and compared in order to build astronger quantitative element into the research

With respect to the different food possibilities presented to par-ticipants in the lsquoextending living protein rangersquo (which includeentomophagy) and nose-to-tail handouts it may well be benefi-cial to consider each of these in more depth given that there wassignificant variation in responses within each of these categoriesThis would allow more a more sophisticated analysis of those factorsthat make certain foods more appealing or repugnant than others

The various meat consumption practices considered here do pointoverall toward a changed and changing cultural palette It was clearalso though that the extent to which it will shift in what ways andwhen are very much debateable While participants noted that meatreduction is occurring more frequently in New Zealand and al-though many stated that the meat-centric nature of predomi-nantly Anglo-Saxon heritage remains strong in this country therewas also a widespread sense that meat consumption would con-

7 Part of the introduction to the focus groups involved telling participants thatNew Zealanders have consistently ranked in the top ten countries over the last decadefor high meat consumption

176 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

an animal if itrsquos an insect quite as much Irsquom still holding backIrsquom not eating insects at the moment but I can see that it wouldbe a step Irsquod be willing to take rather than eating meat I thinkAnd theyrsquore high in protein and there are a lot of them aboutand I think yeah it seems quite sensible (48f)

While not willing to eat insects at the moment this individualcan imagine eating them at some future point and in particularwould prefer them over meat which is at least in part given herview that insects donrsquot quite seem so much like animals

Some of the more liberal minded individuals in terms of theirwillingness to eat a range of protein foods that were quite novelto them still could not imagine really doing so any time soon orwith any regularity Insect eating was deemed more something thatwould occur as either (a) only out of necessity ndash and as one par-ticipant noted hopefully not in their lifetime ldquoThat could come inand be quite normal when wersquore dead and buried I hope ndash not beforendash please not beforerdquo (32f) or (b) as a novel experience in a dif-ferent culture ldquothese things are normal in different places itrsquos acultural thingrdquo (22m)

When it came then to considering who would in fact eat insectsthemselves the results were fairly even in terms of lsquoyesrsquo (52) andlsquonorsquo (48) However there was a gender difference of those sayingthat they would eat insects 78 were male and of those saying nothey wouldnrsquot eat insects 61 were females In conjunction withthe earlier reference to the gender pattern apparent with partici-pantsrsquo overall positions on eating insects it is quite clear that malesmore than females are more open to the idea of eating insects

Similarly to nose-to-tail eating while entomophagy is not a partof New Zealand cuisine at present there was the view that with in-creasing multiculturalism this practice too may become morepopular As one participant noted ldquoBritish or English sensibilities[which] seems to be the prevailing ideas that have come across hererdquoare the reason for why entomophagy is not a practice in NewZealand as ldquoNew Zealanders still seem to have a British way of think-ingrdquo (24f)

In vitro meat

Unlike with entomophagy there was an overall negative viewtaken toward in vitro meat consumption as a direction that NewZealanders could venture down as part of reducing lsquostandardrsquo meatconsumption 55 of participants were opposed to in vitro meatbecoming a part of the New Zealand diet 325 were generallyfavourable while the remaining 125 had mixed feelings about itThere was a strong gender correlation regarding participantsrsquo overallpositions on in vitro meat of those having an overall positive viewof in vitro meat 69 were male and of those with an overall neg-ative view of in vitro meat 86 were female (80 of those holdingmixed views were female also) With age there was a notable aver-sion to in vitro meat in the 36ndash65 year old age group with 579having an overall negative position on in vitro meat (368 had anoverall positive view while 53 had a mixed view) and in the65 years and over group with 55 taking an overall negative view(325 were overall more favourable and 125 had mixed views)Across the 20ndash35 year old age group views were more evenly spread30 positive 40 negative and 30 mixed The only individual inthe 16ndash19 year old age group to respond to this question was pos-itive about it Hence there is a relationship between age and overallviews of in vitro meat where the older the participant the morelikely they are to hold a more negative view In relation to incomethose at the lower and the higher ends of the income spectrum wereless favourable toward in vitro meat (for example 647 of thosein the $14000ndash48000 income range were overall negative and 80in the $120000 or more range were overall negative)

A pattern was evident with overall perceptions of in vitro meatin relation to the participantsrsquo locations No individuals living intowns or rural areas held a positive view on in vitro meat while60 of those in peri-urbanlifestyle locations had an overall nega-tive view City based participants however held overwhelming pos-itive views 63 of city dwellers were overall positive 10 had mixedresponses and the remaining 28 held negative views Further-more with regard to the overall position of participantsrsquo meat-related dietary habits regular meat eaters were much more negative(375) than restricted (125) and non-meat eaters (5) No notablecorrelations existed between involvement in farming and in vitromeat perceptions and preferences

The main reasons cited as to why in vitro meat is a good thingwere in relation to animal ethics (n = 10) and the capacity to in-crease protein productivity (n = 9) On animal ethics participantscomments mainly revolved around the idea that given it is not ananimal per se then it is not problematic ldquoTherersquos no ethical prob-lems because therersquos no painrdquo (68m) and ldquoTherersquos no central nervoussystem no brain is attached so therersquos no cruelty involvedrdquo (41f)On the other hand were much more practical points made aroundproductivity ldquoWe may need to use it to feed people in bulkrdquo (50f)and ldquoItrsquos the same efficiency as battery farmed but there are lessethical issuesrdquo (67m)

While there was recognition of these benefits nearly all of theparticipants rejected in vitro meat on a personal level on the basisof their sensory perceptions of it Moreover participants at timestended to conflate their personal views on in vitro meat withwhether they believed it would be a good thing for New Zealandto pursue overall The perceived texture of in vitro meat was deemedunpalatable ldquoItrsquos not appetising It creeps me out the texturewould probably be different ndash it would put me offrdquo (43f) the lookof in vitro meat was also deemed problematic ldquoIt looks absolute-ly revolting to me ndash just revoltingrdquo (39f) and

You would have to close your eyes to eat that itrsquos not normalItrsquos not meat I mean even if it tasted really wonderful I wouldnrsquoteat it if I knew it was in vitro meat Just knowing itrsquos artificialwould put you right off Irsquod go vegetarian I think if that wasall there was (21f)

Also some individuals commented that they simply did not seeit as meat ndash it was something not natural and by association there-fore possibly unhealthy ldquoI donrsquot think of this as meat I would rathereat lsquorealrsquo meatrdquo (34f) and ldquoIf my wife cooked something like thatitrsquod be grounds for divorce Itrsquos an insult to meat rdquo (19m) Of par-ticular relevance given the basis for this research were the fre-quent comments made regarding how individuals would rather eatless meat or be vegetarian than eat things like in vitro meat ldquoPer-suading people to eat less meat so that they donrsquot have to do thiswould be easier ndash would you really want to eat it Itrsquos sadrdquo (25f)Generally participants did not see in vitro meat as having a placein New Zealand society in the future ldquoI donrsquot see it having any placein New Zealandrsquos futurerdquo (37f)

Reduced meat consumption

The discussion on reducing meat consumption (by having moremeatless meals or smaller portions of meat in meals) as a practiceto help address the environmental issues involving meat produc-tion was mainly viewed quite favourably as a general practice forNew Zealanders to adopt 697 of responses were overall posi-tive about it and just 3 were overall negative Responses were notsignificantly patterned by gender but regarding age the greatestproportion of lsquomixed views overallrsquo toward reducing meat con-sumption were in the 20ndash35 year old age group (50) while the mostpositive overall responses were in the 36ndash65 year old group (50)A relationship existed whereby the higher the household income

174 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

the less positive participants were about reducing meat consump-tion least positive overall were the highest household income($120000 and over) at just 286 followed by 444 ($70000ndash120000) 818 ($48000ndash70000) 821 ($14000ndash48000) and 889(less than $14000) In relation to participant location there tendedto be a much higher representation of lsquomixedrsquo views for those locatedin cities (over 55 of those holding mixed views were located incities) with the only overall negative positions coming from par-ticipants located in city and town locations The two individuals withoverall negative views of reducing meat consumption were regularmeat consumers However most regular meat eaters (n = 45) werepositive overall about reducing meat consumption (64) No sig-nificant patterns were noted for participant location or involve-ment in farming in relation to reducing meat consumption

The main reasons put forward by participants for favouringreduced meat consumption across New Zealand which were largelybased on personal views that tended to be generalised by partici-pants to the wider population were economic (n = 23) due to thetaste or appeal of reduced meat or meatless meals (n = 19) and forhealth or nutritional benefits (n = 18) Just ten participants madecomments about environmental benefits of reduced meat con-sumption In terms of economics most of the participants that com-mented noted the relatively (and increasingly) expensive cost ofmeat ldquoItrsquos heaps cheaper to eat vegetarian Irsquove seen people on TVdoing household budgets saying that you donrsquot have to have meatevery nightrdquo (10m) and ldquoI think meat is going to be unsustainablebecause the price will go up and will prompt people to eat less meatrdquo(59m) On the appeal of meatless or reduced-meat meals partici-pants commented on the way such meals (can) look and also onthe texture ldquoIrsquod love to eat [the vegetarian meals pictured on thehand out] all the time ndash every night ndash for sure Gorgeousrdquo (39f)and ldquoI think taste for me is important but itrsquos also about textureIf yoursquore going to buy a meat replacement eggplant is so meaty andyou donrsquot really have to eat meatrdquo (47f) Comments related to healthor nutritional reasons in favour of a reduced meat diet tended toeither extoll the virtues of more vegetables and fruits in the dietfor example ldquoMore fresh vegetables in your diet makes you feelbetterrdquo (8m) or point out the health issues associated with too muchmeat consumption ndash or consumption of unhealthy meat types

In our household itrsquos health reasons for eating less meat becauseI have got diabetes So I look now at less meat and lower fat andall that kind of stuff you know itrsquos a healthy diet and itrsquos notlike yoursquore missing out on anything itrsquos just less red meat andmore of your lower GI carbs and things like that (21f)

Environmentally participant comments reflected concerns aboutthe environmental implications of agricultural production ldquoI donrsquotthink the way we eat meat on this planet is sustainable for our healthor the planet [Meat production] is a pollutant to waterways andsoilrdquo (41f)

Opposition to reducing meat consumption was mainly ex-pressed in relation to the difficulties involved in cooking withoutmeat (rather than with less meat) (n = 22) as well as with the healthor nutritional value of meat (n = 17) and due to economic reasons(n = 13) The difficulties noted with a reduced (or meat-less) dietwere based on three main factors first the notion that meat is moreconvenient (and meatless meals less so) ldquoThatrsquos all very well ifyoursquove got the time on your hands to do it rdquo (39f) second wasthat many people stated they didnrsquot know how to cook (appeal-ing) meals without meat ldquoVegetarian food can be delicious but itrequires more time and knowledgerdquo (62m) and third were per-ceptions that it would be very difficult ndash even impossible ndash to en-courage males to eat vegetarian meals ldquoBeing on a farm you couldnrsquothave a meatless day because the head of the household wouldprotest Men eat big portions of meat to be machordquo (35f)

A number of rationales were provided as to why meat is a ne-cessity in the diet including the need for animal based healthy pro-teins and why on the other hand a vegetarian diet could be bad

The vegetarian lsquocheese on cheesersquo phenomenon where every-thing has cheese slathered all over it itrsquos not good for them[Research] says that if you eat some meat you probably wouldbe okay [and not get] all these cancers that people get but if youeat a lot of cheese dairy you are in big trouble (41f)

Another often cited reason was based on satiety (and often linkedto protein as well) ndash that growing young people and those engagedin physical labour in particular ndash need to have animal based foodsto get and keep them feeling full

If yoursquove got a young family yoursquove got to think that basicallytheyrsquore filling up with food for a certain length of time but notfor long Itrsquos a bit like Chinese food Chinese food is nice but itdoesnrsquot last long Theyrsquove got to have protein to fill them espe-cially since they are growing which comes back to needing meat(20f)

Other reasons for opposition to a reduced meat diet included howhumans are biologically meant to eat meat as omnivores and thatnot eating meat can lead to ill health

Overall there was a firm view that it would be quite difficult toreduce meat consumption in New Zealand given that it is such anentrenched aspect of peoplersquos lives and upbringing ldquo itrsquos prob-ably quite engrained Wersquove been brought up with meat and therersquosnot a lot of advertising for other ideas and itrsquos so easy to slap some-thing on the barbecuerdquo (46f) The barbecue as a New Zealand meatphenomenon was mentioned multiple times as described by thisperson as a meal consisting of ldquotwo sausages steak and potatordquo (44f)Another participant commented on the centrality of meat to thehealthy lsquofood pyramidrsquo6 ldquoI think [meat is] so much a part of ourculture the food pyramid always taught meat as part of a bal-anced dietrdquo (66m)

Not everyone though saw meat as so entrenched but took theview as aforementioned that the New Zealand diet is changing ldquoTheculture was one of meat eaters and itrsquos changed towards less meatand more variety exploring non-meat food Reduced meat con-sumption is the way New Zealand is goingrdquo (13m) The shift towardless meat was also linked to increasing cosmopolitanism

I think our identity these days is cosmopolitan wersquore gettinginto a lot of diverse and interesting ways to eat like whorsquod havethought that we would have chickpeas on the market and thoseother things I mean it takes the place of meat and thatrsquos whata lot of people are doing these days cutting down on meat (17f)

The degree to which meat would remain entrenched ndash and forhow long ndash was the main point of differentiation between partici-pants when it came to discussing reducing meat consumption ina New Zealand context

Discussion

Food consumption is a socially significant act people in differ-ent places and at different times eat differently have different setsand kinds of constraints on what they eat and have different foodtaboos or alternately preferences A critical element then to under-standing the various perceptions of meat and animal-based pro-

6 Originally developed in the 1960s and now considered somewhat outdated thehealthy food pyramid model has been used as a guideline in New Zealand to educatepeople (especially children) about healthy eating it suggests that meat and otherlean protein-rich foods constitute 2ndash3 food servings per day (Shaw 2013 VitalChiropractic 2014)

175CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

teins in diets in this research is in considering the socio-historiccharacteristics of New Zealand

New Zealand was occupied for centuries by Maori who sub-sisted on the abundance of foods that were readily available Aftercolonisation by England in the 1840s the country gradually cameto be known as a nation of farmers hence a meat-heavy diet becamethe norm once farming was established in particular for the lsquowhitersquosettlers Over time traditional food fare of Maori has become largelyperipheral to or absent from the diets of New Zealanders in general(Carter amp Maynard 2001) but with the multiculturalism that nowcharacterises urban centres particularly an increasingly diversi-fied diet has now become usual for many Hence reflected in thisresearch are historically evolved food consumption patterns that arebeing challenged at present by an increasing diversification of foodstuffs which is opening up possibilities for the introduction (or re-introduction) of currently non-standard meat or meat-substitutefoods Looking at participant socio-demographics provides a meansby which to further scrutinise the dietary preference findings

In relation to gender males were more favourably disposedtoward the idea of embracing in vitro meat and entomophagy Thisechoes Baumlckstrom et alrsquos (2003) findings in that there is reluc-tance by women to try certain food based on perceptions of howsafe the food is and it also links with the work of Frank and vander Klaauw (1994) along with Alley and Burroughs (1991) wherebywomen will more often not want to try new foods while men willmore actively seek to do so This may be understood in relation tothe norms that exist around (western) hegemonic masculinity andfood whereby stereotypical masculine qualities including beingtough ndash or daring ndash could explain the increased willingness toventure into new food realms (Nath 2011)

Regarding age this research shows that the age-old practice ofnose-to-tail eating was viewed more positively by the older par-ticipants while futuristic in vitro meat was not The older partici-pants were much more familiar with nose-to-tail eating and offalin particular had been standard fare for many of these peoplegrowing up given in particular that it was a cheap form of nour-ishment (Robinson 2012) Hence there is a familiarity there for olderpeople with nose-to-tail eating which didnrsquot resonate for youngerpeople The aversion to in vitro meat which was noted most fre-quently by older participants can be understood then as perhapsdue to its unfamiliarity

The findings in relation to household income show three pat-terns participants from wealthier households were least positiveabout nose-to-tail eating and reducing meat consumption and alongwith the lowest income households were least positive toward invitro meat consumption Bourdieursquos (1984) work on taste and dis-tinction is a useful lens through which to view these findings ashe argued that consumer choices are made to reflect a kind of hi-erarchy that distinguishes one class from another As noted aboveeating offal was a cheap form of nourishment and it has been as-sociated with the poorer classes (Beardsworth amp Keil 1997 Robinson2012) In keeping with Bourdieursquos (1990) work and the argumentput forward by Beardsworth and Keil (1997) food preferences ofdifferent social classes change over time As such a possible expla-nation for the relationships found here are that having wealth firstof all allows for more expensive meat products to be purchased andconsumed and moreover that the ability to do so is a way of sig-nifying onersquos social class (despite the fact that offal eating has beenargued to be making a lsquocomebackrsquo in New Zealand see for exampleRobinson [2012]) The dislike noted toward in vitro meat foundamong the higher income households may be linked with this alsoas it was noted by a range of participants that in vitro meat maywell be a way to feed those who cannot afford to purchase muchlsquonormalrsquo meat Understanding why in vitro meat was also viewedquite negatively by those in the lowest household income bracketis something that requires further enquiry perhaps given that it was

suggested as a food product which could be most useful for lowersocio-economic homes

Findings related to participant location showed that those inurban locations were more positive about entomophagy and in vitromeat and were the most averse to nose-to-tail eating This sug-gests that there may be less food neophobia for those in city loca-tions than for those located in town or rural areas although thisdoesnrsquot apply for nose-to-tail eating (which was viewed more neg-atively) However having lived on a farm or having family in-volved in farming were most strongly associated with beingfavourable toward nose-to-tail eating which hence suggests thatit is those more familiar with this practice who are more favourablewhich does help explain why those resident in cities were leastfavourable

The results found for the relationship between the amount ofmeat in diet and the different consumption practices are perhapsthe most interesting that regular meat eaters were the most neg-ative about nose-to-tail eating and in vitro meat but the most pos-itive about reducing meat consumption This finding suggests thatmeat-eaters in New Zealand have become accustomed to being ableto purchase better quality cuts of meat and these are the cuts thatare seen as most desirable at present That regular meat eaters werethe most positive about reducing meat consumption probably in partreflects the fact that participants were aware7 that New Zealand-ers on average are heavy meat consumers and this particular dietarypractice was presented to research participants after all the othersby which stage there was a feeling expressed by many that theywould rather eat less meat than eat any of the other food stuffs pre-sented Also there was the aforementioned recognition that foodoptions and diet diversity is increasing in New Zealand and as suchthere are increasing opportunities to shift away from the meat-centric meals of the past

Research limitations and future directions

While this research did span a geographical and socio-demographic range of individuals and some clear patterns emergedfrom the findings the qualitative focus group nature of the re-search method means that findings should be treated with cautionA possible future approach to this kind of research could insteadinclude a more formalised administered survey approach that in-cludes closed and open-ended response options in order to incor-porate a larger number of participants and also to elicit responsesthat can be more easily coded and compared in order to build astronger quantitative element into the research

With respect to the different food possibilities presented to par-ticipants in the lsquoextending living protein rangersquo (which includeentomophagy) and nose-to-tail handouts it may well be benefi-cial to consider each of these in more depth given that there wassignificant variation in responses within each of these categoriesThis would allow more a more sophisticated analysis of those factorsthat make certain foods more appealing or repugnant than others

The various meat consumption practices considered here do pointoverall toward a changed and changing cultural palette It was clearalso though that the extent to which it will shift in what ways andwhen are very much debateable While participants noted that meatreduction is occurring more frequently in New Zealand and al-though many stated that the meat-centric nature of predomi-nantly Anglo-Saxon heritage remains strong in this country therewas also a widespread sense that meat consumption would con-

7 Part of the introduction to the focus groups involved telling participants thatNew Zealanders have consistently ranked in the top ten countries over the last decadefor high meat consumption

176 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

the less positive participants were about reducing meat consump-tion least positive overall were the highest household income($120000 and over) at just 286 followed by 444 ($70000ndash120000) 818 ($48000ndash70000) 821 ($14000ndash48000) and 889(less than $14000) In relation to participant location there tendedto be a much higher representation of lsquomixedrsquo views for those locatedin cities (over 55 of those holding mixed views were located incities) with the only overall negative positions coming from par-ticipants located in city and town locations The two individuals withoverall negative views of reducing meat consumption were regularmeat consumers However most regular meat eaters (n = 45) werepositive overall about reducing meat consumption (64) No sig-nificant patterns were noted for participant location or involve-ment in farming in relation to reducing meat consumption

The main reasons put forward by participants for favouringreduced meat consumption across New Zealand which were largelybased on personal views that tended to be generalised by partici-pants to the wider population were economic (n = 23) due to thetaste or appeal of reduced meat or meatless meals (n = 19) and forhealth or nutritional benefits (n = 18) Just ten participants madecomments about environmental benefits of reduced meat con-sumption In terms of economics most of the participants that com-mented noted the relatively (and increasingly) expensive cost ofmeat ldquoItrsquos heaps cheaper to eat vegetarian Irsquove seen people on TVdoing household budgets saying that you donrsquot have to have meatevery nightrdquo (10m) and ldquoI think meat is going to be unsustainablebecause the price will go up and will prompt people to eat less meatrdquo(59m) On the appeal of meatless or reduced-meat meals partici-pants commented on the way such meals (can) look and also onthe texture ldquoIrsquod love to eat [the vegetarian meals pictured on thehand out] all the time ndash every night ndash for sure Gorgeousrdquo (39f)and ldquoI think taste for me is important but itrsquos also about textureIf yoursquore going to buy a meat replacement eggplant is so meaty andyou donrsquot really have to eat meatrdquo (47f) Comments related to healthor nutritional reasons in favour of a reduced meat diet tended toeither extoll the virtues of more vegetables and fruits in the dietfor example ldquoMore fresh vegetables in your diet makes you feelbetterrdquo (8m) or point out the health issues associated with too muchmeat consumption ndash or consumption of unhealthy meat types

In our household itrsquos health reasons for eating less meat becauseI have got diabetes So I look now at less meat and lower fat andall that kind of stuff you know itrsquos a healthy diet and itrsquos notlike yoursquore missing out on anything itrsquos just less red meat andmore of your lower GI carbs and things like that (21f)

Environmentally participant comments reflected concerns aboutthe environmental implications of agricultural production ldquoI donrsquotthink the way we eat meat on this planet is sustainable for our healthor the planet [Meat production] is a pollutant to waterways andsoilrdquo (41f)

Opposition to reducing meat consumption was mainly ex-pressed in relation to the difficulties involved in cooking withoutmeat (rather than with less meat) (n = 22) as well as with the healthor nutritional value of meat (n = 17) and due to economic reasons(n = 13) The difficulties noted with a reduced (or meat-less) dietwere based on three main factors first the notion that meat is moreconvenient (and meatless meals less so) ldquoThatrsquos all very well ifyoursquove got the time on your hands to do it rdquo (39f) second wasthat many people stated they didnrsquot know how to cook (appeal-ing) meals without meat ldquoVegetarian food can be delicious but itrequires more time and knowledgerdquo (62m) and third were per-ceptions that it would be very difficult ndash even impossible ndash to en-courage males to eat vegetarian meals ldquoBeing on a farm you couldnrsquothave a meatless day because the head of the household wouldprotest Men eat big portions of meat to be machordquo (35f)

A number of rationales were provided as to why meat is a ne-cessity in the diet including the need for animal based healthy pro-teins and why on the other hand a vegetarian diet could be bad

The vegetarian lsquocheese on cheesersquo phenomenon where every-thing has cheese slathered all over it itrsquos not good for them[Research] says that if you eat some meat you probably wouldbe okay [and not get] all these cancers that people get but if youeat a lot of cheese dairy you are in big trouble (41f)

Another often cited reason was based on satiety (and often linkedto protein as well) ndash that growing young people and those engagedin physical labour in particular ndash need to have animal based foodsto get and keep them feeling full

If yoursquove got a young family yoursquove got to think that basicallytheyrsquore filling up with food for a certain length of time but notfor long Itrsquos a bit like Chinese food Chinese food is nice but itdoesnrsquot last long Theyrsquove got to have protein to fill them espe-cially since they are growing which comes back to needing meat(20f)

Other reasons for opposition to a reduced meat diet included howhumans are biologically meant to eat meat as omnivores and thatnot eating meat can lead to ill health

Overall there was a firm view that it would be quite difficult toreduce meat consumption in New Zealand given that it is such anentrenched aspect of peoplersquos lives and upbringing ldquo itrsquos prob-ably quite engrained Wersquove been brought up with meat and therersquosnot a lot of advertising for other ideas and itrsquos so easy to slap some-thing on the barbecuerdquo (46f) The barbecue as a New Zealand meatphenomenon was mentioned multiple times as described by thisperson as a meal consisting of ldquotwo sausages steak and potatordquo (44f)Another participant commented on the centrality of meat to thehealthy lsquofood pyramidrsquo6 ldquoI think [meat is] so much a part of ourculture the food pyramid always taught meat as part of a bal-anced dietrdquo (66m)

Not everyone though saw meat as so entrenched but took theview as aforementioned that the New Zealand diet is changing ldquoTheculture was one of meat eaters and itrsquos changed towards less meatand more variety exploring non-meat food Reduced meat con-sumption is the way New Zealand is goingrdquo (13m) The shift towardless meat was also linked to increasing cosmopolitanism

I think our identity these days is cosmopolitan wersquore gettinginto a lot of diverse and interesting ways to eat like whorsquod havethought that we would have chickpeas on the market and thoseother things I mean it takes the place of meat and thatrsquos whata lot of people are doing these days cutting down on meat (17f)

The degree to which meat would remain entrenched ndash and forhow long ndash was the main point of differentiation between partici-pants when it came to discussing reducing meat consumption ina New Zealand context

Discussion

Food consumption is a socially significant act people in differ-ent places and at different times eat differently have different setsand kinds of constraints on what they eat and have different foodtaboos or alternately preferences A critical element then to under-standing the various perceptions of meat and animal-based pro-

6 Originally developed in the 1960s and now considered somewhat outdated thehealthy food pyramid model has been used as a guideline in New Zealand to educatepeople (especially children) about healthy eating it suggests that meat and otherlean protein-rich foods constitute 2ndash3 food servings per day (Shaw 2013 VitalChiropractic 2014)

175CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

teins in diets in this research is in considering the socio-historiccharacteristics of New Zealand

New Zealand was occupied for centuries by Maori who sub-sisted on the abundance of foods that were readily available Aftercolonisation by England in the 1840s the country gradually cameto be known as a nation of farmers hence a meat-heavy diet becamethe norm once farming was established in particular for the lsquowhitersquosettlers Over time traditional food fare of Maori has become largelyperipheral to or absent from the diets of New Zealanders in general(Carter amp Maynard 2001) but with the multiculturalism that nowcharacterises urban centres particularly an increasingly diversi-fied diet has now become usual for many Hence reflected in thisresearch are historically evolved food consumption patterns that arebeing challenged at present by an increasing diversification of foodstuffs which is opening up possibilities for the introduction (or re-introduction) of currently non-standard meat or meat-substitutefoods Looking at participant socio-demographics provides a meansby which to further scrutinise the dietary preference findings

In relation to gender males were more favourably disposedtoward the idea of embracing in vitro meat and entomophagy Thisechoes Baumlckstrom et alrsquos (2003) findings in that there is reluc-tance by women to try certain food based on perceptions of howsafe the food is and it also links with the work of Frank and vander Klaauw (1994) along with Alley and Burroughs (1991) wherebywomen will more often not want to try new foods while men willmore actively seek to do so This may be understood in relation tothe norms that exist around (western) hegemonic masculinity andfood whereby stereotypical masculine qualities including beingtough ndash or daring ndash could explain the increased willingness toventure into new food realms (Nath 2011)

Regarding age this research shows that the age-old practice ofnose-to-tail eating was viewed more positively by the older par-ticipants while futuristic in vitro meat was not The older partici-pants were much more familiar with nose-to-tail eating and offalin particular had been standard fare for many of these peoplegrowing up given in particular that it was a cheap form of nour-ishment (Robinson 2012) Hence there is a familiarity there for olderpeople with nose-to-tail eating which didnrsquot resonate for youngerpeople The aversion to in vitro meat which was noted most fre-quently by older participants can be understood then as perhapsdue to its unfamiliarity

The findings in relation to household income show three pat-terns participants from wealthier households were least positiveabout nose-to-tail eating and reducing meat consumption and alongwith the lowest income households were least positive toward invitro meat consumption Bourdieursquos (1984) work on taste and dis-tinction is a useful lens through which to view these findings ashe argued that consumer choices are made to reflect a kind of hi-erarchy that distinguishes one class from another As noted aboveeating offal was a cheap form of nourishment and it has been as-sociated with the poorer classes (Beardsworth amp Keil 1997 Robinson2012) In keeping with Bourdieursquos (1990) work and the argumentput forward by Beardsworth and Keil (1997) food preferences ofdifferent social classes change over time As such a possible expla-nation for the relationships found here are that having wealth firstof all allows for more expensive meat products to be purchased andconsumed and moreover that the ability to do so is a way of sig-nifying onersquos social class (despite the fact that offal eating has beenargued to be making a lsquocomebackrsquo in New Zealand see for exampleRobinson [2012]) The dislike noted toward in vitro meat foundamong the higher income households may be linked with this alsoas it was noted by a range of participants that in vitro meat maywell be a way to feed those who cannot afford to purchase muchlsquonormalrsquo meat Understanding why in vitro meat was also viewedquite negatively by those in the lowest household income bracketis something that requires further enquiry perhaps given that it was

suggested as a food product which could be most useful for lowersocio-economic homes

Findings related to participant location showed that those inurban locations were more positive about entomophagy and in vitromeat and were the most averse to nose-to-tail eating This sug-gests that there may be less food neophobia for those in city loca-tions than for those located in town or rural areas although thisdoesnrsquot apply for nose-to-tail eating (which was viewed more neg-atively) However having lived on a farm or having family in-volved in farming were most strongly associated with beingfavourable toward nose-to-tail eating which hence suggests thatit is those more familiar with this practice who are more favourablewhich does help explain why those resident in cities were leastfavourable

The results found for the relationship between the amount ofmeat in diet and the different consumption practices are perhapsthe most interesting that regular meat eaters were the most neg-ative about nose-to-tail eating and in vitro meat but the most pos-itive about reducing meat consumption This finding suggests thatmeat-eaters in New Zealand have become accustomed to being ableto purchase better quality cuts of meat and these are the cuts thatare seen as most desirable at present That regular meat eaters werethe most positive about reducing meat consumption probably in partreflects the fact that participants were aware7 that New Zealand-ers on average are heavy meat consumers and this particular dietarypractice was presented to research participants after all the othersby which stage there was a feeling expressed by many that theywould rather eat less meat than eat any of the other food stuffs pre-sented Also there was the aforementioned recognition that foodoptions and diet diversity is increasing in New Zealand and as suchthere are increasing opportunities to shift away from the meat-centric meals of the past

Research limitations and future directions

While this research did span a geographical and socio-demographic range of individuals and some clear patterns emergedfrom the findings the qualitative focus group nature of the re-search method means that findings should be treated with cautionA possible future approach to this kind of research could insteadinclude a more formalised administered survey approach that in-cludes closed and open-ended response options in order to incor-porate a larger number of participants and also to elicit responsesthat can be more easily coded and compared in order to build astronger quantitative element into the research

With respect to the different food possibilities presented to par-ticipants in the lsquoextending living protein rangersquo (which includeentomophagy) and nose-to-tail handouts it may well be benefi-cial to consider each of these in more depth given that there wassignificant variation in responses within each of these categoriesThis would allow more a more sophisticated analysis of those factorsthat make certain foods more appealing or repugnant than others

The various meat consumption practices considered here do pointoverall toward a changed and changing cultural palette It was clearalso though that the extent to which it will shift in what ways andwhen are very much debateable While participants noted that meatreduction is occurring more frequently in New Zealand and al-though many stated that the meat-centric nature of predomi-nantly Anglo-Saxon heritage remains strong in this country therewas also a widespread sense that meat consumption would con-

7 Part of the introduction to the focus groups involved telling participants thatNew Zealanders have consistently ranked in the top ten countries over the last decadefor high meat consumption

176 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

teins in diets in this research is in considering the socio-historiccharacteristics of New Zealand

New Zealand was occupied for centuries by Maori who sub-sisted on the abundance of foods that were readily available Aftercolonisation by England in the 1840s the country gradually cameto be known as a nation of farmers hence a meat-heavy diet becamethe norm once farming was established in particular for the lsquowhitersquosettlers Over time traditional food fare of Maori has become largelyperipheral to or absent from the diets of New Zealanders in general(Carter amp Maynard 2001) but with the multiculturalism that nowcharacterises urban centres particularly an increasingly diversi-fied diet has now become usual for many Hence reflected in thisresearch are historically evolved food consumption patterns that arebeing challenged at present by an increasing diversification of foodstuffs which is opening up possibilities for the introduction (or re-introduction) of currently non-standard meat or meat-substitutefoods Looking at participant socio-demographics provides a meansby which to further scrutinise the dietary preference findings

In relation to gender males were more favourably disposedtoward the idea of embracing in vitro meat and entomophagy Thisechoes Baumlckstrom et alrsquos (2003) findings in that there is reluc-tance by women to try certain food based on perceptions of howsafe the food is and it also links with the work of Frank and vander Klaauw (1994) along with Alley and Burroughs (1991) wherebywomen will more often not want to try new foods while men willmore actively seek to do so This may be understood in relation tothe norms that exist around (western) hegemonic masculinity andfood whereby stereotypical masculine qualities including beingtough ndash or daring ndash could explain the increased willingness toventure into new food realms (Nath 2011)

Regarding age this research shows that the age-old practice ofnose-to-tail eating was viewed more positively by the older par-ticipants while futuristic in vitro meat was not The older partici-pants were much more familiar with nose-to-tail eating and offalin particular had been standard fare for many of these peoplegrowing up given in particular that it was a cheap form of nour-ishment (Robinson 2012) Hence there is a familiarity there for olderpeople with nose-to-tail eating which didnrsquot resonate for youngerpeople The aversion to in vitro meat which was noted most fre-quently by older participants can be understood then as perhapsdue to its unfamiliarity

The findings in relation to household income show three pat-terns participants from wealthier households were least positiveabout nose-to-tail eating and reducing meat consumption and alongwith the lowest income households were least positive toward invitro meat consumption Bourdieursquos (1984) work on taste and dis-tinction is a useful lens through which to view these findings ashe argued that consumer choices are made to reflect a kind of hi-erarchy that distinguishes one class from another As noted aboveeating offal was a cheap form of nourishment and it has been as-sociated with the poorer classes (Beardsworth amp Keil 1997 Robinson2012) In keeping with Bourdieursquos (1990) work and the argumentput forward by Beardsworth and Keil (1997) food preferences ofdifferent social classes change over time As such a possible expla-nation for the relationships found here are that having wealth firstof all allows for more expensive meat products to be purchased andconsumed and moreover that the ability to do so is a way of sig-nifying onersquos social class (despite the fact that offal eating has beenargued to be making a lsquocomebackrsquo in New Zealand see for exampleRobinson [2012]) The dislike noted toward in vitro meat foundamong the higher income households may be linked with this alsoas it was noted by a range of participants that in vitro meat maywell be a way to feed those who cannot afford to purchase muchlsquonormalrsquo meat Understanding why in vitro meat was also viewedquite negatively by those in the lowest household income bracketis something that requires further enquiry perhaps given that it was

suggested as a food product which could be most useful for lowersocio-economic homes

Findings related to participant location showed that those inurban locations were more positive about entomophagy and in vitromeat and were the most averse to nose-to-tail eating This sug-gests that there may be less food neophobia for those in city loca-tions than for those located in town or rural areas although thisdoesnrsquot apply for nose-to-tail eating (which was viewed more neg-atively) However having lived on a farm or having family in-volved in farming were most strongly associated with beingfavourable toward nose-to-tail eating which hence suggests thatit is those more familiar with this practice who are more favourablewhich does help explain why those resident in cities were leastfavourable

The results found for the relationship between the amount ofmeat in diet and the different consumption practices are perhapsthe most interesting that regular meat eaters were the most neg-ative about nose-to-tail eating and in vitro meat but the most pos-itive about reducing meat consumption This finding suggests thatmeat-eaters in New Zealand have become accustomed to being ableto purchase better quality cuts of meat and these are the cuts thatare seen as most desirable at present That regular meat eaters werethe most positive about reducing meat consumption probably in partreflects the fact that participants were aware7 that New Zealand-ers on average are heavy meat consumers and this particular dietarypractice was presented to research participants after all the othersby which stage there was a feeling expressed by many that theywould rather eat less meat than eat any of the other food stuffs pre-sented Also there was the aforementioned recognition that foodoptions and diet diversity is increasing in New Zealand and as suchthere are increasing opportunities to shift away from the meat-centric meals of the past

Research limitations and future directions

While this research did span a geographical and socio-demographic range of individuals and some clear patterns emergedfrom the findings the qualitative focus group nature of the re-search method means that findings should be treated with cautionA possible future approach to this kind of research could insteadinclude a more formalised administered survey approach that in-cludes closed and open-ended response options in order to incor-porate a larger number of participants and also to elicit responsesthat can be more easily coded and compared in order to build astronger quantitative element into the research

With respect to the different food possibilities presented to par-ticipants in the lsquoextending living protein rangersquo (which includeentomophagy) and nose-to-tail handouts it may well be benefi-cial to consider each of these in more depth given that there wassignificant variation in responses within each of these categoriesThis would allow more a more sophisticated analysis of those factorsthat make certain foods more appealing or repugnant than others

The various meat consumption practices considered here do pointoverall toward a changed and changing cultural palette It was clearalso though that the extent to which it will shift in what ways andwhen are very much debateable While participants noted that meatreduction is occurring more frequently in New Zealand and al-though many stated that the meat-centric nature of predomi-nantly Anglo-Saxon heritage remains strong in this country therewas also a widespread sense that meat consumption would con-

7 Part of the introduction to the focus groups involved telling participants thatNew Zealanders have consistently ranked in the top ten countries over the last decadefor high meat consumption

176 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

tinue to decrease for a number of reasons (although environmen-tal reasons were not considered a significant driving factor for this)

Participantsrsquo perceptions and projections therefore point to a not-too-distant future where lsquoregularrsquo meat consumption will have de-creased (given economic and health reasons primarily) and a rangeof alternative forms of proteins will be utilised andor more plantbased foods will be consumed While this sounds positive from anenvironmental perspective (and assuming that this is associated withdeclining intensive agricultural production if not in New Zealandthen globally) participants did point to an array of issues that wouldneed to be overcome in order for this to occur Table 1 summarisesthe two most frequently cited problematic factors for each of thefour dietary practices considered

It is the difficulty in accessing and knowing how to cook fare thatis different to the usual along with a lack of sensory appeal thatare the areas that require most attention if a more ecologically sus-tainable path is taken regarding protein foods followed by mattersrelated to health naturalness and nutrition Such findings are in linewith other research which has identified the factors of lsquodisgustrsquo un-appetising sensory properties healthiness and unnaturalness as sig-nificant in individualsrsquo willingness to try different foods (Baumlckstromet al 2003 Lea amp Worsley 2001 Martins amp Pliner 2006 Prescottet al 2002 Ruby amp Heine 2012 Tobler et al 2011) These areasare furthermore interrelated in that they are connected to somedegree by knowledge deficit which is at least in part shaped by theparticular cultural lens(es) through which participants have had theirexperiences and tastes shaped (Schoumlsler et al 2012) There was alsoan element of fear and despair regarding the need to consider shift-ing away from the lsquoknownrsquo to the lesser-known or unknown thiswas expressed by some as almost a grieving for days gone by whenmeat and meat products were cheaper and more plentiful

Schoumlsler et al (2012 39) suggest four pathways that could en-courage a transition toward a less meat intensive diet ldquoan incre-mental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian mealsa pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience a pathwayof reduced portion size and practice-oriented change towards veg-etarian mealsrdquo While these pathways are more focused on lookingat reshaping current meat-eating practices rather than more broadlyencompassing and evaluating other protein options as well the sug-gestions nonetheless are important as together they do touch con-cerns shared by participants specifically utilising health incentivesand making meat-less (or meat reduced) meals more accessiblethrough increasing convenience (and hence addressing some of thedifficulty factors identified) These pathways donrsquot however addressthe sensory appeal factor which is where I believe there is poten-tial for further research to be developed

Participantsrsquo numerous comments in relation to nose-to-tailentomophagy and in vitro meat consumption regarding their ap-parent lack of sensory appeal were accompanied by suggestionsthat included disguising otherwise unappetising looking food in frit-ters or patties and with in vitro meat making it look more like lsquorealrsquomeat The point was also made that people will eat various partsof animals now if they are disguised (such as in a sausage ndash whichwere basically invented to use up animal offcuts not otherwisewanted (Guardian 2003)) or will be aware that they probably haveeaten insects unwittingly when they havenrsquot been cleaned fromproduce which is then eaten Thus the representation of foods in-cluding health and nutritionally positive elements along with social

representation are important aspects in encouraging changing foodconsumption practices (Baumlckstrom et al 2003 Prescott et al 2002)Looking at how this could be done with nose-to-tail eating andentomophagy to further probe the likelihood of these foods beingeaten is a further research possibility

Underpinning much of the discussion were also entrenched cul-turally situated beliefs which while moveable ndash and according tomany research participants are currently shifting ndash are not thingsthat can be changed quickly In saying this there was also more ofa reluctance noted among men ndash or attributed to men by femaleparticipants ndash to reduce meat in the diet hence there appears tobe a greater challenge around reducing meat for males AsNewcombe McCarthy Cronin and McCarthy (2012) have noted meatconsumption continues to be associated with more masculine prac-tices yet males more than females appear to be more open to tryinglsquonewrsquo foods In short there are slightly different challenges in re-lation to gender and with reducing meat consumption versus tryingnovel foods Nonetheless social influence is a powerful mecha-nism for change (Ruby amp Heine 2012) which suggests that if thereis a growing shift toward less meat in the diet and at the same timean increased openness to trying different foods that perhaps socialchange is already in motion in this area

Conclusion

The environmentally positive aspects of food are not anywherenear motivation enough to persuade consumers to shift away fromecologically unsustainable meat-centric diets Neither was ethicalor animal welfare factors significant motivators to change meat-centric consumption practices Instead emphasising the health ben-efits of a meat-reduced and plant-heavier diet through educationand information dissemination in the first instance appear as themore obvious route to take Increased education and informationthat informs people that a meat-reduced diet is not only morehealthy and can be relatively easily achieved would likely requirea sustained effort over time that encompasses a wide mass and socialmedia approach and which in particular targets males

The price aspect of food should also not be ignored It hasbeen identified as a factor that is a determinant in whichmeat-related foods people will purchase and how much or oftenthey will purchase it Price mechanisms will and do influence whatpeople buy and could be used to dis-incentivise meat consump-tion and incentivise plant-based foods (as advocated by Goodland1997 and others) Altogether while it seems that meat consump-tion practices and views toward less meat in the diet might be chang-ing in New Zealand it will likely take a multifaceted concerted effortover time to firstly educate and demonstrate that a meat-reduceddiet is healthy as well as economically and environmentallymore sustainable before meat-centric meals become a relic of thepast

References

Alley T R amp Burroughs W J (1991) Do men have stronger preferences for hotunusual and unfamiliar foods The Journal of General Psychology 118(3) 201ndash214

Baumlckstrom A Pirttilauml-Backman A M amp Tuorila H (2003) Dimensions of noveltyA social representation approach to new foods Appetite 40 299ndash307doi101016S0195-6663(03)00005-9

Table 1A comparison of key factors contributing to the rejection of nose-to-tail entomophagy in vitro meat and reduced meat consumption

Main challenges Nose-to-tail Entomophagy In vitro meat Reduced meat consumption

1 Sensory appeal Difficult Sensory appeal Difficult2 Difficult Sensory appeal Unnatural unhealthy Healthnutrition

177CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

Beardsworth A amp Keil T (1997) Sociology on the menu An invitation to the studyof food and society New York Routledge

Beddington J (2010) Food security Contributions from science to a new and greenerrevolution Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365 61ndash71doi101098rstb20090201

Beef and Lamb NZ (2013) Compendium of New Zealand Farm Facts 37th editionAvailable from lthttpwwwbeeflambnzcomDocumentsInformationCompendium20of20New20Zealand20farm20factspdfgt Last accessed13022014

Bhat Z F amp Fayaz H (2011) Prospectus of cultured meat ndash advancing meatalternatives Journal of Food Science and Technology 48(2) 125ndash140 doi101007s13197-010-0198-7

Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction A social critique of the judgement of taste Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press

Bourdieu P (1990) The Logic of Practice Redwood City California Stanford UniversityPress

Buttriss J L (2011) Feeding the planet An unprecedented confluence of pressuresanticipated Nutrition Bulletin 36(2) 235ndash241 doi101111j1467-3010201101894x

Carlsson-Kanyama A amp Gonzaacutelez A D (2009) Potential contributions of foodconsumption patterns to climate change The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition89(5) 1704Sndash1709S doi103945ajcn200926736AA

Carter I amp Maynard A (2001) Tell me what you eat In C Bell (Ed) Sociologyof everyday life in NZ (pp 89ndash112) New Zealand Dunmore Press

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012) Protein Available from lthttpwwwcdcgovnutritioneveryonebasicsproteinhtmlgt Last accessed 13022014

Chemnitz C amp Becheva S (2014) Meat Atlas 2014 Available fromltwwwfoeeuropeorgmeat-atlasgt Last accessed 240214

Coghlan A (2013) Whatrsquos the beef Cultured meat remains a distant dream Availablefrom lthttpwwwnewscientistcomarticledn23996-whats-the-beef-cultured-meat-remains-a-distant-dreamhtmlpage=1gt Last accessed 170114

Connor D J amp Miacutenguez M I (2012) Evolution not revolution of farming systemswill best feed and green the world Global Food Security 1 106ndash113 doi101016jgfs201210004

de Boer J Boersema J J amp Aiking H (2009) Consumersrsquo motivational associationsfavouring free-range meat or less meat Ecological Economics 68(3) 850ndash860doi101016jecolecon200807001

de Boer J Schoumlsler H amp Boersema JJ (2013) Climate change and meat eatingan inconvenient couple Journal of Environmental Psychology 33(1) 1ndash8

DeFoliart G R (1999) Insects as food Why the Western attitude is important AnnualReview of Entomology 44(1) 21ndash51

Delgado C L (2003) Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countrieshas created a new food revolution The Journal of Nutrition 133 3907Sndash3910S

Delgado C Rosegrant M Steinfeld H Ehui S amp Courbis C (1999) Livestock to2020 The next food revolution Food Agriculture and the EnvironmentDiscussion Paper 28 Available from lthttpilriorgInfoServWebpubfulldocsLvst2020LvSt2020pdfgt Last accessed 280614

Department of Conservation (DoC) (2014) Facts about weta Available from lthttpwwwdocgovtnzconservationnative-animalsinvertebrateswetafactsgt Lastaccessed 280214

Dossey A T (2013) Why insects should be in your diet Available from lthttpwwwthe-scientistcomarticlesviewarticleNo34172titleWhy-Insects-Should-Be-in-Your-Dietgt Last accessed 080114

Dragani R (2013) In vitro beef Itrsquos whatrsquos for dinner Available from lthttpwwwtechnewsworldcomstory78653htmlgt Last accessed 070114

Edelman P D McFarland D C Mironov V A amp Matheny J G (2005) In vitrocultured meat production Tissue Engineering 11(5ndash6) 659ndash662

Fearnley-Whittingstall H (2004) The river cottage meat book Great Britain Hodderamp Stoughton

Fiala N (2006) Is meat sustainable An estimation of the environmental impact of meatconsumption Berkeley California Department of Economics University ofCalifornia

Fiala N (2008) Meeting the demand An estimation of potential future greenhousegas emissions form meat production Ecological Economics 67(3) 412ndash419doi101016jecolecon200712021

Flight I Leppard P amp Cox D N (2003) Food neophobia and associationswith cultural diversity and socio-economic status amongst rural and urbanAustralian adolescents Appetite 41 51ndash59 doi101016S0195ndash6663(03)00039-4

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2009) The stateof food and agriculture 2009 Livestock in balance Available from lthttpwwwfaoorgdocrep012i0680ei0680e00htmgt Last accessed 100813

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2002) The Stateof Food and Agriculture 2002 Available from lthttpwwwfaoorgdocrep004y6000ey6000e00htmgt Last accessed 280614

Frank R A amp van der Klaauw N J (1994) The contribution of chemosensory factorsto individual differences in reported food preferences Appetite 22 101ndash123

Gerbens-Leenes P W Nonhebel S amp Krol M S (2010) Food consumption patternsand economic growth Increasing affluence and the use of natural resourcesAppetite 55 597ndash608 doi101016jappet201009013

Ghosh P (2013) Worldrsquos first lab-grown burger to be cooked and eaten Available fromlthttpwwwbbccouknewsscience-environment-228859695gt Last accessed030314

Girod B amp de Haan P (2009) GHG reduction potential of changes in consumptionpatterns and higher quality levels Evidence from Swiss household consumptionsurvey Energy Policy 37 5650ndash5661 doi101016jenpol200908026

Goodland R (1997) Environmental sustainability in agriculture Diet mattersEcological Economics 23(3) 189ndash200 doi101016S0921ndash8009(97)00579-X

Gussow J (1994) Ecology and vegetarian considerations does environmentalresponsibility demand the elimination of livestock American Journal of ClinicalNutrition 59 1110sndash1116s

Guardian (2003) Sausage factory Available from lthttpwwwtheguardiancomfoodfocusstory095191700htmlgt Last accessed 130214

Halweil B (2008) Meat production continues to rise Available from lthttpwwwworldwatchorgnode5443notesgt Last accessed 200813

Hoek A C Pieternel A L Weijzen P Engels W Kok F J amp de Graaf C (2011)Replacement of meat by meat substitutes A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance Appetite 56 662ndash673

Holm L amp Moslashhl M (2000) The role of meat in everyday food culture An analysisof an interview study in Copenhagen Appetite 34(3) 277ndash283 doi101006appe20000324

Horrigan L Lawrence R S amp Walker P (2002) How sustainable agriculture canaddress the environmental and human health harms of industrial agricultureEnvironmental Health Perspectives 110(5) 445ndash456 doi1023073455330

Hoskins N (2007) Who are the modern offal eaters Available from httpwwwoffalgoodcomuncategorizedwho-are-the-modern-offal-eaters

Jha A (2013) Scientist to eat lab-grown beefburger Available from lthttpwwwtheguardiancomscience2013aug02scientist-stem-cell-lab-grown-beefburgergt Last accessed 021013

Kanaly R A Manzanero L I O Foley G Panneerselvam S amp Macer D (2010)Energy flow environment and ethical implications for meat production Ethics andClimate Change in Asia and the Pacific (ECCAP) Bangkok UNESCO

Korzen S amp Lassen J (2010) Meat in context On the relationship betweenperceptions and contexts Appetite 54 274ndash281 doi101016jappet200911011

Laskawy T (2010) Industrial farming head just says lsquonorsquo to call for civility Availablefrom lthttpgristorgarticleindustrial-farming-head-just-says-no-to-call-for-civilitygt Last accessed 280614

Lea E amp Worsley A (2001) Influences on meat consumption in Australia Appetite36(2) 127ndash136 doi101006appe20000386

Leckie S (1997) Meat productionrsquos environmental toll Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Sustainable Urban Food Systems Ryerson UniversityToronto Canada

Lupton D (1996) Food the body and the self London SageMarlow L J Hayes W K Soret S Carter R L Schwab E R amp Sabateacute J (2009)

Diet and the environment Does what you eat matter The American Journal ofClinical Nutrition 89(5) 1699Sndash1703S doi103945ajcn200926736Z

Martins Y amp Pliner P (2006) ldquoUgh Thatrsquos disgustingrdquo Identification of thecharacteristics of foods underlying rejections based on disgust Appetite 46 75ndash85doi101016jappet200509001

Matson P A Parton W J Power A G amp Swift M J (1997) Agriculturalintensification and ecosystem properties Science 277(5325) 504ndash509doi101126science2775325504

McAlpine C A Etter A Fearnside P M Seabrook L amp Laurance W F (2009)Increasing world consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global changeA call for policy action based on evidence from Queensland (Australia) Colombiaand Brazil Global Environmental Change 19(1) 21ndash33 doi101016jgloenvcha200810008

McDowell R W Snelder T Littlejohn R Hickey M Cox N amp Booker D J (2011)State and potential management to improve water quality in an agriculturalcatchment relative to a natural baseline Agriculture Ecosystems amp Environment144(1) 188ndash200 doi101016jagee201107009

Miele M (1999) Short circuits New trends in the consumption of food and thechanging status of meat International Planning Studies 4(3) 373ndash387 doi10108013563479908721748

Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (2007) Environment New Zealand 2007 Availablefrom lthttpswwwmfegovtnzpublicationsserenz07-dec07environment-nz07-dec07pdfgt Last accessed 030314

Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (2009) New Zealandrsquos 2020 emissions targetAvailable from lthttpwwwmfegovtnzpublicationsclimatenz-2020-emissions-targetnz-2020-emissions-targetpdfgt Last accessed 030314

Myers N amp Kent J (2003) New consumers The influence of affluence on theenvironment Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Statesof America 100(8) 4963ndash4968 doi1023073144049

Nath J (2011) Gendered fare A qualitative investigation of alternative food andmasculinities Journal of Sociology 47(3) 261ndash278 doi1011771440783310386828

New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGGRC) (2010) NewZealand agricultural greenhouse gas research centre strategy amp science plan NZUnpublished report

Newcombe M A McCarthy M B Cronin J M amp McCarthy S N (2012) ldquoEat likea manrdquo A social constructionist analysis of the role of food in menrsquos lives Appetite59 391ndash398

Nishitani A (2011) Food of the future In vitro meat Available from lthttpssitnhmsharvardedusitnflash_wp201103issue90gt Last accessed 130214

OECD (2011) OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2011 OECD PublishingOECD (2013) OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2013ndash2022 OECD PublishingPereltsvaig A (2013) Global geography of meat (and fish) consumption Available from

lthttpwwwgeocurrentsinfocultural-geographyculinary-geographyglobal-geography-of-meat-and-fish-consumptiongt Last accessed 270214

Pluhar E B (2010) Meat and morality Alternatives to factory farming Journal ofAgriculture and Environmental Ethics 23(5) 455ndash468 doi101007s10806-009-9226-x

178 CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179

Prescott J Young O OrsquoNeill L Yau N J N amp Stevens R (2002) Motives for foodchoice A comparison of consumers from Japan Taiwan Malaysia and NewZealand Food Quality and Preference 13 489ndash495

Ramos-Elorduy J (1997) Insects A sustainable food source Ecology of Food andNutrition 36(2ndash4) 247ndash276 doi1010800367024419979991519

Reijnders L amp Soret S (2003) Quantification of the environmental impact of differentdietary protein choices The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78(3) 664Sndash668S

Richardson N J MacFie H J H amp Shepherd R (1994) Meat Science 36 57ndash65Richardson N J Shepherd R amp Elliman N A (1993) Current attitudes and future

influences on meat consumption in the UK Appetite 21 41ndash51Ritchie J Spencer L amp OrsquoConnor W (2003) Carrying out qualitative analysis In J

Ritchie amp J Lewis (Eds) Qualitative research practice (pp 219ndash262) LondonSage

Rivera-Ferre M G (2009) Supply vs demand of agri-industrial meat and fishproducts A chicken and egg paradigm International Journal of Sociology ofAgriculture and Food 16(2) 90ndash105

Robinson V (2012) Oh you are offal but I do like you Available from lthttpwwwstuffconzlife-stylefood-wine7200080Oh-you-are-offal-but-I-do-like-yougt Last accessed 250214

Rozin P (1996) Towards a psychology of food and eating From motivation to modelto meaning morality and metaphor Current Directions in Psychological Science5 1ndash7 doi101016jappet201206001

Ruby M B amp Heine S J (2012) Too close to home Factors predicting meat avoidanceAppetite 59 47ndash52 doi101016jappet201203020

Russell K (2013) The pound250000 lsquotest tubersquo beefburger arrives in London Available fromlthttpmetrocouk20130728the-250000-test-tube-beefburger-arrives-in-london-3901967ITO=facebookgt Last accessed 101013

Schoumlsler H de Boer J amp Boersema J J (2012) Can we cut out the meat of the dishConstructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution Appetite58 39ndash47 doi101016jappet201109009

Science News (2010) Agriculture food production among worst environmental offendersreport finds Available from lthttpwwwsciencedailycomreleases201006100609094353gt Last accessed 101013

Sekularac I (2011) Save the planet Swap your steak for bugs and worms Availablefrom lthttpwwwreuterscomarticle20110118uk-food-insects-idUSLNE70H03620110118gt Last accessed 030813

Shaw D (2013) Dave Shaw Unraveling new healthy eating guide (the death of the foodpyramid) Available from lthttpwwwnzheraldconzlifestylenewsarticlecfmc_id=6ampobjectid=11155703gt Last accessed 030314

Summers R (2013) Beautiful bug biscuits to tempt the squeamish Available fromlthttpwwwnewscientistcomarticledn23422-beautiful-bug-biscuits-to-tempt-the-squeamishhtmlgt Last accessed 130214

Tivadar B amp Luthar B (2005) Food Ethics and Aesthetics Appetite 44(2) 215ndash233The Economist (2012) Kings of the carnivores Available from lthttp

wwweconomistcomblogsgraphicdetail201204daily-chart-17gt Last accessed100214

Tobler C Visschers H M amp Siegrist M (2011) Eating green Consumersrsquo willingnessto adopt ecological food consumption behaviors Appetite 57 674ndash682doi101016jappet201108010

Tuffrey L (2012) Nose to tail eating Itrsquos sustainable but can you stomach this type ofmeat Available from lthttpwwwtheecologistorggreen_green_livingfood_and_drink1299412nose_to_tail_eating_its_sustainable_but_can_you_stomach_this_type_of_meathtmlgtLast accessed 080813

Van Huis A Van Itterbeeck J Klunder H Mertens E Halloran A Muir A et al(2013) Edible insects Future prospects for food and feed security Rome FAO

Vinnari M amp Tapio P (2009) Future images of meat consumption in 2030 Futures41 269ndash278 doi101016jfutures200811014

Vinnari M amp Tapio P (2012) Sustainability of diets From concepts to governanceEcological Economics 74 46ndash54 doi101016jecolecon201112012

Vital Chiropractic (2014) Is the food pyramid really healthy Available from lthttpvitalchiropracticconzis-the-food-pyramid-really-healthygt Last accessed030314

White T (2000) Diet and the distribution of environmental impact EcologicalEconomics 34 145ndash153 doi101016S0921ndash8009(00)00175-0

Yang W (2002) Offal good An ode to organ meats Available from lthttptechmiteduV122N51eat_this_-_offa51ahtmlgt Last accessed 111113

Yates-Doerr E (2012) Meeting the demand for meat Anthropology Today 28(1)11ndash15 doi101111j1467-8322201200849x

Yen A L (2009) Edible insects Traditional knowledge or western phobiaEntomological Research 39(5) 289ndash298 doi101111j1748-5967200900239x

179CA TuckerAppetite 81 (2014) 168ndash179