How do we tackle the 'meat is necessary' narrative?

Exploring how perceptions of 'necessity' shape attitudes towards the use of other animals - and what we can do about it...

The belief that eating other animals is necessary remains one of the most entrenched justifications for animal consumption. Our research found that, depending on how the question is framed, 50–70% of people in the UK view animal products as essential for comfort or even survival. This belief aligns with the '4N' narratives—necessary, natural, normal and nice—which collectively reinforce eating animals as a societal norm.

Necessity is a deeply held narrative, powerfully leveraged by the industry. For example, the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board's ‘Let's Eat Balanced’ campaign frames 'meat' and 'dairy' as essential to a healthy balanced diet. Historically, there may have been a time when consuming animals was necessary for survival, but today, this narrative no longer reflects reality.

In focus groups we've run, people often distinguish between 'unnecessary' practices, such as hunting—commonly seen as fulfilling human greed or superficial desires—and supposedly 'necessary' practices, such as farming animals for food or testing on them for medical research. Interestingly, participants perceived testing on animals for cosmetics as more harmful than for 'medical' research, despite there being little difference from the animals' perspective.

At Animal Think Tank, we aimed to test how perceptions of necessity shape people's moral judgments about the use of animals by surveying a representative sample of the UK public. Participants were asked about their attitudes towards 12 standard practices commonly used in farming animals. We found a near one-to-one correlation, where practices rated as more necessary were also rated as less harmful and received less support for being banned. Conversely, practices perceived as less necessary were seen as more harmful and attracted stronger support for prohibition.

Ratings of perceived necessity (x-axis) and perceived harm (y-axis) for 12 standard farming animal practices.

A likely explanation for this comes from the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance—the unpleasant feeling that arises when one's actions or beliefs conflict with new information. Participants may have experienced a sense of indirect culpability for supporting harmful practices. To alleviate this discomfort, they downplay the harm involved to make the practice more acceptable. A prime example is the perception of slaughtering male chicks of 'egg-laying' hens, which is rated as much more harmful and unnecessary than slaughtering chickens or other animals for food—despite all these practices being arguably equally cruel.

We then conducted an experiment to see if varying the necessity framing of these practices influenced their perceived harm. Participants were divided into three groups and asked to rate the same practices.

• Group 1: saw a description designed to be as neutral as possible;

• Group 2: saw a description emphasising why the practice is not necessary;

• Group 3: saw a description highlighting its necessity.

Two necessity framings had the most effect. People who read the necessity framing (Group 3) for ‘farrowing crates’ and ‘tail docking and teeth trimming' showed increased ratings of necessity, decreased ratings of harm, and lower support for banning these practices relative to the neutral group (Group 1). This suggests that perceptions of harm, as well as policy support, can be reduced by emphasising necessity. So it’s unsurprising the industry pushes this narrative so heavily. These public research findings align with the psychological mechanism of resolving cognitive dissonance, where diminishing the perceived necessity helps alleviate discomfort over harmful practices.

Unfortunately, none of the descriptions framing the practices as unnecessary increased their perceived harm or support for a ban. This suggests that people’s attitudes towards a practice are more strongly shaped by descriptions that frame it as necessary rather than unnecessary. In other words, the industry may have the upper hand in messaging because of this framing effect. It may be that people are particularly susceptible to narratives portraying farmers as stewards or protectors of animals, reinforcing the idea that fellow animals are not competent enough to care for themselves. In contrast, accepting the ‘unnecessary’ framing of these practices would likely require confronting some cognitive dissonance, making it harder for people to internalise these explanations.

But there is some hope: despite most of the public endorsing the necessity narrative, an equal majority are also open to the feasibility of plant-rich diets. For example, around 70% of people in our research at least somewhat agree with statements like: ‘We should all try to reduce our meat consumption’ and ‘I believe that vegan or vegetarian diets can be healthy and nutritious’. Similarly, 60% agree that 'veganism/vegetarianism is a positive step towards preventing animal suffering', and that society’s acceptance of veganism reflects social progress. Additionally, though to a lesser extent, one in three people acknowledge that killing animals for food is unnecessary, or that 'there is no truly kind way to farm animals'.

The percentage of people who responded at least 'Somewhat agree' to each of three statements (on a 1-7 scale from 'Strongly disagree' to 'Strongly agree').

We've also found ways to influence the perceived necessity of farming animals through a less direct approach. In our research, we've been testing how framing messages about animal freedom differently affects people’s attitudes. For example, one message emphasised the moral imperative of animal freedom, while another framed animal freedom as the next step in our social evolution. After reading their assigned message, participants answered a brief questionnaire about their attitudes, including how much they agree with statements such as: ‘Animals are a necessary resource for human benefit’.

Even though the messages did not explicitly challenge the necessity of eating animals—many referred to animal freedom in more abstract terms—they significantly influenced responses to this statement. We identified a common theme among the messages that prompted the highest ratings of necessity: moral judgment or implied guilt. Messages focusing on themes such as betrayal (betraying fellow animals), denying other animals their freedom, oppression, exploitation, or trauma (practices causing fellow animals trauma) may have unintentionally made participants feel personally implicated or accused of supporting harm, evoking defensiveness or hopelessness rather than motivating action. Framing our issue in negative terms and focusing on the problem can create more pushback in people and reduce support for change, compared to focusing on how our vision already aligns with people’s values.

Another pattern emerged with messages drawing comparisons between animal exploitation and human oppression, such as racism, sexism or slavery. These often provoked strong pushback and were perceived as inappropriate or overly ideological, likely due to deeply ingrained anthropocentrism—the belief that humans occupy a unique and superior place in the world.

In interviews and focus groups we ran, some participants explained why they reacted negatively to this kind of messaging: they felt comparing speciesism to racism or sexism implied that meat-eaters are as bad as racists and sexists, so they rejected the message. In short, they were rejecting a message that didn’t align with their aspirational identity of being seen as a ‘good’ and ‘moral’ person.

Similarly, messages encouraging people to embrace their ‘vegan-hearted’ nature performed poorly. The term ‘vegan’ carries strong cultural and social connotations, often weighed down by negative stereotypes. For many, the ‘Go vegan’ narrative is seen as a matter of personal choice and individual responsibility, which can place an overwhelming moral burden on the individual rather than fostering collective action.

In contrast, messages that framed animal freedom as a positive concept—emphasising social progress, alignment with our shared values, or the idea that society and other animals are part of a larger collective or family—led to lower ratings of necessity. Similarly, messages that highlighted the remarkable abilities, rich inner lives, and emotional depth of other animals also tended to reduce perceptions of necessity. While we have not yet tested whether these messages would similarly affect perceptions of harm, we suspect that they would.

The percentage of people who agree with the statement ‘Animals are a necessary resource for human benefit’ (Higher values = higher perceived necessity), split by the message they read (individual data points), and whether or not the message framed humans as good (blue) or bad (red). The horizontal lines represent the average across all messages in each type of framing.

We all want to see ourselves as good, moral individuals. This sense of identity shapes how we think, feel and act. When confronted with information that threatens this self-image—such as the idea that our everyday choices may harm others—our brains instinctively work to protect us. Rather than engaging with the uncomfortable truth, we may reject it, justify our actions—including by altering our perception of the necessity of using animals—or shift focus to avoid feeling like a ‘bad’ person. However, framing animal freedom as something people can take pride in—such as a reflection of social progress or belonging to a larger collective—can help lower these defences, making them more receptive to change.

As communicators, we need to be mindful of the pitfalls of triggering cognitive dissonance. Confronting people head-on or trying to argue that eating animals is unnecessary often proves ineffective and can, at worst, push people further away, prompting them to double-down on unhelpful beliefs. By focusing on communications that appeal to people's existing values and aspirational identities, we can show that animal freedom is already aligned with their values and is beneficial for everyone.

Key takeaways to inform our communications:

• Social proof: Despite the strong belief in the necessity of eating animals, a significant portion of people are also open to reducing the consumption of animals and adopting plant-based diets. Using social proof to highlight that a large part of society is open to change can help lower people’s defences and make them more receptive to our messaging—and our campaign asks.

• Social progress: Highlighting that animal freedom/a plant-based food system is the future (and benefits all of us), that change is already happening (showcasing existing solutions and alternatives), and that this is the way we’re headed as a society (i.e. change is inevitable) can help reduce people’s sense of futility that change is impossible.

• Positive framing: Framing certain farming practices as ‘unnecessary’ isn’t always effective. Instead of negative framing (i.e. what is wrong, what we need to stop doing), positive framing about what is necessary, and how it can benefit everyone, can be more persuasive.

• Shared values: Messages about animal freedom that highlight positive values—like social progress and collective good—are more effective in changing perceptions than negative or accusatory messaging that implies people are betraying their values.

• Aspirational identities: Appealing to people’s aspirational identities (them as good and moral people), as well as focusing on collective benefits, can reduce defensive reactions and make people more receptive to the idea of animal freedom and plant-rich diets.