In Britain, approximately seven per cent of the population has turned to appetite-suppressing drugs like Ozempic. The rise of GLP-1s brings into question society’s commitment to body positivity.
Society often labels individuals with obesity as emotional eaters. However, aren’t we all driven by emotions when it comes to eating?
Some years back, a study led by an Australian psychologist explored the tension between our desires and ethics.
Rationality
A group of omnivorous students was asked to ponder the question: do animals possess minds? Their responses varied based on their anticipation of eating meat soon.
Students who were not about to eat a beef burger were more inclined to believe that animals are not mere machines.
Yet, the existence of an animal’s mind should not hinge on when someone is planning to have their next sausage roll.
This study highlighted that guilt suppression played a key role; participants altered their beliefs to minimize the discomfort from their conflicting actions and beliefs. In this scenario, emotions, rather than rationality, took precedence.
Emotional
This tendency is not unique to the study participants. Those who criticize people with obesity as emotional eaters might themselves be guilty of similar behavior.
There is a disconnect between our craving for meat and the ethical values we hold. Many believe animals should not be killed merely for dietary variety.
Even more people agree that our meals should not cause unnecessary suffering, yet current meat production systems often ignore these principles.
Our food choices seem to be driven more by familiarity, desire, and nostalgia, such as fond memories of family meals.
Consequently, we find it difficult to stop consuming meat or our customary foods for emotional reasons.
Harm
This shifts the perspective on the pro-meat lobby, which has long labeled vegetarians as overly sentimental. The situation might indeed be reversed.
Today, it is possible to adhere to our principles while enjoying almost all desired foods in plant-based versions.
However, this requires some effort or preparation, and emotions like procrastination or fear of failure often resurface.
Some critics might argue: “Emotional eating is about eating to feel better. Most meat-eaters don’t eat for comfort, but out of necessity.”
Nevertheless, emotional eating can be broadly defined as eating driven by emotions in a way that can be harmful.
Horrors
Refusing to forgo meat can still result from emotionally driven eating, even if one’s calorie intake remains perfect. Emotions can dictate the type of foods consumed, regardless of quantity.
We all have the option to choose between eating rationally, yet passionately, and eating based on emotions, even if life’s complexities have limited that choice for many.
Before asserting “the choice is ours,” it’s important to recognize the risk of making potentially counterproductive or even unethical public statements.
However, given the current global challenges and the plight of animals, it seems worth the attempt.
This Author
William Gildea is a postdoctoral researcher at McGill University and the Centre for Research in Ethics. His podcast, Surprising Ethics, presents thought-provoking philosophical ideas in each episode.
