A study from the University of Copenhagen looks at "Culturally appropriate rejections of meat reduction". Reasoning by meat-eaters includes shaming vegans and claiming they are hypocritical; outsized estimations of the climate impact of vegan options vs. meat; and as the researchers put it, "not knowing is convenient".

Abstract: Cultural conventions are central to tackling unsustainable consumption. In the Global North food conventions are increasingly contested due to the political importance of climate change and the share of global greenhouse gas emissions tied to animal food production and consumption. Significant reductions in meat consumption are touted as pathways to adaptation, but most consumers remain committed to consuming meat-based meals and diets with meat. To explore how consumers handle these issues in today's cultural context, this article examines culturally appropriate ways of rejecting meat reduction. The theoretical framework is based on interactionism and accounts. The empirical material is from focus group discussions with Danish consumers. We find that in discussions about using plant-based meat, norms of proper culinary conduct are held to be more pressing guides for normative assessment than climate impacts. We also show that the status and function of climate impact "knowledge" is complex and ambiguous. A shared social knowledge of the climate impacts of meat consumption appears to exist alongside "questionable knowledge" and "lack of knowledge", both of which are referred to excuse, justify, and charge others in reasoning supporting continued meat consumption. Knowledge of climate impacts is accepted when it fits cultural conventions but appears less knowable if it poses challenges to contemporary consumer culture. The article contributes insights into the ways in which cultural conventions and complex knowledge negotiations help to preserve unsustainable consumption. A summary of the publication is available at Vegconomist.