Skip to main content
Log in

Meat consumption, classed?

The socioeconomic underpinnings of dietary change

Fleischkonsum und soziale Ungleichheit

Wie sozioökonomische Unterschiede unsere Ernährungsgewohnheiten beeinflussen können

  • Hauptbeiträge
  • Published:
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The link between culture and social structure is a prominent theme in cultural sociology, and food consumption and taste are a less popular but no less interesting dimension of this debate. Large‑N studies show that there is a link between dietary patterns and social class background in general, and between meat consumption and socioeconomic position in particular. Albeit mixed evidence, it is suggested that in many Western countries, consumers in lower socioeconomic positions tend to eat more meat and purchase cheaper meat products than consumers in higher social class positions. There is a need to understand the mechanisms behind this link to design more effective policy measures and to address the dietary needs of different consumer groups. Maximum variation sampling was used to cover a wide range of meat consumption habits, and 46 individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews with consumers from urban areas in Germany were conducted. The goal was to inquire how financial and educational resources shape meat consumption patterns. Against the background of a meat-heavy culinary tradition, meat-reduced or meat-free diets require dietary changes, and consumers’ attitudes towards and capabilities for dietary change are strongly influenced by their socioeconomic position. These findings are discussed in the context of other studies and with reference to social-psychological literature on behavioral change.

Zusammenfassung

In der Kultursoziologie wird der Zusammenhang zwischen Kultur und Sozialstruktur häufig diskutiert. Auch die Frage von Ernährung und Geschmack spielt hierbei eine, wenn auch weniger prominente Rolle. Umfrage-Studien mit vielen Teilnehmenden zeigen, dass es eine Verbindung zwischen der Art der Ernährung und dem sozialen Hintergrund gibt, und dies gilt auch für den Fleischkonsum. Nicht ganz unumstritten, aber dafür populär ist die These, dass Konsument*innen mit weniger sozioökonomischen Ressourcen nicht nur mehr, sondern auch preiswerteres Fleisch essen als andere Konsument*innen – zumindest in Ländern mit einer westlich geprägten Ernährungskultur. Um einem hohen Fleischkonsum effektiv begegnen und Maßnahmen entwerfen zu können, die die unterschiedlichen Lebenssituationen und Bedarfe verschiedener Konsument*innen nicht aus dem Blick verlieren, sollten wir zunächst einmal verstehen, warum sich Ernährungsgewohnheiten so divers ausgestalten.

Dieser Beitrag analysiert auf Basis von 46 qualitativen, semi-strukturierten Interviews mit Konsument*innen mit unterschiedlichen Fleischkonsum-Gewohnheiten aus städtischen Gebieten in Deutschland, wie finanzielle Ressourcen und formale Bildung diese Gewohnheiten beeinflussen und formen. In Esskulturen, die im Allgemeinen durch einen hohen Fleischkonsum geprägt sind, erfordert eine Reduktion des Fleischkonsums eine aktive Veränderung unseres Verhaltens. Doch aus verschiedenen Gründen fällt es nicht allen Konsument*innen gleichermaßen leicht, ihre Ernährungsgewohnheiten umzustellen – insbesondere ökonomische und kulturelle Ressourcen wirken hier förder- oder hinderlich. Der Artikel diskutiert diese These mit Rückbezug auf sozialpsychologische Studien zur Thematik, um unser Verständnis von Verhaltensänderungen und Ernährungsgewohnheiten zu erweitern.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Notes

  1. https://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/politik/article198113225/Wie-sinnvoll-ist-eine-Fleischsteuer.html. Accessed: April 1st, 2021.

    https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/steuer-auf-fleisch-und-milch-gefordert-zum-wohl-der-tiere-16628814.html. Accessed: April 1st, 2021.

    https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/fleisch-gruene-und-spd-politiker-fordern-hoehere-mehrwertsteuer-a-1280806.html. Accessed: April 1st, 2021.

  2. For the purpose of this study, this category comprises vegetarian and vegan respondents. While there is research about the differences between vegetarian and vegan consumers (e.g. Rothgerber 2014; Lund et al. 2016; Rosenfeld 2019), this distinction was not necessary here as both types of diets feature no meat consumption, require dietary changes, and deviate from traditional food norms.

  3. To be sure, this is not to say that real material conditions do not matter. Real and perceived income do modestly correlate (e.g. Grable et al. 2013), there is also evidence that perceived financial well-being is a major source of stress in and of itself, and contributes to subjective well-being (e.g. Manturuk et al. 2012; Netemeyer et al. 2018; Brzozowski and Spotton Visano 2020).

  4. Note how this quote also indicates that consumers who do not share and live up to the ideal of a vegan diet are assumed to “live without ideals” and to “give no fucks”, reverberating with an often-encountered reservation against consumers on “bad” diets.

  5. There is a strong symbolic link between meat and masculinity, and this link certainly contributes to the gendered nature of meat consumption (e.g. Adams 1990; Rothgerber 2013; Love and Sulikowski 2018). However, in light of the present findings, it is also plausible to argue that women do, on average, have more culinary knowledge than men, given their female role as caregivers. This may make it easier for them to adopt new dietary habits, and should be scrutinized in prospective studies.

References

  • AbuSabha, Rayane, and Cheryl Achterberg. 1997. Review of self-efficacy and locus of control for nutrition- and health-related behavior. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97(10):1122–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, Carol J. 1990. The sexual politics of meat: a feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, Matthew, and Jayne Raisborough. 2008. What can sociology say about Fairtrade? Class, reflexivity and ethical consumption. Sociology 42(6):1165–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allès, Benjamin, Julia Baudry, Caroline Méjean, Mathilde Touvier, Sandrine Péneau, Serge Hercberg, and Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot. 2017. Comparison of sociodemographic and nutritional characteristics between self-reported vegetarians, vegans, and meat-eaters from the Nutrinet-Santé study. Nutrients 9(9):1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonetti, Paolo, and Stan Maklan. 2014. Feelings that make a difference: how guilt and pride convince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices. Journal of Business Ethics 124(1):117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, Margaret S. 2007. Making our way through the world: human Reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astleithner, Florentina. 2007. Fleischkonsum als Kriterium für nachhaltige Ernährungspraktiken. In Ernährungsalltag im Wandel, 149–171. Wien, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aston, L.M., J.N. Smith, and J.W. Powles. 2013. Meat intake in Britain in relation to other dietary components and to demographic and risk factor variables: analyses based on the national diet and nutrition survey of 2000/2001. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 26(1):96–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backett-Milburn, Kathryn C., Wendy J. Wills, Susan Gregory, and Julia Lawton. 2006. Making sense of eating, weight and risk in the early teenage years: views and concerns of parents in poorer socio-economic circumstances. Social Science & Medicine 63(3):624–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bähr, Cordelia Christiane. 2015. Greenhouse gas taxes on meat products: a legal perspective. Transnational Environmental Law 4(1):153–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beagan, Brenda L., Gwen E. Chapman, Josée Johnston, Deborah McPhail, Elaine M. Power, and Helen Vallianatos. 2014. Acquired tastes: why families eat the way they do. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beagan, Brenda L., Gwen E. Chapman, and Elaine M. Power. 2017. Cultural and symbolic capital with and without economic constraint. Food, Culture & Society 19(1):45–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. Vol. 17. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1985. The social space and the genesis of groups. Information 24(2):195–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brzozowski, Matthew, and Brenda Spotton Visano. 2020. Havin’ money’s not everything, not havin’ it is: the importance of financial satisfaction for life satisfaction in financially stressed households. Journal of Happiness Studies 21:573–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappeliez, Sarah, and Josée Johnston. 2013. From meat and potatoes to ‘real-deal’ rotis: exploring everyday culinary cosmopolitanism. Poetics 41(5):433–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Tak Wing, and John H. Goldthorpe. 2007. Social stratification and cultural consumption: music in England. European Sociological Review 23(1):1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collett, Jessica L., and Omar Lizardo. 2014. Localizing cultural phenomena by specifying social psychological mechanisms: introduction to the special issue. Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2):95–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner Snibbe, Alana, and Hazel Rose Markus. 2005. You can’t always get what you want: educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(4):703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, Carrie R., Amanda J. Cross, Corinna Koebnick, and Rashmi Sinha. 2011. Trends in meat consumption in the USA. Public Health Nutrition 14(4):575–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darmon, Nicole, and Adam Drewnowski. 2008. Does social class predict diet quality? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 87(5):1107–1117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darmon, Nicole, and Adam Drewnowski. 2015. Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutrition Reviews 73(10):643–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Rosemary, Jenny Kitzinger, and Kate Hunt. 2006. The wealthy get healthy, the poor get poorly? Lay perceptions of health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine 62(9):2171–2182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, Carol M., Margaret Jastran, Jennifer Jabs, Elaine Wethington, Tracy J. Farell, and Carole A. Bisogni. 2006. A lot of sacrifices: work–family Spillover and the food choice coping strategies of low-wage employed parents. Social Science & Medicine 63(10):2591–2603.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, Paul, and Hazel Rose Markus. 2010. Culture and social psychology: converging perspectives. Social Psychology Quarterly 73(4):347–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Mary. 1972. Deciphering a meal. Daedalus 101(1):61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droomers, Mariël, Carola T.M. Schrijvers, and Johan P. Mackenbach. 2004. Educational differences in the intention to stop smoking: explanations based on the theory of planned behaviour. The European Journal of Public Health 14(2):194–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, Gwen. 2013. Hostile to hierarchy? Individuality, equality and moral boundaries in Dutch class talk. Sociology 47(3):526–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, Laura. 2020. Food, classed? Social inequality and diet: Understanding stratified meat consumption patterns in Germany. Dissertation. Cologne: University of Cologne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fekete, Christine, and Simone Weyers. 2016. Soziale Ungleichheit im Ernährungsverhalten. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz 59(2):197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, S. Margot. 2017. Discriminating taste: how class anxiety created the American food revolution. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gecas, V., and M.A. Seff. 1989. Social class, occupational conditions, and self-esteem. Sociological Perspectives 32(3):353–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, Val. 2005. Raising the ‘meritocracy’ parenting and the individualization of social class. Sociology 39(5):835–853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grable, John E., Sam Cupples, Fred Fernatt, and Na Rita Anderson. 2013. Evaluating the link between perceived income adequacy and financial satisfaction: a resource deficit hypothesis approach. Social Indicators Research 114(3):1109–1124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grauel, Jonas. 2014. Gesundheit, Genuss und Gutes Gewissen: Über Lebensmittelkonsum und Alltagsmoral. Vol. 10. Bielefeld: transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graça, João, Cristina Albuquerque Godinho, and Monica Truninger. 2019. Reducing meat consumption and following plant-based diets: current evidence and future directions to inform integrated transitions. Trends in Food Science & Technology 91:380–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill Gossard, Marcia, and Richard York. 2003. Social structural influences on meat consumption. Human Ecology Review 10(1):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hojman, Daniel A., and Álvaro Miranda. 2018. Agency, human dignity, and subjective well-being. World Development 101:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope Alkon, Alison, Daniel Block, Kelly Moore, Catherine Gillis, Nicole DiNuccio, and Noel Chavez. 2013. Foodways of the urban poor. Geoforum 48:126–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, Josée, and Shyon Baumann. 2014. Foodies: democracy and distinction in the gourmet foodscape. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, Josee, Michelle Szabo, and Alexandra Rodney. 2011. Good food, good people: understanding the cultural repertoire of ethical eating. Journal of Consumer Culture 11(3):293–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, Franziska, Thorsten Heuer, Carolin Krems, and Erika Claupein. 2019. Meat consumers and non-meat consumers in Germany: a characterisation based on results of the German National Nutrition Survey II. Journal of Nutritional Science https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2019.17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofahl, Daniel, and Theresa Weyand. 2016. Halb vegan, halb vegetarisch, aber auch mal Huhn – soziologische Aspekte des Fleisch-Essens und Fleisch-Verzichts in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 64(2):77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, Michael W., Paul K. Piff, and Dacher Keltner. 2009. Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(6):992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, Michael W., Paul K. Piff, and Dacher Keltner. 2011. Social class as culture: the convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(4):246–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle, Laura Adler, Bo Yun Park, and Xin Xiang. 2017. Bridging cultural sociology and cognitive psychology in three contemporary research programmes. Nature Human Behaviour 1(12):866–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, Hamish J., and Danielle Sulikowski. 2018. Of meat and men: Sex differences in implicit and explicit attitudes toward meat. Frontiers in Psychology 9:559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, Thomas B., Dorothy McKeegan, Clare Cribbin, and Peter Sandoe. 2016. Animal ethics profiling of vegetarians, vegans and meat-eaters. Anthrozoos 29(1):89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, Jayson L., and F. Bailey Norwood. 2016. Some vegetarians spend less money on food, others don’t. Ecological Economics 130:232–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani, Anandi, Sendhil Mullainathan, Eldar Shafir, and Jiaying Zhao. 2013. Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341(6149):976–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manturuk, Kim, Sarah Riley, and Janneke Ratcliffe. 2012. Perception vs. reality: the relationship between low-income homeownership, perceived financial stress, and financial hardship. Social Science Research 41(2):276–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, Hazel Rose, and Shinobu Kitayama. 2010. Cultures and selves: a cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5(4):420–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensink, Gert B.M., Clarissa Lage Barbosa, and Anna-Kristin Brettschneider. 2016. Prevalence of persons following a vegetarian diet in Germany. Journal of Health Monitoring 1(2):2–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullainathan, Sendhil, and Eldar Shafir. 2014. Scarcity: why having too little means so much. New York: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, Roni A., Danielle Edwards, Anne Palmer, Rebecca Ramsing, Allison Righter, and Julia Wolfson. 2018. Reducing meat consumption in the USA: a nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours. Public Health Nutrition 21(10):1835–1844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, Richard G., Dee Warmath, Daniel Fernandes, and John G. Lynch Jr.. 2018. How am I doing? Perceived financial well-being, its potential antecedents, and its relation to overall well-being. Journal of Consumer Research 45(1):68–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordgren, Anders. 2012. A climate tax on meat? In Climate change and sustainable development, ed. Thomas Potthast, Simon Meisch, 109–114. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleschuk, Merin, Josée Johnston, and Shyon Baumann. 2019. Maintaining meat: cultural repertoires and the meat paradox in a diverse sociocultural context. Sociological Forum 34(2):337–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paddock, Jessica. 2016. Positioning food cultures: ‘alternative’ food as distinctive consumer practice. Sociology 50(6):1039–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Richard A. 1992. Understanding audience segmentation: from elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics 21(4):243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Richard A., and Roger M. Kern. 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review 61(5):900–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiler, Tamara M., and Boris Egloff. 2018a. Examining the ‘Veggie’ personality: results from a representative German sample. Appetite 120(Supplement C):246–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiler, Tamara M., and Boris Egloff. 2018b. Personality and attitudinal correlates of meat consumption: results of two representative German samples. Appetite 121:294–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohjolainen, Pasi, Markus Vinnari, and Pekka Jokinen. 2015. Consumers’ perceived barriers to following a plant-based diet. British Food Journal 117(3):1150–1167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, Mayuree, Ashkan Afshin, Gitanjali Singh, and Dariush Mozaffarian. 2013. Do healthier foods and diet patterns cost more than less healthy options? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 3(12):e4277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricciuto, Laurie, Valerie Tarasuk, and Adonis Yatchew. 2006. Socio-demographic influences on food purchasing among Canadian households. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 60(6):778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, Daniel L. 2019. A comparison of dietary identity profiles between vegetarians and vegans. Food Quality and Preference 72:40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, Daniel L., and Anthony L. Burrow. 2017. The unified model of vegetarian identity: a conceptual framework for understanding plant-based food choices. Appetite 112:78–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothgerber, Hank. 2013. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 14(4):363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothgerber, Hank. 2014. Horizontal hostility among non-meat eaters. Plos One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothgerber, Hank. 2015. Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores, vegetarians, and adherence to diet. Appetite 84:196–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachweh, Patrick. 2011. The moral economy of inequality: popular views on income differentiation, poverty and wealth. Socio-Economic Review 10(3):419–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Säll, Sarah, and Marie Gren. 2015. Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden. Food Policy 55:41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, Andrew. 2005. The moral significance of class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schösler, Hanna, Joop De Boer, and Jan J. Boersema. 2012. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 58(1):39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeggs, Beverley, and Vik Loveday. 2012. Struggles for value: value practices, injustice, judgment, affect and the idea of class. The British Journal of Sociology 63(3):472–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smil, Vaclav. 2002. Eating meat: evolution, patterns, and consequences. Population and Development Review 28(4):599–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith Maguire, Jennifer. 2016. Introduction: looking at food practices and taste across the class divide. Food, Culture & Society 19(1):11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Katherine E., and Rosemary Anderson. 2018. Understanding lay perspectives on socioeconomic health inequalities in britain: a meta-ethnography. Sociology of Health & Illness 40(1):146–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springmann, Marco, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Sherman Robinson, Keith H. Wiebe Charles, J. Godfray, Mike Rayner, and Peter Scarborough. 2018. Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: a modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PLoS One 13(11):e204139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, Nicole M., Hazel Rose Markus, and Sarah S.M. Townsend. 2007. Choice as an act of meaning: the case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(5):814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne, and Uta Johanna Schmidt. 2017. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Regional Environmental Change 17(5):1261–1277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L.E., J.R. Barnett, and J.R. Pearce. 2009. Scared straight? Fear-appeal anti-smoking campaigns, risk, self-efficacy and addiction. Health, Risk & Society 11(2):181–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trummer, Manuel. 2015. Die kulturellen Schranken des Gewissens – Fleischkonsum zwischen Tradition, Lebensstil und Ernährungswissen. In Was der Mensch essen darf. Ökonomischer Zwang, ökologisches Gewissen und globale Konflikte, ed. Günther Hirschfelder, Angelika Ploeger, Jana Rückert-John, and Gesa Schönberger, 63–79. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warde, Alan. 1997. Consumption, food and taste. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederkehr, V., C. Darnon, S. Chazal, S. Guimond, and D. Martinot. 2015. From social class to self-efficacy: Internalization of low social status pupils’ school performance. Social Psychology of Education 18(4):769–784.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Einhorn.

Additional information

Dieser Artikel ist Teil eines Forschungsprojekts, das die Autorin im Rahmen ihrer Dissertation am Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung in Köln durchgeführt hat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Einhorn, L. Meat consumption, classed?. Österreich Z Soziol 46, 125–146 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11614-021-00452-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11614-021-00452-1

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter