Summary: New research from the University of Exeter shows that many people who avoid meat experience a genuine emotion of disgust toward animal flesh, not merely dislike. That disgust closely resembles the revulsion others feel toward universally taboo items such as human flesh, faeces, or dog meat. By contrast, foods commonly rejected among plant-based options—like beets, olives, or Brussels sprouts—are typically refused because of distaste: an aversion grounded in taste, texture, or smell rather than the deeper emotive response of disgust. The findings suggest distinct psychological and evolutionary roots for rejecting animal- versus plant-based foods, and indicate that deliberate reductions in meat consumption can strengthen disgust-based avoidance.
Key facts
- Disgust versus distaste: Rejection of meat is linked to disgust; rejection of many disliked vegetables is linked to distaste.
- Pathogen-avoidance hypothesis: Disgust toward meat may reflect an evolved strategy to reduce exposure to pathogens that are not detectable by taste.
- Behavioral reinforcement: Intentional meat avoidance appears able to amplify feelings of disgust, reinforcing the decision to avoid animal products.
Source: University of Exeter
Main findings
Researchers at the University of Exeter conducted an online study to explore whether different psychological mechanisms underlie rejection of animal-source foods versus plant-source foods. The study focused on differentiating distaste—an aversion to sensory qualities such as taste, smell, or texture—from disgust, a broader emotional response tied to what a food represents or implies.
The research sample consisted of 309 participants: 252 individuals who avoid meat and 57 omnivores. Participants viewed images of 11 items that included appetising meats (for omnivores), commonly disliked vegetables (for example, olives, Brussels sprouts, raw aubergine, and beetroot), and universally disgusting substances such as human flesh, dog meat, and faeces. For every item they said they would not eat, participants answered questions designed to measure whether that rejection was driven by distaste (for example, “I would dislike the taste, smell, or texture of this food”) or by disgust (for example, “I would dislike any dish which contained even the tiniest amount of this food, even if I could not taste, smell, feel, or see it”).
Across more than 1,200 rejection responses collected (557 rejections of meat and 670 rejections of vegetables), the results were consistent: disliked plant foods were rejected primarily because of distaste, while rejected meats produced response profiles that closely matched reactions to the universally disgusting items. In other words, the pattern of responses to meat among meat-avoiders resembled the disgust response that omnivores reported toward human flesh, faeces, and dog meat. Multidimensional analyses indicated that core disgust was the dominant dimension involved, with animal-reminder and moral disgust also contributing in some cases.
Interpretation and implications
The study’s authors argue that these distinct rejection mechanisms reflect different evolutionary pressures. Plant toxins are often detectable through sensory cues—bitter or unpleasant tastes—so distaste offers an effective barrier. By contrast, many pathogens in animal flesh are not detectable by taste, so a disgust response may have evolved to provide an additional layer of protection. Practically, the researchers suggest that understanding these emotional pathways could inform interventions aimed at reducing meat consumption or encouraging healthier, more sustainable diets.
Professor Natalia Lawrence of the University of Exeter commented that this is among the strongest evidence to date that meat and vegetables are rejected for different psychological reasons. She noted that finding meat disgusting can help people avoid it and that deliberate efforts to reduce meat intake—such as participating in campaigns like Veganuary—can strengthen feelings of disgust toward meat, reinforcing avoidance.
Lead author Dr Elisa Becker, who completed the work while at Exeter and is now at Oxford, highlighted that omnivores reacted to images of taboo substances in the same way vegetarians reacted to meat they found repellent. She and her colleagues conclude that the emotional basis for rejecting meat differs qualitatively from the sensory-based rejection of disliked plant foods.
About this research
Author: Louise Vennells
Source: University of Exeter
Contact: Louise Vennells – University of Exeter
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original research (open access):
“Disgust and Distaste – Differential mechanisms for the rejection of plant- and animal-source foods” by Natalia Lawrence et al., published in Appetite.
Abstract (summary)
Disgust and Distaste – Differential mechanisms for the rejection of plant- and animal-source foods
People reject foods either because of distaste—an aversion to undesirable sensory attributes—or because of disgust, an emotive reaction to what a food symbolizes or could represent. Disgust can be divided into subtypes (core, animal-reminder, moral), each potentially influencing food rejection. Previous work suggested differing mechanisms for plant and animal foods, so this study tested those distinctions in two samples: meat-rejecters (mostly vegetarians, n = 252) and omnivores (n = 57).
Participants rated foods they would not eat on items reflecting distaste and various disgust dimensions. Response profiles, correlation patterns, and multidimensional scaling revealed a clear separation: plant foods were rejected primarily on distaste grounds, whereas palatable meats that meat-avoiders rejected elicited responses that closely matched reactions to universally disgusting items. Core disgust emerged as the main disgust subtype, sometimes accompanied by animal-reminder or moral disgust.
These findings support the idea that distinct evolutionary strategies shaped human responses to plant toxins (detectable via taste) and to pathogens in meat (not detectable by taste). Understanding these mechanisms could help design interventions to reduce meat consumption or promote acceptance of plant-based foods.