Dairy is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter in animal agriculture and requires the killing of animals. Most people wish to avoid harming animals and the climate but also consume meat. Consumers subconsciously use coping strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance caused by this meat paradox. But is there also a dairy paradox? For this exploratory study, we used focus groups to investigate cognitive dissonance and coping strategies related to dairy consumption and compared these to coping strategies around meat. We found that dairy is framed much more positively than meat. However, the types of dairy-related coping strategies strongly overlap with those for meat. We conclude that dairy-related cognitive dissonance occurs, identify the dairy paradox, and three dairy-specific coping strategies: dairy is indirect, overwhelming, and, in summary, neglectable. We suggest adding a fifth N to the Ns of justification of meat consumption: natural, normal, necessary, nice; specifically for dairy: neglectable.
Kunze et al. (Mon,) studied this question.