19 pages., Via online journal., This article discusses two main issues: the historical invisibility of the role of animal
agriculture in climate change and whether it is useful to include explicit violent images
or “moral shock” of farmed animals in environmental advocacy campaigns to fight
against climate change and environmental devastation. The claim will be explored
at two levels: ethical and strategic. According to the current literature available, it
will be argued that we have sound arguments to believe that using images of farmed
animal suffering (including explicit violent images and moral shocks) is both an ethical
and effective approach to reach the end of speciesist oppression and to mitigate
climate change.
18 pages., via online journal., Genetically modified (GM) foods have attracted a great deal of controversy. While some consumers and organizations regard GM foods as safe, many other consumers and organizations remain concerned about their potential health risks. The results of three studies suggest that consumers respond differently to persuasive messages regarding GM foods on the basis of their preexisting attitudes. Weak anti-GM consumers tend to comply with a variety of pro-GM messages. In contrast, strong anti-GM consumers exhibit message-opposing behavior. Moreover, they respond just as negatively to a safety message (claiming that GM foods are safe) as to a risk message (claiming that GM foods are unsafe). The mechanism underlying these effects is consumers’ perceived health risk. A benefit message claiming that GM foods are beneficial (e.g., more nutritious than their conventional counterparts) is a better alternative for strong anti-GM consumers. Finally, the results suggest that persuasive messages do not significantly change pro-GM consumers’ evaluations of these foods.
