sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ethics of eating meat, Horse meat

NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat in

Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

Abstract

This study aims to analyse the different cultural meanings attached to horsemeat consumption in the context of the Finnish market. We take the “ paradox” as a theoretical starting point and investigate the underlying cultural structures that guide consumers’ meaning-making and consumption decisions in regard to horsemeat. The data were generated after the horsemeat scandal, drawing on a wide variety of media texts about - meat consumption. The data were analysed through qualitative content analysis and the findings reveal five horsemeat paradoxes. Each paradox contains meanings that reflect both the justifications for and avoidance of eating horsemeat. The findings show how horsemeat consumption holds various and even contradictory meanings, elucidating how it may be difficult for consumers to take a stand towards eating horsemeat. Thereby, the study provides novel ideas for marketing that are grounded in our deep-rooted and ingrained cultural understandings.

Keywords: horsemeat, meat consumption, cultural meanings, marketing

Minna-Maarit Jaskari is a University Teacher of Marketing at the University of Vaasa, Finland Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Vaasa, Finland Henna Syrjälä is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Vaasa, Finland

86 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat...

1 Introduction ship between humans and food is not unanimous The current paper examines a particular marke- (Mennell 1996; Levi-Strauss 1997) and that people ting and consumption context, namely that of the are particularly ambivalent about eating meat (e.g. market for horsemeat in Finland. There are untap- Berndsen & van der Pligt 2004; Holm & Mohl 2000; ped opportunities in this market, as the supply Ruby & Heine 2012; Schröder & McEachern 2004). and demand simply do not match. This poses mar- To illustrate this, Buscemi (2014) has addressed keting challenges that are grounded in the varied how the idea of a living animal is often detached and contradictory culturally constructed and sha- from the situation in which meat is eaten. To pin- red meaning structures relating to horsemeat that point the contradictory of eating meat, guide consumers’ decisions on whether to eat it or Loughnan, Haslam and Bastian (2010) present the not. For instance, one of the meanings attached to concept of “the meat paradox”, referring to situ- in Finnish cultural history is that of a heroic ations where consumers simultaneously dislike warhorse. Furthermore, contemporary horse ent- hurting animals and like eating meat. However, husiasts have attachment-based pros and cons for it remains to be studied how a horse as a special eating horsemeat. This multiplicity of meanings kind of creature – one which oscillates between poses a challenge to horsemeat producers and the extremes of edible food and pet-like animal marketers; it may be difficult or even impossible to – and the meanings attached to it could be un- break these cultural norms and structures. There- derstood through the lenses of these discussions. fore it is important to acknowledge them in order Accordingly, the present study aims to grasp the to determine how to design marketing strategies underlying cultural structures that guide consum- that do not offend consumers, but instead corres- ers’ meaning-making and consumption decisions pond with their norms. in regard to horsemeat. Besides the multifarious traditional and his- The challenges of horsemeat marketing have torical meanings related to horsemeat, marketers been highlighted on many forums in Finland. For must also face a number of more recent chal- example, the Finnish trotting and breeding asso- lenges. Horsemeat consumption hit the news all ciation (Suomen Hippos), which promotes the around in 2013 as a result of the so-called marketing and consumption of horsemeat in Fin- horsemeat scandal. At that time, horsemeat was land, has given suggestions on how to develop its discovered in several meat products that were promotion. The association reports that attitudes labelled as (Gerrard 2013; O’Mahony 2013; towards eating horsemeat are becoming more Yamoah & Yawson 2014). The main products in positive. The group that has the most negative at- Finland were Findus Lasagne, IKEA and titudes towards eating horsemeat comprises teen , and Karelian Lihajaloste’s frozen . girls who have horses as their hobby. The associ- Consumers were furious for two different reasons. ation suggests two main streams to advance the First, they felt betrayed because they had not been Finnish horsemeat market. First, there is a need told the truth about what they had eaten. Second, to ensure the continuous availability of horses they were angered by the fact that it was horse- for . The second challenge is marketing meat; the very nature of horsemeat seemed to for consumers. (Suomen Hippos 2010.) However, evoke strong emotional reactions. despite the marketing efforts of Hippos, such as The scandal demonstrated how horsemeat con- publishing a recipe book for horsemeat, the mar- sumption involves more than meets the eye. The keting of horsemeat has not been successful in strong reactions among consumers and the media enhancing its consumption on a larger scale, and illustrate how many different, overlapping and its consumption has remained small compared even contradictory cultural meanings are associ- to beef, and (MMMTike 2014). It is ated with horses, horsemeat and its consumption. evident that the producers and marketers need to It is indeed well acknowledged that the relation- understand the variety of these different mean-

87 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

ings and how they affect beliefs, attitudes and be- sions; firstly, we lean on the vast amount of studies haviour towards horsemeat and its consumption. deliberating on the meanings related to eating Therefore, the current study aims to analyse the meat, and secondly, we draw on prior studies on different cultural meanings attached to eating horse- the various roles and meanings people attach to meat in the context of the Finnish market. To this domestic and companion animals. The choice end, we strive to reveal so-called horsemeat para- of these two debates is based on a profound jux- doxes in order to gain a novel understanding of taposition that is labelled as the “meat paradox”, the challenges faced in marketing horsemeat. We signifying people’s simultaneous love for animals conceptualise horsemeat paradoxes as consumers’ and love of eating them (Loughnan, Haslam & Bas- simultaneous dislike and like of eating horsemeat tian 2010; Rothberger & Mican 2014). The origins (cf. Loughnan, Haslam and Bastian 2010). The of the concept of the meat paradox can be linked paradoxes are deeply entwined in our cultural to postmodern consumer scholars in whose view meaning structures that create boundaries not consumption is characterised by paradoxes and only for how something constructs as an edible contradictions (Brown 1995; Firat & Venkatesh food and how certain foods are regarded as inedi- 1995). Mick and Fournier (1998, 124) have further ble (Levi-Strauss 1997) but also on social and more elaborated how a paradox centres on the idea that situational meanings that surround for example “polar opposite conditions can simultaneously moral viewpoints on eating meat (e.g. Berndsen & exist or at least can be potentiated in the same van der Pligt 2004; Bratanova, Loughnan & Bastian thing”. In the context of food, Leipämaa-Leskinen 2011). Thus, it is crucial for marketing practitioners (2009) has examined how daily food consump- to comprehend these underlying, and somewhat tion situations involve multiple contradictory unrecognised, paradoxes that guide consumers’ meanings. Leaning on these views, we focus on everyday meaning-making and consumption de- those situations where the meanings related to cisions in order to create ways to market and sell both the justifications for and avoidance of eating horsemeat. horsemeat are negotiated. Below, we first discuss This article proceeds as follows. First, we discuss what kinds of concerns consumers attach to meat the prior research on meanings related to meat consumption in general and after that we focus consumption, highlighting also the viewpoints on on the relationship between humans and animals human-animal relations. Second, we contextualise to shed further light on the meanings of eating the study by examining horsemeat markets and (horse) meat. marketing, especially in Finland but also world- It is acknowledged that humans, especially in wide. After that we motivate the use of media texts Western Europe, separate the thought of the living as a data source and describe our method of anal- animal from meat (Mennell 1996) and plenty of ysis. We then identify five horsemeat paradoxes food consumption discussions have explored the that illustrate the variety and contradictory nature moral concerns related to eating meat as well as of the meanings associated with horsemeat con- the ways of resolving the conflicts of meat con- sumption. Each of the paradoxes reflects both sides sumption (e.g. Berndsen & van der Pligt 2004; of the coin: the justifications for and the avoidance Bratanova, Loughnan & Bastian 2011; Schröder & of eating horsemeat. Finally, we construct novel McEachern 2004; Ruby & Heine 2012). Recently, suggestions for horsemeat marketing. Buscemi (2014) has shown how animal origins are detached from the stages of consumption, dis- tribution and preparation of meat and that even 2 The Paradox of in the production stage we can see the shift from farming animals to culturing meat. That is, those We build our understanding of horsemeat con- parts of the meat that are clearly parts of the ani- sumption on two intertwined scientific discus- mal, like heads, legs and tails, are eliminated from

88 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat...

situations in which consumers deal with meat. eat from the living animals (Ruby & Heine 2012). Consumers tend to justify their meat consump- It is acknowledged that people’s sensitivity to an- tion. This indicates that eating meat is regarded imals’ welfare influences their attitudes towards as a question of moral reasoning and full of emo- eating meat, leading them to more often favour tionally laden meanings. To illustrate, Holm and free-range and organic meat as well as avoid eat- Mohl (2000) reported that the comments made by ing meat (Hoogland, de Boer & Boersema 2005). Danish consumers in interviews regarding meat In line with this, those who believe that animals consumption were dominantly negative, Schröder share similar emotions with humans are more and McEachern (2004) found that female consum- often vegetarians and those with a greater child- ers in Scotland had unresolved conflicts in hood attachment to a pet report greater meat regard to ethical meat, and Roos, Prättälä and avoidance as adults (Rothberger & Mican 2014). Koski (2001) noted that Finnish men emphasised Therefore, the meanings people attach to dif- the role of in their diet, even though ferent animals undoubtedly have an influence on they included meat among their favourite foods. It how willing people are to eat them and the way is even argued that consumers de-animalise meat people classify animals (e.g. as pest, pet or food) consumption, as meat is often eaten without ref- has an impact on how they interact with them erence to its animal origins (Buscemi 2014; Vialles (Joy 2009). Accordingly, classifications and con- 1994). When looking more closely at the concerns tinuums in which all the animals are positioned that consumers have with regard to eating meat, have been created; on the one extreme, there are we can separate those that focus on the quality of the most human-like animals (like dogs) and on meat and issues from moral concerns that the other extreme there are those animals that focus on . are most likely to be objectified and eaten, such In regard to the quality of meat, on the one hand, as pigs or cows (Sahlins 1976; Hirschman 1994). In meat has traditionally held a central role in the this regard, food are most often attached to Western food culture (Holm & Mohl 2000). Meat animals that are closely associated with house and is privileged as a central part of meals (Douglas & home, such as cats and dogs in the Western cul- Nicod 1974) and it is considered to have high nu- ture (Fessler & Navarrete 2003). To illustrate, the tritional value (Ruby & Heine 2012). On the other classifications between various animals are related hand, in spite of these tendencies, even many of to issues such as whether the animal is allowed those consumers who are omnivores and eat meat to live inside, the restrictions placed on it inside regularly have critical concerns about meat. This the house (e.g. is it allowed to sleep in the bed), ambivalence is often related to health issues, as whether there is a certain place inside the house consumers tend to consider vegetarian food to that is regarded as dirty or clean, and whether the be healthier; recent meat crises and scandals have animal has been named (Hirschman 1994). also increased suspicions related to health risks The key here is the degree to which the ani- (Berndsen & van der Pligt 2004; Buscemi 2014). mal in question is anthropomorphised, mean- Secondly, quite often both the avoidance of ing the natural tendency people have to attach meat and justifications for eating meat revolve human features to non-human entities (Serpell around discussions about animal welfare. Consum- 1986; Hirschman 1994). Thus, due to anthropo- ers are concerned about the of eating meat, morphism, eating pets is a to most people about production, transportations and (Beck & Katcher 1983), as loving pet owners treat the origin of meat (McEachern & Schröder 2002), their pets more or less like people (Holbrook as contemporary consumers are out of touch with 2008, 550). The closer an animal is considered the realities of slaughtering and production of to be to humans, the less likely it is to get eaten, meat (Buscemi 2014), and even omnivorous con- and the most central boundary between a pet sumers tend to mentally separate the meat they and a production animal is based on whether the

89 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

animal is regarded as being appropriate for food 2009). For example, in France eating horsemeat (Hirschman 1994). Therefore, the way animals are has been historically a taboo and many unclean treated after their shows their role in hu- associations were attached to it, but these mean- mans’ lives; the corpses of more human-like ani- ings have evolved to a qualified approval of mals are disposed of in a similar fashion to those horsemeat (Gade 1976). On the contrary, in Italy, of humans (e.g. burial). horsemeat has traditionally been considered to be Interestingly, horses could be claimed to be in a healthy and nutritious food (Badiani et al. 1997) a unique intermediate position, simultaneously and the Italians consume the greatest amount of holding features of both a pet (and even of a hu- horsemeat in the EU (Martuzzi et al. 2001). Hence, man-like subject) and those of a production an- horsemeat consumption offers an interestingly imal. To open up the companion animal-related ambivalent and rather unexamined context to meanings further, a dichotomy may be discovered study the meanings that consumers attach to eat- in prior research: animals are regarded as either ing meat, and thereby it provides an opportunity human-like subjects/consumers or objects/prod- to create a novel understanding to resolve the ucts to be consumed (e.g. Beverland, Farrelly & challenges related to horsemeat marketing. Lim 2008; Brockman, Taylor & Brockman 2008; Hirschman 1994). When animals are viewed as subjects, they are experienced as, for example, 3 Horsemeat Markets friends or family members. On the other hand, when they are seen as objects to be consumed, In the following, we take a look at the specifics of animals are given the meanings of, for example, horsemeat markets in both the Finnish and glo- equipment for avocations, status symbols or bal contexts. To begin with, there seems to be a ornaments. Similarly, there have been debates split in consumers’ attitudes towards horsemeat about the humanity/naturalness of animals and consumption between English-speaking and their “place” in the dichotomies of nature/culture French-speaking regions of the world. Whereas and me/wilderness and inside/outside (e.g. Beck & the UK, US and respond to the eating Katcher 1983; Hirschman 1994; Serpell 1986; Tuan of horsemeat extremely negatively, the Fren- 1984; Wells 2002). The question of how agency is ch-speaking countries such as France, Belgium given to/taken away from animals has also been and francophone nowadays favour horse- analysed (Cheetham & McEachern 2012). However, meat consumption. The title of a Huffington Post Jyrinki (2010, 2012) proposes a dynamic and mul- article from 2013 summarises this cultural split: tidimensional way of approaching human-animal “ is taboo in UK but remains popular in relationships; thus, for instance, horse owners France and and Central ”. In this regard, may not have just one kind of relationship to the Finland can be seen to be situated somewhere horse, but may regard their horse simultaneously between these two extremes, as horsemeat has as a friend and as an equipment for an avocation, traditionally been eaten in Finland, although the and even as being appropriate for food. quantities have remained small. For example, in To date, only a few studies have focused on 2012 Finnish consumers ate on average 0.5 kg of horsemeat consumption but it stands to reason horsemeat (with bones) compared to total meat that there are great cultural variations in how consumption, 77.5 kg per person. Horsemeat con- consumers respond to eating horsemeat. There- sumption is on a par with lamb (0.7 kg) and rein- fore the viewpoints presented appear to be some- deer meat (0.5 kg). (MMMTike 2014.) The greatest what contradictory, as horses can be regarded as amount of horsemeat is used in . livestock, for instance from the point of view of The statistical report of Humane Society In- the horse industry, and also as companion ani- ternational (2012a; 2012b) reveals that the usage mals from the point of view of the public (Lenz of horsemeat for human consumption is highest

90 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat...

in , and Mexico. In Europe the 4 Methodology greatest horsemeat consumption takes place in The present data were generated in early 2013 Italy and Belgium. However, it has been shown onwards after the horsemeat scandal (Gerrard that even if horsemeat products are readily avail- 2013, Yamoah & Yawson 2014). After that, the able in Belgium, France and the Netherlands, this scandal and eating horsemeat were hot topics in does not necessarily translate into broad social the news, horse magazines and social media. This acceptance of eating horsemeat. Also relating to led us to focus on media texts that were collected horsemeat usage, it should be noted that not all from several sources, both printed and online. horsemeat is used for human consumption; most These texts included online news (such as Yle of it is utilised for feeding other animals. news from the Finnish Broadcasting Company) Furthermore, the Humane Society Interna- and their comment postings, Finnish horse maga- tional report (2012a) shows that China, Mexico, zines, online discussion forums, blogs and video Kazakhstan, and are the top postings. The online data generation was inspired horsemeat producers in the world, whereas in Eu- by the netnographic research tradition in which rope, the top horsemeat producer is Italy, followed for instance Web search engines are commonly by Poland, Spain and France. Most of the horses used for gathering data (Kozinets, 2002; Kozinets, are not bred for meat. However, at least in Mexico, Dolbec & Earley 2014). In this tradition, it is pro- breeding and herding for meat production is also posed that collecting online data with a research common. question in mind is akin to “purposive sampling” In Finland, 1800 of the 4000 horses that die an- (Lincoln & Guba 1985). In the current research, we nually are slaughtered. This amounts to around used search engines, employing key words that 520,000 kg of horsemeat. The rest of the con- we considered to be relevant to the present study, sumed meat, 2,500,000 kg, is imported from Can- such as horsemeat, horsemeat scandal, horsemeat ada, Mexico, and Argentina. At the begin- consumption, horse transportation and slaughter ning of the 21st century there were only one or two transportation. As expected, the data we found led in Finland that accepted horses, us to new data. To illustrate this snowball effect, and this led to challenges in transportation, ethi- examining the most obvious search words led us cal animal welfare and cost structure (Hevostalous to look for new search words, for instance “hor- lukuina 2013, MMMTike 2014). Nowadays there are semeat consumption” showed our way towards twelve slaughterhouses that accept horses. Finnish “horse transportation” and “slaughter transporta- horsemeat production is regulated and safe, yet tion” as they were so commonly discussed toget- there are great differences in attitudes towards her. In addition to the online data, we reviewed eating horsemeat, as revealed by the data of the two printed horse magazines: Hevosurheilu from current study. 2013 to the present and Hevosenomistaja from 2012 The marketing and promotion of horsemeat is to the present. However, only two articles discus- still in its infancy in Finland. The meat is mainly sed horsemeat consumption. available from regional butchers and at certain Altogether the focal data include a) 35 Finn- restaurants or it is used as an ingredient in sau- ish online news items discussing the horsemeat sages. Not all horsemeat is of domestic origin and scandal, production and consumption of horse- its availability is not constant in food stores. All in meat and their comment postings, b) threads in all, marketing efforts remain modest and local; seven Finnish online discussion forums that had to illustrate, horsemeat is not branded under any discussed horsemeat, and c) seven blog postings trademark in Finland, unlike reindeer meat, for in- and attached discussions, and d) two printed ar- stance, which has been branded and is available in ticles from Finnish horse magazines that specifi- food stores throughout Finland as well as through cally discussed horsemeat. A more detailed data internet shops such as tunturiporo.fi or deliporo.fi. description is presented in Appendix 1.

91 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

The postings were mainly published in Febru- media texts. In the first phase, the collected media ary 2013 when the horsemeat scandal was at its texts were read through several times and labelled height. Another peak in postings was around 2010, initially in a descriptive, emic-manner. Secondly, when Hippos promoted horsemeat consumption the initial descriptive chunks of data were merged by publishing a recipe booklet. However, some together and grouped into broader themes. Next, of the online material dates back to 2005. Thus, these themes were grouped together on the basis even though the data collection was timed in re- of similarities and differences in order to form lation to the horsemeat scandal, the data contain even more abstract, etic-level categories. On the meanings and events that go well beyond the basis of the analysis, we could identify five cul- actual timeframe of the scandal; after all, the cul- turally constructed and even contradictory cat- turally constructed meaning structures are tied to egories of horsemeat consumption. These five our heritage and shared understandings. That is, categories are depicted in the following sections the data include for example newspaper articles as horsemeat paradoxes, addressing their contra- on the history of horses as animals and people’s dictory contents. Each of the paradoxes contains reactions to eating horses, thereby situating the meanings that reflect both the justifications for horsemeat scandal in a wider cultural context. and avoidance of eating horsemeat, referring to Further, the focal data produced in the Finnish the simultaneous dislike and like of eating horse- media was complemented by media texts from meat. This emphasises the managerial relevance of the UK, USA, France and Australia, helping us to understanding how consumers may end up either situate and discuss the peculiarities of Finnish favouring or resisting horsemeat consumption. horsemeat consumption. This international ma- terial was collected less systematically as its role was to create understanding of the context and 5 Findings phenomenon. The collected media texts provide a vivid ac- The findings reveal five horsemeat paradoxes: count of a variety of horsemeat-related cultural Safe vs. Unsafe, Ethical vs. Unethical, Culinary De- meanings, and thus the scandal-related media licacy vs. Worthless Food, Sacred vs. Profane, and texts enabled us to collect the naturally produced Human-like vs. Animal-like. Below, each of the cultural talk to reveal these meanings of horse- paradoxes is elaborated and support is provided meat (Moisander & Valtonen 2006). Moreover, by verbatim quotations from the collected media the media texts demonstrate how different actors texts. – such as consumers, butchers, food producers, horse organisations and horse devotees – operat- 5.1 Safe vs. Unsafe ing in the horse markets responded to the scandal, Firstly, our findings highlight how people discuss thereby creating a normative and ideological un- and wonder about whether horsemeat is safe or derstanding surrounding the meanings of eating unsafe to eat. This paradox is closely tied to mea- horsemeat. In this way, we are able to explore how nings related to healthy eating. Worries about horse markets as a particular cultural production and health-related risks have been system predispose different actors in horse mar- pondered extensively in prior meat consumption kets towards certain kinds of thoughts and actions studies. Although meat still holds a central role (Arnould & Thompson 2005). in the Western diet, researchers such as Holm The data were analysed through qualitative and Mohl (2000) show that consumers not only content analysis (Miles & Huberman 1984). The often consider meat to be unhealthy (compared analysis revealed a multiplicity of culturally con- to vegetables, and fish) but also reflect on structed categories that were identified through the possible bacterial contamination and low an inductive analysis and iterative readings of the quality of meat. Further, modern production and

92 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat...

processing of meat are often connected to fears of 5.2 Ethical vs. Unethical different health-related risks (Buscemi 2014; Holm Secondly, our findings show how eating horse- & Mohl 2000). meat is described as an ethical choice on the one In the same vein, the current data show that hand, but also unethical on the other hand. This although some consumers have concerns about paradox revolves around whether a horse has lived horsemeat, there are also pros that favour its a life before slaughter and whether eating consumption. When horsemeat is regarded as it is ethically favourable or not. When horsemeat safe, it is seen as a nutritious and protein-rich was discussed as being ethical, it was assumed that food. For example, on a Finnish discussion forum the owners have loved and taken care of the horse, for weightlifters and bodybuilders, horsemeat is the horse has been fed well and it has been able appreciated for its high protein and low fat con- to live a normal horse’s life in a herd. To illustrate, tent, as this quotation shows: “... and apparently one Finnish forum poster explains: “Horse is one [horsemeat] is the best or at least almost the best as of the best ecological . Most horses get a long a protein source.” The data also reflect expert dis- and happy life. They run in the yard every day and are cussions (cf. Badiani et al. 1997; Gade 1976) about well cared for.” horsemeat, as the nutritional value of horsemeat Furthermore, the ethical discussion leans on and the recommendations on eating horsemeat in the domestic and local origin of horsemeat. To other countries, e.g. France, are referred to in an exemplify, one girl on a discussion forum writes: article in Hevosurheilu magazine. In this way, the “Horsemeat is really good. It is a pity that it is so diffi- current media talk relies on factual information cult to find domestic meat. I don’t want to buy foreign when safety-related meanings are used to evalu- meat for ethical reasons. European slaughter transpor- ate whether horsemeat is edible or not (cf. Ruby tation is extremely brutal and cruel. I don’t want to & Heine 2012). have anything to do with those people. Finnish horse- However, the current data also demonstrate meat tastes good, even to horse lovers.” This apprecia- that horsemeat is seen as unsafe to eat. In these tion is in line with contemporary attitudes on food cases horsemeat is believed to contain something in general; the domestic origin of food is highly that may be harmful to one’s health, such as bac- valued in Finland (Jutila 2014). However, when it teria, allergens or drug residues. Someone argues comes to actual purchasing habits, consumers are in a Finnish discussion forum: “How do you know still not very committed to buying local or organic what kind of horsemeat you’re eating? Most of the meat, as also indicated in the study by McEachern horses are doped with and unfit for human and Schröder (2002) concerning organic meat consumption. I wouldn’t eat Romanian horsemeat, es- consumption in Scotland. pecially if it has been sold as beef.” This demonstrates While addressing the importance of domes- doubts that relate especially to racing horses and tic horsemeat, the quote above also shows how the risks of drug or steroid residues. Talk about the origin of horsemeat may be a source of un- these kinds of risks is especially relevant to horses, ethical meanings. These cultural meanings are as the production of more commonly consumed highlighted in discussions referring to the living meats, such as pork and beef, is more systematic conditions of horses and the slaughter transpor- and regulated. Therefore, the meanings of un- tation of horses. Accordingly, the data reveal how safeness may be evoked by uncertainties related it is argued that racehorses may live very harsh to the origin of horsemeat. This is aligned with lives, where trainers and owners push them be- the “omnivore’s dilemma” discussed by Ruby and yond their limits until they are hurt and injured, Heine (2012), who show that humans tend to have and ended up being slaughtered. A video posted feelings of ambivalence about eating unfamiliar by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of An- animals because there is a higher risk of eating imals) is described as “an undercover investigation harmful substances. published as a youtube video in 2014 revealing chronic

93 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

misuse of drugs, reportedly to enhance horses’ perfor- horsemeat can be seen as a culinary , as mance and mask their injuries in American galloping illustrated by a quotation from a discussion forum industry.” for weightlifters and bodybuilders: “Last weekend Further, the data show quotations debating I had horsemeat for the first time and it was really about the living conditions of horses kept as pets. good. My friend had made a roast out of horsemeat in A journalist interested in meat production in a cooking pit. Maybe a little chewier than beef, but ot- Finland argues on her online blog: “In Finland the herwise delicious.” Horsemeat is further described animal welfare problems with horses have to do with as tasting a lot like beef, but more tender, sweet them staying in their small pens without other horses and similar to , indicating that new flavours for companionship. Many are left without proper phys- need to be categorised in terms of familiar dishes. ical exercise because their owners don’t have the time The gourmet aspect is also emphasised in the to ride. Other problems include incorrect surroundings arguments of a Finnish meat producer, who says and feeding.” Indeed, prior research indicates that that horsemeat is a traditional ingredient in their loving pet owners are expected to take good care sausages and one that they have used for 75 years. of their animals (e.g. Holbrook 2008). He describes one of their special products: “It is a Finally, discussions of so-called slaughter product that is decades old, it has won awards from transportations focused on their unethical as- abroad and it has always included horsemeat. We pects. European slaughter transportations in par- have discovered that horsemeat gives our products a ticular came under criticism on Finnish discussion better taste, so we are not going to give it up.” Horse- forums, as exemplified by this quote:“Slaughter meat dishes indeed appear to be culinary treats in transportations in Central and Southern Europe different parts of the world and are discussed viv- are complete , brutal and sick. For idly across the data. A Finnish forum poster tells: centuries a horse has been man’s servant and that is “During my stays in Japan I had a lot of horsemeat. The why it needs to be treated humanely until its death. A best was basashi, which is made of horsemeat. horse is a wise and intelligent animal. It feels horror, In other words, raw horsemeat.” For a comparison, a pain and when subjected to cruel treatment Sardinian blogger describes the different cultural by humans. Can its meat be more that stressed after traditions in Italy: “In Italy horsemeat is popular only this? This all has been done because of greed and in a few regions… In , eating horsemeat is as maximum profit. Unfortunately other animals have natural as eating a 14 oz beef . It’s on all the res- the same destiny. Long live local food!” This is aligned taurant menus, in the shops and in all large with previous studies that have addressed how supermarkets across the island.” consumers criticise and doubt the humanity of The data also contain recipes for preparing and livestock transportations, but often these negative cooking horsemeat. Yle online news gave advice attitudes do not influence actual meat purchases on how to prepare horsemeat: “cook it as you would (Schröder & McEachern 2004). cook beef.” This was accompanied by several online comments about cooking horsemeat as well as a 5.3 Culinary Delicacy vs. Worthless Food recipe booklet published by the Finnish trotting Thirdly, the current data show how horsemeat and breeding association containing recipes for could be positioned as a culinary delicacy, but also several horsemeat dishes. Consequently, the data as a worthless food, pointing out the sharp dis- show how some people consider certain aspects tinction between high-quality food and inedible of the discussion around the horsemeat scandal or low-quality raw material. Meat is generally re- as absurd – “horsemeat always beats beef ” – and garded as an important part of the diet (Holm & further explain how horsemeat improves the Mohl 2000). In the Finnish context, Finnish men quality of lasagne. Maybe somewhat surprisingly, have been found to favour meat because of its the horsemeat scandal actually resulted in an good taste (Roos, Prättälä & Koski 2001). Similarly, increase in horsemeat consumption in Finland.

94 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat...

Some people were eagerly looking to add horse- ate horses – but they stopped doing so after the war.” meat to their diet, as shown by Yle news headlines: An Italian blog writer describes how horsemeat “Horsemeat is on the up and up” and “Gourmets have has been called “a poor man’s food” in Italy. Thus, found horsemeat again”. One butcher explains in horsemeat can connote meanings of low quality the news: “This fuss has had a minor effect [on selling and being unworthy of eating when there is better horsemeat], in a positive manner. Many people have meat available. remembered that there is also horsemeat available. The worthlessness of horsemeat comes up even Horsemeat sausage sells especially well.” Moreover, more strikingly in historical writings (Egardt 1962; the data include many comments in which Finnish Shuurman & Leinonen 2012) that talk about how consumers discuss how difficult it is to get lean horsemeat was seen to contaminate other foods. horsemeat from supermarkets. Yle, for instance, Hevosurheilu writes: “After slaughtering, the horse- reports an interview with a grandmother, whose meat was not to be stored together with other meat grandson is attracted to horsemeat: “Every time I products. Sometimes, if some horsemeat had been take him to the marketplace with me, he asks me to even close to other meats, those other meats were not buy horsemeat for him.” to be used for human consumption as it was feared The data also reveal how the meanings of that horsemeat had contaminated them.” These as- horsemeat as a culinary treat are contested by sociations of contamination have both factual the meanings associating horsemeat as worthless groundings as more recent studies (e.g. Boireau food. Prior meat consumption studies have shown et al. 2000; Gill 2005) have brought up not only that consumers may escape the “meat paradox” by the risk that horsemeat contains pathogens and perceiving the animals they eat as being unwor- parasites such as salmonella and trichinella, thy and unfeeling (Loughnan, Haslam & Bastian but also more emotionally laden meanings that 2010). However, the meanings of worthlessness denote the cultural construction of what food is constructed differently in the current context, regarded as being worth eating and what not (e.g. namely through the distribution of horsemeat. In Levi-Strauss 1997). these cases, horsemeat was seen as suitable only for poor people who cannot afford to buy “better” 5.4 Sacred vs. Profane meat. Yle news described how packages of Findus Fourthly, the current data demonstrate how ea- lasagne were recalled from the market because ting horsemeat reflects both sacred and profane horsemeat was found in the products. However, meanings. The sacredness of horsemeat is tied to as the food itself was not of low quality or rotten, it the historical, religious and even mythical mea- was donated to homeless people. The news report nings attached to horses as animals. The magazine also featured comments from poor people: “For the articles in the current data include varied discus- poor, it is good. We are not picky.” This exemplifies sions about the religious regulations related to how the cultural meanings of horsemeat are pro- horsemeat, reflecting prior historical studies on duced and reproduced through social interaction horses and their roles in culture and society (Gade and how the value of horsemeat is constructed in 1976; Egardt 1962). These media texts address how a unique way in this particular context. horseflesh has been avoided by Hindus, Buddhists, Regarding horsemeat as a worthless food also , Muslims and Christians, who follow closely has historical roots, as horsemeat has been eaten the rules of their religion or cultural prejudices. during tough economic times in different parts of To illustrate, Hevosurheilu magazine elaborates the the world. For example in Finland, horsemeat was development of the banning of horsemeat based eaten during wartime when there was no other on the spread of in Europe. Further, it meat available for soldiers (Schuurman & Lei- argues that the negative attitude in Christianity to- nonen 2012). This was common elsewhere as well. wards horsemeat goes back to the fourth century As Hevosurheilu writes: “during the war, the Brits also A.D., but it was not until 732 that Pope Gregory III

95 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

specifically forbid Christians from eating it. This that we should eat everything that is good for eating, is in line with prior discussions acknowledging we have to use it. Why should we bury meat into the that religion has a strong influence on what is ground or somewhere else? Of course we should utilise eaten and not eaten (Buscemi 2014). In Finland, it. I know a lot of horse enthusiasts who eat horsemeat the sacredness of horses is also culturally based and think it is quite natural to do so.” on folk tales in which a horse is born in the sacred Moreover, the meanings of profane food can grove where ancestors lived. The horse was seen been found in those texts that address how horse- as a mediator between two worlds: those of the meat is clearly cheaper than beef. Maaseudun living and the dead. (Shuurman & Leinonen 2012.) Tulevaisuus informs: “At Reinin Liha, the horsemeat The current data further highlight how horses is almost half the price of beef.” Its cheaper price have special roles in the history of Finland. Espe- is also a common topic on several discussion cially, the attitudes towards Finnish warhorses forums where consumers share tips on where to express the valuable and even iconic status of buy horsemeat, as the discussion chain below ex- horses. For instance, Helsingin Sanomat writes: emplifies: “If someone mocked a club-footed horse, they would “...my grocery store often sells horsemeat for change their attitude when they learnt that the horse EUR 1.99 and I buy and freeze it.” had been in the war.” The newspaper story describes “Where can you get it so cheap?” how warhorses were only eaten when they were “Close to Turku. At least the local Prisma has too sick or wounded to continue serving on the locally produced horsemeat and it is almost front in spite of their heroic status. This was con- always on sale for EUR 1.99.” sidered to be the horse’s last service to the father- Indeed, horsemeat can be described as meat that land. Still, horses gained as loot from the enemy everyone can afford and use even on an everyday were easier to eat than own horses. These sorts of basis. Also generally, consumers tend to focus on historically constructed associations about horses cheap prices in their mundane food consumption and eating them still live on in the Finnish cultural (Leipämaa-Leskinen 2009). heritage, contributing to contemporary consum- ers’ consumption and meaning-making. 5.5 Human-like vs. Animal-like On the other hand, horsemeat has profane Lastly, we discovered how eating horsemeat was meanings, as a horse is also depicted as a living grounded on understandings about the ways creature that eventually ends up dead. Here, people regard the roles of horses in their pre- horses construct as inferior to humans, and are sent daily lives. The most prominent divide here to be aligned metaphorically with nature and is in the extent to which people anthropomor- otherness (Beck & Katcher 1983; Hirschman 1994; phise horses (Beck & Katcher 1983; Serpell 1986; Serpell 1986). Hence, eating of horsemeat repre- Hirschman 1994): on the one extreme as almost sents a way of classifying species in relation to human-like inedible subjects, whose eating would each other, situating humans on top of the other resemble cannibalism, and on the other, horses species. Therefore a horse can be seen as an object are seen (and in most cases loved) as animal-like that is naturally consumed as a good-quality, or- creatures that are a part of nature and as such dinary, and mundane food. edible. In Finland horsemeat is an everyday ingredi- Thus, our findings first highlight that for many ent mainly in , a -type sausage, people horses represent a close companion rather as one forum poster explains on a teenage forum: than livestock. Indeed, a strong argument against “Healthy horses are used for sausage. Rye bread with eating horsemeat is experiencing the horse as a mettwurst, cucumber and tomato is good food. Yum.” friend with many anthropomorphised qualities Further, one butcher wonders on the online news (Hirschman 1994; Serpell 1986). The horse is par- how we can bury edible food: “Personally I think alleled to a loved companion who does not belong

96 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat...

on anyone’s plate (Beck & Katcher 1983; Ruby & horses, sheep, pigs… why should horses be any more Heine 2012; Rothberger & Mican 2014). As one Yle disgusting than the others? Such knee-jerk reactions news headline states: “Horsemeat divides feelings are always worthy of close inspection.” Someone else also in Finland – who would eat a pet?” and another replied: “Why? Because we don’t raise our horses for one in Helsingin Sanomat emphasises: “You don’t food. Horses are considered to be companion animals eat a friend”. In these texts, eating horsemeat is and we don’t eat our companions.” considered to be almost similar to eating hu- On the other hand, sometimes even horse lov- mans, a friend or a family member. A journalist ers end up eating horsemeat, as one of the many in Hevosurheilu comments: “Many horsemen that Finnish forum posters explains: “I could eat horse- I know tell that they could eat horsemeat, but eating meat (and have eaten), even though I do horse riding.” a horse that you’ve known feels disgusting. Or even a Those who favour eating horses offer essentially horse that has had a name, as one horseman explained the same argument as those who reject eating last weekend.” Indeed, Hirschman (1994) sees the horses: they do it out of love. This is how one naming of animals as one of the main ways of an- famous rider in Finland argues for eating horse- thropomorphising animals, making them close to meat: “We horse lovers have an obligation to ensure humankind and less likely to get eaten. that our hardworking friends do not have to suffer. If So, different animals may be classified in re- you are a real friend of animals, you should eat domes- lation to their similarity to humans and their tic and organic meat, and not meat that is produced vulnerability to being eaten (Hirschman 1994; in intensive production units or meat that comes from Sahlins 1976); however it seems that horses may those animals that are abused by long slaughter trans- also be situated in a position where they are not portations. Moreover, horsemeat tastes good.” The seen as human-like subjects, but still as subjects interpretation here is that eating horsemeat is a of their own, animals that are capable of sensing right and proper way to treat animals after their and feeling (Jyrinki 2010). Here, our data demon- death, and is considered as a last service for the strate that horses are regarded as animals that horse, indicating a metaphorical way of relating possess sensitivity, mental capacities and a capa- animals to nature. bility for suffering (Loughnan, Haslam & Bastian 2010), and therefore hurting and eating them is perceived to be wrong. One poster on a Finnish 6 Conclusions and Implications for online forum explains: “For me, eating horsemeat Marketing would feel wrong, like what most Finns would feel about eating a dog or a cat. I have lived with horses The current study has shown how horsemeat and ever since I was a child. For me they are soulful ani- its consumption hold various and even contradic- mals and friends, not food.” Similarly, one Finnish tory meanings that we have labelled as horsemeat blog writer explains the contradictory emotions paradoxes: Safe vs. Unsafe, Ethical vs. Unethical, towards eating horsemeat in the following way: Culinary Delicacy vs. Worthless Food, Sacred vs. “Horsemeat is lot more ethical than beef or pork, but Profane, and Human-like vs. Animal-like. Indeed, still I can’t or don’t want to eat it. It is similar to eating the present analysis has shed light on how it may your pet. That would be ethical, but the human mind be difficult for consumers to take a stand towards is weird.” This showcases how humans may have eating horsemeat. Thus, those who promote hor- difficulties with situating horses in relation to semeat need to understand these different stand­ other animals, as horses sometimes appear to be points in order to develop products and design situated simultaneously among pets and among concepts that will succeed in the marketplace. production animals (cf. Jyrinki 2012, 2010). A Especially, our analysis has leaned on creating a similar debate is discovered on an international novel understanding of the culturally constructed online forum, where a poster writes: “Cows, goats, meanings and contradictions in relation to horses

97 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

and horsemeat consumption. In this manner, the (Beck & Katcher 1983; Fessler & Navarrete 2003). cultural lenses give us a way to understand the Further, the sacredness of horsemeat due to his- underlying meaning structures that are tied to torical traditions, myths and religious meanings consumers’ experiences of whether or not to eat related to horses makes its meat a unique context horsemeat. Thus, the horsemeat paradoxes are of consumption (Schuurman & Leinonen 2012). non-exclusive and overlapping, permeating our As a sharp contrast, the current data also demon- cultural understandings of meanings related to strated how horsemeat could be seen as worthless horsemeat. Accordingly, instead of creating any meat that is suited only for poor people or during orthodox and traditional suggestions for marke- tough economic times. ting and selling, such as following price competi- On the basis of all the five horsemeat paradoxes, tion or leaning on flamboyant advertisements, the we suggest that marketing professionals can use current study aims to create ideas for marketing this versatile cultural knowledge in several ways. concepts that are grounded on our deep-rooted First, the paradoxes reveal a variety of horsemeat-fa- and ingrained cultural understandings. vouring meaning structures that marketers could em- We can conclude firstly that some of the mean- ploy when developing their strategies. Examples from ings attached to horsemeat consumption appear the data state that gourmet, health-oriented and to be rather similar to those attached to the con- responsibility-driven concepts could gain interest sumption of more familiar meats, such as beef among contemporary consumers. Thus, there is and pork. These meanings relate to discussions potential for new product development. There is about the ethicality of meat production, transpor- a market gap for instance for high-end gourmet tation distances and slaughtering circumstances horsemeat products such as filet mignon or cul- (Schröder & McEachern 2004). In this regard, turally oriented horsemeat products including discussions about horsemeat are comparable to Italian veronese made of horse rump, Japanese those about general concerns over animal welfare basashi made of horse loin or the Kazakh delicacy (Hoogland, de Boer & Boersema 2005). Moreover, zhai, made of smoked and dried fat from under the meanings of what constitutes a gourmet meal the mane. Further, as health-related values are in- seem to be transferable to other meat consump- creasingly important for Finnish consumers, the tion situations, as meat is generally described as a high nutrition, low fat and high protein content of tasty food that has traditionally held the highest horsemeat offer new market opportunities. More- status in the hierarchy of foods (Holm & Mohl over, the growing number of consumers looking 2000; Roos, Prättälä & Koski 2001). for responsible solutions should be informed of However, the current findings also highlight the local and domestic origins of horsemeat. cultural meanings that seem to apply solely to Second, it is necessary to understand that there horsemeat. In this specific context, health-related are consumers who will avoid eating horsemeat for risks were discussed in terms of the paradox of different reasons, whether due to love of horses, ethi- safe-unsafe, which may derive from the unfamiliar cal or safety concerns, and/or deeply-rooted meanings nature of horsemeat in comparison to other more of the sacredness of horses. Thus, when horsemeat common meat varieties (Ruby & Heine 2012; Fes- is used as an ingredient, the product packaging sler & Navarrete 2003). These sceptical meanings should make this transparently clear. Reliable and are partly grounded on the very nature of a horse visible clear labelling creates value for meat con- as an animal, oscillating between a human-like, sumers (Schröder & McEachern 2004) and helps inedible subject and an object to be consumed consumers to the producers. Naturally, this (Jyrinki 2010; Hirschman 1994; Sahlins 1976). The information is also helpful to those consumers current data showed how many people see a horse who are looking for horsemeat. In a similar spirit, as a friend rather than livestock (Jyrinki 2012), and contamination through drugs may produce chal- therefore the eating of horsemeat may be taboo lenges for marketing horsemeat, as it appears to

98 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat...

be one of the grounds for resisting the eating of As this is the first study to tackle the challenges horsemeat. In order to overcome this, any drugs of horsemeat marketing in Finland, it opens up given to the horses need to be openly reported several as-yet unexamined research avenues for and thoroughly registered, and meat for human the future. Finland provides an interesting inter- consumption must be tested. mediate position between the English cultural Third, the horsemeat producers must not overlook context that is mostly against eating horsemeat ethical considerations concerning horse slaughtering. and French/Italian cultural context where horse- The transportation distances should meet ethical meat is more appreciated. Therefore, studying standards and animal welfare during transporta- these more extreme contexts could provide a tion and slaughtering must be humane. Several deeper understanding of the reasons behind studies on meat consumption have shown that horsemeat consumption and also shed further consumers – including omnivores – do ponder the light on the Finnish setting. Moreover, we suggest of eating meat, and may find it difficult to investigating these multifarious contexts using a connect the meat on their plate with its animal or- variety of methodological tools to gain an even igin (Buscemi 2014; Berndsen & van der Pligt 2004; more comprehensive picture of the horsemeat Loughnan, Haslam & Bastian 2010). It is also ac- markets. For instance, following consumers in knowledged that animal welfare is an increasing their everyday buying and cooking situations and moral concern among consumers (Hoogland, de practices would open up novel paths for research Boer & Boersema 2005). Therefore, ensuring that that the current study has only touched on. In the horse has a good life – and even a local origin conclusion, we hope that the current investigation –may produce value for consumers. will be richly elaborated in future studies.

References Arnould, E. J. & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Consumer Research 31:March, 868–882. Badiani, A., Nanni, N., Gatta, P. P., Tolonelli, B. & Manfredini, M. (1997). Nutrient Profile of Horsemeat. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 10, 254–269. Beck, A. M. & Katcher, A. H. (1983). Between Pets and People. The Importance of Animal Companionship. New York: Putnam. Berndsen, M. & Van Der Pligt, J. (2004). Ambivalence towards Meat. Appetite 42:1, 71–78. Beverland, M. B., Farrelly, F., & Lim, E. A. C. (2008). Exploring the Dark Side of Pet Ownership: Status- and Control-Based Pet Consumption. Journal of Business Research 61:5, 490–496. Boireau, P., Vallée, I., Roman, T., Perret, C., Mingyuan, L., Gamble, H. R. & Gajadhar, A. (2000). Trich- inella in horses: a low frequency infection with high human risk. Veterinary Parasitology 93:3–4, 309–320. Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S. & Bastian, B. (2011). The Effect of Categorization as Food on the Perceived Moral Standing of Animals. Appetite 57:1, 193–196. Brockman, B. K., Taylor, V. A. & Brockman, C. M. (2008). The Price of Unconditional Love: Consumer Decision Making for High-Dollar Veterinary Care. Journal of Business Research 61:5, 397–405. Brown, S. (1995). Postmodern Marketing. London: Routledge. Buscemi, F. (2014). From Killing Cows to Culturing Meat. British Food Journal 116:6, 952–964.

99 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

Cheetham, F. & Mceachern, M. (2012). Extending Holt’s Consuming Typology to Encompass Sub- ject-Subject Relations in Consumption: Lessons from Pet Ownership. Consumption, Markets & Culture 16:1, 91–115. Douglas, M. & Nicod, M. (1974). Taking the Biscuit: The Structure of British Meals. New Society 19, 744–747. Egardt, B. (1962). Hästlakt och rackarskam: en etnologisk undersökning av folkliga fördomar. Nordiska Museet. Fessler, D. M. T. & Navarrete, C. D. (2003). Meat Is Good to Taboo. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3:1, 1–40. Firat, A. F. & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consump- tion. Journal of Consumer Research 22, 239–267. Gade, D. W. (1976). Horse meat as human food in France. of Food and Nutrition 5:1, 1–11. Gerrard, N. (2013). The European scale of the horse meat scandal. Caterer and Hotelkeeper 22: February 2013. Gill, C. O. (2005). Safety and storage stability of horse meat for human consumption. 71:3, 506–513. Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and Their Animal Companions. Journal of Consumer Research 20:March, 616–632. Hevostalous Lukuina 2013 (2014). Hippolis ry, Suomen Hippos ry, Suomen ratsastajainliitto ry and MTT Hevostalous. Holbrook, M. B. (2008). Pets and people: companions in commerce? Journal of Business Research 61:5, 546–552. Holm, L. & Mohl, M. (2000). The Role of Meat in Everyday Food Culture: An Analysis of an Interview Study in Copenhagen. Appetite 34:3, 277–283. Hoogland, C., De Boer, J. & Boersma, J. (2005). Transparency of the Meat Chain in the Light of Food Culture and History. Appetite 45:1, 15–23. Humane Society International (2012a). Facts and figures on the EU horsemeat trade. Available at http://www.hsi.org/ Humane Society International (2012b). An investigation into the availability of horsemeat in Bel- gium, France and the Netherlands. Available at http://www.hsi.org/ Joy, M. (2009). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. An Introduction to . San Francisco: Conari Press. Jutila, K. (2014). Kotimaista arvostetaan, ympäristötekoja kaivataan. Tutkimus suomalaisten ruoka- ja maatalousasenteista. Ajatuspaja e2. Jyrinki, H. (2012). Pet-Related Consumption as a Consumer Identity Constructor. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:1, 114–120. Jyrinki, H. (2010). Lemmikinomistajan monet kasvot - Moniparadigmainen tutkimus kuluttajasubjektista lemmikkeihin liittyvässä kuluttamisessa. Vaasan yliopisto. Acta Wasaensia 224. Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in on- line communities. Journal of Marketing Research 39, 61–72. Kozinets, R. V. Dolbec, P.Y., & Earley, A. (2014). Netnographic Analysis: Understanding culture through social media data. In Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage: London. Leipämaa-Leskinen, H. (2009). Kuluttajat ristiriitojen maailmassa – Esseitä ruoan kuluttamisen haas- teista. Vaasan yliopisto. Acta Wasaensia 203. Lenz, T. R. (2009). The Unwanted Horse in the : An Overview of the Issue. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 29:5, 253–258.

100 NJB Vol. 64, No.2 (Summer 2015) Revealing the paradoxes of horsemeat – The challenges of marketing horsemeat...

Levi-Strauss, C. (1997). The Culinary Triangle. In Food and Culture: A Reader, ed. Counihan Carole and van Esterik Penny, London: Routledge, 28–35. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N. & Bastian, B. (2010). The Role of Meat Consumption in the of Moral Status and Mind to Meat Animals. Appetite 55:1, 156–159. Martuzzi, F., Sussi, C. & Catalano, A. L. (2001). Horse meat production and consumption in Italy. Book of Abstracts of the 52nd Annual Meeting of European Association for Animal Production 7: 323. Mceachern, M. & Schröder, M. J. A. (2002). The Role of Livestock Production Ethics in Consumer Va- lues Towards Meat. Journal of Agricultural and 15:2, 221–237. Mennell, S. (1996). All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Mick, D. G. & Fournier, S. (1998). Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions and Coping Strategies. Journal of Consumer Research 25, 123–143. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. MMMTIKE (2014). Hevosenlihantuotanto vuosittain 1990 – 2013. Available online: www.maataloustilas- tot.fi. Moisander, J. & Valtonen, A. (2006). Qualitative Marketing Research: A Cultural Approach. London: Sage. O’Mahony, P. J. (2013). Finding horse meat in beef products – a global problem. QJM 106:6, 595–597. Roos, G., Prättälä, R. & Koski, K. (2001). Men, Masculinity and Food: Interviews with Finnish Carpen- ters and Engineers. Appetite 37:1, 47–56. Rothgerber, H. & Mican, F. (2014). Childhood pet ownership, attachment to pets, and subsequent meat avoidance. The mediating role of empathy towards animals. Appetite 79:August, 11–17. Ruby, M. B. & Heine, S. J. (2012). Too Close to Home: Factors Predicting Meat Avoidance. Appetite 59:1, 47–52. Sahlins, M. (1976). Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Schuurman, N. & Leinonen, R.-M. (2012). The Death of the Horse: Transforming Conceptions and Practices in Finland. Humanimalia 4(1), Available online: http://www.depauw.edu/ humanimalia/ issue%2007/schuurman-leinonen.html Schröder, M. J. A. & Mceachern, M. (2004). Consumers’ Value Conflicts Surrounding Ethical Food Purchase Decisions: A Focus on Animal Welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28:2, 168–177. Serpell, J. (1986). In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships. New York: Basil Blackwell. Suomen Hippos (2010). Hevosenlihan markkinoiden tehostaminen. Hankkeen loppuraportti. Tuan, Y. (1984). Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Vialles, N. (1994). Animals to Edible. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA. Wells, K. (2002). Reconfiguring the Radical Other. Urban Children’s Consumption Practices and the Nature/Culture Divide. Journal of Consumer Culture 2:3, 291–315. Yamoah, F. A. & Yawson, D. E. (2014). Assessing Supermarket Food Shopper Reaction to Horsemeat Scandal in the UK. International Review of Management and Marketing 4:2 98–107.

101 NJB Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer 2015) Minna-Maarit Jaskari, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

Appendix .

102