Nutrition

Almost every woman is her household's shopper and cook. She shops the sales, plans the week, and cooks to the tastes of the people at her table. At least 22 of the 56 women raised the cost of healthy food somewhere in their diaries without being asked, and their “cost” bundled money with time, energy and the risk that the family would not eat what she bought.

Heritage food, for many, is where love lives. The ads they remember are fast food, jingles and jokes; the healthy ads they imagined were about people sharing food, in every shape and color.

On plants, animals and climate, the women were open, and more honest than any campaign would dare to be. Most would try eating more plants, mostly for their health. Almost all love animals, and many cope with eating them by not looking. Almost everyone has felt the weather change; few connect it to their plate, except through prices.

Of 42 women, 15 said yes or that they are already moving that way, 10 said partly or maybe, and 17 said no. That openness rested mostly on health: how heavy meals make her family feel, a grandmother's illness, a wish for more energy.

Age divided the answers more clearly than community did. Ten of 15 women aged 45 to 54 said no, against 4 of 16 aged 25 to 34. Counting “yes” and “partly” together, openness was nearly level across the three communities.

The word “vegan” called up deprivation: “Crappy vegan food”, a life without cheese. Many women already use gentler words for what they do: “plant-based”, “flexitarian”, a meat-free breakfast sausage. One woman's experience is a caution for everyone who promotes plant-based eating: years ago, during an eating disorder she has since recovered from, veganism gave her an excuse to refuse food. Plant-forward messages should stay abundant, never restrictive.

These were women recruited for their interest in better health, writing in one week of November 2020. The diaries show openness; they cannot show what anyone went on to eat.

Asked what compassion for animals means, almost every woman answered with care: no cruelty, a good life, often a pet she loves. Asked how that relates to what she eats, the 42 women's answers fell into a few groups. Eleven said meat is acceptable if animals are raised and killed humanely. Eleven named the tension or the guilt plainly. Seven said they try not to think about it, and 8 saw animals as food. Four were already eating fewer animal products, partly for the animals.

Psychologists call this the meat paradox, and it is common everywhere, not a trait of any group of women. These women knew what they were doing. One said no one wants to know how the sausage is made. Asked why, she answered: “It would hold us accountable”.

One reading: the question itself did something that information might not have. Several women wrote that they kept thinking about it, and one that she would rather not answer at all. Whether that reflection lasted, the diaries cannot tell us.