North Americans love eating meat. Despite the increased awareness of the meat industry's harms–violence against animals, health problems, and associations with environmental degradation–the rate of meat eating hasn't changed significantly in recent years. Instead, what has emerged is an uncomfortable paradox: a need to square one's values with the behaviors that contradict those values.

Using an immense, one-of-a-kind dataset, Happy Meat explores the emotions that underpin our moral decision-making in this meat paradox. So-called conscientious meat-eaters use the notion of "happy meat" to rationalize their behaviors by adhering to ostensibly healthy, ethical, and sustainable ways to consume meat. Happy meat might be labeled grass fed, free-range, antibiotic free, naturally raised, or humane. The people who produce and consume it, together, make up the complex landscape of "conscientious" meat-eating in modern Western societies.

The discourse of happy meat ultimately may not be a sufficient response to the critiques of meat-eating, rife as it is with internal contradictions. However, the authors make the case for its cultural and theoretical importance, as it exemplifies the significance of social context and emotions for understanding attitudes and behaviors.