Introduction

A sustainable food production system recognizes the importance of environmental sustainability, the need to be economically viable, and assures that the system is socially acceptable (von Keyserlingk et al. 2013). The economic viability of the dairy industry has been, and continues to be, a focus of research (Bórawski et al. 2020; Santarossa et al. 2004), and questions concerning the impact of livestock production on global warming have led to a dramatic increase in our understanding of the environmental impact of dairy production (see Holden 2020). However, to be sustainable in the long term, farming practices must also be socially acceptable. Thus, research centered on understanding evolving public views on food production methods must not be overlooked (Weary et al. 2016).

The concept of a ‘social license to operate’ originated in the mining industry (Cooney 2017) and relates to an industry being seen as having the broad acceptance of society to conduct its activities (Gehman et al. 2017). It follows that if the maintenance of social license depends on broad acceptance or conformance with societal norms (Gavrilets et al. 2024), then as societal values evolve and societal norms shift, social license may be gradually eroded. That is unless, as in the case of animal agriculture, livestock industries ensure their practices evolve in line with changing public values.

Western society has long emphasised the production of large amounts of good-quality food at low cost. This has been achieved through specialization and scaling up of production, largely driven by values associated with food safety and food security (Bruijnis et al. 2015). However, what was not central to the discussions that led to the design of most modern food production systems were the moral values of citizens. Arguably, this has led to many common agricultural production practices falling out of step with public values, including issues relating to the environment (Ammann et al. 2023) and the care of food production animals (Weary et al. 2016).

There is some evidence that public attitudes do not always lead to consumer purchasing behaviors that align with beliefs (environmental issues, Pickett-Baker and Ozaki 2008; Rokka and Uusitalo 2008; animal welfare issues, Hyland et al. 2022). It is also recognized that purchasing decisions are confounded by a myriad of other attributes such as price, perceived brand quality, past experiences, functionality, ease of acquisition, and environmental impact, amongst others (Jones et al. 2017). Failure to show strong alignment between consumer purchasing behaviors and public values has resulted in some farmers arguing that they do not need to be concerned about this disconnect (Burton et al. 2008). However, failure to engage in discussions about how dairy products are produced may explain the trend for increased sales in alternative milk products (Janssen et al. 2016). Key reasons cited for this change in purchasing behavior are increased sensitives around the environmental impact of dairy production and the quality of life led by dairy cattle (Haas et al. 2019).

Citizens have the power to impact the economic viability of an animal industry through the decisions they make when buying food. It is therefore imperative to understand public views if the animal industries are to remain viable in the long term (Weary and von Keyserlingk 2017). Whilst representative surveys provide valuable information, they are not designed to gain an in-depth picture of the public’s respective beliefs, values, and attitudes towards dairy production. As a first step in understanding this in-depth picture, we asked members of the public to write their choice of either a ‘love letter’ or a ‘breakup letter’ to dairy. The present study summarizes the qualitative analysis undertaken on the letters written by participants.

Positionality Statement

When conducting qualitative research, the researchers’ collective life experiences and thus their individual frames of reference affect their approach to study design, data collection, and analysis (Holmes 2020). To contextualize our research, below we provide a positionality statement for each author in relation to the topic being studied.

Bolton is a female PhD student at The University of Melbourne and a visiting scholar with The University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program (UBC AWP). She has worked as a veterinarian and has lived experience in dairy farm management. She was employed as the National Animal Welfare Lead at Dairy Australia at the time this research was undertaken. Currently she holds the role of Dairy Beef and Animal Welfare Manager with Greenham, a beef packer operating plants in Tasmania and Victoria (Australia).

Vandresen is a female PhD student at UBC AWP. She is Brazilian and obtained her Bachelor of Science degree in veterinary medicine and her Master of Science degree in Animal Welfare in Brazil before moving to The University of British Columbia (UBC) where she is completing her PhD. She did not grow up in a farming community but has lived experience working with dairy cattle at the UBC Dairy Education and Research Centre located in Agassiz BC. She has also investigated multiple topics related to farm animal production systems using qualitative methodologies.

von Keyserlingk grew up on a beef cattle ranch in British Columbia, Canada, and also worked in the agribusiness sector for 7 years before joining the university as a faculty member in UBC, where she has co-led the UBC AWP since 2002. She is now a full Professor and has held a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Chair in Animal Welfare since 2008. She has published extensively in both the natural and social sciences on a broad range of topics in animal welfare, with most of this work focused on farm animals.

Methods

This study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Board (protocol no 20,750) and The University of British Columbia (UBC) Behavioral Research Ethics Board (protocol no H18-02880-A012). All participants provided written consent to participate.

Our participants were recruited via a commercial market research company (Pollinate, Sydney, Australia) for a public focus group session, intended to explore their attitudes towards the dairy industry per se but also specifically about the care of surplus calves (Bolton et al., submitted). Recruitment of participants aimed to achieve a broad spread of demographics (age, gender identity, income), variation in attitudes towards the dairy industry, the environment, social, and economic issues, and in frequency of consumption of dairy products. A total of 24 participants were recruited, including four that identified as vegan, three as vegetarian and three having a self-described connection to the dairy industry.

At the time of recruitment, participants were informed that the purpose of the focus group was to explore their attitudes towards dairy. To stimulate their thoughts, participants were each given ‘homework’ to complete before participating in the focus group where they were asked to write their choice of either a ‘love letter’ or a ‘breakup letter’ to dairy. No further instructions were provided, allowing participants to have freedom to decide on the content of the letters, their interpretation of the term ‘dairy’, their word count, and writing style. The letters were designed to act as stimuli during the focus group conversations (see Bolton et al., (submitted) for full description of the focus group discussions), specifically as ‘provokers’ (Törrönen 2002); 19 of the 24 participants emailed their letters to the marketing company before the start of the focus group sessions.

Analysis of the letters began by removing all identifying information, including participant names. Individual letters were then assigned a randomly generated participant number. The data were then submitted to inductive thematic analysis. This form of analysis is particularly useful when utilizing a relatively novel approach to data collection in an area of work with little pre-existing research (Clarke and Braun 2017). This approach to analysis was also selected because we did not have any pre-existing questions and instead allowed the collected data to drive the analysis.

SB and BV undertook extensive reading of the letters and individually drafted the initial themes and codes. After a first screening of the letters, they were categorized as either love letters or breakup letters. Love letters were characterized by clear compliments that conveyed a positive attitude to dairy, while breakup letters were characterized by clear criticisms and negative attitudes towards dairy. The authors identified that some letters could not be classified as either love or breakup letters, and a new category named ‘distance letters’ was created for those describing a conflicted stance towards dairy with some positive and negative views communicated in the same letter. Randomly generated participant numbers assigned to letters were then updated to reflect their categorization as a love (‘L1’, ‘L2’, etc.), breakup (‘B1’, ‘B2’, etc.), or distance (‘D1’, ‘D2’, etc.) letters.

Both coders then discussed, reviewed, and refined the initial codes and themes until codebook agreement was reached. SB and BV then performed intercoder reliability by each analyzing the data independently using the draft codebook, before meeting to resolve any coding discrepancies and refining the codebook accordingly. All three authors then discussed and agreed upon the final codebook (Fig. 1). The final codebook was applied to all 19 letters by BV, irrespective of the stance taken by the participant, using NVivo (version 12; QSR International Pty Ltd., https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home). The original letters and codebook are published as supplementary material https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/N4UI46. Below we outline each of the themes and provide example quotes from each of the sub-themes.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Description of the primary themes and codes identified following thematic analyses of letters written by participants (n = 19) who were asked to write a love letter or a breakup letter addressed to dairy. For details regarding definitions developed during the intercoder reliability exercise please refer to supplementary material

Full size image

Results and Discussion

The 19 letters were an average of 144 words long (range: 48–285), and comprised 8 love letters, 6 breakup letters, and 5 distance letters that conveyed a conflicted stance. Analysis of the letters revealed three main themes including participants’ relationship with dairy (Dairy Relationship), their attitudes towards dairy products (Dairy Products), and their views about dairy as an industry (Dairy Industry). Each main theme included three underlying sub-themes (Fig. 1).

Although all themes were identified in each of the letters, some codes were more prevalent in love letters, while other codes were more prevalent in breakup letters (Fig. 2). Not surprising, codes related to positive views towards dairy, like “affective memories” and “dairy farmers” were mostly present in love letters. Codes related to negative views towards dairy, like “ethical concerns”, “trust”, “farming practices”, and “dairy avoidance” were mostly present in breakup letters. Three codes (consumption motivators, health and nutrition, and emotions) were composed of both positive and negative views towards dairy, and were shared among love, breakup, and distance letters. The distance letters also shared codes with the breakup letters (“ethical concerns”, “trust”, and “dairy avoidance”) and love letters (“affective memories”).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Examples of love, distance, and breakup letters written by participants (n = 19) when asked to write their choice of either a love or breakup letter to dairy

Full size image

Dairy Relationship

The ‘Dairy Relationship’ theme covered the multiple aspects of participants’ personal relationship with dairy. A key factor identified in our participants’ relationship with dairy was the affective memories they associated with dairy products (“Oh and let’s not forget the nights we’ve had together enjoying vanilla ice cream (a signature dish of my grandma).”– L6). These included positive associations with dairy products in their childhood (“When I was a kid, you and I were inseparable.”– D1), sharing dairy products during quality time with their loved ones (“cheese just makes for a perfect night with my wife as we drink wine together.” - L2), and at social events (“When cheese and dip turn up to a party with their friend, crackers, they always bring people together. Any gathering just wouldn’t be the same without them.” L1).

Many of the affective memories described by participants were associated with positive emotions, such as comfort (“[You] make me feel comfortable and safe [when you’re] in my hot chocolate.”– L5), happiness (“Since you’ve come into my life you’ve made me so happy.”– Ll), and love (“Oh, Dairy how I love you. You fulfil me every day. Thank you.”– L4). Statements about participants’ love for dairy were frequently directed towards dairy products and their qualities (“From my love of your sweet yoghurts to the zing your sour cheeses; I’m just mad about you.”– L5), and their need for dairy in their lives (“I don’t know what I’d ever do without you dairy! So, thank you & please never leave me.”– L3). However, some participants also described negative emotions towards dairy, including anger (“For a while I was angry with you. I’d watched [the film] ‘Dominion’ and afterwards I came home to throw any dairy out into the bin. Then I got upset with myself that I should have known what you did to baby calves if they were born male…. or how you treated cows.” - B1), and guilt (“I only really see you on special occasions now, when I’m seeking out a guilty pleasure or occasionally in my tea.”– D1).

Negative emotions towards dairy where frequently attributed to participants’ ethical concerns about dairy farming (“So the reason I’m breaking up with you, Dairy, is in the hope that by doing so, [animals] may get a chance to […] not have to experience such a torturous life. I hope one day things turn for the better and [they] can live naturally again.”– B1). Ethical concerns also contributed to participants struggling with mixed feelings towards dairy (“I am writing this letter to pay gratitude for all that you have provided me. It is a sad time at the same time as I must say goodbye too. You were my first love as a child and I loved all the flavored milks at school. I loved my childhood memories of stringy cheese, ice-creams and yummy desserts. I loved the idea of happy cows and country farms. There was something homely about it. I never really thought of it as a commercial enterprise.”– D4).

Participants described positive relational associations almost exclusively with dairy products, while negative descriptions of participants’ relationship with dairy centered on industry practices. Remembered positive and pleasurable food-related experiences have been linked to childhood memories and eating experiences shared with family and friends (i.e., social events) and are aspects of food experiences that consumers perceive as meaningful and remain in memory (Kauppinen-Räisänen et al. 2013). Food value has been linked to aspects such as taste and texture, the setting in which food is purchased or consumed and emotional value, including experience, entertainment, and indulgence (Dagevos and van Ophem 2013). Food consumption can therefore influence people’s mood and feelings, and vice versa (Köster & Mojet 2015), likely explaining the positive emotions described by our participants when consuming dairy products. Conversely, food value is also linked to the practices and process of food production, as well as ethical considerations (Dagevos and van Ophem 2013); aspects on which our participants centered their descriptions of negative emotions. Negative emotional reactions from the public towards common dairy farm practices such as treatment of male calves (Ritter et al. 2022), and care of cows (Wolf et al. 2016) have been found by others, underpinning concerns that standards of animal care in modern production systems are falling out of step with public values (Weary and von Keyserlingk 2017).

Dairy Industry

The ‘Dairy industry’ theme covered participants’ views about dairy farming practices, producers, and their trust towards dairy production. Participants expressed negative attitudes towards many practices they perceived to be common in dairy farming (“It took me a while to realize that the male calves you never spoke about were being taken away and slaughtered, and that their young mothers would be slaughtered a few years later when their bodies had stopped being useful to you. I have seen the real grief that these mothers experience when you take their children away and I want no part of it.”– B3), and the impact of dairy farming on the environment (“I was forced to acknowledge the truth that the world population could not sustain cattle farming […]. Mother nature needs to heal and food security is a problem for our generation.”– D4).

Participants shared their feelings of trust, or lack thereof, towards the dairy industry, often caused by a perceived lack of transparency and failure to meet expectations (“I used to think it was all blue skies, sunshine, and lush green pastures. It seemed so perfect and natural. […] I soon discovered that this was not the case. I learnt that those colorful images on the packets of your tastiest foods and drinks were not the reality of your world. The reality was harsh, cruel and violent, and I very quickly wanted nothing to do with it.”– B1). Some participants believed that the reality of dairy farming is not aligned with what is shown to the public (“I’d like to say it’s not you, it’s me… but, it’s you. Now that the image you presented me of contented cows grazing in green fields in the sunshine has worn off and I have got to know the real you, I can’t stay in this relationship. […] You say you care about these animals but I know that is only as far as you can make a profit from them. I guess it’s a lie just like that time you said you cared about the environment.”– B3). One participant specifically felt that the dairy industry makes efforts to hide some practices from the public (“I got upset with myself that I should have known what you did to baby calves if they were born male…. or how you treated cows. But how could I know? It was all hidden, wasn’t it? You made a great effort of that.”– B2).

Despite participants’ concerns towards dairy farming practices, their attitudes towards dairy farmers as people were generally positive (“Thank you for standing strong amidst drought, fires, floods, COVID & all those alternative milk drinkers. Thanks to all the farmers dedicating themselves to this industry and working long hours to make ends meet”– L3). Indeed, some participants praised the industry’s resilience and the importance of farmers’ work to society (“I also appreciate the fact that you provide local farmers with a job and support the local community.”– L2).

Some of our participants included references in their letters (primarily in the breakup letters) to some of the contentious issues plaguing the dairy industry, such as early life killing of surplus calves, cow-calf separation, and cull cow welfare, indicating previous knowledge of, and negative attitudes towards, these practices. To produce milk, dairy cows generally give birth to a calf once a year that is separated from the cow within the first few days of life and raised artificially by the farmer (Cook and von Keyserlingk 2024). Whilst some of the female calves are used as future ‘replacement’ milking cows, the male and some female calves are surplus to milking herd replacement requirements. In some parts of the world, including Australia, many of these ‘surplus’ dairy calves are managed through early life killing, a practice that involves either at-birth euthanasia on farm, or being slaughtered within the first few days of life (Bolton et al. 2024). Once the lactating cows are no longer needed, they are referred to as ‘cull cows’ and are sold for meat and replaced by younger female animals.

The management of cull cows, surplus calves, and the practice of separating cows and calves within the first few hours of life present significant animal welfare challenges for the global dairy industry (Cockram 2021; Creutzinger et al. 2021; Meagher et al. 2019) and have been cited by the public as being out of step with their values, once made aware (Cardoso et al. 2016; Ritter et al. 2022; Sirovica et al. 2022). Concerns expressed by our participants towards these practices were generally grounded in ethical theories of abolitionism (Sandøe et al. 2008); a perspective that was clearly communicated in the breakup letters. That some participants had previous knowledge of these practices is of interest, given that previous work has found that despite the general public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare being high, their understanding and knowledge of animal production systems is poor (Cornish et al. 2016; Boogaard et al. 2011). However, that awareness can contribute to increased levels of concern underpins reasons for other authors to suggest that educating the public into understanding why farmers undertake contentious practices is unlikely to be successful in maintaining public trust (Ventura et al. 2016). The interplay between knowledge (awareness) of specific agricultural practices and values associated with acceptance of the food produced is worthy of future study.

Participants also described concerns about the impact of dairy farming on the environment (Wolf et al. 2017), and a lack of trust based on the perception that the realities of farming practices may be hidden from the public (Broad 2016). This sentiment is supported by Robbins et al. (2016), who found that even the intention to restrict access to information about farming practices can undermine trust. Despite this, some participants expressed positive attitudes towards farmers as people and there was an absence of any blame placed on farmers in the letters. This may be attributed to the historical role agriculture has played in Australia’s economy (Berry et al. 2016), and the virtues associated with farmers being self-sufficient and having a strong commitment to community (Cockfield and Courtenay Botterill 2012).

Dairy Products

Participants’ views about the consumption of dairy products, as well as their impact on human health and nutrition, were covered under the theme ‘Dairy Products’. Participants shared that they consume dairy products for many reasons, such as their taste (“I love the textures and flavors of your richest cheeses. I love the bite of your best Greek yoghurt.”– D2), their ability to enhance meals (“You make everything better. There is no such thing as too much cheese, and sour cream completes every dish. I wish I could put it on absolutely everything. […] you complete me.”– L1), and that they form part of everyday routines (“You’re always talked about, you are added to our every meal, […], you are the sweetest & sour of desserts, that finalizes the plates and cups of our children, family and friends.”– L5).

Some participants praised dairy products for their benefits to human health and nutrition (“And let’s not forget that you make my bones stronger, my teeth healthier and my nails longer and harder. You help to prevent muscle cramps and dental cavities and even help to lower high blood pressure. You can also help me get to sleep at night. I can’t make calcium on my own so I would be useless without you. Don’t ever leave me.”– L1), while others expressed desires to reduce dairy consumption due to health concerns (“We are not breaking up but you are making my tummy too big and cholesterol too high. I have found your rice milk is yummy, sweet but not as bad for me.”– D2).

Avoiding or giving up dairy consumption was described as a difficult task by some, despite feeling they should (“I was seriously considering breaking up with you. But breaking up with you is just too hard! I love your cheese!!! I can’t eat my cereal without you! So, instead of a breakup, let’s have a make-up. […] I love you too much to break up with you.”– D5), and a challenge to maintain in the face of their love for dairy products (“So for nearly 3 years I consumed no dairy till recently. I tried goat feta and got the taste again…. so, I kept eating other cheeses… telling myself ‘It’s not that bad’ and convincing myself that ‘I’ wasn’t the problem. That the dairy industry was.” - B2). Participants also described their reluctance to be an inconvenience in social settings (“The only time I ate dairy after that would be when I was eating out and didn’t want to be a pain, either to my friends and family or to the chefs. If cheese or dairy was in something I would just eat it.”– B5). Plant-based alternatives to dairy products were seen by some participants as having a role a gradual transition away from dairy (“So the first way I say goodbye to dairy was by changing to alternative milk and yoghurt wherever I could– coffee, breakfast, baking, cooking. I think this is generally the first way most people go.”– B5), while others were less positive towards alternatives (“My breakfast would be very bland if I did not have this real milk. Powdered milk or fake milk made from almonds or soy is just not the same.”– L2). Proponents of alternative dairy products praised them for being healthier and more ethical than dairy (“Your vegan counterparts surpass you in taste, are suited for humans, and are more ethical and free of the cruelty of animal industry. I only wish that they were cheaper, more readily available, and convenient. All this will change though, and you will be left in the dustbin of history where your cruelty belongs.”– B4), and appeared less conflicted in their decision once their relationship with dairy products had ended (“Sorry Dairy, I’ve already started seeing Soy and Almond and we are really hitting it off. Don’t call me again.”– B3).

Motivations for consuming dairy products have been categorized as ‘the 4Ns’, being Natural, Necessary, Normal, and Nice, with taste playing a strong hedonic role in consumption decisions (Collier et al. 2023). In line with our participants’ sentiments, previous work has also shown that consumers see dairy products playing an important role in their daily diet (McCarthy et al. 2017), and will also cite reasons to both consume (Haas et al. 2019) and avoid (Silva et al. 2020) dairy consumption on the basis of health.

That our participants described struggling to cease dairy consumption, despite feeling that they should, is a paradox explored by Adamczyk et al. (2022). These authors suggest that when people are made aware of the problems resulting from dairy consumption, they may be pushed aside by hedonistic motives such as the desirable taste of dairy products. Participants also described experiences of cognitive dissonance related to consuming dairy products; an unpleasant state of moral conflict that provokes associated coping strategies (van der Weele 2013). Our participants described using denial as a coping mechanism; a dissonance reduction strategy also identified by Ioannidou et al. (2024) amongst some dairy consumers made aware of animal harms arising from routine management in the dairy industry. Other dissonance reduction strategies used by consumers of dairy products include attributing less sentience and intelligence to dairy cows and expressing lower moral concern for the cow (Ioannidou et al. 2024. Further barriers to ceasing dairy consumption described by participants included dairy consumption being a social norm (Gavrilets et al. 2024), with avoidance causing potential inconvenience in social settings and disruption to group behavior (Kish Bar-On and Lamm 2023).

While Milfont et al. (2021) describe the probability of a sudden shift away from an omnivore diet to a vegan diet as low, some of our participants described a potential role for plant-based alternatives in a gradual transition away from dairy consumption. In contrast, some participants described resistance to plant-based alternatives, which has been attributed by Collier et al. (2023) to either cognitive rationalization of their continued dairy consumption, and/or reservations about the sensory properties of these products, including taste. That participants who were proponents of alternative milks cited health and ethical advantages is in line with the work of others (Haas et al. 2019; Hölker et al. 2019; Janssen et al. 2016). Of particular interest, however, is that participants who eschewed dairy products in favor of alternatives described this with little to no conflict in their views, suggesting that their decision was firm, once made. Aschemann-Witzel and Schulze (2023) describe a similar phenomenon at a cohort level: grounded in social network theory, societal ‘tipping points’ are described as sudden, widespread changes in social norms that spread amongst socially connected peers. Whilst these authors acknowledge that a tipping point is unlikely to be triggered by one single event, actor, or intervention, they do describe the ability for tipping points to occur as a result of numerous interrelated societal processes. It could be argued that the finality described by our participants in their decision to cease consumption of dairy products may be due to them reaching an internal ‘tipping point’; where exposure to multiple pieces of negative information about the dairy industry have an incremental effect over time, with the cumulative effect eventually changing their views (Rice et al. 2020). Herein lies the pressing risks, yet simultaneous opportunities for the dairy industry; by working to ensure production practices align with consumer values and thereby reducing citizens’ exposure to reasons to avoid dairy consumption over time, the industry may work to preserve social acceptability, and thus the sustainability of the overall industry (von Keyserlingk et al. 2013).

Strengths, Limitations and Future Research

The strength of our approach is that by asking our participants to write their choice of either a love letter or a breakup letter, we captured their top-of-mind thoughts on the concept. The decision of what type of letter to write was likely impacted by the framing effects imposed upon our participants by the myriad of information streams impacting their daily lives (i.e., Schuldt et al. (2015); a phenomenon that arguably every member of society is subjected to when having to make decisions about what they choose to eat. That the framing of information can affect decision making has long been known (Tversky and Kahneman 1981).

Australia as a country is geographically and culturally diverse, and the data arising from the letters submitted by our participants are not generalizable to the wider Australian public. However, the present study does provide an insight into participants’ attitudes towards the dairy industry and dairy products, and alignment or otherwise with their values.

We encourage further work exploring public attitudes to animal agriculture and the products it yields, including further qualitative and quantitative research to broaden and deepen our understanding of a socially sustainable food production system. Specifically, we encourage further work that explores the interaction between citizens’ knowledge (awareness) of contentious farming practices and their acceptance of foods produced by these industries, including impacts on cognitive dissonance and associated coping strategies. Further, we encourage additional research investigating factors that contribute to cognitive rationalization of continued consumption of animal products, a concept that is arguably well-studied regarding meat consumption (e.g., Rothgerber and Rosenfeld (2021) but less well-studied with regard to other animal products such as dairy and eggs. Finally, we recommend further research into the effects of continued exposure to negative information about food production practices over time and how this can lead to ‘tipping points’ in attitudes, both at individual and cohort levels.

Conclusion

Reasons cited by some of our participants to love dairy centered on dairy products and their support for farmers; whereas, reasons to break up with or distance themselves from dairy centered on specifics associated with farming practices, most notably the care provided to the animals. Evident within the letters written by our participants was a tension between desires to continue consuming dairy products for hedonistic reasons and a desire to perform behaviors that align with participants’ individual values. Participants’ attitudes towards dairy in our study existed on a spectrum between clear love, and clear dissent, with those in the middle of the spectrum exhibiting mixed feelings and conflicted attitudes. The findings of this qualitative paper should not be viewed as representative of the Australian public but rather offer an insight into the alignment or otherwise of the dairy industry with participants’ core values and the impact this has on their relationship with dairy. Working to identify and correct where industry practices fall out of step with community values will be key to maintaining social sustainability of the dairy industry.