Is food’s naturalness conceptually connected to its healthiness? Answering the question requires spelling out the following: (1) What is meant by the healthiness of food? (2) What different conceptual meanings the term natural has in the context of food? (3) Are some of those meanings connected to the healthiness of food? In this paper the healthiness of food is understood narrowly as food’s accordance with nutritional needs of its eater. The connection of healthiness to the following five food-related senses of the term “natural’’ is analyzed: naturalness as nutritive suitability, naturalness as moderate need satisfaction, naturalness as lack of human influence, naturalness as authenticity, and naturalness as familiarity. It is concluded that some very common current uses of the term “natural,” such as naturalness as lack of human influence, are not conceptually connected to the healthiness of food. Nevertheless, the first two senses of naturalness are strongly conceptually connected to healthiness in the food context and the last one may be indirectly related to it. Thus, desire for natural food is not necessarily mistaken and misguided.

Is Natural Food Healthy

Intentional moving of species threatened by climate change is actively being discussed as a conservation approach. The debate, empirical studies, and policy development, however, are impeded by an inconsistent articulation of the idea. The discrepancy is demonstrated by the varying use of terms, such as assisted migration, assisted colonisation, or managed relocation, and their multiple definitions. Since this conservation approach is novel, and may for instance lead to legislative changes, it is important to aim for terminological consistency. The objective of this study is to analyse the suitability of terms and definitions used when discussing the moving of organisms as a response to climate change. An extensive literature search and review of the material (868 scientific publications) was conducted for finding hitherto used terms (N = 40) and definitions (N = 75), and these were analysed for their suitability. Based on the findings, it is argued that an appropriate term for a conservation approach relating to aiding the movement of organisms harmed by climate change is assisted migration defined as follows: Assisted migration means safeguarding biological diversity through the translocation of representatives of a species or population harmed by climate change to an area outside the indigenous range of that unit where it would be predicted to move as climate changes, were it not for anthropogenic dispersal barriers or lack of time. The differences between assisted migration and other conservation translocations are also discussed. A wide adoption of the clear and distinctive term and definition provided would allow more focused research on the topic and enable consistent implementation as practitioners could have the same understanding of the concept.

/pdf/coming-to-terms-with-the-concept-of-moving-species-432d5hx7ov.pdf

Coming to terms with the concept of moving species threatened by climate change - a systematic review of the terminology and definitions.

Over the last 15 years the demand of halal meat has increased significantly worldwide and dedicated markets for halal certified meat have emerged in a number of European countries. While ethnic stores still constitute the major retail outlet for halal meat in most countries, ‘halal’ labelled meat and meat products are increasingly available in supermarkets and fast food restaurants. Market expansion has also facilitated the rise of new certification bodies, each with their own marketing strategies and interpretations of what constitutes authentic ‘halal’, who question the reliability of certification policies that allow the practice of stunning before slaughter. This paper, based on research carried out during the EU funded Dialrel project, I have attempted to investigate which activities, behaviours and fields are established as being economic while dealing with nonhuman animals, in other words, I have addressed the economization of animals via marketization of halal meat.

The Ethics of Consumption

In David T. Mitchell’s and Sharon L. Snyder’s film, Vital Signs: Crip Culture Talks Back (2001/1996), Harlan Hahn quips about the role of food in disability culture and identity. If disability is an identity with a culture, Hahn says, it has to have its own food. Every culture has its own food. “You know,” he continues, “. . . we do have a food—fast food! It’s so much easier to go to the drive thru than it is to park, get in and out of the car, and go into a regular restaurant to eat” (Mitchell and Snyder 2001/1996). Here, Hahn recalls countless conversations with other disabled people and presents a wonderful moment of crip humor, full of sharp critique for a society that makes dining out an exercise in various forms of tiresome hoopjumping for many disabled people. Interestingly, Hahn’s comments differ from messages about fast food in films like Super Size Me (Spurlock 2004) and books like Fast Food Nation (Schlosser 2001) (also a film) and The Omnivore’s Dilemma (Pollan 2006), in which fast food is criticized because it makes us fat, brings about early deaths, gives us food poisoning, destroys rainforests and nonhuman species, exploits poor people, and contributes to the needless suffering of nonhuman animals. In short, these sources advise us to avoid fast food because it disables eaters, workers, nonhuman animals, communities, and secure food systems.1 But what do these texts overlook? Might disability bring something else to the table? In this article I critique assumptions about disability that animate the U.S. alternative food movement. While I discuss examples of how disability functions as the background against which the alternative food movement defines its alternatives as good,2 my concern with disability and food doesn’t end there. The question of the essays

Toward a Queer Crip Feminist Politics of Food

http://animalstudies.msu.edu/Why_using_genetics_to_address__welfare_may_not_be_a_good_idea.pdf

Why using genetics to address welfare may not be a good idea

In this paper I critique two popular, non-scientific attitudes toward genetically engineered foods. In doing so, I will be employing the concepts of ambiguity, purity/impurity, control/resistance, and unity/diversity as developed by Latina feminist metaphysicians. I begin by casting a critical eye toward a specific anti-biotech account of transgenic food crops, an account that I will argue relies on an anti-feminist metaphysics. I then cast that same critical eye toward a specific pro-biotech account, arguing that it also relies on such an anti-feminist metaphysics. I will argue further that this metaphysics yields a less accurate account of genetics. I end by arguing that if we adopt a Latina feminist metaphysics we can more accurately understand plants, genetics, and genetic engineering.

Lisa A. Bergin

Papers

Latina Feminist Metaphysics and Genetically Engineered Foods