Assessment and Hypothesis about Ethical Eating Sample for Students

Question: Write an Essay that Explores an Important and Topical Food Issue of your Choice from a Gastronomic Perspective. Answer: Introduction Ethical food consumption is considered as a means through which people understand and solve different socio-ecological differences (Barnett et al., 2005b). Food consumption habits often persuaded people for socio-ecological changes. So, some people may considered it as being a part of the society, while others think consider it only as a practice followed by the elites of the society. It is difficult situation since on one hand most of these alleged ethical food products (fair trade coffee, free range poultry, grass fed animal protein, natural produce etc.) are more costly than the conventional food items. Additionally, most of the shopping spaces and eateries serving these ethical food products are supposedly serve only the socially influential people (Cole, 2008; Guthman, 2008). In contrast, from political and empirical point of view a clear-cut duality between ethical or rich and unethical or poor is difficult (Hinrichs, 2000; Johnston, 2008). On political basis, it is very fishy to figure out the moral assets onto economically fortunate people who have better contact with the ethical foods, an inference that proceeds with a doubtful tradition of ethically chastising the marginalized residents (Alatas, 1977; Schwartz, 2000). From an empirical basis, intellectuals do not have information showing that economically-fortunate people consider deeply about the ethical foods, despite that fact that they have assets to purchase the ethical items. Additionally, we do not know much about how less-fortunate populations feel about ethical eating, and how they practice it with limited earnings. Academic thoughts regarding the ethical food consumption are increasing; however they are not materialized in empirical investigations (Adams and Raisborough, 2010). From a cultural view, we consider ethical eating as a comprehensive cultural stock instead of being a colossal ideology. Assessment and Hypothesis about Ethical Eating According to Starr, ethical food consumption is broadly defined as individuals buying and using food items and resources not only due to the individual values and pleasures they offer but also owing to ideas of good and bad in an ethical sense (Starr, 2009). This definition is not unambiguous as ethical consumption can also be defined by issues that have acquired public interest like local origin, organic certification, and humane treatment of animals. Sometimes, these issues tend to overshadow other subjects associated with agricultural labor, hunger, or social justice. The purpose is not to judge which utilization customs are ethical or which are not, but to observe how ethical food customs are formed by community interactions (Johnston and Baumann, 2010). Moral consumption of food is not just about consuming or intake of food, but rather be comprehended as a social communication involving various many contents (cruelty-free, fair transaction, native/local, organic etc.) as well as a rationale connecting consumption attributes of people with social and ecological change. In spite of all the rationales, ethical food consumption contains numerous inconsistencies (Johnston, 2008; Sassatelli, 2006) and different groups consider these contradictions in different way. These differences often cause clashes in the public domain, thus influencing the leading perceptions about food consumption (Sassatelli, 2006). Monetary actors also play a significant role in forming a broad ethical food consumption dialogue as they are position themselves to control the communal dialogue on ethical utilization, thus establish their opinion as general standard which all residents should follow. The most privileged points in food conversation tend to be standard ized and introduced as egalitarian regardless of the structural differences thus making it hard for the under-privileged population to eat with utmost competence, deliciousness and healthfulness (DeVault, 1991; Johnston and Baumann, 2010). In spite of these ambiguities, market analysis usually imply that price is a main obstruction in the participation of ethical food consumption since customers which are ready to shell out to purchase ethical food items are frequently wealthy, knowledgeable and cultured (Aldanondo-Oachoa Almansa-Saez, 2009; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Govindasamy et al., 1998; Kezis et al., 1998; ODonovan and McCarthy, 2002). Revelations like these arent shocking at all as the wealthy buyers have money to visit the nearest niche marketplaces, and are frequent to the high end stores dealing with such food products (Barnett et al., 2005a; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002; Gracia and Magistris, 2008; Michaelidou and Hassan, 2010; Starr, 2009). The financial benefit can encourage exposure to the ethical food consumption discussion, except there are some cultural components affecting consumers enthusiasm (Brown et al., 2009). Activists, feminists and food researchers have realized that cultural aspects have affected the food selections since long time, and that the ration-choice judgments are greater than just the effortless cost-profit rationale (Bourdieu, 1984; DeVault, 1991). Ethical food customs is greatly pervaded by way of components of intellectual assets; they affects what food items are consumed in addition to being appreciated via different public groups, what food products are considered unfamiliar and comparatively awkward, and whether the food represents as a crucial spot for ingenious display plus building of an spiritual character (Bourdieu, 1984). Knowledge of food political beliefs is another important element of cultural capital which comprises acknowledging what food items are politically acceptable and ec ologically justifiable (Johnston and Baumann, 2010). Since the cultural center is an important attribute found in the upper class and without it the class movement is rendered hard. Thus, ethical food consumption can possibly work to control social disparity and class limits (Bourdieu, 1984; Cole, 2008; Lamont, 1992). Food researchers have responded against the market-based division of wealthy versus marginalized food consumers (Adams and Raisborough, 2010; Dolan, 2005). One cannot assume that affluent customers show increased reflexivity towards socio-ecological issues, despite the fact that they hold additional assets which allow them in visiting the niche stores (Barnett et al., 2005a; DuPuis and Goodman, 2005; Guthman, 2003). Affluent shoppers are more prone to procure ethical foodstuffs, although it remains unclear that they will essentially employ ethical utilization customs that take more time than wealth (Belcher et al., 2007; Roberts, 1996; Star, 2009). Actually, we only know less about the limit or extent which the customers of various public factions willfully observe the customs of their consumption preferences when they go to the superstore (Auger et al., 2003; Beagan et al., 2010). Typical assessment regarding the ethical food utilization is restricted by the way as it evaluates view s on moral subjects, yet it cant constantly analyze that their actions are due to their attitude or how these issues clash with other concerns like ease, cost, and choice during their every day shopping judgments (Adams and Raisborough, 2010). While a number of researches suggest that social class and cultural setting assist in a significant way in forming the ethical food consumptions, further effort is required to observe on how these attributes outline the ethical food consumption practices in daily life (Auger et al., 2003). The cultural repertoires and symbolic boundaries can facilitate us in realizing the significances of ethical food consumption discourse for differently privileged individuals. The idea of cultural repertoire can facilitate us understand the concept of ethical consumption, and acknowledge how the actors ingeniously use different components of dialogue in routine existence (Adams and Raisborough, 2010; Lamont, 1992; Swidler, 1986 2001; Tilly, 1993). It is made of a various set of customs, habits, plans, qualities, and thoughts. Actors recognize their activities by using various components of cultural catalogs (Lamont, 2000; Swidler, 1986 2001). The idea of cultural repertoire which differs geographically and evolves constantly conveys interest regarding how social mediators specifically draw from the components of a better culture to add up to their choices (Bondy and Talwar, 2011), or rationalize their activities (Sassatelli and Davolio, 2010). Another cultural concept that assists in understanding the ethical consumption is the idea of symbolic limitations, i.e. the intangible differences that people craft to classify items, individuals, along with their practices. Boundary work includes individual classifications employed for inclusion and exclusion of people in the theoretical maps, and portrays a procedure where people describe their character contrary to others by sketching the symbolic limits (Lamont, 1992). These limits are drawn to differentiate an individual which also act as a symbol of association of group. Grant on the belonging of the group and limits offers an extensive rational record (Becker, 1963; Durkheim and Mauss, 1963). At present, this idea is firmly related with Lamonts grant whose work compellingly shows the importance of boundaries (Douglas, 1966; Lamont, 1992 2000; Lamont and Fournier, 1992). These limits can be broad, but can also possibly create disparity since they are an important means by whi ch people monopolize resources, attain status, avert dangers or justify their social promotion frequently in reference to character, habits, superior lifestyle, or competences. She discusses few types of representative limits: social, moral, and socioeconomic (Lamont, 1992). The first two boundaries are mainly relevant in the terms of ethical consumption. The social limits are delineated on the grounds of authority of superior culture, learning, intelligence, behavior, and tastes, whereas moral boundaries are the ones drawn on account of moral nature (Lamont, 1992). Lamonts investigation revealed that moral limits were frequently essential to how people comprehended themselves and their interactions with others (Lamont, 1992). Ethical Food Consumption in Daily Life Here, we observe some attributes of ethical food use by people on daily basis. We discuss the extent to which the leading ethical food consumption repertoire was identified and comprehended by the people; the thoughts and practices that were accentuated and limited, and stress observed. We address the ethical predicaments articulated by less-privileged consumers. Dominant ethical food consumption repertoire The prominent components seen in ethical food repertoires are eco-consumption (native and organic) and restricting meat along with other minor components associated with society construction and building associations with manufacturers and traders. Eco-consumption (Local and organic): Ecological contemplations were a major constituent of ethical food consumption repertoires (Johnston and Bauman, 2010). Many people considered ethical eating same as green food consumption which was largely comprehended as involving native /or organic foods. Associations between food preferences and ecological damage like carbon discharges while transporting food, and the damaging consequences of insect repellents and industrial farming were often argued. Ecological ideas were usually referenced with regard to native and organic, along with decreased meat use or vegetarianism. Both native /or organic food eating were associated with sustaining the environment. Also, another main portion of the ethical consumption repertoire included the understanding the strain between organic food items that are generated without the use of insecticides and locally cultivated foods that are grown in nearby fields. Cost issue regarding the organic and local foods was another important attribute which formed how ethical consumption essentially takes place in our daily food preferences. It concerns all people equally, with just the wealthy family individuals exclusively looking to purchase organic food items. These apprehensions were sometimes associated with doubt about the health and ecological arguments of these products. While some people completely rejected the organic products for being too expensive, others argued about plans for consuming ethical food while keeping a budget, like purchasing either local or organic, in smaller amounts, cultivating ones own food, buying at provision stores that convey other choices to standardized products. Limiting meat consumption: Another important component of ethical food consumption repertoires is limiting their meat intake. Several people take vegetarian diet while some often consume little meat as they were generally concerned about various issues like their health, the consequences of the meat production industries on the surroundings, industrial farming and mistreatment of animals. Social associations and society development: The last concluding component in ethical food utilization catalogs involved with thought of increasing community associations and developing society. According to the reports on ethical food policy, community variables were seldom considered as compared to the ecological concerns, furthermore they were mainly observed locally as opposed to global disparity or poverty (Barnett et al., 2005b; Johnston and Baumann, 2010). Summing up, with regard to ethical consumption, some people drew on a dominant ethical food consumption repertoire with emphasis on green food preferences, kind treatment towards animals, and careful consideration to community issues, like encouraging local producers and traders. Social standing and earnings allow significant involvement with the prevalent ethical food consuming repertoire, yet these features are no assurance of commitment. Food consumption and symbolic limit work in under-privileged groups While large numbers of low earning and culturally diverse families are less or reasonably involved with the predominant ethical food consuming repertoire, these people cant be generalized as unethical consumers. Most of these families demonstrated considerable regards to ethical predicaments and matters associated with ethical consumption. Though, the group of people inclined to move from social repertoires while diverging from the prevailing ethical food consuming repertoire. They follow two different patterns recommending considerable representative border line work through food preferences. In the first case, considered as the innovative alteration of the predominant ethical food consuming repertoire, people reevaluated ethical consumption practices to adjust their material conditions. Here, people demonstrate awareness of main beliefs of ethical consumption dialogue but there access to these ethical produces was marginalized due to their low earnings. In second case, people draw on different social repertoires to connect with the ethical food consumption. These people can be differentiated from the former group as they move less from components of the predominant ethical food consuming catalog to speak about ethical matters around eating and somewhat created these issues. In conclusion, if we recognize shopping and eating preferences as a way of making a difference in solving the socio-ecological issues, it is better to recognize how the different classes employ this practice since we observe the factors that affect on how individuals in different socio-economic groups, with diverse racial or ethnic conditions appreciate and carry out ethical food consuming. Ethical food consumption covers up a wide public discourse with numerous bordering, different patterns can be identified to draw provisional conclusions about the manners in which ethical food consuming repertoires are utilized in every day food preferences. The economic and social freedom appears to help entrance to a predominant ethical food consuming repertoire. People from under privileged social and racial backgrounds seem to be exposed to the particular range, even though this doesnt infer that these people are essentially immoral in terms of their food consuming habits. While social as well as financial privilege allowed admittance to the predominant ethical food consumption repertoire, it did not assure significant involvement for the people, and nor it was essential for engagement. It can be compellingly showed by the existence of upper-middle and lower-class individuals who were less involved with the prevalent ethical food consuming repertoire. However, economically-fortunate people form cultural limitations that let them to show their food consumption practices as appropriate good, even if they were less engrossed within the predominant moral food intake discourse. Additionally, the less fortunate groups are less involved in the predominant ethical consuming repertoire, but it does not denote that they were essentially carefree with the ethical predicaments encompassing food selections. In contrast, the ethical limits carved by the less fortunate or under privileged factions showed innovative adaptation of the predominant ethical food consumption repertoires to a djust the low earning circumstances in addition to the alternating social repertoires. People portray the specific ethical food consuming repertoires to which they had easy pass and which need minimal monetary and cultural investment, maybe for the reason that they have minimum admittance to additional repertoires or types of social capital. References Adams, M. and Raisborough, J., 2010. Making a difference: ethical consumption and the everyday.The British journal of sociology,61(2), pp.256-274. Alatas, Hussein.The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and Its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism. Psychology Press, 1977. Aldanondo-Ochoa, A.M. and Almansa-Sez, C., 2009. The private provision of public environment: Consumer preferences for organic production systems.Land Use Policy,26(3), pp.669-682. Arnould, E.J., 2007. Should consumer citizens escape the market?.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,611(1), pp.96-111. Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M. and Louviere, J.J., 2003. What will consumers pay for social product features?.Journal of business ethics,42(3), pp.281-304. Barnett, C., Clarke, N., Cloke, P. and Malpass, A., 2005. The political ethics of consumerism.Consumer Policy Review,15(2), pp.45-51. Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N. and Malpass, A., 2005. Consuming ethics: articulating the subjects and spaces of ethical consumption.Antipode,37(1), pp.23-45. Beagan, B.L., Ristovski-Slijepcevic, S. and Chapman, G.E., 2010. People Are Just Becoming More Conscious of How Everythings Connected:EthicalFood Consumption in Two Regions of Canada.Sociology,44(4), pp.751-769. Becker, H., 1963. The culture of a deviant group: the dance musician.Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance, pp.79-100. Belcher, K.W., Germann, A.E. and Schmutz, J.K., 2007. Beef with environmental and quality attributes: Preferences of environmental group and general population consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada.Agriculture and Human Values,24(3), p.333. Bondy, T. and Talwar, V., 2011. Through thick and thin: How fair trade consumers have reacted to the global economic recession.Journal of business ethics,101(3), pp.365-383. Pierre, B., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans.Richard Nice. New York and London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P., 2011. The forms of capital.(1986).Cultural theory: An anthology, pp.81-93. Brown, K.R., 2009, December. The Social Dynamics and Durability of Moral Boundaries1. InSociological Forum(Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 854-876). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Brown, E., Dury, S. and Holdsworth, M., 2009. Motivations of consumers that use local, organic fruit and vegetable box schemes in Central England and Southern France.Appetite,53(2), pp.183-188. Burawoy, M., 2009.The extended case method: Four countries, four decades, four great transformations, and one theoretical tradition. Univ of California Press. Cherrier, H., 2005. Using existential-phenomenological interviewing to explore meanings of consumption.The ethical consumer, pp.125-135. Clavin, B. and Lewis, A., 2005. Focus groups on consumers ethical beliefs.The ethical consumer, pp.173-187. Cole, N.L., 2008. Global capitalism organizing knowledge of race, gender and class: The case of socially responsible coffee.Race, Gender Class, pp.170-187. De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. and Rayp, G., 2005. Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair?trade coffee.Journal of consumer affairs,39(2), pp.363-385. DeVault, M.L., 1994.Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gendered work. University of Chicago Press. Devinney, T.M., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G. and Birtchnell, T., 2006. The other CSR: Consumer social responsibility. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.M., 2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation.Journal of Business research,56(6), pp.465-480. Dolan, C.S., 2005. Fields of obligation: rooting ethical sourcing in Kenyan horticulture.Journal of Consumer Culture,5(3), pp.365-389. Douglas, M., 2003.Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge. DuPuis, E.M. and Goodman, D., 2005. Should we go home to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism.Journal of rural studies,21(3), pp.359-371. Durkheim, E., Mauss, M. and Needham, R., 1963.Primitive classification(Vol. 273). University of Chicago Press. Fotopoulos, C. and Krystallis, A., 2002. Organic product avoidance: Reasons for rejection and potential buyers identification in a countrywide survey.British Food Journal,104(3/4/5), pp.233-260. Gilbert, D., 2014.The American class structure in an age of growing inequality. Sage Publications. Goldthorpe, J.H., Llewellyn, C. and Pane, C., 1987. Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern England. Govindasamy, R., Zurbriggen, M., Italia, J., Adelaja, A.O., Nitzsche, P. and VanVranken, R., 1998.Farmers markets: Consumer trends, preferences, and characteristics(No. 36722). Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics. Gracia, A. and de Magistris, T., 2008. The demand for organic foods in the South of Italy: A discrete choice model.Food Policy,33(5), pp.386-396. Guthman, J., 2003. Fast food/organic food: Reflexive tastes and the making of'yuppie chow'.Social Cultural Geography,4(1), pp.45-58. Guthman, J., 2008. If they only knew: color blindness and universalism in California alternative food institutions.The professional geographer,60(3), pp.387-397. Hinrichs, C.C., 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market.Journal of rural studies,16(3), pp.295-303. Jabs, J., Devine, C.M. and Sobal, J., 1998. Model of the process of adopting vegetarian diets: Health vegetarians and ethical vegetarians.Journal of Nutrition Education,30(4), pp.196-202. Johnston, J., 2008. The citizen-consumer hybrid: ideological tensions and the case of Whole Foods Market.Theory and Society,37(3), pp.229-270. Johnston, J. and Baumann, S., 2014.Foodies: Democracy and distinction in the gourmet foodscape. Routledge. Kezis, A., Gwebu, T., Peavey, S. and Cheng, H.T., 1998. A study of consumers at a small farmers' market in Maine: Results from a 1995 survey.Journal of Food Distribution Research,29, pp.91-99. Lamont, M., 1992.Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. University of Chicago Press. Lamont, M. and Lamont, M., 2009.The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Harvard University Press. Lamont, M., 1992.Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. University of Chicago Press. Michaelidou, N. and Hassan, L.M., 2010. Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers purchase of organic and free-range produce: A case study of consumers from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK.Food Policy,35(2), pp.130-139. Morgan, K., 2010. Local and green, global and fair: the ethical foodscape and the politics of care.Environment and Planning A,42(8), pp.1852-1867. Newholm, T., 2005. Case studying ethical consumers projects and strategies.The ethical consumer, pp.107-124. ODonovan, P. and McCarthy, M., 2002. Irish consumer preference for organic meat.British Food Journal,104(3/4/5), pp.353-370. Roberts, J.A., 1996. Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward?.Business Horizons,39(1), pp.79-83. Sassatelli, R., 2006. Virtue, responsibility and consumer choice.J. Brewer and F. Sassatelli, R. and Davolio, F., 2010. Consumption, pleasure and politics: Slow food and the politico-aesthetic problematization of food.Journal of Consumer Culture,10(2), pp.202-232. Ziliak, S.T. and Schwartz, J., 2002. Fighting Poverty with Virtue: Moral Reform and America's Urban Poor, 18252000. Smith, C. and Morton, L.W., 2009. Rural food deserts: low-income perspectives on food access in Minnesota and Iowa.Journal of nutrition education and behavior,41(3), pp.176-187. Starr, M.A., 2009. The social economics of ethical consumption: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence.The Journal of Socio-Economics,38(6), pp.916-925. Stiles, B., 1998. Vegetarianism: Identity and experiences as factors in food selection.Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology,26(2), pp.213-226. Swidler, A., 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies.American sociological review, pp.273-286. Swidler, A., 2013.Talk of love: How culture matters. University of Chicago Press. Tilly, C., 1993. Contentious repertoires in Great Britain, 17581834.Social Science History,17(02), pp.253-280. Van Kempen, L., Muradian, R., Sandval, C. and Castaeda, J.P., 2009. Too poor to be green consumers? A field experiment on revealed preferences for firewood in rural Guatemala.Ecological Economics,68(7), pp.2160-2167. Weatherell, C., Tregear, A. and Allinson, J., 2003. In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local.Journal of rural studies,19(2), pp.233-244.