理解(假)肉辩论

Q3 Nursing Nutrition Today Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1097/NT.0000000000000617
G. Broad
{"title":"理解(假)肉辩论","authors":"G. Broad","doi":"10.1097/NT.0000000000000617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The topic of “alternative proteins,” a field comprised of both plant-based animal product alternatives and the nascent field of cellular agriculture (eg, cultivated meat), has become a flashpoint for contemporary food system debate. This article introduces the “alternative protein ideological circle” as a framework for understanding the nature of this contestation, as well as the key stakeholder groups who animate the landscape. It argues that perspectives on alternative proteins coalesce around 2 primary ideological poles: (1) meat attachment or carnism, the extent to which people believe or do not believe that eating animals is a natural, normal, and necessary part of contemporary life; and (2) sociotechnical imaginaries, divided between techno-optimistic “wizards” and technoskeptical “prophets.” From there, 4 key stakeholder groups emerge: (1) the “high-tech vegans” (techno-optimists with low levels of carnism); (2) the “ecomodernists” (techno-optimists with high levels of carnism); (3) the “good foodies” (technoskeptics with low levels of carnism); and (4) the “carnivore traditionalists” (technoskeptics with high levels of carnism). The article offers illustrative examples of these groups, drawing from popular media and advocacy. It concludes with reflections on the implications of this framework for nutrition research and practice.","PeriodicalId":19386,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition Today","volume":"58 1","pages":"181 - 188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the (Fake) Meat Debates\",\"authors\":\"G. Broad\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/NT.0000000000000617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The topic of “alternative proteins,” a field comprised of both plant-based animal product alternatives and the nascent field of cellular agriculture (eg, cultivated meat), has become a flashpoint for contemporary food system debate. This article introduces the “alternative protein ideological circle” as a framework for understanding the nature of this contestation, as well as the key stakeholder groups who animate the landscape. It argues that perspectives on alternative proteins coalesce around 2 primary ideological poles: (1) meat attachment or carnism, the extent to which people believe or do not believe that eating animals is a natural, normal, and necessary part of contemporary life; and (2) sociotechnical imaginaries, divided between techno-optimistic “wizards” and technoskeptical “prophets.” From there, 4 key stakeholder groups emerge: (1) the “high-tech vegans” (techno-optimists with low levels of carnism); (2) the “ecomodernists” (techno-optimists with high levels of carnism); (3) the “good foodies” (technoskeptics with low levels of carnism); and (4) the “carnivore traditionalists” (technoskeptics with high levels of carnism). The article offers illustrative examples of these groups, drawing from popular media and advocacy. It concludes with reflections on the implications of this framework for nutrition research and practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition Today\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"181 - 188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition Today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000617\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“替代蛋白质”是一个由植物性动物产品替代品和新兴的细胞农业领域(如养殖肉类)组成的领域,已成为当代粮食系统辩论的热点。本文介绍了“替代蛋白质意识形态圈”,作为理解这场争论的本质的框架,以及推动这一领域发展的关键利益相关者群体。它认为,关于替代蛋白质的观点围绕着两个主要的意识形态极点:(1)对肉类的依恋或肉食主义,人们相信或不相信食用动物是自然、正常和当代生活必要的一部分的程度;(2)社会技术想象力,分为技术乐观的“巫师”和技术怀疑的“先知”。从那里,出现了4个关键的利益相关者群体:(1)“高科技素食主义者”(低水平狂欢的技术乐观主义者);(2)“生态现代主义者”(具有高度狂欢主义的技术乐观主义者);(3)“好吃货”(低水平狂欢的技术怀疑论者);(4)“肉食传统主义者”(高度肉食主义的技术怀疑论者)。本文从大众媒体和宣传中提供了这些群体的说明性例子。文章最后反思了这一框架对营养研究和实践的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Understanding the (Fake) Meat Debates
The topic of “alternative proteins,” a field comprised of both plant-based animal product alternatives and the nascent field of cellular agriculture (eg, cultivated meat), has become a flashpoint for contemporary food system debate. This article introduces the “alternative protein ideological circle” as a framework for understanding the nature of this contestation, as well as the key stakeholder groups who animate the landscape. It argues that perspectives on alternative proteins coalesce around 2 primary ideological poles: (1) meat attachment or carnism, the extent to which people believe or do not believe that eating animals is a natural, normal, and necessary part of contemporary life; and (2) sociotechnical imaginaries, divided between techno-optimistic “wizards” and technoskeptical “prophets.” From there, 4 key stakeholder groups emerge: (1) the “high-tech vegans” (techno-optimists with low levels of carnism); (2) the “ecomodernists” (techno-optimists with high levels of carnism); (3) the “good foodies” (technoskeptics with low levels of carnism); and (4) the “carnivore traditionalists” (technoskeptics with high levels of carnism). The article offers illustrative examples of these groups, drawing from popular media and advocacy. It concludes with reflections on the implications of this framework for nutrition research and practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition Today
Nutrition Today Nursing-Nutrition and Dietetics
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: An established journal for over 40 years, Nutrition Today publishes articles by leading nutritionists and scientists who endorse scientifically sound food, diet and nutritional practices. It helps nutrition professionals clear a pathway through today"s maze of fad diets and cure-all claims. Lively review articles cover the most current and controversial topics, such as the role of dietary fiber in cancer, as well as news about people, meetings, and other events that affect the field. The journal features solicited and submitted original articles, reviews of nutrition research findings, and summaries of symposia.
期刊最新文献
Exploring Effects of Food Shaming on Consumers’ Food-Related Attitudes and Behaviors Potential Benefit of Spices for Glycemic Control A Day in the Life of a Food Engineer Vegetarianism, Traditional Practices, and Belief Systems in India Food as Medicine in American Healthcare. Can Food Solve the Crisis It Created?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1