DOCSLIB.ORG

Carnism Ideology in Food Waste Management: a Qualitative Comparison Among Stakeholders in the US State of Oregon, and the Italian Region of Emilia Romagna

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carnism Ideology in Food Waste Management: a Qualitative Comparison Among Stakeholders in the US State of Oregon, and the Italian Region of Emilia Romagna Carnism ideology in food waste management: A qualitative comparison among stakeholders in the US state of Oregon, and the Italian Region of Emilia Romagna By Amanda Rhodes, RDN MPP Essay Submitted to Oregon State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Policy Presented September 6, 2017 Master of Public Policy Essay of Amanda Rhodes presented on September 6, 2017. APPROVED: Dr. Mark Edwards, Sociology Dr. Brent Steel, Political Science Dr. Matteo Vittuari, University of Bologna Agricultural and Food Sciences Amanda Rhodes, RDN, Author ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... v Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. viii Introduction: GHG Emissions, Waste, and Meat .......................................................................................... 1 GHG and Diet ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Food Loss and Waste ................................................................................................................................ 7 Meat Loss, Waste and GHG .................................................................................................................... 10 Global and National Goals ...................................................................................................................... 14 Drivers of Wasted Food and Best Practices ............................................................................................ 16 Policy Pass Up ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Public Policy Frameworks and Beliefs ..................................................................................................... 21 Stakeholders, Meat Consumption, and Climate Change ........................................................................ 24 Stakeholder Perceptions of Wasted Food and Meat .............................................................................. 26 Carnism Theory ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 Policy and Stakeholders Definitions ........................................................................................................ 33 Region Selection and Context ................................................................................................................. 33 Political Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 36 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Population Sample .............................................................................................................................. 38 Recruitment ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Interview Guide Design ....................................................................................................................... 40 Interview Content ............................................................................................................................... 41 Interview Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 41 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 43 Coding ................................................................................................................................................. 43 Content Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 45 Bias ...................................................................................................................................................... 45 Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 iii Participant Description ........................................................................................................................... 46 Carnist Ideology and the Value of Meat ................................................................................................. 49 Confirmation Bias ................................................................................................................................ 55 Meat Eating Justifications ................................................................................................................... 56 Conforming to and Reproducing the Carnist System.......................................................................... 57 Carnist Identity: Personal and Regional .............................................................................................. 60 Carnist Identity: Organizational .......................................................................................................... 61 The Comparative Value of Meat ......................................................................................................... 63 Background Understanding of Food Waste ............................................................................................ 66 Most Impactful Foods ............................................................................................................................. 67 Public Encouragement on Impactful Foods ............................................................................................ 68 Stakeholder Diet and Carbon Footprint .................................................................................................. 70 Upstream Production of GHG and Food Waste ...................................................................................... 71 The Food Waste Fight ............................................................................................................................. 74 Food Waste and Targeting Meat ............................................................................................................ 76 Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 77 Short Term .............................................................................................................................................. 78 Medium Term ......................................................................................................................................... 78 Long Term ............................................................................................................................................... 80 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................... 81 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................. 84 Interview Questions ................................................................................................................................ 84 Language ................................................................................................................................................. 85 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 85 References .................................................................................................................................................. 88 Appendix A. English Interview Guide, Recruitment and Consent Documents ........................................... 96 Appendix B. Italian Interview Guide, Recruitment and Consent Documents: Reclutamento e consenso verbale ........................................................................................................................................................ 99 Appendix C. Meat Eating Justifications Codes .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Evaluation of Others' Deliberations
    CHAPTER FOUR An Evaluation of Others’ Deliberations 4.1 Introduction If ethics is a search for rules of behaviour that can be universally endorsed (Jamieson 1990; Daniels 1979; Rawls 1971), the values underpinning my own deliberation on the issues explored in this book must be compared with the values underlying the deliberation of others. By considering the challenges raised by others’ views, qualified moral veganism might either be revised or, if it survives critique, be corroborated. Though some scholars who work in ani- mal ethics have defended views that are—to a reasonable degree—similar to my own (e.g. Milligan 2010; Kheel 2008; Adams 1990), many people consume animal products where they have adequate alternatives that, in my view, would reduce negative GHIs. This raises the question whether qualified moral vegan- ism overlooks something of importance—the fact that so many people act in ways that are incompatible with qualified moral veganism provokes the follow- ing question in me: Am I missing something? The ambition of this chapter is twofold. Its first aim is to analyse the delib- erations of two widely different groups of people on vegetarianism, veganism, and the killing of animals. By describing the views of others as accurately as I can, I aim to set aside my own thoughts on the matter temporarily—to the extent that doing so is possible—to throw light on where others might be coming from. The second aim of the chapter is to evaluate these views. By doing so, I hope that the reader will be stimulated to reflect upon their own dietary narratives through critical engagement with the views of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK 1 National Newspapers Bjos 1348 134..152
    The British Journal of Sociology 2011 Volume 62 Issue 1 Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK 1 national newspapers bjos_1348 134..152 Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan Abstract This paper critically examines discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. In setting parameters for what can and cannot easily be discussed, domi- nant discourses also help frame understanding. Discourses relating to veganism are therefore presented as contravening commonsense, because they fall outside readily understood meat-eating discourses. Newspapers tend to discredit veganism through ridicule, or as being difficult or impossible to maintain in practice. Vegans are variously stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists. The overall effect is of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism that we interpret as ‘vegaphobia’. We interpret derogatory discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers as evidence of the cultural reproduction of speciesism, through which veganism is dissociated from its connection with debates concerning nonhuman animals’ rights or liberation. This is problematic in three, interrelated, respects. First, it empirically misrepresents the experience of veganism, and thereby marginalizes vegans. Second, it perpetuates a moral injury to omnivorous readers who are not presented with the opportunity to understand veganism and the challenge to speciesism that it contains. Third, and most seri- ously, it obscures and thereby reproduces
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Identifying Meat Cuts
    THE GUIDE TO IDENTIFYING MEAT CUTS Beef Eye of Round Roast Boneless* Cut from the eye of round muscle, which is separated from the bottom round. Beef Eye of Round Roast Boneless* URMIS # Select Choice Cut from the eye of round muscle, which is Bonelessseparated from 1the480 bottom round. 2295 SometimesURMIS referred # to Selectas: RoundChoic Eyee Pot Roast Boneless 1480 2295 Sometimes referred to as: Round Eye Pot Roast Roast, Braise,Roast, Braise, Cook in LiquidCook in Liquid BEEF Beef Eye of Round Steak Boneless* Beef EyeSame of muscle Round structure Steak as the EyeBoneless* of Round Roast. Same muscleUsually structure cut less than1 as inch the thic Eyek. of Round Roast. URMIS # Select Choice Usually cutBoneless less than1 1inch481 thic 2296k. URMIS #**Marinate before cooking Select Choice Boneless 1481 2296 **Marinate before cooking Grill,** Pan-broil,** Pan-fry,** Braise, Cook in Liquid Beef Round Tip Roast Cap-Off Boneless* Grill,** Pan-broil,** Wedge-shaped cut from the thin side of the round with “cap” muscle removed. Pan-fry,** Braise, VEAL Cook in Liquid URMIS # Select Choice Boneless 1526 2341 Sometimes referred to as: Ball Tip Roast, Beef RoundCap Off Roast, Tip RoastBeef Sirloin Cap-Off Tip Roast, Boneless* Wedge-shapedKnuckle Pcuteeled from the thin side of the round with “cap” muscle removed. Roast, Grill (indirect heat), Braise, Cook in Liquid URMIS # Select Choice Boneless Beef Round T1ip526 Steak Cap-Off 234 Boneless*1 Same muscle structure as Tip Roast (cap off), Sometimesbut cutreferred into 1-inch to thicas:k steaks.Ball Tip Roast, Cap Off Roast,URMIS # Beef Sirloin Select Tip ChoicRoast,e Knuckle PBonelesseeled 1535 2350 Sometimes referred to as: Ball Tip Steak, PORK Trimmed Tip Steak, Knuckle Steak, Peeled Roast, Grill (indirect heat), **Marinate before cooking Braise, Cook in Liquid Grill,** Broil,** Pan-broil,** Pan-fry,** Stir-fry** Beef Round Tip Steak Cap-Off Boneless* Beef Cubed Steak Same muscleSquare structureor rectangula asr-shaped.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Failing Slaughterhouses
    BRITAIN’S FAILING SLAUGHTERHOUSES WHY IT’S TIME TO MAKE INDEPENDENTLY MONITORED CCTV MANDATORY www.animalaid.org.uk INTRODUCTION 4,000 0 SERIOUS BREACHES slaughterhouses SLAUGHTERHOUSES OF ANIMAL filmed were IN FULL COMPLIANCE WELFARE LAW breaking the law WHEN AUDITED More than 4,000 serious breaches of animal welfare laws in British slaughterhouses were reported by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the two years to August 2016.1 The regulator’s audit showed that not one UK slaughterhouse was in full compliance when the data was analysed in June 2016.2 Yet together, these are just a small sample of the breaches that actually occur inside Britain’s slaughterhouses. We know this because Animal Aid and Hillside Animal Sanctuary have placed fly-on- the-wall cameras inside 15 English slaughterhouses and found how workers behave when they think they are not being watched. Fourteen of the slaughterhouses were breaking animal welfare laws. From small family-run abattoirs to multi-plant Some of these slaughterhouses had installed CCTV, companies, all across the country, and in relation to which shows that the cameras alone do not deter all species, slaughterhouse workers break the law. law-breaking, and that unless the footage is properly Their abuses are both serious and widespread, and monitored, Food Business Operators (FBOs) do are hidden from the regulators. not detect – or do not report – these breaches. It is unknown whether FBOs fail to monitor their When being secretly filmed, workers punched and cameras properly or they monitor them and choose kicked animals in the head; burned them with not to report the abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Full Report
    As we look back over the four years since we announced the Perdue Commitments to Animal Care, it has been a journey of listening, learning and evolving. The Perdue Commitments to Animal Care was shaped with input from diverse stakeholders – including some of our harshest critics – and we continue to seek their input. We learn from a wide range of perspectives, whether they be farmers, our associates, advocates, customers or consumers, in formal and informal ways. Cumulatively this has resulted in 65 initiatives designed to address one of the Five Freedoms or one of the other three pillars of our program. And perhaps more importantly, these initiatives have moved from studies or intentions to programs and best practices that are now embedded in how we do business every day. We’re proud of our progress and eager to continue our journey. The following pages report on the most recent and core ongoing initiatives as well as our future goals. Highlights of our recent progress include: • Expanding the number of farms with free-range, outdoor access • Testing the feasibility and benefits of on-farm hatching to improve early chick care • Collaborating on animal welfare research with Mercy for Animals • Conducting our second farmer contest to tap into their experience and expertise in raising chickens • Opening our third Poultry Learning Center, viewing farms which offer a transparent, interactive experience to learn about poultry farming and proper animal care • Holding our fourth Animal Care Summit, bringing together animal care experts and advocates, customers, farmers, and our leadership, in July 2019. Our next summit will be held in October 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Animal Law Received Generous Support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law APRIL 2009 Volume V J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 EDITORIAL BOARD 2008-2009 Editor-in-Chief ANN A BA UMGR A S Managing Editor JENNIFER BUNKER Articles Editor RA CHEL KRISTOL Executive Editor BRITT A NY PEET Notes & Comments Editor JA NE LI Business Editor MEREDITH SH A R P Associate Editors Tabb Y MCLA IN AKISH A TOWNSEND KA TE KUNK A MA RI A GL A NCY ERIC A ARMSTRONG Faculty Advisor DA VID FA VRE J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 Pee R RE VI E W COMMITT ee 2008-2009 TA IMIE L. BRY A NT DA VID CA SSUTO DA VID FA VRE , CH A IR RE B ECC A J. HUSS PETER SA NKOFF STEVEN M. WISE The Journal of Animal Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its second speaker series. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor Favre, Journal of Animal Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824. The Journal of Animal Law is published annually by law students at ABA accredited law schools. Membership is open to any law student attending an ABA accredited law college.
    [Show full text]
  • Mar/Apr 2016
    The Graybeards is the official publication of the Korean War Veterans Association (KWVA). It is published six times a year for members and private distribution. Subscriptions available for $30.00/year (see address below). MAILING ADDRESS FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Administrative Assistant, P.O. Box 407, Charleston, IL 61920- 0407. MAILING ADDRESS TO SUBMIT MATERIAL / CONTACT EDITOR: Graybeards Editor, 2473 New Haven Circle, Sun City Center, FL 33573-7141. MAILING ADDRESS OF THE KWVA: P.O. Box 407, Charleston, IL 61920-0407. WEBSITE: http://www.kwva.org In loving memory of General Raymond Davis, our Life Honorary President, Deceased. We Honor Founder William T. Norris Editor Secretary L. T. Whitmore KWVA Liaison to Korean War Nat’l Museum Arthur G. Sharp Lewis M. 'Lew' Ewing 5625 Canterbury Ln Robert Mitchell 2473 New Haven Circle 310 Clay Hill Dr Suffolk, VA 23435-1605 3021 Rosefield Dr. Sun City Center, FL 33573-7141 Winchester, VA 22602 Ph: 757-483-9784 Houston, TX 77080-2609 Ph: 860-202-3088 Ph: 540-678-1787 [email protected] Ph: 713-939-8880 [email protected] [email protected] KWVA Liaison to Korean-American Assn. Advertising Manager Asst. Secretary Term 2015-2018 Jongwoo Han Gerald W. Wadley Jacob L. Feaster, Jr. Richard E. Brown Sr 310 Summerhaven Dr N Finisterre Publishing Inc. 22731 N Hwy 329, Micanopy, FL 32667 2307 Gring Dr. East Syracuse, NY 13057-3127 3 Black Skimmer Ct Cell: 352-262-1845 West Lawn, PA 19609 Ph: 315-637-9836, [email protected] Beaufort, SC 29907 FAX: 352-466-3493 [email protected] Ph 610-670-2886 Chaplain Emeritus 843-521-1896 Treasurer [email protected] Robert Personette [email protected] Tom Gregg Robert F.
    [Show full text]
  • Indianapolis Guide
    Nutrition Information Vegan Blogs Nutritionfacts.org: http://nutritionfacts.org/ AngiePalmer: http://angiepalmer.wordpress.com/ Get Connected The Position Paper of the American Dietetic Association: Colin Donoghue: http://colindonoghue.wordpress.com/ http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf James McWilliams: http://james-mcwilliams.com/ The Vegan RD: www.theveganrd.com General Vegans: Five Major Poisons Inherent in Animal Proteins: Human Non-human Relations: http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com When they ask; http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/jan/poison.htm Paleo Veganology: http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/ The Starch Solution by John McDougal MD: Say What Michael Pollan: http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/ “How did you hear about us” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw&feature=related Skeptical Vegan: http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/ tell them; Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell Esselstyn MD The Busy Vegan: http://thevegancommunicator.wordpress.com/ www.heartattackproof.com/ The China Study and Whole by T. Collin Campbell The Rational Vegan: http://therationalvegan.blogspot.com/ “300 Vegans!” www.plantbasednutrition.org The Vegan Truth: http://thevegantruth.blogspot.com/ The Food Revolution John Robbins www.foodrevolution.org/ Vegansaurus: Dr. Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes Neal Barnard MD http://vegansaurus.com/ www.pcrm.org/health/diabetes/ Vegan Skeptic: http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/ 300 Vegans & The Multiple Sclerosis Diet Book by Roy Laver Swank MD, PhD Vegan Scientist: http://www.veganscientist.com/
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Ecology—Transforming 21St-Century Medicine with Planetary Health in Mind
    challenges Perspective Clinical Ecology—Transforming 21st-Century Medicine with Planetary Health in Mind David H. Nelson 1, Susan L. Prescott 1,2,*, Alan C. Logan 1 and Jeffrey S. Bland 1,3 1 inVIVO Planetary Health, of the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN), West New York, NJ 10704, USA; [email protected] (D.H.N.); [email protected] (A.C.L.); [email protected] (J.S.B.) 2 The ORIGINS Project, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia 3 Personalized Lifestyle Medicine Institute, Seattle, WA 98443, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 17 January 2019; Accepted: 14 February 2019; Published: 18 February 2019 Abstract: Four decades ago, several health movements were sprouting in isolation. In 1980, the environmental group Friends of the Earth expanded the World Health Organization definition of health, reminding citizenry that, “health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and ecological well-being and not merely the absence of disease—personal health involves planetary health”. At the same time, a small group of medical clinicians were voicing the concept of “clinical ecology”—that is, a perspective that sees illness, especially chronic illness, as a response to the total lived experience and the surroundings in which “exposures” accumulate. In parallel, other groups advanced the concept of holistic medicine. In 1977, the progressive physician-scientist Jonas Salk stated that “we are entering into a new Epoch in which holistic medicine will be the dominant model”. However, only recently have the primary messages of these mostly isolated movements merged into a unified interdisciplinary discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Animal Suffering and Vegan Outreach
    Paez, Eze (2016) Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach. Animal Sentience 7(11) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1101 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.087: Paez Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Eze Paez Department of Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona Abstract: Ng’s strategic proposal seems to downplay the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals and omit what may be the most effective strategy to reduce the harms farmed animals suffer: vegan outreach. Eze Paez, lecturer in moral and political philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, studies normative and applied ethics, especially ontological and normative aspects of abortion and the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. He is a member of Animal Ethics. upf.academia.edu/ezepaez Underestimating the importance of wild animal suffering. Ng’s (2016) view is not that animal advocates should focus only on farmed animals, to the exclusion of those that live in the wild. He concedes that our efforts must also be directed toward raising awareness of the harms suffered by animals in nature. Nonetheless, he seems to suggest that these efforts should be minimal relative to those devoted to reducing the harms farmed animals suffer. Ng underestimates the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals in terms of net reduction in suffering perhaps because he is overestimating people’s resistance to caring about wild animals and to intervening in nature on their behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty on Animals and Related Rights
    PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020) CRUELTY ON ANIMALS AND RELATED RIGHTS Maithili Chaudhury1, Nilanjan Chakraborty2 1,2 Asst. Professer, Faculty of Legal Studies, Siksha O Anusandhan Email: [email protected], [email protected] Maithili Chaudhury, Nilanjan Chakraborty: Cruelty On Animals And Related Rights -- Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 17(6). ISSN 1567-214x Keywords: Animal Rights, Animal Husbandry, Anti-cruelty ethic, Social Ethic ABSTRACT Businesses and occupations must remain consistent with social ethics or risk losing their freedom. An important social ethical issue that has arisen over the past four decades is animal welfare in various areas of human use. The ethical interest of the society has outgrown the conventional morality of animal cruelty, which originated in biblical times and is embodied in the laws of all civilized societies. There are five major reasons, most notably the substitution of husbandry-based agriculture with industrial agriculture, for this new social concern. This loss of husbandry to industry has threatened the traditional fair contract between humans and animals, leading to significant animal suffering on four different fronts. Because such suffering is not caused by cruelty, it was necessary to express social concerns with a new ethic for animals. Since ethics is based on pre-existing ethics rather than ex nihilo, society has looked for its properly modified ethics for humans to find moral categories that apply to animals. This concept of legally encoded rights for animals has emerged as a plausible vehicle for reform. The paper provides brief summary of the animal welfare board of India, legal capacity in order to possess rights and tries to establish relation between legal personhood and rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetarianism and World Peace and Justice
    Visit the Triangle-Wide calendar of peace events, www.trianglevegsociety.org/peacecalendar VVeeggeettaarriiaanniissmm,, WWoorrlldd PPeeaaccee,, aanndd JJuussttiiccee By moving toward vegetarianism, can we help avoid some of the reasons for fighting? We find ourselves in a world of conflict and war. Why do people fight? Some conflict is driven by a desire to impose a value system, some by intolerance, and some by pure greed and quest for power. The struggle to obtain resources to support life is another important source of conflict; all creatures have a drive to live and sustain themselves. In 1980, Richard J. Barnet, director of the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that by the end of the 20th century, anger and despair of hungry people could lead to terrorist acts and economic class war [Staten Island Advance, Susan Fogy, July 14, 1980, p.1]. Developed nations are the largest polluters in the world; according to Mother Jones (March/April 1997, http://www. motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA97/hawken2.html), for example, Americans, “have the largest material requirements in the world ... each directly or indirectly [using] an average of 125 pounds of material every day ... Americans waste more than 1 million pounds per person per year ... less than 5 percent of the total waste ... gets recycled”. In the US, we make up 6% of the world's population, but consume 30% of its resources [http://www.enough.org.uk/enough02.htm]. Relatively affluent countries are 15% of the world’s population, but consume 73% of the world’s output, while 78% of the world, in developing nations, consume 16% of the output [The New Field Guide to the U.
    [Show full text]