Kaplan, David M – the Philosophy of Food
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Th e Philosophy of Food Edited by David M. Kaplan UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley Los Angeles London Th e Philosophy of Food Th e Philosophy of Food Edited by David M. Kaplan UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley Los Angeles London University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2012 by Th e Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Th e philosophy of food / edited by David M. Kaplan. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-520-26933-0 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-520-26934-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Food. I. Kaplan, David M. TX357.P53 2011 641.3–dc23 2011032946 Manufactured in the United States of America 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 In keeping with a commitment to support environmentally responsible and sustainable printing practices, UC Press has printed this book on Rolland Enviro100, a 100% post-consumer fi ber paper that is FSC certifi ed, deinked, processed chlorine-free, and manufactured with renewable biogas energy. It is acid-free and EcoLogo certifi ed. Matt Margolin (September 13, 1966–September 24, 2010) Table of Contents Introduction: Th e Philosophy of Food 1 David M. Kaplan 1. Real Men Have Manners 24 Roger Scruton 2. Down-Home Global Cooking: A Th ird Option between Cosmopolitanism and Localism 33 Lisa Heldke 3. Hunger Is the Best Sauce: Th e Aesthetics of Food 52 Kevin W. Sweeney 4. Smells, Tastes, and Everyday Aesthetics 69 Emily Brady 5. Ethical Gourmandism 87 Carolyn Korsmeyer 6. Two Evils in Food Country: Hunger and Lack of Representation 103 Michiel Korthals 7. Ethics and Genetically Modifi ed Food 122 Gary Comstock 8. Th e Ethics of Food Safety in the Twenty-First Century: Who Keeps the Public Good? 140 Jeff rey Burkhardt 9. Th e Myth of Happy Meat 161 Richard P. Haynes 10. Animal Welfare, Happy Meat, and Veganism as the Moral Baseline 169 Gary L. Francione 11. Animal Ethics and Food Production in the Twenty-First Century 190 David Fraser 12. Nature Politics and the Philosophy of Agriculture 214 Paul B. Th ompson 13. Th e Ethics and Sustainability of Aquaculture 233 Matthias Kaiser 14. Scenarios for Food Security 250 David Castle, Keith Culver, and William Hannah 15. Nutritionism and Functional Foods 269 Gyorgy Scrinis 16. In Vitro Meat: What Are the Moral Issues? 292 Stellan Welin, Julie Gold, and Johanna Berlin Contributors 305 Index 307 Introduction Th e Philosophy of Food David M. Kaplan Philosophers have a long but scattered history of analyzing food. Plato famously details an appropriate diet in Book II of the Republic. Th e Roman Stoics, Epicu- rus and Seneca, as well as Enlightenment philos ophers such as Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx, and Nietzsche, all discuss various aspects of food production and consumption. In the twentieth century, philosophers considered such issues as vegetarianism, agricultural ethics, food rights, biotechnology, and gustatory aesthetics. In the twenty-fi rst century, philosophers continue to address these issues and new ones concerning the globalization of food, the role of technology, and the rights and responsibilities of consumers and producers. Typically, these philosophers call their work “food ethics” or “agricultural ethics.” But I think they sell themselves short. Philosophers do more than treat food as a branch of ethical theory. Th ey also examine how it relates to the fundamental areas of philosophi- cal inquiry: metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, political theory, and, of course, ethics. Th e phrase “philosophy of food” is more accurate. We might eventually come to think of the philosophy of food as a perfectly ordinary “philosophy of ” if more philosophers address food issues and more colleges off er courses on the subject—or at least that is my hope. But why is this subject—a footnote to Plato just like the rest of the philosophy— not yet fully entrenched as a standard philosophical subject? Why do philosophers only occasionally address questions concerning food? Th e subject is obviously important and the scholarship on food has real pedigree. So why does “philosophy of food” have a novel ring? Some have argued that food is eschewed because of the perception that it is too physical and transient to deserve serious consideration.1 Others have argued that food production and preparation have conventionally 1 2 Introduction been regarded as women’s work and, therefore, viewed as an unworthy topic for a male-dominated profession.2 Still others argue that the senses and activities associ- ated with food (taste, eating, and drinking) have traditionally been seen as “lower senses” and are too primitive and instinctual to be analyzed philosophically.3 Th ese are all plausible explanations. But perhaps the real reason why relatively few philosophers analyze food is because it is too diffi cult. Food is vexing. It is not even clear what it is. It belongs simultaneously to the worlds of economics, ecology, and culture. It involves veg- etables, chemists, and wholesalers; livestock, refrigerators, and cooks; fertilizer, fi sh, and grocers. Th e subject quickly becomes tied up in countless empirical and practical matters that frustrate attempts to think about its essential properties. It is very diffi cult to disentangle food from its web of production, distribution, and consumption. Or when it is considered in its various use and meaning contexts, it is too oft en stripped of its unique food qualities and instead seen as, for example, any contextualized object, social good, or part of nature. It is much easier to treat food as a mere case study of applied ethics than to analyze it as something that poses unique philosophical challenges. But things are starting to change. Th e level of public discourse about diet, health, and agriculture in the United States is remarkably more sophisticated than it was only ten years ago. Food books are best sellers, cooking shows are ubiquitous, and the public is more informed about food safety and food politics. Th e mainstream media no longer tend to blame malnutrition and food insecurity on overpopula- tion but on poverty and poor governance. And most people, I suspect, regardless of one’s take on animal ethics, would be sickened to learn that a staggering fi ft y- six billion land animals are slaughtered each year for food.4 Philosophers are not immune from these facts and trends. We are increasingly joining other academics, journalists, and citizens who take food very seriously. More philosophical work has been done on food and agriculture in the last fi ve years than the previous thirty.5 Hopefully, we are not just following a trend but helping to steer it in a more intel- ligent and responsible direction. Th e role of philosophy is to cut through the morass of contingent facts and con- ceptual muddle to tackle the most basic questions about food: What is it exactly? What should we eat? How do we know it is safe? How should food be distributed? What is good food? Th ese are simple yet diffi cult questions because they involve philosophical questions about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aes- thetics. Other disciplinary approaches may touch on these questions concerning food but only philosophy addresses them explicitly. Once we have a clear under- standing of philosophy’s unique role, we will all be in a better position to engage in dialogue aimed at improving our knowledge, practices, and laws. We should also gain a renewed appreciation for the scope and relevance of the discipline of philosophy itself. Introduction 3 FOOD METAPHYSICS We presuppose some conception—however vague—of what food is whenever we eat or identify something as food. Diff erent conceptions can have real conse- quences for our health, the environment, and the economy. Metaphysics makes these implicit assumptions explicit by examining the very notion of what food is and what property or properties make something food. Th e answers to questions concerning the nature of food are not at all obvious. Nor are the answers to other metaphysical questions about the diff erence between natural and artifi cial food, the identity of food over time (from raw to cooked to spoiled), the diff erence between food and an animal, or the diff erence between food and other edible things (such as water, minerals, or drugs). Predictably, there is no consensus among philosophers about the nature of food, but there are several good candidates. Food as nutrition. Food is a substance or material that originates in the environ- ment in plants, animals, or water. It is made up of naturally occurring nutrients metabolized by an organism to sustain, grow, and repair vital life processes. Th e primary function of food is to provide nourishment to an organism. Nourishment is furnished by nutrients: carbohydrates, fats, fi bers, protein, vitamins, and miner- als. Th ese and other chemical compounds are essential for basic bodily functioning. Food on this model has objective properties (that are really present) that are not open to interpretation. Food as nature. Nature is not only objective but also normative. It is oft en perceived to have intrinsic value distinct from its instrumental value satisfying human ends. In this sense, food not only comes from nature but it is good when it does and bad when it does not.