Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosoph...
View graph of relations

Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosophy of Food.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosophy of Food. / Chadwick, R.
In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 100, No. 1, 2000, p. 193-208.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Chadwick, R 2000, 'Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosophy of Food.', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-7372.2003.00010.x

APA

Vancouver

Chadwick R. Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosophy of Food. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 2000;100(1):193-208. doi: 10.1111/j.0066-7372.2003.00010.x

Author

Chadwick, R. / Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosophy of Food. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 2000 ; Vol. 100, No. 1. pp. 193-208.

Bibtex

@article{40b98228544e4e35bff4b7dc621bbf8f,
title = "Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosophy of Food.",
abstract = "The possibilities of genetic engineering, particularly as applied to human beings, have provoked considerable debate for over two decades, but more recently the focus of public concern, at least, has turned to genetically modified (GM) food. Food has occasionally caught the attention of philosophers (Telfer, 1996) and bioethicists (Mepham, 1996) but is now ripe for further attention in the light of the implications of GM for policy in health, economics and politics. Macer has identified opposing reactions to novel foods—to prefer to eat down the food chain, on the one hand, and to embrace technology, on the other (Macer, 1997). One question that has given rise to some interest is why consumer attitudes to genetically modified food have been so much more strongly adverse in Europe, particularly in the UK, than in the USA. This paper explores the ways in which the food ethics debate has been constructed in recent debates in the UK, with special reference to the similarities to and differences from what are on the face of it analogous debates in medical ethics. What is special about food, as opposed to drugs, which makes it appropriate or inappropriate to construct the arguments in the terms that currently predominate? This will involve looking in particular at the application of the principle of autonomy and the argument from consumer choice.",
author = "R. Chadwick",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1111/j.0066-7372.2003.00010.x",
language = "English",
volume = "100",
pages = "193--208",
journal = "Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society",
issn = "1467-9264",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Novel, Natural, Nutritious: Towards a Philosophy of Food.

AU - Chadwick, R.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - The possibilities of genetic engineering, particularly as applied to human beings, have provoked considerable debate for over two decades, but more recently the focus of public concern, at least, has turned to genetically modified (GM) food. Food has occasionally caught the attention of philosophers (Telfer, 1996) and bioethicists (Mepham, 1996) but is now ripe for further attention in the light of the implications of GM for policy in health, economics and politics. Macer has identified opposing reactions to novel foods—to prefer to eat down the food chain, on the one hand, and to embrace technology, on the other (Macer, 1997). One question that has given rise to some interest is why consumer attitudes to genetically modified food have been so much more strongly adverse in Europe, particularly in the UK, than in the USA. This paper explores the ways in which the food ethics debate has been constructed in recent debates in the UK, with special reference to the similarities to and differences from what are on the face of it analogous debates in medical ethics. What is special about food, as opposed to drugs, which makes it appropriate or inappropriate to construct the arguments in the terms that currently predominate? This will involve looking in particular at the application of the principle of autonomy and the argument from consumer choice.

AB - The possibilities of genetic engineering, particularly as applied to human beings, have provoked considerable debate for over two decades, but more recently the focus of public concern, at least, has turned to genetically modified (GM) food. Food has occasionally caught the attention of philosophers (Telfer, 1996) and bioethicists (Mepham, 1996) but is now ripe for further attention in the light of the implications of GM for policy in health, economics and politics. Macer has identified opposing reactions to novel foods—to prefer to eat down the food chain, on the one hand, and to embrace technology, on the other (Macer, 1997). One question that has given rise to some interest is why consumer attitudes to genetically modified food have been so much more strongly adverse in Europe, particularly in the UK, than in the USA. This paper explores the ways in which the food ethics debate has been constructed in recent debates in the UK, with special reference to the similarities to and differences from what are on the face of it analogous debates in medical ethics. What is special about food, as opposed to drugs, which makes it appropriate or inappropriate to construct the arguments in the terms that currently predominate? This will involve looking in particular at the application of the principle of autonomy and the argument from consumer choice.

U2 - 10.1111/j.0066-7372.2003.00010.x

DO - 10.1111/j.0066-7372.2003.00010.x

M3 - Journal article

VL - 100

SP - 193

EP - 208

JO - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society

JF - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society

SN - 1467-9264

IS - 1

ER -