Ethics of Dietary Guidelines: Nutrients, Processes and Meals

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (3):413-421 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Dietary guidelines are mostly issued by agrifood departments or agencies of governments, and are the result of power play between interest groups and values. They have considerable influence over food preferences and purchases of consumers. Ethical problems are at stake not only with respect to power strategies and their influence on consumers. In this paper I will consider three different types of guidelines: a nutrient oriented type, a process oriented type and a meal oriented type. In the nutrient oriented guidelines healthy nutrients and food stuffs are mentioned that excel in containing one or more ‘healthy’ nutrients. Bio- and nutrition scientists and the producers of nutrients, like the sugar, dairy and animal industry, have a lot of influence in this variant. The nutrient oriented framing of food is focussed on individual health. Individuals are implicitly addressed to take responsibility for their own long term health; they have to acquire surveillance and cognitive skills in interpreting their bio data. They don’t need to acquire skills to cook. In the process oriented type, foods and ingredients are categorized according to minimal, refined and reconstituted production processes. Nutrition scientists have the last say here. Consumers do need some food skills to handle fresh products. In the meal oriented guidelines, politicians, social scientists and fresh food producers have prominent responsibilities with respect to the formulation of the guidelines and their application. Buying fresh products, preparing and eating together are the main themes. Food is framed in terms of cooking, and eating and sharing meals. Consumers have to spend time in buying fresh ingredients and cooking; they have to develop food capabilities. The formulation of dietary guidelines is not a neutral operation, but determined by controversies about framings of food and health, responsibilities and also by integrity and self-confidence of experts. It is striking that biological and nutrition scientists often proclaim to possess the final truth on the healthiness of nutrients, and heap scorn on diet gurus. They don’t care that their often incoherent recommendations cause a lot of confusion with consumers and sometimes even lack of trust. I discuss these themes in the paper and will also give some arguments why in the current situation the meal oriented type is ethically more acceptable.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Australia's new dietary guidelines.Kerri Anne Brussen - 2012 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 18 (4):1.
Trust, food, and health. Questions of trust at the interface between food and health.Franck L. B. Meijboom - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (3):231-245.
Uncertainties of Nutrigenomics and Their Ethical Meaning.Michiel Korthals & Rixt Komduur - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (5):435-454.
Taking consumers seriously: Two concepts of consumer sovereignty. [REVIEW]Michiel Korthals - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):201-215.
Consumer autonomy and sufficiency of gmf labeling.Helena Siipi & Susanne Uusitalo - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (4):353-369.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-07-22

Downloads
11 (#1,113,583)

6 months
3 (#1,002,413)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?