Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Food System Fragility and Resilience in the Aftermath of Disruption and Controversy

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Discussions about “disruptive” food controversies abound in popular and academic literatures, particularly with respect to meat production and consumption, yet there is little scholarship examining what makes an event disruptive in the first instance. Filling this gap will improve our understanding of how food controversies unfold and why certain issues may be more likely to linger in the public consciousness as opposed to others. I address these questions by using focus groups and in-depth interviews to analyze five potentially upsetting topics: dietary warnings about meat consumption, meat safety recalls, eating meat directly from the skull of the animal, the morality of killing animals for food, and the “pink slime” debate. Findings suggest that disruptive events involve negative affective reactions to safety hazards, disgust-provoking sensory cues, and/or ethical dilemmas. When these cues exist in isolation from one another, consumers’ reactions are quite often short-lived, while the simultaneous presence of multiple disruptive elements in the context of a single issue or event can trigger a far stronger reaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Maynard’s (2003: 11) discussion of “the noetic crisis” for more detail on how disruptive moments unfold in real-time social interaction.

  2. In highlighting the limits of producers’ ability to shape the narrative about meat, Kinnucan et al. (1997) found that the effects of generic advertising on consumer demand were “modest and fragile” as compared to the effects of health information.

  3. In 2011, the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research released a report stating that red and processed meat consumption increased the risk of colorectal cancer. In a press release, the American Institute for Cancer Research recommended “that people limit consumption to 18 oz (cooked weight) of red meat a week—roughly the equivalent of five or six small portions of beef, lamb or pork—and avoid processed meat.” 18 oz is equivalent to approximately 510 grams. (http://preventcancer.aicr.org/site/News2/305144441?abbr=pr_&page=NewsArticle&id=20691&news_iv_ctrl=1102).

  4. The Atkins diet recommends that consumers increase their consumption of animal fat while reducing their consumption of carbohydrates.

  5. This demand subsequently declined by approximately 0.8 % as Atkins received less favorable coverage in later years (Tonsor et al. 2010: 13).

  6. This is a nickname for Buffalo Wild Wings, a quick-service restaurant chain.

  7. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/03/12/148457233/death-by-bacon-study-finds-eating-meat-is-risky.

  8. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

  9. According to Dahlgran and Fairchild (2002), this may be due to the fact that careful cooking and preparation methods can minimize consumer risk (unlike with mad cow disease); that the news coverage was short lived; and that consumers had already begun to commit to chicken while turning away from beef.

  10. Brester and Smith (2008) have argued, however, that the 2003 declines were largely due to foreign bans as opposed to US consumers’ avoidance of beef.

  11. Interestingly, however, she felt comfortable with eating meat off of the bone when it came to other types of cuts, and she proudly showed me a lamb shank that she was marinating.

  12. Psychophysiological research further shows that morally offensive ideas, actions, and objects do not trigger the feelings of “physiological and subjective experience of revulsion” which are characteristic of disgust-based reactions (Ottaviani et al. 2013).

  13. http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-december/effect-of-media-on-consumer-demand-for-lean-finely-textured-beef-muted.aspx#.VayXC_ltCts.

  14. http://time.com/3176714/pink-slime-meat-prices-bpi-beef/?iid=sr-link1.

  15. Increased media coverage of animal welfare issues has a statistically significant and negative impact on meat consumption (Tonsor and Olynk 2011). Between 1982 and 2008, media coverage of animal welfare issues steadily increased, particularly in the mid-to-late 2000s. The study included both positive and negative stories about animal welfare, and the authors make no attempt to distinguish between the two. The media impact is small but notable. Had media attention in 2008 remained at the same level as it was in 1999, Tonsor and Olynk’s (2011) model predicts that pork and poultry demand would have been 2.65 and 5.01 % higher, respectively. Beef demand has been less sensitive to animal welfare media coverage. The authors are unable to ascertain, however, the extent to which consumers become vegetarians as a result of this coverage.

References

  • Barker, J. M. (2011). Chew on this: Disgust, delay, and the documentary image in food Inc. Film-Philosophy, 15(2), 70–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2003). The fire of desire: A multisited inquiry into consumer passion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. S. (2006). Risk, trust and ‘The Beyond’ of the environment: A brief look at the recent case of mad cow disease in the United States. Environmental Values, 15(2), 233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, R. M. (2016). Hidden in plain sight: How industry, mass media, and consumers’ everyday habits suppress food controversies. Sociologia Ruralis,. doi:10.1111/soru.12152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgran, R. A., & Fairchild, D. G. (2002). The demand impacts of chicken contamination publicity—a case study. Agribusiness, 18(4), 459–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delind, L., & Howard, P. (2008). Safe at any scale? Food scares, food regulation, and scaled alternatives. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(3), 301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demko, V. (1998). An analysis of media coverage of the BSE crisis in the United States. In S. Ratzan (Ed.), The mad cow crisis—Health and the public good (pp. 153–166). London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detre, J. D., & Gunderson, M. A. (2012). Did the “Pink Slime” controversy influence publicly traded agribusiness companies. Choices, 27(4), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C., & Irvine, L. (2010). Reproducing dominion: Emotional apprenticeship in the 4-H youth livestock program. Society & Animals, 18(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessler, D. M., Arguello, A. P., Mekdara, J. M., & Macias, R. (2003). Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: A test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism. Appetite, 41(1), 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Study in ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, E. (2010). Foodborne microbial risks in the press: The framing of listeriosis in Canadian newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 270–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. L. (2012). Lean finely textured beef: The” pink Slime” controversy. Washington: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruen, L. (1999). Must utilitarians be impartial? In Dale Jamieson (Ed.), Singer and his critics (pp. 129–149). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(5), 701–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halfmann, D., & Young, M. P. (2010). War pictures: The grotesque as a mobilizing tactic. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 15(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havlena, W. I. J., & Holak, S. L. (1996). Exploring nostalgia imagery through the use of consumer collages. Advances in Consumer Research, 23(1), 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaphy, E. D. (2013). Repairing breaches with rules: Maintaining institutions in the face of everyday disruptions. Organization Science, 24(5), 1291–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., Dowd, T. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joy, M. (2011). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. Newburyport: Conari Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinnucan, H. W., Xiao, H., Hsia, C.-J., & Jackson, J. D. (1997). Effects of health information and generic advertising on U.S. meat demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(1), 13. doi:10.2307/1243939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R. (Eds.). (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. Sage.

  • Levenstein, H. A. (1999). The perils of abundance: Food, health, and morality in American history. In J.-L. Flandrin & M. Montanari (Eds.), Food: A culinary history from antiquity to the present (pp. 516–529). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, D. W. (2006). Cognition on the ground. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 105. doi:10.1177/1461445606059560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, A. (1996). Sociologies of food and nutrition. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McKendree, M., Widmar, D., & Widmar, N. (2014). Quantifying consumers’ perceptions of lean finely textured beef. In Working Paper. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/174446/2/14-3.Quantifying%20Consumers’%20Perceptions%20Lean%20Finely%20Textured%20Beef.pdf.

  • Mitchell, L. (1999). Combining focus groups and interviews: Telling how it is; telling how it feels. In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (1999) (pp. 36–46). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society, 27(01), 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nestle, M. (2002). Food politics : How the food industry influences nutrition and health (California studies in food and culture; 3). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogle, M. (2013). In meat we trust: An unexpected history of carnivore America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaviani, C., Mancini, F., Petrocchi, N., Medea, B., & Couyoumdjian, A. (2013). Autonomic correlates of physical and moral disgust. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 89(1), 57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Stampfer, M. J., et al. (2012). Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2 prospective cohort studies. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(7), 555–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piggott, Nicholas E., & Marsh, Thomas L. (2004). Does food safety information impact US meat demand? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(1), 154–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, J. R., & Anderson, D. P. (2012). Assessing the impact of LFTB in the Beef Cattle Industry. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, 27, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, R.-M. C. (2014). You say lean finely textured beef, I say Pink Slime. Food & Drug LJ, 69, 625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldisation of society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P. (1997). Why we eat, What we eat, and Why we worry ABOUT it. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 50(5), 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1984). On doing being ordinary. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, W., & Villas-Boas, S. (2009). Consumer and market responses to mad cow disease. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(4), 1140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01315.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1990). Animal liberation (2nd edn.). New York, NY: New York Review of Books. Distributed by Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, M. R., Shiptsova, R., & Hamm, S. J. (2006). Sales responses to recalls for listeria monocytogenes: Evidence from branded ready-to-eat meats. Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 482–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G. T., Mintert, J. R., & Schroeder, T. C. (2010). US meat demand: Household dynamics and media information impacts. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk, N. J. (2011). Impacts of animal well-being and welfare media on meat demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00266.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2001). A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agricultural Economics, 25(2–3), 359. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb00215.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vialles, N. (1994). Animal to edible. New York, NY, Paris: Cambridge University Press, Editions de La Maison des Sciences de l’homme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B. (2004). Consumer reactions to food safety crises. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 48, 103–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadavalli, A., & Jones, K. (2014). Does media influence consumer demand? The case of lean finely textured beef in the United States. Food Policy, 49, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelditch, M. (2001). Processes of legitimation: Recent developments and new directions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(1), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 110C Armsby Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Robert M. Chiles

  2. Department of Food Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 202 Rodney A. Erickson Food Science Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Robert M. Chiles

  3. Rock Ethics Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, 131 Sparks Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Robert M. Chiles

Authors
  1. Robert M. Chiles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert M. Chiles.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiles, R.M. Food System Fragility and Resilience in the Aftermath of Disruption and Controversy. J Agric Environ Ethics 29, 1021–1042 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9645-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9645-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation