In June of last year, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted approval for the commercial sale of cell-cultured chicken, making it the second country in the world after Singapore to do so. Upside Foods, an American company that produces and sells cultivated meat using a process that mimics the way animal cells interweave to form sheets, creating a texture similar to chicken breast, describes its product as food worth fighting for. Carbon emissions from the production of beef, pork, and other meats account for 57% of total food production, making the core idea behind this company's cultivated meat 'sustainable meat.' While the company still faces the technical hurdle of mass production, this case illustrates that we are no longer simply standing on top of nature when it comes to the topic of 'food.' Rather, we are moving into the next frontier of human intelligence, where we've confirmed our ability to transcend nature.
Phrases like 'natural extracts' and 'natural' have long been effective in communicating or promoting the value and perception of products that touch or are absorbed by our bodies in various forms and functions, such as cosmetics, food, and household goods. This stems from the human understanding that the human body originates from nature, coupled with a worldview that views nature as an organism and a living entity. Therefore, to facilitate the growth of the food industry within a generative paradigm that extends beyond extraction, it is essential to examine how today's individuals relate to their own bodies. ROC conducted ethnographic research with 20 men and women aged 20 to 60 on the correlation between health and body awareness related to this topic. The following are the intriguing patterns found.
First, health is experienced as a routine state. A 40-year-old male patient who had injured his back mentioned his disappointment at not being able to pursue his usual goals, such as business trips or golf, due to the pain during his conversation with a medical professional. A 60-year-old woman who used to get off the bus one stop earlier every day to walk home for exercise described her knee pain in terms of how it had changed her daily routines. These instances suggest that the notion of being 'healthy' is actually experienced in a rather ambiguous way. Furthermore, it can be interpreted as indicating that external and internal suggestions about what is good or bad for health are not readily accepted.
Second, individuals' and families' belief systems influence food choices. There were instances where participants naturally acquired the experiential belief from their parents that they should eat meat when they were sick. Conversely, some individuals had unpleasant memories from witnessing pig slaughtering in their childhood, which led to them having aversion to eating meat as adults. A 50-year-old female business owner who expressed a sense of pride in setting a minimum sugar standard for her cookie business after witnessing excessive sugar usage in the baking industry. This signifies that while participants were able to clearly articulate the basis for differentiating between foods they should avoid or not eat at a personal level, thus making it easy to connect those insights to their daily practices, they showed ambiguity in their responses when asked about what constituted a better choice.
Third, food choices involve a sense of prevention. One of the biggest questions in the medical field is about compliance. People are aware that they experience ailments or imperfections in the normal functioning of their bodies in various small ways. Individuals discuss investing in Pilates or home training or taking related medications to improve their shoulder range of motion or reduce back pain, yet many experience habitual limitations that are not sustainable. One of the most common strategies for individuals facing health conditions that require them to abstain from alcohol, spicy food, or salty food, who struggle to modify their eating habits, is food-related prevention. Choices like opting for whole-wheat burger buns, reducing milk tea consumption, or generally reducing meal sizes are based on the rationale that even if they don't have to take medication, they should at least eat food. This perspective presents an opportunity for related companies.
The fact that individuals respond more decisively to reducing their consumption of harmful foods, while simultaneously experiencing ambiguity when it comes to what is personally appropriate, represents both a hurdle and an opportunity for the food industry within the future generative paradigm. This phenomenon is also evident in consumer behaviour towards skincare, dietary supplements, and sunscreen. Investments are made within the realm of faith and trust, with the belief that results will become apparent over time. Perhaps the answer lies in a bottom-up approach that views the family and other communities in which individuals are embedded as the minimum unit influencing food meaning, choice, and purchasing decisions. It's plausible that the understanding of suitable foods within these communities and the related customary beliefs associated with them may hold the key to resolving this issue.
References
Are we listening to the gut?
Comments0