首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Why sustainable and ‘nutritionally correct’ food is not on the agenda: Western Sydney,the moral arts of everyday life and public policy
Institution:1. National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra 0200, ACT, Australia;2. School of Anthropology, Rm 305, William James Hall, 33 Kirkland street, Cambridge 02138, MA, USA;1. Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada;2. Institute for Public Policy and Governance, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia;3. Institute for Rural Futures, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia;4. Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia;1. Development Strategy and Governance Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Bole Sub-City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;2. Friedman School of Nutrition, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA;3. Department of Economics, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA;4. Poverty Health and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA;1. Sorbonne Paris Nord University, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Epidemiology and Statistics Research Center – University of Paris (CRESS), 93017, Bobigny, France;2. ADEME (Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie), 20 avenue du Grésillé BP 90406, 49004, Angers, France;3. Solagro, 31000, Toulouse, France;4. Public Heath Department, Avicenne Hospital, AP-HP, 93017, Bobigny, France;5. Aix Marseille Université, INSERM, INRAE, C2VN, 13007, Marseille, France;1. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia;2. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Abstract:Within a context of delivering food security into the future, dietary guidelines are being reframed, corporations are replacing unsustainable products, and consumers are being encouraged to become ecological citizens. While there is a growing literature on the food practices of ‘alternative’ consumers, ‘mainstream’ consumers are less well understood. This paper describes qualitative research undertaken in a socio-economically disadvantaged area of Sydney, Australia, which aimed to uncover consumer views towards sustainable and healthy diets. Most participants indicated a discrepancy between their desired and actual behaviours: while they want to support Australian, or local, food producers they gravitate towards cheap and tasty food from ‘anywhere’; and while they associate nutritious food with fresh food, they will buy processed foods which can be less expensive, appeal to children and are prone to less waste. Reflecting mainstream Australian political culture, participants were compromising household food budgets in order to pursue a socially acceptable standard of living (including decent housing, car-reliance). They were also incorporating the pleasure and desires of family members as part of ‘the moral arts of everyday life’. Using social theories of consumption and practice sociology we argue that food choices and practices – easy or not – need to be interpreted as part of the role that consumption plays in political citizenship and moral subjectivity. In the Western Sydney context, food practices are essentially household budget and family nourishment practices rather than nutrition and sustainability practices; a position which is not addressed in the government’s new food policies or wage determination processes.
Keywords:Citizen-consumers  Food security  Australian public policies  Moral food choices  Political food practices  Sustainable food consumption
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号