Diners in "Portlandia" demand to know where their chicken came from |
"After viewing a few organic foods, comfort foods, or control foods, participants who were exposed to organic foods volunteered significantly less time to help a needy stranger, and they judged moral transgressions significantly harsher than those who viewed nonorganic foods."
The researchers explained this connection by suggesting that since the "organic foodies" already defined and justified themselves morally through their food choices, they didn't feel the need to go any further.
One one hand, I think this is a crock. As the Organic Authority blog points out, there have been other studies that have shown that people who make it a point to not only find out if their food is organic, but to establish if they were ethically produced, are definitely not selfish. They care not only what their family eats, but how what they eat impacted the people and animals who helped produce said food items.
Now certainly, as the TV show "Portlandia" likes to poke fun at, there definitely are jerks and flat-out hypocrites who cling to stuff like organic foods to be trendy. But there is no getting around the fact that caring about whether your food is local, stuffed with pesticides and GMOs, are grown with virtual slave labor, etc is probably a good thing.
As inflammatory and knee-jerk as their conclusions are presented, the Loyola study does bring up an interesting point. What if people who care about the quality and health benefits/risks of their food are, in a way, selfish? What if in a society where people will robotically stuff into their mouths whatever comfort food and unhealthy snacks as possible -- so much so that states like California and New York are trying to use bans and legislations to prevent their populace from de facto suicide through cancer, heart disease, and diabetes -- it takes a "self-ish" person to stop and demand better nutrition?
No comments:
Post a Comment