Paradox Of Food Research

The anxiety of change affects the way food systems produce food for the masses. The food system of the 21st century is meant to feed large amounts of people, but with the changing landscape come illness as a result of antibiotics and pesticides. The food system is changing to incorporate the human population is coping with the changes in consumption and portrayal of food-borne illnesses as a result of such changes.
Food borne illnesses in the 21st century are the result of the changing food system. How Americans manufacture food and get it to the table is no longer farm to table, but farm to manufacturing plant, to store or restaurant, to table. The changes “changes in the way that food is produced, processed, and distributed food along with

The three paradoxes of what people consume which include pleasure-displeasure, health-illness, and life-death. The positive aspects include pleasure and health, which are surrounded by satiety needed for energy and the continuation of life. The negative aspects of the paradox include displeasure and illness, which entails the ending of death. The paradoxes of food decide whether or not the consumer gains nutrients from what they are eating, or what they eat kills them. The way of coping with the pleasure-displeasure paradox can be found in traditional diet that has a narrow diet that is stable and doesn’t vary to ensure life and pleasure as a result of consuming the food. Health illness is coped by traditional combinations and preparations. While life-death uses the rituals of killing and thanking the food source to cope with the paradox. Modern day food processing has brought the human race away from the above paradoxes. When discussing the changing landscape of changing the changing food system, the questions that arrive are how foods are best altered to positively affect the human race. These trans-scientific questions, questions that scientists raise, but cannot answer yet about the changing food system, is the driving force of research into food. However, the problems with these

The response to food scares can be incredibly slow and cause incredible damage to the companies and to the government. When a food scare hits, David Edward writes that companies turn to in-house scientists when dealing with food scares. By doing this, companies have more control over the information of the risk of the product. Although, when information is revealed to be faulty, mistrust comes between the consumer and the scientific community. Consumers are not always sure if their food is safe and can play both the victim and the aggressor, according to Edwards. Consumers tend to rank risks higher than scientists do. A known risk is less scary than a risk of the unknown. Because of this fact, the consumer is not pacified by the scientific facts released by scientists, especially if they had been mislead by scientists before. The natural survival instinct gives consumers concerns when it comes to hazards associated with risk to future generations. Finally, the “Hitchcock Factor” makes consumers become nervous if a risk involves the unknown or is difficult to quantify. The media portrayal of widespread food-borne illness can cause widespread panic, when unnecessary. The media wants to read the feelings of consumers but at the same time want to make a good story and can therefore tend to scare consumers