Publication:
Why We Eat What We Eat: Explanations for Human Food Preferences and Implications for Government Regulation

Thumbnail Image

Date

1997

Published Version

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Why We Eat What We Eat: Explanations for Human Food Preferences and Implications for Government Regulation (1997 Third Year Paper)

Research Data

Abstract

As this paper will demonstrate, however, understanding the reasons behind human food preferences can make a tremendous difference in the well-being of the world's people. To this end, Part II examines two competing theories for the origins of human food preferences: cultural idealism and cultural materialism. The first approach starts from the premise that human food preferences are fundamentally arbitrary--i.e., that food preferences are the results of irrational cultural prejudices--whereas the second theory posits that human food habits are rational adaptations to material conditions. Part III illustrates these two theory's explanations for two well-known food taboos: the American taboo on dog meat and the Indian taboo on cow slaughter.

Description

Other Available Sources

Keywords

Food and Drug Law, cultural idealism, cultural materialism, taboo

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Related Stories