Full transcript
0:00out well hi everybody
0:03and welcome to the latest installment of
0:06the half-baked online colloquia series
0:09which is a series of colloquia on zoom
0:11organized by culinary mind
0:13and the series host talks by junior
0:15scholars although
0:17our speaker today is no longer a junior
0:18scholar
0:20so very recently as of yesterday
0:23congratulations um who work on food from
0:26different philosophical perspectives
0:29broadly understood to include
0:30theoretical approaches to culture
0:32society
0:32gender race and history as they relate
0:35to food consumption and dieting
0:37colloquia are held on fridays at 2 30 pm
0:39marouane time
0:40which is early over here on the east
0:43coast
0:44uh in the states so today we are
0:46delighted to hear from alex plakius of
0:49hamilton college in central new york who
0:51is sharing her paper
0:52called food ignorance and epistemic
0:54injustice
0:55we will hear alex's talk and then take a
0:57short break
0:59and then come back for discussion um but
1:01as usual you are welcome to put
1:03questions in the chat throughout the
1:04talk
1:05and we'll collect those and and come
1:07back to them during the discussion
1:09period so without further ado
1:14great um thank you so much for inviting
1:17me
1:18i'm really glad to be here um i'm just
1:20going to
1:21somehow i messed up my screen share so
1:23let me find that
1:25sorry about that we're all set to go
1:27okay um
1:30so let's see
1:33i'm just going to try to share my screen
1:35here um
1:36while i'm figuring that out let me just
1:40say that this is very much a work in
1:42progress so i'm really looking forward
1:44to
1:45your feedback um
1:48we have a show here in the us called
1:50chopped where
1:52they give contestants like some kind of
1:54random ingredients and then the
1:55challenge is you have to make a good
1:57dish out of it and i feel like this talk
1:59is maybe a little bit like chopped where
2:01i think i have some good ingredients but
2:03i don't know if i'm making the right
2:04thing with them
2:05so i'm hoping that um if not during the
2:08q a you can set me straight
2:10so the name of this talk is food
2:13ignorance
2:14and epistemic injustice so
2:17that should give you a sense of what i'm
2:19going to talk about today the
2:21claim i want to defend is that we don't
2:23know what we're eating
2:25and um i'll argue that
2:28this matters because it represents a
2:30significant source of epistemic
2:32injustice in our food system
2:35and towards the end of the talk i'll
2:37i'll gesture at some implications of
2:39this
2:40for thinking about both our conception
2:42of food justice
2:44and i'll also argue that when we
2:46understand ignorance in the food system
2:48it opens up additional dimensions of
2:51critique
2:52when we're thinking about new food
2:54technologies
2:55food production um and things like that
2:59so to give you a sense of what i mean by
3:02this claim we don't know what we're
3:03eating
3:04let me say a little bit about the
3:05background um you know i started
3:08thinking about this
3:09when i was teaching my introduction to
3:11philosophy class and we look at these
3:13sort of traditional skeptical scenarios
3:16that you get in analytic philosophy
3:18right these kind of bizarre hypothetical
3:21cases where we're unable to
3:23achieve knowledge um so
3:26in particular you might be familiar with
3:29alvin goldman's fake barn country case
3:32right and he asks us to imagine someone
3:35named henry who's driving through the
3:37countryside with his son
3:38and pointing things out there's a
3:40tractor there's a silo
3:42there's a barn and he says you know
3:44there's no problem saying
3:46henry knows there's a bar right it's
3:47fine okay but then he tweaks the case a
3:50little bit
3:51and he says suppose we're told that
3:53unknown to henry
3:54he's entered this district full of
3:56facsimiles of barns
3:58right from the outside they look exactly
4:00like barns but they're really just
4:01facades
4:02they're so cleverly constructed that
4:05people often mistake them for barns
4:08and henry having just entered the
4:10district
4:11hasn't actually encountered any fake
4:13farms he sees a genuine barn
4:16but if it were faith he would still
4:18mistake it for a barn
4:20now goldman thinks we no longer want to
4:23say
4:24that henry knows the object he sees is a
4:27bar
4:28right he has managed to successfully
4:30point at one of
4:31the few real barns in the area but
4:34given the prevalence of fakes right in
4:37his vicinity
4:38he no longer has knowledge right
4:42and so in reading this case
4:45and in reading you know goldman's i
4:48should say
4:49there's a lot of disagreement about how
4:52to interpret goldman's claims and what
4:55the relevant conditions for knowledge
4:57that emerge from this are but it seems
4:59to me that one thing we can learn from
5:01this case is that if you are in
5:03a sufficiently misleading environment or
5:05an environment that is deceptive enough
5:08your beliefs will no longer rise to the
5:10level of knowledge
5:13and so in reading this case and thinking
5:15about the kinds of skeptical scenarios
5:17that philosophers have constructed
5:19it occurred to me that we actually
5:22encounter
5:23some of these skeptical scenarios every
5:25day
5:26in our ordinary environments um and
5:29if you like bad puns you can call this
5:32fake bran country
5:33but i promise that that is the only
5:35really bad pun i will make in the course
5:38of this talk
5:39um so i wanted to explore the ways in
5:41which our food environment
5:44is like fake barn country in that it
5:46contains enough deception
5:48enough trickery and enough fakery to
5:51prevent our beliefs about what we're
5:52eating from
5:53rising to the level of knowledge okay
5:57so what do i have in mind here well
6:02let's say there are two main ways we
6:04form beliefs about what we're eating
6:06one involves perception right so we rely
6:09on taste
6:11smell visual appearance maybe
6:14touch and sound to a lesser extent and
6:17then we're heavily reliant also on
6:19testimony
6:20right so labels lists of ingredients and
6:22maybe word of mouth
6:23things like that i'm going to talk about
6:26um
6:28several sources of deception that come
6:30in
6:31to play here i think we find
6:35mislabeled fraudulent products
6:38adulterated products and then in many
6:41cases
6:42deception comes from labels that are
6:44misleading
6:45or what i'm going to call like
6:48labeling
6:49right and here i mean in
6:50frankfurt sense where it's not
6:52technically
6:52a lie right but it's just not in the
6:56business of conveying
6:57truthful information or even information
7:00at all
7:00and i'll give something i'll show some
7:02examples um
7:04my claim is that when we take all of
7:06these sources of deception into account
7:08there's the the deception in our
7:11environment is so widespread
7:13so prevalent that we should never feel
7:15comfortable ruling it out
7:17and as a result we don't know what we're
7:19eating right even in cases where we form
7:21accurate beliefs right they still can't
7:24rise to the level of knowledge
7:26okay so
7:29i mentioned fakes and frauds right um
7:33you know this is a case that was just in
7:35the news i don't know if you have you
7:36have subway in europe right
7:38um it's like the sandwich chain they've
7:40just been sued in the us
7:42by someone claiming their tuna is not
7:44tuna
7:45but it's a mixture of various
7:48concoctions
7:49right what does that mean well they're
7:50not going to tell you
7:52it's a substance that does not
7:54constitute tuna
7:55but it looks like tuna right um
7:58so that would be one example
8:02other more widespread cases are olive
8:04oil um
8:06so i don't know if you know there's a
8:07philosopher named sarah worth here in
8:09the u.s
8:09and she has a book on food and
8:11philosophy coming out this summer
8:13and there's an entire book in her
8:14chapter devoted to olive oil
8:17and um olive oil fraud basically so at
8:20one point she quotes
8:22a an expert saying that olive oil is the
8:25most adulterated agricultural product in
8:27the eu
8:29right some of what's sold as olive oil
8:31is not olive oil at all
8:33some of it is cut with other oils and
8:37very little of it is actually extra
8:38virgin olive oil and i feel i admit that
8:40i feel a little silly
8:41telling italians about olive oil so
8:44forgive me
8:46there's also widespread fraud and
8:49mislabeling when it comes to seafood
8:51so when you look at the seafood in
8:53stores and restaurants in major u.s
8:55cities
8:56anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of it is
8:58not what it's labeled to be
9:01when you look at lobster dishes they've
9:04done studies in major u.s chain
9:06restaurants
9:07one-third contain no lobster whatsoever
9:10and
9:10um some contain no seafood at all
9:14right um so there's you know some cases
9:17where lobster ravioli just had
9:18no actual seafood in them just cheese
9:22um okay you know i could go on and on
9:25there's
9:25you know some you might remember the
9:27horse meat scandal in the uk
9:29where uh frozen food products were found
9:31to contain horse meat instead of ground
9:33beef
9:34um there was another lawsuit here in the
9:36u.s where
9:37uh kraft was sued because their hot dogs
9:40claimed to be 100
9:42beef but in fact contained many other
9:44things and their defense was
9:46and here's this is classic
9:48right when we said a hundred percent
9:50beef we meant the beef in the hot dogs
9:52is a hundred percent beef but we never
9:54meant that the hot dog is a hundred
9:56percent beef
9:57right okay
10:02oops sorry so so that's those are
10:06instances
10:06where the labels are you know outright
10:09where the food we're eating is not what
10:11we think it is
10:12there's another kind of that we
10:14find on labeling which has to do with
10:16kind of misleading the consumer
10:18right and this might have to do with
10:20either misleading ingredients
10:22um so here on the right i don't know how
10:25well you can see the slides but there's
10:27a container of baby food which is
10:29labeled as strawberry raspberry and
10:31banana puree
10:32but when you actually look at the
10:33ingredients it's 80 apples
10:36right i mean that might seem fairly
10:37harmless right apples are a fruit
10:39it's a fruit but nonetheless if you buy
10:42this product you think you're getting
10:44uh you don't think you're you wouldn't
10:46expect to be getting apples
10:47right we also have claims like all
10:50natural which are virtually meaningless
10:52right so here you have 100 all-natural
10:55dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets
10:57because what could be more natural than
10:59chicken shaped like a dinosaur
11:02um or things like pure right where here
11:04we have this diet drink that's pure
11:06strawberry kiwi flavor right you know
11:09putting pure on a diet
11:11product i think is especially pernicious
11:13um we can talk more about that in the
11:15discussion
11:17and then we also get these kinds of
11:19health claims right so here you have
11:21a chocolate flavored cereal that will
11:23help support your child's immunity
11:25presumably because it has these uh
11:28antioxidants
11:29that's a whole other discussion and
11:32nutrients
11:33right um interestingly if this claim
11:36were
11:36on a dietary supplement like some kind
11:38of vitamin or something like that
11:40it would be subject to stricter
11:43regulation but because it's on a food
11:45package
11:46there's very little regulation of the
11:48ability to make this kind of claim
11:50right so you know the problem is not
11:54just that these claims like pure and
11:56natural
11:57are virtually meaningless right the
12:00problem is that they feel
12:01meaningful and this is i think one of
12:03the characteristics of right is
12:05that it gives us the sense that we're
12:07getting some kind of information
12:09but in fact we learn nothing from these
12:12claims
12:13um you know there are other interesting
12:15cases involving
12:17like animal welfare certifications that
12:20we have here in the u.s where there's
12:21any number
12:22of certifications you can put on a
12:25product to make an animal welfare claim
12:27some of these are actually subject to
12:30fairly strict scrutiny but many are not
12:32and from the consumer perspective
12:34knowing which is which
12:36is really difficult right
12:39and also we can talk about this in the
12:42discussion you know the kind of
12:43the way certification works with
12:45third-party
12:46firms doing certifications is also
12:48really interesting it turns out there's
12:50like a big business
12:51in making these kinds of certifications
12:53or offering these kinds of labels
12:55okay
12:59so
13:03when we go back to the question of how
13:04do we know what we eat right with the
13:05case of perception we rely on our senses
13:08but and this is a point that i think in
13:10that sarah worth makes very nicely in
13:12that olive oil chapter i mentioned right
13:14the problem isn't just that we're
13:16getting ripped off
13:18that we're paying for products that
13:19we're not getting but that is a problem
13:21right the problem isn't just that people
13:23can be made
13:24sick by eating foods that they don't
13:26expect to be eating
13:28but that is also a problem i believe
13:30like there's a case in spain
13:32a while back where people died from
13:34consuming basically
13:35industrial grade oil that was labeled
13:37and being sold as olive oil
13:39right so these you know there are
13:41serious serious consequences
13:43but another problem is that we don't
13:45know right what olive oil tastes like
13:48or we don't know what you know certain
13:51uh forms of seafood taste like
13:54right often even something like
13:58certain kinds of fruits or vegetables
14:00right that we might think we know what
14:02they taste like
14:03and in fact we find out we don't right
14:06um i don't know if anyone else has had
14:09this kind of experience i
14:11grew up chewing like grape flavored
14:13bubble gum i really liked grape flavored
14:15bubble gum and
14:16grape soda grape jelly but i would
14:18always think like oh this doesn't that's
14:20not really what grapes
14:21taste like because in fact like you know
14:23when you go to the grocery store and buy
14:25grapes there's this total disconnect
14:27but then a few years back i went to our
14:29local farmers market
14:30here in upstate new york and bought some
14:33conquered grapes
14:34which i'd never had before and i ate one
14:36and i immediately realized
14:38oh that's what the the grape flavor
14:41is right so there was a strange
14:44experience where i thought
14:45the artificial grape flavor was getting
14:48it raw
14:48but in fact it was the grapes i had been
14:50eating that didn't taste like grapes
14:53right and there's a similar story you
14:56can tell about banana flavoring
14:58where initially there were two strains
15:00of banana on the market
15:02the banana artificial banana flavoring
15:04was developed to mimic one
15:06which subsequently like became
15:08unavailable
15:09um and now there's this disconnect
15:11between banana flavoring
15:12and what we think bananas taste like
15:14right so there are these interesting
15:16questions about how we know
15:17what food tastes like um and my claim is
15:21that in many cases perception is
15:23actually not
15:24a good guide um
15:27i mentioned being you know our reliance
15:29on testimony and here i think
15:31uh these kinds of labeling
15:33claims
15:35undermine our ability to rely on
15:37testimony
15:38right we can no longer trust testimony
15:40as a source of knowledge
15:42right so my claim again is that we don't
15:44know what we're eating
15:46but i want to stress that this is not
15:49the consumer's fault
15:50right i don't think that this is the
15:51result of any kind of laziness or
15:53anything like that
15:54um that this is not a kind of ignorance
15:57that just sort of happens
15:59right this is very much a manufactured
16:01sort of ignorance
16:03a manufactured sort of confusion and
16:05uncertainty in our food system
16:07right we are meant to be confused we are
16:09meant to not know
16:11um okay
16:15so having said that there's a number of
16:18objections you might have to the kind of
16:20plan i'm making so let me just go
16:21through a few
16:23um in turn so the first is a kind of
16:25companions and guilt objection
16:27right um you might think there's lots of
16:29cases where we consume things
16:31we don't know what they contain or what
16:32they are even
16:34and we're fine with that right so why
16:36should we worry here
16:37i asked my husband like what's the thing
16:39in your medicine cabinet that you don't
16:40know
16:41really what it is or how it works he was
16:43like advil
16:44i was like oh but that's ibuprofen and
16:46he was like what's up
16:48right so you might think okay fine this
16:50happens all the time
16:52i think that's true right i think
16:54there's a few responses
16:56one is that food is different somehow
16:58right
16:59um we have a different kind of
17:00relationship with food we hold people
17:02responsible for their food choices
17:05in a way that we don't for other choices
17:07right
17:08and i think we identify people with
17:10their food choices in a way that we
17:11might not
17:12in other cases um i think we
17:15also the problem with food is not just
17:18that we don't know but that we
17:19feel like we know in a way that you know
17:21we don't expect to understand how our
17:23medications work that's why we get them
17:25from a doctor um i mean the second
17:28response i think to any companions and
17:30guilt argument is like there's plenty of
17:32guilt to go around for everyone
17:34so you know great okay
17:37you know i also want to acknowledge that
17:39fears of adulteration
17:41in our food go way way back and there's
17:44a great book
17:45uh called fear of food that will detail
17:48you know
17:48the history of um of this kind of thing
17:51so
17:52you know this is not a new worry and in
17:54fact processed foods historically
17:57were often seen as safer and more
17:59reliable than food we made at home
18:01right um
18:05i think that's right and i think
18:08part of what's new here or part of what
18:11you know i mean
18:12first the fact that a problem is old
18:14doesn't make it less problematic
18:15right but secondly what's i think new is
18:18not the problem it's the scale of the
18:20problem
18:21right so where you see you know um
18:24even just in the last decade a massive
18:27increase
18:28in sale of packaged food we see um
18:3175 of the calories consumed in the us
18:34coming from packaged foods right the
18:36average supermarket now carries around
18:3860 000
18:39products and
18:42you know there's a reason for that which
18:44is that processed food is profitable
18:46right selling unprocessed food is not
18:48going to be as profitable as selling
18:50processed food
18:54um
18:56something that might be worth bearing in
18:58mind as we get into the epistemic
18:59injustice part of this
19:00is also the fact that as processed food
19:03manufacturers are having a harder time
19:05selling their foods in the us they are
19:07moving into markets and developing
19:08nations right so
19:10this is a problem in the us but it's
19:12increasingly becoming a problem that we
19:14are exporting to other parts of the
19:15world
19:16um just as we you know just as tobacco
19:18companies moved their products into
19:20developing nations when they could no
19:21longer
19:22market them in the u.s okay lastly i
19:25think there is a particular epistemic
19:27worry about processed food
19:28there have been studies showing that the
19:30more processed a food
19:32is the more health claims you're likely
19:34to find on that foods label
19:37okay another objection that i do think
19:40is a worry here
19:41has to do with like whether this is
19:43really just a kind of bias
19:45against a certain kind of food right
19:48so you might think that um if you're
19:50familiar with molecular
19:52gastronomy we actually really enjoy a
19:55certain kind of deceit or trickery
19:57in a lot of food and when we're paying
19:58hundreds of dollars a plate for it
20:00we celebrate this right but when we're
20:03paying a dollar for it
20:04um in the gas station we see it as this
20:07kind of
20:08thing to be looked down on we see it as
20:10a moral problem
20:12right so you might worry about whether
20:13there's just a kind of bias or prejudice
20:15here
20:16against not all processed food but a
20:18certain kind of processed food
20:20um and that is something i worry about i
20:23you know if i'm being fully honest
20:25part of the motivation for this talk was
20:27my own intuition that there is something
20:29wrong with
20:30processed food and trying to figure out
20:32like well what is it about this food
20:34that bothers me so much that i find
20:35objectionable
20:36right and you know what i'm trying to do
20:39here is offer an epistemic diagnosis of
20:41the problem
20:42okay so but then why does the twizzler
20:46on the right bother me more than the
20:49sort of fruit gel spaghetti that you
20:52know we see
20:53in the middle here i think you know
20:56there's a few things to say one is that
20:58um when we go into a restaurant
21:01and pay hundreds of dollars for
21:02molecular gastronomy we know what we're
21:04doing
21:04right and we consent to and you know
21:07embrace the
21:08deception or the opacity right
21:11in a way that we don't necessarily in
21:13other food environments
21:15right you know there are many reasons
21:17people choose processed foods
21:19some people may not want to know more
21:21and that's fine
21:23right i want to acknowledge that if
21:25people
21:26choose processed food that is fine that
21:29is a choice that
21:30people can make and people can also
21:31choose not to know
21:33more about what they're eating um
21:36but i think there are two worries one is
21:37that in many cases people do not have a
21:39choice
21:40right this is not a choice people are
21:41making and here
21:43there's like this i can't remember the
21:44paper there's an interesting distinction
21:46between choosing and just kind of
21:47picking
21:48something right so the question is are
21:50people choosing processed food
21:51or are they just kind of picking it
21:53because it's there and then this other
21:55worry that
21:56um the kind of deceptive labeling i've
21:59been describing
22:00undermines our trust in the food system
22:01more broadly right
22:03and creates this kind of um confusion
22:06that i've alluded to before having said
22:09that i think we do need to be aware of
22:11the potential for bias in how we
22:13represent these issues and i think
22:14that's true
22:15not just for the kinds of worries i'm
22:17raising today but our discourse about
22:19health and nutrition more broadly
22:21right when we think about who needs to
22:23be educated
22:24about healthy eating right we often have
22:26a certain kind of
22:28individual in mind and i think that it's
22:30easy or it's
22:32it's too common for certain kinds of
22:34bias to creep into our picture
22:36of who we're trying to educate there
22:39i also think that it's important to
22:43be realistic about the barriers uh to
22:46accessing healthy food and to accessing
22:48knowledge of what we're eating but i'll
22:50say more about that in a moment
22:52okay so the last and maybe the objection
22:55that's most obvious is like i've
22:57i've exaggerated here because of course
22:59like we can all know looking at this
23:01that this is an
23:02apple right and so really the problem
23:05i'm pointing to
23:06is not a problem for all foods but just
23:08some subset
23:09of foods namely processed ones right
23:13and that we can escape this kind of
23:14skeptical worry by focusing on
23:16fresh or minimally processed foods um
23:21i think that is true but i also think
23:23that this
23:24is a strategy that is costly in terms of
23:27both money and
23:28time right and i think time is a
23:30dimension of cost here that often gets
23:32overlooked
23:33right we know that fresh food can be
23:35more expensive than processed food
23:38but we also you know should recognize
23:41that it takes longer to prepare
23:43it spoils faster so you have to go get
23:45it more often
23:47and in areas of the u.s like where i
23:49live that might mean a 45-minute drive
23:51to the nearest grocery store
23:53right you can be at a dollar general
23:55which is like you know a store that
23:56sells like packaged foods
23:58within pretty much 15 minutes but there
24:01are areas not far from me where it
24:03really would be a 45 minute drive to a
24:05store selling fresh food
24:07okay um you know i've put food deserts
24:10in quote
24:11in quotes here because there's a um
24:14there's a food activist in new york city
24:17karen washington
24:18who says deserts are things that occur
24:20naturally
24:21like food deserts are not a natural
24:23phenomenon we should call it food
24:25apartheid
24:26right because this is something that is
24:28um
24:30that is man-made that is an injustice
24:32that's imposed on communities
24:34right rather than something that just
24:36happens although we think of it that way
24:38like oh there just happened to not be
24:39any stores around here
24:42okay the result and the takeaway here is
24:46that
24:47yes we can escape skepticism in this way
24:49but at a cost
24:50because the cost is that knowledge of
24:52what we're eating becomes a commodity
24:54um that is accessible only to some
24:56people or some communities
24:58okay yes you can get knowledge of what
25:01you're eating by going to the farmer's
25:02market and buying food directly from a
25:04farmer
25:04that is not available to everyone as a
25:06result knowledge is not available to
25:08everyone
25:09so my claim is that this represents an
25:12instance of epistemic injustice
25:14um you know if you're not familiar this
25:16is just the idea that
25:18there are injustices done to people in
25:19their capacities as
25:21knowers or epidemic agents there are
25:23three types
25:25i'm gonna claim that
25:29the injustice i'm describing here is a
25:31case of distributive injustice
25:36and i've got the definitions here
25:38distributive injustice is last
25:40the last definition on this list it's
25:42also sometimes treated as least
25:44so like in miranda fricker's book on
25:46epistemic injustice she devotes very
25:47little time to this and like right on
25:49the first page she's just like
25:51this is not very interesting this is not
25:53a very interesting form of epistemic
25:55injustice because
25:56it's just you know it's distributive
25:58injustice the thing in question just
26:00happens to be knowledge
26:01right so
26:05there are you know i was talking to
26:08megan before the talk began about
26:10cases of testimonial injustice in the
26:12food system
26:13and you know megan has done some work on
26:16eating disorders and vegetarianism
26:18where it seems like young women
26:19especially find that their professed
26:21reasons for vegetarianism are not taken
26:23seriously
26:25or are not given uh their testimony
26:28isn't accorded
26:29the weight it deserves there are also
26:32you know many cases
26:33many documented cases where the stigma
26:36surrounding weight
26:37prevents patients complaints from being
26:39taken seriously by doctors right if you
26:41are
26:42a fat patient and i use that word
26:44intentionally
26:45um uh and you go to the doctor with a
26:48complaint
26:49most often you'll be told it is about
26:51your weight right the cause of your
26:52complaint is your weight
26:53so here we have a case where a patient
26:55uh had scoliosis and her doctor told her
26:58you just need to lose weight there have
27:00been other cases where patients cancer
27:01went undiagnosed right because doctors
27:03were so focused on their weight
27:07and i think more generally the way we
27:10think about the relationship between
27:12diet and weight loss
27:13shows that we don't take patients
27:15testimony seriously so if you read
27:17accounts of people trying to lose weight
27:19what often happens is they're told by
27:20their doctor oh eat
27:22this many calories and you'll lose
27:24weight right and they go to the doctor
27:25and they say i'm eating this many
27:26calories and i'm not losing weight
27:28and the response is well you must be
27:30wrong you must be wrong about what
27:31you're eating
27:32you're not keeping track properly you're
27:34not counting your calories right
27:36and you know it's interest we are so
27:39wedded to this model
27:40of how weight loss should work that we
27:42discount
27:44the like staggering number of
27:46testimonials from patients who have
27:48reported that this is not in fact
27:49working from them right so this isn't
27:51just like one or two patients going this
27:53is like you know decades and decades of
27:55people saying like i tried this it
27:56didn't work
27:57and yet you know because doctors see
28:00these patients
28:01um in a certain light they refuse to
28:04accept their testimony
28:06okay so what does this have to do with
28:08what i've been talking about
28:10um you know i think there's some also
28:12interesting
28:13like questions about where we find
28:14hermeneutical injustice but i'm going to
28:16skip it
28:17for time and because i haven't thought
28:19it all through yet and maybe we can talk
28:20about it in the discussion
28:22i think that as i said distributive
28:24epistemic injustice is often seen as
28:26less
28:26interesting than testimonial injustice
28:29and
28:30in a totally unfounded estimate i would
28:32say like 90
28:34of the literature on epistemic injustice
28:36focuses on hermeneutical injustice and
28:38testimonial injustice
28:39um but it occurred to me that look
28:43if people don't know what they're eating
28:45then
28:46it seems like we do have grounds for
28:48dismissing their testimony right so in
28:50fact these forms of epidemic injustice
28:52really go hand in hand
28:54and the distributive epidemic injustice
28:56here by denying knowledge of what people
28:58are eating
28:59right um we therefore
29:02entitle ourselves to treat their
29:04testimony as less credible
29:06right we legitimize that kind of
29:08testimonial injustice
29:10by creating uh distributive injustice
29:13in the food system right so if a patient
29:16genuinely doesn't
29:18know what they're eating then the doctor
29:19has grounds for discounting their
29:21testimony
29:22right and i think that's a real worry
29:24and a real problem and i think that
29:26at least when it comes to food we might
29:29see this kind of testimonial injustice
29:31as underwritten by
29:33this distributive injustice in the food
29:35system so i think when we think about
29:37ways to
29:38remedy the testimonial injustice part of
29:41that has to involve
29:42giving you know genuinely allowing
29:44people to have better access to
29:46information about what they eat
29:48okay i'm gonna that's pretty much the
29:52talk i'll just end by talking about
29:54two implications um that i think
29:57this way of seeing the problem has the
29:59first has to do with
30:00our definition of food justice um you
30:03know
30:04if you if in thinking about the way that
30:07our concept
30:08of food justice evolves one of the
30:10concepts that's really
30:11received emphasis in recent years is
30:13food sovereignty
30:14right communities and individuals and
30:18cultures
30:21taking charge of and um
30:24being self-directed in terms of the
30:26foods that they grow
30:28sell and eat right and
30:31i think as we think about food
30:33sovereignty we might see
30:35a kind of epistemic sovereignty as an
30:37important component to that so i guess
30:38what i'm urging here is just that we
30:40think about
30:41food justice as including epistemic
30:43justice that that's an important
30:45component there too
30:46and an important benefit of the food
30:49justice movement so
30:51um we see that you as going hand in hand
30:54the second
30:55implication or application of this that
30:57i think is interesting is in thinking
30:58about
30:59um the so-called like lab-grown meat and
31:02i say so-called because i just did a
31:04panel here at hamilton
31:06with some on lab-grown meat and we had
31:09the ceo of a company developing
31:11a seafood product and it turns out first
31:14they hate
31:15the term lab grown like nobody wants to
31:17call it that
31:18um but one of the things that he
31:21mentioned
31:22you know we were talking about his talk
31:23in advance he's like well i'm not really
31:25going to talk about the
31:26science because you know people won't
31:29really understand it and also it's
31:30proprietary right like i can't tell you
31:32exactly how we do this
31:34because this is our you know special
31:36proprietary technology
31:37this is a multi-billion dollar industry
31:39right
31:41there are many ethical reasons to be
31:43excited about these products i think you
31:46know no one would argue that
31:47sustainability relieving animal
31:49suffering ending factory farming these
31:51are all great goals
31:53but i think it's important to also
31:55acknowledge that
31:56you know along with this comes a certain
31:58degree of epistemic
32:00distance right from our food and
32:03furthermore you know if these
32:05technologies really do remain
32:06proprietary that's not just a kind of
32:09epidemic gap that's incidental
32:10it may be one that's unbridgeable right
32:13we you know if companies have the right
32:14to kind of keep this technology
32:16um off limits from the consumer we may
32:19never fully understand the process by
32:21which these things are produced
32:23now having said that i should
32:25acknowledge the fda like just published
32:28their
32:28so one of the big debates about these
32:30foods is like what to call them right
32:32as i mentioned and so the fda is in the
32:34process of deciding like what can we
32:36call these things
32:37right similar to the debate over whether
32:39like you can call something an egg if
32:41it's
32:42plant-based right what should we call
32:44these kinds of meat and seafood
32:46so the fda just released their like
32:48public comments and
32:50one theme that emerges is what will
32:52these names lead consumers to believe
32:55right so there's been a number of
32:56studies now and more are emerging on
32:58like
32:58when you tell someone this is cell
33:01cultured
33:02what do they then think right so one
33:04theme that emerged from the studies on
33:06seafood is that if you tell people
33:08um cultivated seafood they think farm
33:11seafood
33:12so that's a reason why people are moving
33:14away from the idea of calling
33:17calling this cell cultivated seafood is
33:19that it has too much of an association
33:21with farming
33:22so you know both
33:25this is something i'm independently
33:26interested in so i'm going to stop
33:28because i'm going off on a tangent here
33:30but i'll just end by saying that in
33:31addition to
33:32offering us a new way to think about
33:35food justice i think that
33:37epistemic injustice also offers us a new
33:40avenue of critique for emerging food
33:43technologies
33:44and for existing processed foods so i
33:47will stop there
33:48okay thanks
33:56thank you