Arguing about Food

Catalog description

The food science major seeks to educate students in the sciences and technologies important in the industrial manufacture of food and food scientists tend to value foods in this context. Food is good if it can be manufactured at scale, distributed and sold at a profit. The qualities of the food can be defined in largely physical terms (e.g., price and costs, free from pathogens, certain levels of defined nutrients, good sensory scores, stability, and uniform and predictable properties). However, deservedly or not, food attracts more ethical attention than other goods. For food scientists to fail to appreciate the different values, theirs and others, that impact arguments about food is harmful for (i) the food scientists themselves who may feel conflicted if they cannot resolve their personal preferences for food (perhaps local and organic) with the value set of their profession. (ii) the quality of the public conversation around food if scientists and technicians cannot usefully contribute their perspectives and (iii) the food companies that employ the scientists and who seek to make and sell products acceptable to a set of consumers. The first part of the course will focus on some foundational ideas useful to all controversies. A background in toxicology (or, if most of the projects are around the healthfulness as opposed to the risks of food, nutrition), epistemology in science, critiques of sciences, science as a social construct, ethics. The second part of the course will use current controversies to examine the ways different values combine with empirical scientific facts to create arguments about foods. Students are not taught to 'win' arguments but rather examine how they are structured and why they are appealing to different people. Students will use concepts from social science and philosophy (ethics, epistemology) to critique the strong normative opinions of guest speakers and readings. Throughout the course they will work in groups around projects on specific current controversies related to the formulation or manufacture of foods. They will collect and critique the scientific facts available and then respond to the speakers/readings by generating multiple different arguments reflecting the different perspectives ('how might the speaker think about my case?').