That's the working title anyway.
I was reading Sex and Development by Adams Vincaene et al and I just finished the section on Greece. About 10 minutes after reading the conclusion it dawned on me that we have a similar sort of situation here in America with food. That an ethics of well being is being used to morally objectify food and there is this resistance to that. I've heard it myself, "You have to die from something." This is, of course, despite the fact that this something often times causes heart problems, obesity, diabetes, and/or cancer, along with a host of other debilitating illnesses that also decrease quality of life both now and later on in life. Now, this ethics of choice (?) often times uses parkinsons, alzheimer's, senility, and other late life illnesses to justify itself. Additionally, when issues of anthropomorphic global climate change and coca-colonization are brought into the mix (and we make food a moral object along those lines), we meet similar sets of resistance. I don't have any exact phrases on me for now to establish this. I'm just gonna Whorf it for the present.
Obviously this is a complicated site involving identity, consumption patterns, etc, however I can't help but feel that a large degree of this resistance is due to the lack of subjectivity regarding food. That because we don't know who makes our food, where it comes from, who shelves, or even, sometimes, what is even made out of it is harder to make food into a moral objectivity. This is, of course, on top of issues of class, mobility, race, etc and other markers that make it harder for people to communicate and gather information.
I'm interested in exploring this issue, obviously, though it might be a bit too close to home for me to be objective about it.