Attention to big data analytics is ubiquitous and growing given the online shopping revolution and its potential to generate individual-specific actionable datasets which were previously unavailable or cumbersome to cultivate. However, the food industry has not drawn much attention to discussions of individualized pricing strategies using online grocery datasets. Considering growth of the online grocery market and consumers data abundance to grocers, this brief viewpoint article focuses on potentials of incorporating big data analytics into pricing strategies in online grocery markets. (...) This discussion informs of various practices of big data analytics and ultimately calls to attention the potential for personalized pricing in online food markets. This article proposes the need for empirical analysis and developing research agendas investigating impacts of personalized pricing on market efficiencies, which is not as unambiguous in practices as it is theoretically. In addition, the status of online groceries, concepts of price differentiation, societal, economic, and regulatory implications of personalized pricing are discussed. (shrink)

Calls for public engagement on emerging agricultural technologies, including genetic engineering of farm animals, have resulted in the development of information that people can interact and engage with online, including “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) developed by organizations seeking to inform or influence the debate. We conducted a frame analysis of FAQs webpages about genetic engineering of farm animals developed by different organizations to describe how questions and answers are presented. We categorized FAQs as having a regulatory frame (emphasizing or challenging (...) the adequacy of regulations), an efficiency frame (emphasizing precision and benefits), a risks and uncertainty frame (emphasizing unknown outcomes), an animal welfare frame (emphasizing benefits for animals) or an animal dignity frame (considering the inherent value of animals). Animals were often featured as the object of regulations in FAQs, and questions about animals were linked to animal welfare regulations. The public were represented using a variety of terms (public, consumer) and pronouns (I, we). Some FAQs described differences between technology terms (gene editing, genetic modification) and categorized technologies as either well-established or novel. This framing of the technology may not respond to actual public concerns on the topic. Organizations seeking to use FAQs as a public engagement tool might consider including multiple viewpoints and actual questions people have about genetic engineering. (shrink)

This study examines the concept of food morality and explores its implications for today's world. The analysis carried out allowed us to develop a theoretical construct that approaches food morality from a holistic and interconnected perspective, providing us with a new way of understanding it. This new perspective on food morality will serve as an overarching framework for guiding individual choices, public policy making, and transformative actions needed to address the complex challenges facing food systems in the modern world. The (...) theoretical approach used in this study focuses on the elements that shape food morality, considering its different contexts. This theoretical approach provides a solid basis for proposing a new food morality. (shrink)

In Just Fodder: The Ethics of Feeding Animals, I explore a range of overlooked practical questions in animal ethics and the philosophy of food, developing a new approach to animal ethics. According to the position I defend, animals have negative rights based on their possession of normatively significant interests, and we have positive obligations towards (and concerning) animals based on our normatively salient relationships with them. Gary O’Brien, Angie Pepper, Clare Palmer, and Leon Borgdorf offer a range of insightful challenges (...) to my framework and its applications. Here, I respond to them around five themes: extensionism, agency, predation, interventionism, and environmentalism. (shrink)

In Just Fodder: The Ethics of Feeding Animals, Josh Milburn thinks through the implications of feeding animals by focusing on the relationships between humans and three different groups of animals: (1) animal companions; (2) animal neighbours; and (3) wild animals. In my comments, I concentrate on how the actions and agency interests of these animals problematise some of Milburn’s assumptions and normative prescriptions. My overall aim is to show how giving animal agency more prominence in our thinking about what we (...) owe to them has significant implications. It is my view that current theorising about other animals focuses too heavily on their experiential welfare and not enough on what animals do and the normative significance of what they do. Though I agree with Milburn that all animals have a right against being killed and made to suffer, a full ethical analysis of our relations with other animals must also consider their (equally weighty) interest in self-determination. (shrink)

Amartya Sen’s work has contributed to shifting our focus from food availability to food access and utilisation, together called ‘nutritional capability’. Existing food insecurity instruments have been informed partially by the capability approach, but remain focused on material deprivation and its economic sub-dimensions. This narrow focus has become problematic, particularly in high-income countries, where material deprivation is largely overcome and food poverty manifests itself differently from that in low-income countries. Food poverty in high-income countries should thus be approached from a (...) ‘food capability’ perspective that fully recognises the multidimensionality of eating lives and the multiple factors that affect their dietary standards. To demonstrate the usefulness of this perspective, the Alkire-Foster method for multidimensional food poverty was utilised to analyse food poverty in Japan. The Alkire-Foster measure has a dual cut-off approach and its adapted method can produce a multidimensional food poverty index by setting reasonable food deprivation and poverty thresholds. The national data used for empirical demonstration was obtained from a web-based questionnaire conducted in Japan, to which 973 participants (aged 20–60 years) responded. The measurement identified a 20.6% food-poor population and inequalities in food capabilities among subgroups. Although economic deprivation was tightly linked to food poverty, the results suggested that gender- and age-based inequalities were larger than socioeconomic status-based ones, which reflected much wider societal problems in Japan than growing economic poverty, such as gender inequality and population ageing. The proposed measurement is effective for monitoring food policy impacts and complementing existing food insecurity assessment tools. The results will be useful for promoting social debate about what the minimal dietary standard should be in high-income societies. (shrink)