Linkages between ecocentric values and action in expert discourse: the case of genetically modified food in the UK

Attitudes towards the environment can be manifest in two broad categories, namely anthropocentric and ecocentric. The former regards nature as of value only insofar as it is useful to humanity, whereas the latter assigns intrinsic value to natural entities. Industrial society can be characterised as being dominated by anthropocentrism, which leads to the assumption that a majority of people hold anthropocentric values. However, research shows the most widely held values are ecocentric, which implies that many people's actions are at variance with their values. Furthermore, policy relating to environmental issues is predominantly anthropocentric, which implies it is failing to take account of the values of the majority. Research among experts involved in policy formulation has shown that their values, often ecocentric, are excluded from the policy process. The genetic modification of food can be categorised as anthropocentric, which implies that the technique is in conflict with widely held ecocentric values. This thesis examines data collected from interviews with individuals who have an influence on the debate surrounding the introduction of genetically modified foods, and can be considered 'experts'. Each interviewee is categorised according to whether their values and actions are ecocentric or anthropocentric, and the linkages between the two and the arguments used to justify their positions are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on interviewees who have ecocentric values but act professionally in an anthropocentric way. Finally, common themes are drawn out, and the features the arguments used by the interviewees have in common are outlined.

When does food refusal require professional intervention?

Food refusal can have the potential to lead to nutritional deficiencies, which increases the risk of a variety of communicable and non-communicable diseases. Deciding when food refusal requires professional intervention is complicated by the fact that there is a natural and appropriate stage in a child's development that is characterised by increased levels of rejection of both previously accepted and novel food items. Therefore, choosing to intervene is difficult, which if handled badly can lead to further food refusal and an even more limited diet. Food refusal is often based on individual preferences; however, it can also be defined through pathological behaviours that require psychological intervention. This paper presents and discusses several different types of food refusal behaviours; these are learningdependent, those that are related to a medical complication, selective food refusal, fear-based food refusal and appetiteawareness-autonomy-based food refusal. This paper describes the behaviours and characteristics that are often associated with each; however, emphasis is placed on the possibility that these different types of food refusal can often be co-morbid. The decision to offer professional intervention to the child and their family should be a holistic process based on the level of medical or psychological distress resulting from the food refusal. © 2009 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.