USA: International Food Information Council Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 124 Document Number: D11194
Notes:
3 pages., IFIC specialists offer five predictions for 2020, guided by findings from surveys among American consumers in an annual Food and Health Survey, 2012-2019.
Via online from publisher., Editor addresses a state governor's agenda at the expense of the beef industry, illustrating a continuing "struggle with the divide between urban and rural communities."
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 201 Document Number: D11809
Notes:
Online via AgriMarketing Weekly. 2 pages., Brief report of research by ADM among consumers. Findings identify "six behavioral shifts that will create opportunities for food and beverage manufacturers to gain market share in an increasingly uncertain business environment."
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 201 Document Number: D11726
Notes:
Online from AgWeb.com via AgriMarketing Weekly. 2 pages., Discontinued advertising campaign based on inaccurate information about using lemongrass in cows' diets to reduce methane emissions by "up to 33%."
9 pages., Online via publisher., An adapted health-branding framework guided the 3-step mixed-methods approach to identify evidence for campaigns using a scoping review, comprehensive literature review (1990-2016), and key-informant interviews. Results showed that industry, government, and non-governmental organizations supported 13 campaigns that used various health-branding strategies.
12 pages, via Online Journal, Climate change compels us to rethink the ethics of our dietary choices and has become an interesting issue for ethicists concerned about diets, including animal ethicists. The defenders of veganism have found that climate change provides a new reason to support their cause because many animal-based foods have high greenhouse gas emissions. The new style of argumentation, the ‘climatic argument(s) for veganism’, may benefit animals by persuading even those who are not concerned about animals themselves but worry about climate change. The arguments about the high emissions of animal-based food, and a resulting moral obligation to abstain from eating such products, are an addition to the prior forms of argument for principled veganism grounded on the moral standing of, and concern for, nonhuman animals. In this paper, we examine whether the climatic argument for veganism is convincing. We propose a formulation for the amended version of the argument and discuss its implications and differences compared to the moral obligations of principled veganism. We also reflect upon the implications of our findings on agricultural and food ethics more generally.
