LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 3 of total 3

Search options

  1. Article: Struggling for food in a time of crisis: Responsibility and paradox.

    Caplan, Pat

    Anthropology today

    2020  Volume 36, Issue 3, Page(s) 8–10

    Abstract: Struggling for food in a time of crisis: responsibility and paradox. Responsibility is a useful ... of a ministry to deal with food and rationing, as in the Second World War. The final paradox relates to Brexit ... responsibility for the long-standing and now hugely increased problems of food insecurity. That belongs ...

    Abstract Struggling for food in a time of crisis: responsibility and paradox. Responsibility is a useful lens through which to examine the current state of food poverty in the UK in the context of the Covid-19 crisis, noting that this concept contains several paradoxes. Currently, responsibility involves the voluntary sector, the food industry and the state, a situation which the author has been exploring for the last five years in an ethnographic study of food poverty and food aid in the UK. Food aid organizations, especially food banks, have mushroomed during the period of austerity. This reveals the first paradox: namely, that the existence of food banks conveys the message that 'something is being done', but in actuality this is very far from being sufficient to meet the needs of either the 'old' or 'new' food insecure. The second paradox is that at the onset of the crisis, a government which had been responsible for inflicting austerity on the country for 10 years, dramatically reversed some of its policies. However, predictably, this did not change the situation vis-à-vis food insecurity. The third paradox is that the frequent rhetoric invoking the two world wars has not resulted in lessons being learned - notably, the creation of a ministry to deal with food and rationing, as in the Second World War. The final paradox relates to Brexit and its likely deleterious effects on food security, particularly if no 'deal' is achieved with the European Union, as seems likely. The voluntary food aid sector, try as it may, cannot possibly assume responsibility for the long-standing and now hugely increased problems of food insecurity. That belongs to the state.
    Keywords covid19
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-06-04
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 1500068-0
    ISSN 1467-8322 ; 0268-540X
    ISSN (online) 1467-8322
    ISSN 0268-540X
    DOI 10.1111/1467-8322.12573
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article: Struggling for food in a time of crisis: Responsibility and paradox

    Caplan, Pat

    Anthropol. Today

    Abstract: Struggling for food in a time of crisis: responsibility and paradox. Responsibility is a useful ... of a ministry to deal with food and rationing, as in the Second World War. The final paradox relates to Brexit ... responsibility for the long-standing and now hugely increased problems of food insecurity. That belongs ...

    Abstract Struggling for food in a time of crisis: responsibility and paradox. Responsibility is a useful lens through which to examine the current state of food poverty in the UK in the context of the Covid-19 crisis, noting that this concept contains several paradoxes. Currently, responsibility involves the voluntary sector, the food industry and the state, a situation which the author has been exploring for the last five years in an ethnographic study of food poverty and food aid in the UK. Food aid organizations, especially food banks, have mushroomed during the period of austerity. This reveals the first paradox: namely, that the existence of food banks conveys the message that ‘something is being done’, but in actuality this is very far from being sufficient to meet the needs of either the ‘old’ or ‘new’ food insecure. The second paradox is that at the onset of the crisis, a government which had been responsible for inflicting austerity on the country for 10 years, dramatically reversed some of its policies. However, predictably, this did not change the situation vis-à-vis food insecurity. The third paradox is that the frequent rhetoric invoking the two world wars has not resulted in lessons being learned – notably, the creation of a ministry to deal with food and rationing, as in the Second World War. The final paradox relates to Brexit and its likely deleterious effects on food security, particularly if no ‘deal’ is achieved with the European Union, as seems likely. The voluntary food aid sector, try as it may, cannot possibly assume responsibility for the long-standing and now hugely increased problems of food insecurity. That belongs to the state.
    Keywords covid19
    Publisher WHO
    Document type Article
    Note WHO #Covidence: #614736
    Database COVID19

    Kategorien

  3. Article ; Online: Struggling for food in a time of crisis

    Caplan, Pat

    Responsibility and paradox

    2020  

    Abstract: ... Currently, responsibility involves the voluntary sector, the food industry and the state, a situation ... of either the ‘old’ or ‘new’ food insecure. The second paradox is that at the onset of the crisis, a government ... The final paradox relates to Brexit and its likely deleterious effects on food security, particularly if no ...

    Abstract Responsibility is a useful lens through which to examine the current state of food poverty in the UK in the context of the Covid‐19 crisis, noting that this concept contains several paradoxes. Currently, responsibility involves the voluntary sector, the food industry and the state, a situation which the author has been exploring for the last five years in an ethnographic study of food poverty and food aid in the UK. Food aid organizations, especially food banks, have mushroomed during the period of austerity. This reveals the first paradox: namely, that the existence of food banks conveys the message that ‘something is being done’, but in actuality this is very far from being sufficient to meet the needs of either the ‘old’ or ‘new’ food insecure. The second paradox is that at the onset of the crisis, a government which had been responsible for inflicting austerity on the country for 10 years, dramatically reversed some of its policies. However, predictably, this did not change the situation vis‐à‐vis food insecurity. The third paradox is that the frequent rhetoric invoking the two world wars has not resulted in lessons being learned – notably, the creation of a ministry to deal with food and rationing, as in the Second World War. The final paradox relates to Brexit and its likely deleterious effects on food security, particularly if no ‘deal’ is achieved with the European Union, as seems likely. The voluntary food aid sector, try as it may, cannot possibly assume responsibility for the long‐standing and now hugely increased problems of food insecurity. That belongs to the state.
    Keywords covid19
    Subject code 360
    Language English
    Publishing date 2020-06-04
    Publisher Wiley
    Publishing country uk
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

To top