Undisciplinary
Undisciplinary
"Worst Dinner Guest Ever?" Food intolerances, gut issues, and the ethics of hosting. Dr Megan Dean Pt2
Part 2 of our conversation with philosopher Megan Dean. We explore the ethics of hosting and the tensions that arise when accommodating guests with dietary restrictions. We dive into her paper "The Worst Dinner Guest Ever" to understand why people with food allergies and gut issues often face skepticism and judgment when sharing their needs.
• Megan was inspired by a blog post about accommodating guests with multiple dietary restrictions and the heated debate in its comment section
• "Epistemic humility" means acknowledging people as authorities on their own bodies and experiences
• Many food intolerances cause invisible or delayed symptoms, making them easy to dismiss but no less real
• Hosting responsibilities include keeping guests safe and comfortable, which means taking dietary needs seriously
• Cultural contexts create complex ethical situations where being a "good guest" might mean risking discomfort
• "Healthism" flattens the rich experience of eating by assuming health should always be our primary consideration
• The true "worst dinner guest" is the one who judges others' food choices rather than enjoying the shared experience
Megan A. Dean; The “Worst Dinner Guest Ever”: On “Gut Issues” and Epistemic Injustice at the Dinner Table. Gastronomica 1 August 2022; 22 (3): 59–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2022.22.3.59
Undisciplinary - a podcast that talks across the boundaries of history, ethics, and the politics of health.
Follow us on Twitter @undisciplinary_ or email questions for "mailbag episodes" undisciplinarypod@gmail.com
Undisciplinary is recorded on the unceded lands of the Wadawurrung peoples of the Kulin Nation in Geelong and the Gadigal peoples of the Eora Nation in Sydney. We pay our respects to Elders, past and present. The world's first high-strung plant has been performed.
Speaker 2:Medical history has been made in South Africa, reports of systemic racism in the healthcare system and COVID-19 has made the issue even more urgent.
Speaker 3:Characterised as a pandemic.
Speaker 1:Welcome to Undisciplinary, a podcast where we're talking across the boundaries of history, ethics and the politics of health, co-hosted by Chris Mays and Jane Williams. Jane Williams, okay. So we're now here for part two, where we're going to get into the worst dinner guest ever and really about how to be a good host as well, and I mean this also comes at a time as the trial around the woman who poisoned the people with the beef wellington is underway.
Speaker 2:Allegedly, Chris, allegedly.
Speaker 1:Allegedly, allegedly yes, so unfortunately we can't bring you any updates, but that, I guess, is a good example of allegedly being a very bad host. Um, I had an experience between recording the initial interview with megan and now this, uh, releasing the second part, where I had someone say that they, they, what did they?
Speaker 1:say they're not lactose intolerant, but they just they don't like a lot of milk. You know they can have a little bit of dairy, but not a lot, and that put me in a position of needing to really use a bit of judgment as to how much is a lot Like. I assume we're not talking about. You know I'm not going to serve up pizzas in a milkshake, but you know there was a part of the recipe required some instant milk powder in a dough, so I rolled the dice on that and put the instant milk powder in the dough.
Speaker 2:It turned out to be okay, yeah, and also, I think, probably what I would understand from that that and put the instant milk powder in the dough, it doesn't turn out to be okay. Yeah, and also I think probably what. What I would understand from that is please don't give me a milkshake.
Speaker 1:Please make my milo with water which is a bit of a bummer, because usually, uh, when I have people over for dinner, I like to give them a big old milkshake to sweep things off. Okay, well, without further ado. See, there's me in my French again. Here comes the second part of this conversation, with Megan talking about, yeah, the ethics of hosting. Hope you enjoy it.
Speaker 2:Megan's written another paper that we wanted to talk about today and it's called the worst dinner guest ever. Is it actually called that?
Speaker 2:yes, it is called that I don't have in front of me right at the moment but another great title, um, and it starts with the idea that people who are difficult to feed are difficult to host. Basically, it comes from a um. It comes from what was presumably meant to be a, a kind of humorous um idea that your worst dinner guest in the world would be someone who, like I'm going to get this wrong but someone who's like, vegan and lactose intolerant and gluten intolerant and I don't know allergic to some other things.
Speaker 2:Allergic to nuts. There you go. Um so from you know, that sort of humorous idea being that there's the onus on the eater as well as the feeder to be accommodating somehow. Um so me talks about the kind of I'm going to use the word dietaries because I love it when I'm in a restaurant and the person comes up and says have you got any dietaries? It's just such a great shorthand. So Megan talks about the kind of dietaries that are sort of no-brainers for hosts to accommodate.
Speaker 2:Accommodate things like allergies, by which we mean those allergies that provoke an immediate response, like the ones that you see, like mushrooms, you know where you've got someone who can't breathe or who's like coming out in hives, you know, immediately obvious to everyone around them Nuts and fish and so on.
Speaker 2:But she also talks about, um, folks with gut issues.
Speaker 2:Now, gut issues is kind of an interesting idea, so things that I suppose don't make people feel good afterwards and that they know that they, that that particular food is going to make them not feel good. Um, and she talks about the epistemic barriers that are in the way of those gut issues being taken seriously, particularly in the dinner party scenario. So, specifically, the paper talks about testimonial injustice so people not being believed about their gut issues or their food intolerances or allergies and testimonial smothering food intolerances or allergies and testimonial smothering so people not wanting to talk about their gut issues because they're embarrassing, basically, or that they're worried that people will think that they're like jumping on a bandwagon or all sorts of reasons that people suppress that part of themselves, I suppose. So we've got an obligation is my takeaway from this paper to believe people and take them seriously. I don't know where that leaves us as hosts. How do we so? When I'm having people around for dinner, I say let me know if there's anything you don't need and I just trust that they're going to do that.
Speaker 2:So I I don't know quite what to what to do with this, but tell me what's the origin story for this paper. What made you write?
Speaker 3:it. Yeah, so this one was really inspired by a blog post that was called the the worst dinner guest ever, and there's a, a diagram I have at the beginning of the paper that I took from that that blog post that the illustrator was kind enough to let me reproduce it. Um, and it was supposed to be a joke, right, I think like, or a little tongue-in-cheek, I think, you know, the worst guest dinner guest ever. But because the blog post was giving recipes actually and they sounded nice, right, recipes that would you could feed this person, and so it was sort of meant to be like a problem-solving thing. You know you want to have your friend over for dinner, but they're vegan, allergic to nuts and kosher or halal or whatever, and that you know what are you going to feed them.
Speaker 3:But, um, what I became like so interested in was the comment section on this post, because first there were some people who were really offended by the title how like I could die if you give me wheat. How dare you call me a bad guest? I, I'm not rude, you know there is that. And then there were a bunch of people who also were like, well, back in my day, if you came to my house for supper, you ate whatever I gave you. You know, like if you don't like it, you can leave, like that sort of attitude or people sort of in the middle being like well, you know, my friend, he said he can't eat this anymore, but I saw he used to eat it all the time, so I don't really know what his deal is and it's very confusing it there. You know, I used to read this blog a lot and there was a fairly active commentary. This was, you know, in I think 2012. So you know, in I think 2012. So, you know, prime blog time, but this, this, this post, had like hundreds of comments on it and I was just like what is going on here? Like why are people so worked up about this? Like from so many different angles? Like the people who have the dietary restrictions are worked up that that people are maligning their character, are worked up that that people are maligning their character, and then the people who are hosting some of them are like offended that anyone would ask for accommodations at their meal, and then a bunch of other people are just sort of confused and slightly like skeptical. That like why are? Why are there so many food allergies now there didn't used to be when I was a kid and um, so I think you know I, because I'm sort of interested in this like figure of the bad eater I was like thinking about like who's this, like mythical person who comes to dinner and lies about having a food allergy, and like what's going on there, and so it actually kind of goes back to I was thinking about the mushroom case that you opened with right, like the implication from the family is that this person is lying, that they're saying they have a deadly food allergy but they really just don't like the mushrooms.
Speaker 3:They just you're the only one who doesn't like these. You know, and and I, when I presented work on this, almost every time somebody comes up to me and says, well, I have a cousin and she tells everyone she's allergic to eggs, but I know she's really not she's. You know, people, people love to to to talk about this. You know people love to talk about this, like in person, and so anyway, long story short, I became very interested in this idea that people are lying. I was like what is going on here? Why are people viewed as lying or actually lying?
Speaker 3:I couldn't find any data on like, oh, there are people actually lying. There are people actually lying, but I found a lot of data that reflected skepticism about people's claims about food allergy and different things, and then also some really interesting literature about you know people's experiences of being doubted and what happens to them. You know they have celiac disease. They'll get really sick if they have gluten and you know the people don't really believe them or they don't really think it. They have gluten and you know the people don't really believe them or they don't really think it's so serious, so they don't pay attention to contamination, which is actually a big problem for celiac folks.
Speaker 3:So that's kind of where this paper came from. And then I was. You know you could think about that in a lot of different contexts, like a family context, which is the mushroom case. But because at the time I was working on this I was doing my postdoc and I lived far away from family, I wasn't eating with family. I was thinking more about like the dinner party context or going to places with colleagues or friends and what happens then. Um, I think the family context adds another like ethical layer of complexity which we could talk about later maybe.
Speaker 2:But, um, yeah, so that's, that's where this paper came from so you talk in the paper about epistemic humility, um, and hosts practicing epistemic humility to accommodate their guests with dietary restrictions or preferences. Can you talk a little bit about what epistemic humility is and whether or not there's like a kind of spectrum of acceptableness in what to accommodate or not? You know, like we don't want to kill anyone, but if we think someone's faking or if it's just going to make them feel a little bit like you know, some people say they can't handle spicy food, by which I assume they mean that they're going to have gut issues I'm using square quotes the following day, Do we accommodate that? I mean, I think we accommodate everything because you know the just don't be a dick is kind of like words to live by. But if you could talk about epistemic humility in that context, that would be terrific.
Speaker 3:Yeah, sure, yeah, so. So epistemic humility I take my definition from Anita Ho's work. So she's a bioethicist, she does a lot of great stuff, but this is some of her work on disability and in clinical settings. And so she basically says epistemic humility is this idea that you I'll actually read, read the definition because I think it's nice yeah, you commit to make a realistic assessment of what you know and you don't know I'm paraphrasing a little bit here and restrict your confidence and claims to knowledge only to what one actually knows about your specialized domain. So there she's talking to providers and she's saying look, you are experts in certain things and you should claim your expertise. You know, it's not like we're saying don't trust your expertise, but there are other things that there are, or there are things that are outside of your expertise that actually we should be deferring to other people as experts in that domain. And mainly she's talking about people describing their own lived experiences, right? So in that context it's sort of talking about chronic pain. You know somebody who's describing chronic pain. That's their lived experience. And in general, unless we have very good reason to doubt somebody's reports or like interoception abilities, we should say you are the epistemic expert, the epistemic authority, on your own lived experiences, your description of pain, that sort of thing, and at the same time, providers can be experts in diagnosing things. You know all of that, yes, but when it comes to somebody's claim that, hey, this food is going to make me feel sick, this food is going to make me feel sick, the person who is the epistemic authority, there is that person and I think that's kind of the main. One of the main things I'm trying to get across in the paper is that is you know you really should, if you are doubting that claim from someone else, you really reflect on yourself a little bit. And you know, because how would you know better than that person?
Speaker 3:A lot of times these you know you mentioned food allergies. Some of them have very visible effects. So somebody will get really swollen, they won't be able to breathe, they have to go to the hospital, they might get hives, but a lot of other things, like even celiac disease, which is very serious, like could cause very serious damage if you are exposed to gluten. The symptoms are very internal it might be pain, it might be discomfort, it might come the next day. So it's you know you mentioned with the spicy food that comes later.
Speaker 3:It it often happens in the bathroom, you know, and we don't like to tell other people, especially at the dinner party. Here's what's going to happen to me in the bathroom later if I eat this food. You know, that's something that we tend to be very private about. We also don't like to tell people hey, you know your, your food made me sick last time. People, hey, you know your, your food made me sick last time. You know. These are all things that reasons why you know we, as a host, might not, or these are all reasons why we should defer to the person who's saying this food is going to make me sick, because they're really the person who's saying this food is going to make me sick, because they're really the person who's going to know that, and you know, I. I think, that being said right, then we have to make the decision as a host. Okay, well, what are we going to? What are we going to do about that, as you're telling me this food's making you sick? Um, how? How do I make sure I don't make you sick? How do I make sure I don't make you sick, you know?
Speaker 3:So in some of the work on ethics of hospitality we think about, like, what are the main responsibilities of a host? So they are, you know, keep your guests safe, comfortable. Maybe they have a good time, not just an okay time. You know you want to do something pleasurable for them. Give them a nice meal, not just an adequate meal. These are sort of the things hosts should do, or hope to do something pleasurable for them. Give them a nice meal, not just an adequate meal. These are sort of the things hosts should do or hope to do. Right, and some people don't like hosting, and that's fine. I don't think it's like a moral obligation. But if you're hosting like you are taking on these responsibilities.
Speaker 3:I think making your guests sick when you know either you know, especially when you know what would make them sick or even through negligence, I think that's really violating that, that moral responsibility of hosting.
Speaker 3:That being said, I do think there's this sliding scale in terms of severity of getting it wrong, like what's going to happen if you mess up, and then how much work is required to make sure that someone doesn't get sick. So in the case of a food allergy, where it's a deadly food allergy, like with the mushroom case, you know, really there should be no mushrooms in that house. There should be no mushrooms anywhere. You know, because the risk even a small amount of contamination is so high and that requires a lot of work. You know, because the risk even a small amount of contamination is so high and that requires a lot of work. You know, and I definitely want to acknowledge that this is a lot of posting can be a lot of work often falls on women, you know in the family, to do the work and it's not equitably distributed. You know, definitely acknowledge that.
Speaker 3:But you know, if somebody is just like hey, I have IBS, if I eat a lot of spicy food, it's going to make me sick tomorrow you can still serve spicy food. Just have some things that aren't spicy and label them. You know it's less work because the outcome of messing it up is you know it's less risky, it's less risky. So I do think there's a spectrum in that way, but I do want to argue in general. Defer to people's authority when they tell you this is going to make me sick.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think it's a really interesting case as well, the sort of gut issues. So in the paper you say you're not focusing on allergies and other people have done this and um, and, as you said just before, about the visibility and invisibility of these different um conditions, and and you go into this in the paper too that it's also not just the visibility, invisibility, but the ambiguity in medicine itself. Like there, there still is a lot of um conjecture and um debate and doubt within medicine, particularly coming from a very sort of scientific perspective, um, and and that these gut issues are part of. It also seems to be, yeah, as you have alluded to as well, part of like a big cultural shift, like people referring to. Back in my day no one was allergic to peanuts um, and and this kind of narrative that something has gone wrong in our and so and that cuts down both ways. Something's gone wrong in our and so and that cuts down both ways. Something's gone wrong with our food system and that's why we have people with allergies. Or something's gone wrong with these woke snowflakes and that's why we have, um, these gut issues. Uh, and it really reminded me. Uh, I've been teaching a bit of George's, kangiam's uh, normal and the pathological, and he talks about um, about that.
Speaker 1:Really, the whole therapeutic enterprise begins with the testimony of the patient. The person who says something is not normal for me right now, and that seems to be something that, for some reason, people take great offence to when it comes to these gut issues and food, and that they can't they aren't experts of their own bodies and experts of their own. You know, they know how their stomach and digestion work in relation to. So I find that, yeah, really really interesting and important work to sort of investigate this idea of um, the testimony of people. And yeah, like as has been said, it also seems to me that the simple thing is don't be a. You know, I, I, I struggle, like why people question this. I mean, people do, there's obviously, there's obviously in the blog posts and also that example of you know the mushrooms and things that I've heard.
Speaker 1:For some reason, people do feel that, as the host, they shouldn't need to make these accommodations. I find it bizarre to find the exact quote or where it is. But basically, you say it's not the responsibility. This is the quote. It's not the responsibility of the guests to be open, um, or flexible with regard to foods that will be that will predictably, directly and relatively quickly harm them. And I wanted to sort of ask, broaden out a little, like I do.
Speaker 1:I can just think in my own life where I have been that guest and you know I'm certainly not wanting to sort of say that if you've got, but there are power dynamics and relationships at times where, for instance, when I've been traveling in, you know a for the want of a better word you know sort of developing world, third world country where you know the water's not good and you've been told that you should not eat these things because it's contaminated.
Speaker 1:And then some local invites you into their house or into a situation where they are giving you food which you're about to eat and you're going to be a good host by eating this, even though you've got a good chance that you're going to eat.
Speaker 1:And you're going to be a good host by eating this, even though you've got a good chance that you're going to be regretting this later. So and there are other examples, like within a family, you know if a you know at different times and I've been vegetarian you know some elderly relative will cook you some fried rice and it's got you know ham, all those sorts of things in it and it's like as a as the guest, I feel I will be flexible, um. So yeah, this isn't about sort of hard and fast rules, but I'd just be interested in your sort of thoughts on that hospitality relationship under different circumstances does seem to require guests to have some flexibility yeah, I, I totally, I totally think so and I think that I think this just sort of goes to thinking about the value of sharing meals with people.
Speaker 3:like, why do we do this? You know, it's actually not and not again, not everybody likes them, not everybody values them I, but most people do. Many people do, like we. We want to share meals with people for for so many different reasons to to build relationships, to experience something new, to show respect for people you know, especially in a traveling context, you want to be respectful of somebody's. They're sharing their culture with you through the food. You know they're making you feel welcome and you want to, you know, accept the welcome and that's what you do by eating the food. And all of that stuff is so valuable.
Speaker 3:And I think that's why it does for people who have, you know, gut issues or food allergies or these things, why it can be so conflicting for them Because you know, in some sort of like a, a bro-y way, you might just be like, well, stand up for yourself, you can't eat it, don't eat it.
Speaker 3:Just tell everybody, you know, and I, I think some people do feel empowered to to do that and you know, I guess good for them.
Speaker 3:But a lot of people actually feel very, they feel very sheepish and conflicted because they don't want to seem disrespectful, they don't want toed, because they don't want to seem disrespectful, they don't want to seem rude, they don't want to be seen as rejecting somebody's care and invitation and welcome by saying I'm sorry, I can't eat this. And you know, I think that's why this is such an you know why it's valuable to do an ethical analysis of this, because I don't want to say it's just oh well, that person should be standing up for themselves and they're not. That's an ethical failure on their own part. You know, I people want to participate in shared meals for lots of good reasons. This is something that makes it really challenging. This is something that makes it really challenging, I think, even if everybody has good intentions and you know, being able to kind of like identify why that is and come up with ways to navigate it better, even if you can't sort of like totally dismiss the tension, I think is valuable.
Speaker 3:I mean, sometimes you just can't share a meal with certain people. You know, like there's this issue in sort of disability ethics where it's like, well, sometimes my accommodations conflict with yours, you know. So, like I'm a super strict vegan and I, you know, basically can only eat like cashew cheese or whatever Someone else is allergic to nuts Like, okay, we're not going to be eating a meal together, but what would we get out of the meal? Right, we would get time together, spend quality time, connect, celebrate, maybe, I don't know. Okay, are there other ways we can do that? You know, could we go bowling? I don't know, you know, could we? Could we go for a tea? Could we go to the park for a walk? You know, there are other ways to do to get the goods of a shared meal and I think, being like thoughtful about that, um, okay, can we make this meal work for everybody who we want to be there?
Speaker 3:and if we can't, then maybe we can shift to to a different activity, you know, um, so, so yeah, and I mean, I think I think people do make deliberate choices to make themselves sick or risk getting sick sometimes, and I don't think there's anything. I mean that's unfortunate situation. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's just shows your your desire to be a good guest and I think that's like morally admirable, even though I you know that's unfortunate that then you might be sick. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Jane, do you have something to say?
Speaker 2:No, I was just going to jump to the the worst dinner. Get back to the worst dinner guest. What would make someone a contender for worst dinner guest? What would? What would make someone a contender for worst dinner guest?
Speaker 3:well. I mean you can name names, or you can name a type of person.
Speaker 3:I think I was, I was thinking about this, this question. I, I guess, in general, my work has been to either defend people who are sort of maligned as bad eaters or bad, you know bad guests in this context of this paper, rather than be like and here's what would make you really bad, uh, you know um, but I guess, in general, I, I would hope that I, I would wish that people would just be less judgmental of everybody else's eating, especially when we are sharing food, and that I mean, I have lots of, you know, views about the moral importance of eating certain things and not other things and all that stuff. I just don't think that judging anybody else's choices, especially during a meal, is, um, is a helpful thing to do, uh, and so I guess, as a guest, that would be one of the things to keep in mind, especially because you know um, if, if you are are sharing a meal with somebody else and then they're you know often people get these why aren't you eating that what are? Are sharing a meal with somebody else and then they're you know often people get these why aren't you eating that what are? Oh, let me give you all this advice about how you should, you know, eat this and not that, and I and also you know it comes up with when somebody is a vegetarian or a vegan or something like that.
Speaker 3:And then you know there's a joke that, like, vegans just constantly talk about being vegan. And then you know there's a joke that, like, vegans just constantly talk about being vegan. But I have actually observed that it's often other people who are asking the person who's not eating meat or dairy why are you eating that? Oh, you're a vegan. And then they they're the ones that are bringing it up and asking lots of questions and I just I just suspect that everything would go a lot better if we would just stop being so judgmental of people during dinner. Maybe talk about other things and not what people are eating or not eating at the meal.
Speaker 3:But yeah, in general, I would say in my work work I'm more focused on trying to clear away misconceptions about who makes a bad eater, rather than than uh call people out for actually being bad.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that's a a really good um yeah, I mean hate.
Speaker 1:Yeah, for me, the bad guest or the bad person to share a meal with is the one who's sort of commenting and judging. And yeah, I don't even like making my lunch in the communal kitchen in case, like it just annoys me. Maybe I'm just an irritable person, you know, if someone even says, oh, that looks nice, I just feel like saying, keep your opinions to yourself. But I do want to, and you know, maybe that was a nice spot to finish it, but I did want to just bring this bigger thing in.
Speaker 1:You mentioned your PhD research about sort of healthist I can't remember the word you used and I'm not sure how you feel about the label. What is it? Orthorexia? But it would be interesting to, in both of these cases really, of the in the first article as well as in the second case if it's not so much about if people's sort of dietary choices are around this ideal of what is healthy eating. It seems to be, yeah, put the conversation maybe on a slightly different plane than something about, in this case, gut issues, issues. I mean, obviously that could be connected. But if it's, yeah, I guess, a type of eating that, say, maybe connected more to body image or longevity or or you know, superfoods and healthism and that kind of stuff, um, and that food and diet is put through. Yeah, I would say that, well, I'll speak for myself and you can say whatever you like, but you know, sharing a meal with somebody who's only frame for food is through this very narrow concept of health makes for a tiresome meal.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah. So I guess maybe I'll define healthism first and then I'll say so. Healthism is like a general phenomenon, but in the context of eating, I understand it to mean the assumption that health is the number one thing you should be going for in your eating, and then the assumption that anyone who is a responsible person is going to be doing that, is going to be prioritizing health with their eating. And you know, I just think that's false. Both of those assumptions are false.
Speaker 3:I think many people do value health, but they understand health in very different ways, and some people might be going for, like, some sort of optimal health. Other people are just like, I want, I just want the baseline, so I can, you know, do my activities, you know, work, you know, do whatever my life plans are. I don't need optimal health. You know, people have different, very, very different understandings of health, even if they do value it. And then also, of course, it's totally rational to prioritize things other than health in many contexts. And and just prioritizing something else doesn't mean you abandon the value of health. But there's a lot of cases where you have to have trade-offs, you know, like, do you spend quality time with your loved ones or do you, you know, prepare this elaborate, most nutritious meal ever? You know, this is like sort of a lot of people have work schedules that mean like they are trading out well, this, this thing is nutritious not as nutritious as it could be, but I don't really have time to do something else, so so that's. You know, that's part of it.
Speaker 3:I think one of the things that is important about or valuable, I guess, about recognizing the ethical complexity of eating is that it allows you to see kind of what might be going wrong with people who just really accept that healthist perspective. Because if you're always choosing health number one priority, trying really trying to optimize health too which is often like part of it, especially in orthorexia right, it's a very narrow conception of health and it's a very high bar. Like you're, you're really never gonna achieve health like on that understanding. Um, from from what I've read about orthorexia, you know it's like almost equated with purity of some kind. It's it's very narrow view, um, it's very narrow view.
Speaker 3:All the other good things that eating does or can do you're shoving aside. You know the way that you can connect with somebody over a pleasant meal or just the pleasures of eating things that maybe aren't. Some healthy food is very enjoyable and pleasurable. You know nutritious food, some non-nutritious food, also very pleasurable. You know nutritious food, some non nutritious food, also very pleasurable and enjoyable. What about, like food that's important for you culturally? Or you know a celebratory meal, or you know you're missing out on all these other things, and of course, a lot of that you can get in other ways. You know you can celebrate in ways that don't involve food.
Speaker 3:But I do think things like orthorexia and other forms of healthism about food really just tend to flatten out the potential, like richness of eating, and you know we can sort of defer to. Well, you know people, people have free will. They should be able to make their own choices about that, and I think that's true. But I also think that a lot of people who subscribe to that view do it by default because they assume that that must be the correct way to live. I think if somebody kind of critically engaged with that and then choose it, it would be different. I suspect a lot of people who are sort of involved in that way of thinking and living have not sort of critically reflected on that and and sort of freely chosen it in the way that. That I would hope you know for at least what I think of as real autonomy, so yeah, Excellent, thank you very much and I could, you know, talk a lot longer about all of this stuff.
Speaker 1:So it's been great. So thanks a lot for coming on and sharing your insights with us.
Speaker 3:Oh, my pleasure, it was great.
Speaker 2:And thanks from me too. I'm not sure what. I'm going to go ahead and do that, thank you. Thanks for watching.