- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Health is political. This is what many practitioners of public and clinical health believe. Health and health policy are shaped by the political ideology of governments, whether that means more money to invest in health systems or less regulation on health-harming products. Health can also cut across political lines because health is a universally shared value. Everyone wants their loved ones to be healthy, so framing societal issues as health issues can draw people from across the political spectrum to advocate for change and policies. The health community has had successes using this strategy with, for example, the climate crisis and gun violence. Framing climate change in the context of its health implications has helped make it a more accessible and tangible topic to many people.1 Framing gun violence as a public health issue assisted in the topic becoming less politicised in some countries.2 But in recent years health has been the subject of unprecedented polarisation, begging the question: is health no longer a unifying force, but a dividing one?
For those who somehow don’t know yet, a lot of food related misinformation is spread in the context of “biohacking” and “weight loss” discourse. Other aspects related to the environment deal with pollution and greenwashing. Specifically to animal science, the misinformation surrounds the “human-like” capacities of non-human animals: sentience, intelligence, individuation, having social relationships (and a group), having a culture, and even feeling pain (nociception). The animal industry on the production side and ***consumers of animal meat (especially) have produced a vortex of misinformation on all these fronts, all in the name of justifying profits, taste pleasure and the feeling of human supremacy.