Magical disruption? Alternative protein and the promise of de-materialization
Magical disruption? Alternative protein and the promise of de-materialization
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/2514848620963125
复制
发表时间：
2021-12-01
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Biltekoff, Charlotte
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guthman, Julie;Biltekoff, Charlotte
沿着寻求消除动物蛋白生产中的不人道条件和屠宰，替代蛋白公司渴望改善其对环境的影响。他们声称通过（几乎）从无到有制造可食用的蛋白质，利用丰富的或普通的资源，这些资源大概不会被错过或没有负面的外部性，或者是“升级循环”的副产品，否则这些副产品会被浪费换句话说就是去物质化。与此同时，这些企业家承诺，他们的替代品在营养上将类似于或优于动物蛋白质，并且只对人体有益。本文利用从位于硅谷或通过硅谷的替代蛋白质公司收集的数据，对公司各种去物质化承诺的陈述进行了编目和检查。我们发现，试图满足硅谷创新的三方竞争需求，即破坏性，透明度和保密性，导致流程的表示比它们所揭示的更模糊。由此产生的混淆不仅仅是故意掩盖有害的过程;硅谷食品科技企业家不仅仅是销售特定的食品，他们还渴望建立一个新的食品系统，并说服他们的观众，这种食品未来是更好的，是可以实现的。尽管如此，他们的代表性做法使得公众或任何人都很难（如果不是不可能的话）有意义地评估这些承诺及其潜在后果，更不用说让他们的支持者对金钱以外的任何事情负责了。
Along with seeking to eliminate the inhumane conditions and slaughter involved in animal protein production, alternative protein companies aspire to ameliorate its environmental impacts. They claim to do so by making edible protein from (nearly) nothing, drawing on abundant or mundane resources that will presumably not be missed or have no negative externalities, or "upcycling" byproducts that would otherwise be wasted-to de-materialize in other words. At the same time, these entrepreneurs promise their substitutes will be nutritionally analogous to or better than animal-based proteins and have only salubrious effects on human bodies. Drawing on data collected on alternative protein companies that are based in or have come through Silicon Valley, this article catalogs and examines company representations of their various de-materialization promises. We find that attempting to meet the tripartite, yet competing imperatives of Silicon Valley innovation, namely disruption, transparency, and secrecy, results in representations of processes that obfuscate more than they reveal. The resulting obfuscation is not simply the intentional veiling of pernicious processes; more than selling specific food products, Silicon Valley food tech entrepreneurs aspire to bring a new food system into being and convince their audiences that this food future is both better and achievable. Nevertheless, their representational practices make it difficult, if not impossible, for the public-or anyone really-to meaningfully assess the promises and their potential consequences, much less hold their proponents accountable to anything but pecuniary concerns.