Principles of foodservice ethics: a general review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Moral aspects of food are gaining increased attention from scholars due to growing complexity of the food system. The foodservice system is a complex arrangement of stakeholders, yet has not benefited from similar scholarly attention on the moral facets. This gap is of significance given that the foodservice system has increased in importance with the larger proportion of food consumed in foodservice environments. This paper aims to focus on the foodservice system with the goal of applying moral perspectives associated with the theoretical discussion on the principles of food ethics. Design/methodology/approach Food ethics is described within the theoretical framework of three principles, namely, autonomy, justice and well-being. These ethical principles are reviewed in context of the foodservice system comprised of food distribution (supply chains), preparation (foodservice establishments) and consumption (consumer demand). The review also includes international perspectives on foodservice system ethics to assess relativism (versus universalism) of moral issues. Findings As the foodservice system increases in complexity, greater discussion is needed on the ethics of this system. This study observes that ignoring ethical principles can negatively impact the ability of consumers, businesses and communities to make informed choices, and on their well-being. Alternatively, a focus on understanding the role of food ethics can provide an anchor for research, practice and policy development to strengthen the foodservice system. While these moral principles are universal truths, they will require relative introspection globally, based on local experiences. Originality/value This paper presents a moral principle-based description of food ethics that incorporates the various components of the expanding foodservice system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".