Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study presents a systematic literature review to examine how the axiological values associated with cultured meat influence consumer perception, using the phenomenology of perception as an analytical framework. Fifty-four peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies, identified through the Libraries Worldwide database, were analyzed using NVivo 12 software, based on predefined keywords and a rigorous selection grid. The results highlight several groups of axiological values that shape consumer attitudes, including the previously unexplored “axiological value of co-production” of cultured meat. Specifically, “dogmatic co-production” (e.g., religious or cultural co-production) appears to significantly enhance consumer perception and acceptance of cultured meat. The main limitation of this study lies in the absence of primary phenomenological field data, which may introduce researcher subjectivity inherent in qualitative paradigms. Nevertheless, the use of existing empirical studies ensures the relevance and reliability of this review. This research offers practical implications for communication strategies, suggesting that aligning messages with key axiological values and their amplifiers, particularly those related to co-production, can strengthen trust in and acceptance of cultured meat. For industry stakeholders, these findings provide guidance for value-driven positioning aimed at increasing consumer confidence. Academically, the study offers a novel perspective by integrating axiological analysis with phenomenology in the context of food technology adoption. Socially, it helps identify consumer concerns and expectations regarding the axiological values perceived as essential for the acceptance of cultured meat. The study’s originality lies in its application of phenomenological analysis to axiological frameworks and in highlighting the central role of co-production, particularly dogmatic co-production, in shaping consumer perception.

The world's leading economies are facing not just one but many crises. The financial meltdown may not be over, climate change threatens major global disruption, economic inequality has reached extremes not seen for a century, and government and business are widely distrusted. At the same time, many people regret the consumerism and social corrosion of modern life. What these crises have in common, Diane Coyle argues, is a reckless disregard for the future--especially in the way the economy is run. How can we achieve the financial growth we need today without sacrificing a decent future for our children, our societies, and our planet? How can we realize what Coyle calls \"the Economics of Enough\"?

This note answers Terry Peach's (1998) response to our criticisms of his interpretation of Ricardo. We show that the available evidence supports Sraffa's interpretation. The arguments put forward by Peach, far from undermining that interpretation or furthering an understanding of Ricardo's project, do little more than catalogue the already well‐known difficulties that Ricardo encountered as he grappled toward a clearer account of the laws that regulate distribution and prices.

The paper contains a further defence of those aspects of the interpretation of Ricardo advanced in Peach (1993) that have been subjected to criticism by writers of a Sraffian persuasion. It is argued that the latest criticisms, from Heinz Kurz and Gary Mongiovi, serve best to illuminate the problems with the Sraffa‐derived view of Ricardo.

In the wake of the reformation, which transformed Dutch society in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, art was no longer reserved for churches and religious purposes, but rather found its way into the private realm.¹ Food still lifes were among the genres that quickly gained popularity. Tables richly decorated with meats and exotic fruit, shellfish, wine, and opulent cakes, appealing to the senses were created by artists such as Pieter Claesz, Willem Claesz, Willem Heda, or Jan Davidsz de Heem for private enjoyment. One could marvel at the artists’ exquisite skills in depicting their subject matter in photographic detail, finely

Whether bathing in soup or leaving rotten leftovers in museum corners, cooking on oversized stoves in front of gallery visitors, or inviting unfamiliar guests to share homemade meals, these apparently unrelated actions have at least two elements in common: food and art. In fact, they are fundamental components of performative pieces by Janine Antoni, Paul McCarthy, Elżbieta Jabłońska, and Lee Mingwei. The work of these artists offers a taste of the plethora of implications related to art that is focused on food production, processing, and consumption. Food art—a term that we use to define art which uses food as

China has been plagued by pervasive corruption in multiple and complex forms since the 1980s, and especially in recent years, posing a serious challenge to governance and the government’s legitimacy. Among various forms of corruption and misconduct, extravagant position-related consumption (san gong xiao feiin Chinese) attracts the general public’s attention, generating a widespread belief that position-related consumption is closely related to corruption and misconduct among officials. Such extravagant consumption, if not effectively controlled, may affect the public’s trust in the government and its legitimacy. Accordingly, President Xi Jinping, with his colleague Wang Qishang, the General Secretary of the Central

It’s quiet, countercultural, potentially subversive, but also mainstream. It flies low, usually hidden amidst reports of increasing productivity, rising consumer confidence, expanding personal debt, and the dizzying array of new products promising to make life easier, faster, more productive, and more rewarding. Unpromisingly rooted in an apolitical and consumerist response to social ills, it also sows the seeds of collective challenge to fundamental dysfunctions of industrial society. Focused as it is on the quality of work and quest for personal control of one’s time and one’s life, it resonates with the American deification of individual freedom. But inevitable connections to

WHAT BECAME OF Pinytos’s hunger? Eusebius tells us that Pinytos sought a “more perfect letter” from Dionysius—a teaching that might nourish into maturity those under his care. But we do not know if Dionysius ever relented, preparing the solid food of more rigorous instruction. Pinytos feared that his flock might live out its days feeding solely on “milky words” and never grow beyond infancy. This is where the record of the correspondence ends: a community stuck between the insufficient meal of milky words and the belief that perfection might come from the meat of a more advanced teaching.¹ And

Cooking, like art, is a transformative and dynamic process, intended to surprise, delight, or sometimes provoke the consumer. And, like art, cooking has deployed and directed our creative energy; gastronomy was, and remains, both an art and a science. For much of its history, gastronomy negotiates between innovation and surprise on the one hand, and familiarity and tradition on the other. Some food and art historians have noted the imbalances in those negotiations, particularly when the creator has stressed innovation, surprise, and even shock in preparing and presenting food. Outrageous or avantgarde cooking movements failed to make an immediate impact