Evo Exp for Food Preferences

• What does the theory believe

  Adaptive behaviour improves chances to survive and is inherited. This also affected our food preferences. Since a varied diet which is high in energy, key nutrients and avoids toxic food aids our survival, such preference has become genetically bred into us.
• What do sweet things provide and what do they signal

  Sweet things provide a large number of calories and are high in energy. A sweet taste is an easily detectable signal of nutrients so sweet tastes signal safety
• Preference for sweet foods in evolutionary terms

  In evolutionary terms, those with a preference for sweet tastes are more likely to survive and pass on genes. The preference for sweet is then genetically bred into the population
• What does meat haveand what did it help

  Meat is packed with a high proportion of calories and large amounts of energy. It also contains amino acids, minerals and protein and helped supplement the low-calorie plant diet of our ancestors with a wider variety of nutrients and a more balanced diet
• What does meat improve

  Meat improves our chances of survival so gene coding for meat preference is passed on and genetically bred into the population due to its adaptive value. Therefore the preference for meat is still present today
• What food is more likely to be toxic

  Bitter and sour food is more likely to be toxic vs other tastes. Natural taste aversion to such food was genetically bred into humans.
• What does taste aversion help with

  Helps us quickly avoid and naturally refrain from eating such food and improves chances of survival.
• People have an inherited ability to what

  To rapidly form future taste aversion to food which makes us sick. It prevents us from re-consuming anything which makes us ill and reduces our chances of survival
• Study on aversion - who, what

  Garcia and Koelling - rats developed taste aversion to sweet water (flavoured with saccharine) after pairing it with radiation that made them ill. Furthermore, the same effect didn't occur when pairing sweet water with electric shocks
• What is neo phobia

  A general fear of experiencing new food which may be unfamiliar to us.
• Why is neo phobia adaptive, what does it aid

  It is adaptive because it improves chances of survival as it means you're less likely to consume new substances which could be toxic and protects us from harm/illness or death caused by such food. It aids survival and is passed on through evolution
• Research on neo phobia

  Dovery et al researched neo phobia and found that individuals have expectation of how food should look and smell. Unfamiliar food that doesn't fall into this category is rejected
• EVAL points for evolutionary explanation for food preferences

  • S - support for preference for sweet food. (Steiner)
  • W - individual diff in taste aversion. (Drewnoski)
  • W - refuting evidence for neophobia being adaptive. (Perry et al)
  • W - deterministic
• S - research support for preference for sweet food. Steiner - facial expressions of new-born babies indicate pleasure + acceptance to a sweet taste and rejection + disgust to a bitter taste. Shows evo processes influence taste preferences as infants lack exp to learn preferences but avoid bitter tastes as they signal harmful substances, in nature, and accept sweet which signal safety. + physiological research ...
• (S - support for preference for sweet food - Steiner)... + physiological research support. The tongue has specific and more receptors for sweet flavours vs other tastes. Supports idea that sweet tastes are more important to the body than other tastes and have a preference for sweet which is driven by genetic and evo factors. Increase V
• W - refuting evidence for neophobia being adaptive. Although neophobia has some adaptive benefits, it also leads to inadequate nutritional practices. Perry et al found that neophobia is associated with poorer dietary quality among children. Shows in our modern food environment, having neophobia restricts variety of children's diet and limits what they could eat which could lead to health problems. Contradicts the assertions that it increases survival chances e.g. deficiencies. Decreases V
• W - individual differences in taste aversion. Drewnoski found genetic variation in humans in ability to detect a chemical - PROP (bitter chemical in food). Hence, ppl differ in their ability to taste bitter chemicals in food. Some ppl cannot taste bitter tasting chemicals (non-tasters) others are very sensitive (supertasters) and avoid food containing any bitter tasting chemicals. Refutes evo exp as according to the theory, tasting bitter flavours is essential to survival and thus should be bred into everyone (universal trait). Not the case which poses problems for the exp. Decreases V
• W - evo exp deterministic. Deterministic bc it proposes that eating beh is controlled by evo factors like which food preferences may be adaptive. Ignores free will + fact that eating beh affected by conscious choices e.g. ppl health concerns like diabetes may choose to avoid sugary food despite the evo urge to eat sweet flavours. Vegans + vegetarians use free will to avoid eating meat despite its adaptive benefit + preference for meat. The exp presents a negative outlook on eating beh as fixed + fails to acknowledge how humans make choices eating beh to improve health or be more ethical