The food industry is constantly challenged to find new ideas to satisfy the increasingly specific consumer demand. However, innovative food products do not always become part of consumption habits or create a market. One of the major sources of resistance to novelty lies in the attitude of the consumer, who in many cases may be suspicious or hostile as a result of specific ideologies, overly attached to tradition, or affected by neophobia. This paper analyzes the construct of food neophobia (the “unwillingness to try new foods”) in its phenomenology and its actual power to explain hostility to innovation in the agri-food sector. The limits of the concept, which is not always sufficient to shed light on the many reasons that could underlie the rejection of certain foods, will also be discussed. In addition, we review the recent literature on Europeans’ attitude toward novel foods and innovation including Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), cultivated meat and insects as food. This literature reveals a number of paradoxes in consumers’ behavior, and in the many complex conditions underpinning the success of innovation in food production. These conditions can only be understood by reconstructing the meanings consumers assign to food, and are often embedded in larger social and political frameworks.

What Works with Individuals in a Clinical Setting?

Starting from the critical review of various motivational frameworks of change that have been applied to the study of eating disorders, the present paper provides an alternative conceptualization of the change in psychotherapy presenting a single-case study. We analyzed six psychotherapeutic conversations with a bulimic patient and found out narratives “for” and “against” change. We read them in terms of tension between dominance and exchange in I-positions, as described by Hermans. These results indicate that the dialogical analysis of clinical discourse may be a useful method to investigate change from the beginning to the end of therapy.

According to systemic-constructivist theory, all psycho-pathological organizations are linked to specific meanings which are developed by the individual within problematic situations in the context of learning, particularly within the family. The aim of this empirical study is to support the theory that eating disorders are linked to the “power semantics,” concept developed by Ugazio. The hypothesis that the bipolar construct “winner/loser” and the associated meanings are predominant for obese people, has been verified by interviewing 44 women (22 obese/overweight; 22 controls) using the Repertory Grid Test developed by Kelly. The participants’ elicited constructs were classified according to their semantic content and the data compared using statistical techniques. The power semantics were more prevalent and important in the Obese Group than in the Control Group. These results are critically discussed, highlighting possible clinical developments.