Conservative blindness on ethical eating

Daniel Larison says that most conservatives intuitively understand the importance of cultivating virtuous personal habits for the sake of the common good, and would even admit that maintaining an institution like the family meal serves an important purpose beyond the mere nourishment of our physical bodies:

Even so, to then say that it matters in some important way what they eat, where it comes from or how the animals and soil that provide them sustenance are treated is usually to lose much of their interest. Suddenly, as if out of nowhere, the language of unfettered desire and autonomy crops up: "I want what I want, and who are you to say otherwise?" At least with many libertarians, this is to be expected, but it is a strange reflex for those who are supposed to prize restraint and wisdom.

To say that eating is a political act worries conservatives because many seem to cling, oddly enough, to an old liberal conception of private, personal life that they wish to preserve free from outside interference, including ultimately the "interference" of neighbors, relatives and local community. Where social conservatives are often keenly aware of the effects that individual choices concerning marriage, child-bearing and child-rearing have on society as a whole, there often seems to be a strange disconnect when it comes to eating, as if an act that ties us into an elaborate web of economic relationships has no greater significance and no other implications other than providing nourishment. It is one kind of activity, perhaps the only kind, where many conservatives act as if the consequences of personal choices do not extend beyond the front door.[Emphasis added. -- RD]