The concept of wild food does not play a significant role in contemporary nutritional science and it is seldom regarded as a salient feature within standard dietary guidelines. The knowledge systems of wild edible taxa are indeed at risk of disappearing. However, recent scholarship in ethnobotany, field biology, and philosophy demonstrated the crucial role of wild foods for food biodiversity and food security. The knowledge of how to use and consume wild foods is not only a means to deliver high-end culinary offerings, but also a way to foster alternative models of consumption. Our aim in this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for wild foods, which can account for diversified wild food ontologies. In the first section of the paper, we survey the main conception of wild foods provided in the literature, what we call the Nature View. We argue that this view falls short of capturing characteristics that are core to a sound account of wilderness in a culinary sense. In the second part of the paper, we provide the foundation for an improved model of wild food, which can countenance multiple dimensions and degrees connoting wilderness in the culinary world. In the third part of the paper we argue that thanks to a more nuanced ontological analysis, the gradient framework can serve ethnobiologists, philosophers, scientists, and policymakers to represent and negotiate theoretical conflicts on the nature of wild food.

野生食品的概念在当代营养科学中并未发挥重要作用，在标准饮食指南中很少将其视为重要特征。野生食用类群的知识体系确实有消失的危险。但是，最近在民族植物学，野外生物学和哲学方面的奖学金证明了野生食品对粮食生物多样性和粮食安全的关键作用。有关如何使用和食用野生食品的知识不仅是提供高端烹饪产品的一种手段，而且还是一种培育替代消费模式的方式。我们在本文中的目的是为野生食品提供一个概念框架，该框架可以解释各种野生食品本体。在本文的第一部分中，我们调查了文献中提供的野生食品的主要概念，即自然观。我们认为，这种观点未能从烹饪意义上捕捉到对荒野的声音解释至关重要的特征。在本文的第二部分中，我们为改进的野生食品模型提供了基础，该模型可以满足烹饪世界中代表荒野的多个维度和程度。在本文的第三部分中，我们认为，由于有了更细致的本体分析，梯度框架可以为民族生物学家，哲学家，科学家和政策制定者提供服务，以代表和谈判有关野生食品性质的理论冲突。它可以代表烹饪世界中荒野的多个维度和程度。在本文的第三部分中，我们认为，由于有了更细致的本体分析，梯度框架可以为民族生物学家，哲学家，科学家和政策制定者提供服务，以代表和谈判有关野生食品性质的理论冲突。它可以代表烹饪世界中荒野的多个维度和程度。在本文的第三部分中，我们认为，由于有了更细致的本体分析，梯度框架可以为民族生物学家，哲学家，科学家和政策制定者提供服务，以代表和谈判有关野生食品性质的理论冲突。