Food Health Policies and Ethics: Lay Perspectives on Functional Foods

Functional foods are a challenge tofood health policies, since they questioncentral ideas in the way that food healthpolicies have been developed over the lastdecades. Driven by market actors instead ofpublic authorities and focusing on the role ofsingle foods and single constituents in foodsfor health, they contrast traditional wisdombehind nutrition policies that emphasize therole of the diet as a whole for health.Sociological literature about food in everydaylife shows that technical rationality co-existswith other food related rationalities, such aspractical and economic rationalities, socialand relational rationalities, and symbolicrationalities that influence citizens' ordinaryeating habits. An examination of lay views onexpert knowledge about food and health showthat skepticism exists with respect to thebasis of and balance of expert advice. Critical points with respect to how functionalfoods may influence routines in the populationswith relevance for public health include thefact, that they promote a way of thinking offood and health that is in conflict withwell-established practical ways of ensuring abalanced diet.     

Regulating Functional Foods in the European Union: Informed Choice versus Consumer Protection?

Due to the rise of functional foods,the distinction between foods and medicines hasbecome increasingly blurred. A new EUregulation covering health claims and otherclaims on food and drink products is on thedocks. A basic motive of legal regulation oflabeling and advertising is to inform andprotect the consumer. Promotion of informedchoice and consumer protection may, however, beconflicting objectives. A further problemsprings from the fact that choice, likeconsent, is a propositional attitude andtherefore opaque. Thus it is extremelydifficult for regulators to fasten onparticular formulations of claims. Despite theprofessed respect for the autonomy of theconsumer, paternalism is never far away andeasily enters in various guises.     

Public Health,Ethics, and Functional Foods

Functional foods aim to provide a positive impact on health and well-being beyond their nutritive content. As such, they are likely candidates to enhance the public health official’s tool kit. Or are they? Although a very small number of functional foods (e.g., phytosterol-enriched margarine) show such promise in improving individual health that Dutch health insurance companies reimburse their costs to consumers, one must not draw premature conclusions about functional foods as a group. A large number of questions about individual products’ safety, efficacy, and affordability need to be answered before they might become an important part of the public health agenda. More importantly, though, the costs and benefits of functional foods relative to alternative mechanisms of public health improvement need to be ascertained. Alternative scenarios that warrant investigation are mainly the supply of nutraceutical ingredients in pill form targeting “at risk” groups and consumer education on diet and lifestyle.     

中国生态农业与绿色食品

本文从农业环境问题和食品安全性出发，阐述了中国生态农业的兴起及特点，绿色食品生产的要求，生态农业与绿色食品的关系。介绍了几种可用于开发绿色食品的优化生态模式。     

Safety Assurance of Foods: Risk Management Depends on Good Science but it is not a Scientific Activity

We make many decisions in our livesand we weigh the benefits against thedrawbacks. Our decisions are based on whatbenefits are most important to us and whatdrawbacks we are willing to accept. Decisionsabout what we eat are made in the same way; butwhen it comes to safety, our decisions areusually made more carefully. Food containsnatural chemicals and it can come into contactwith many natural and artificial substancesduring harvest, production, processing, andpreparation. They include microorganisms,chemicals, either naturally present or producedby cooking, environmental contaminants, andpesticides. Since the chance of being harmed bythese potential hazards is called risk, riskanalysis might be better termed as the scienceof safety, because risk management is anessential part of it. It would, however, bedifficult and shortsighted to maintain thatquestions about risk and safety can have nomoral dimension. Risk and safety become mattersof moral concern when they raise furtherquestions about responsibility, accountability,and justifiability. The question of risk cannotbe ignored in any ethical investigation ofgenetic engineering, novel foods, animalwelfare, and individual choices. However, foodis more than metabolic fuel. It hasphysiological, psychological, social, cultural,and aesthetic associations that merge to form agestalt that people endanger and maintain. Thecontribution of any food towards anindividual's well being is as complex as theindividual himself. In this context, thebenefits of consuming food that containshazards may outweigh the risk.     

One ecosystem,one food system: the social and ecological context of food safety strategies

Eating is the most intimate relationship people can have with their environment. As people have migrated, in very large numbers, from various parts of the globe, as well as from the countryside to the city, they have brought to their new homes not only their intimate familial relationships, but also their intimate environmental relationships. Intraand international trade in human foods and animal feeds amounting to billions of dollars annually support these transplanted eating habits. Infectious disease agents, toxins and environmental contaminants of all sorts are globally distributed along with these foods. Furthermore, the internationalization of a substantial portion of the food industry, along with urbanization, has resulted in unrealistic consumer perceptions of food, and fostered ecologically and socially unsound food production and food safety practices, which themselves are creating new food safety problems. Effective food safety strategies, which by necessity must account for the contamination of the environment in which the food is grown, as well as the environments through which it passes on the way to the consumer, need to be global in both breadth (socially and geographically) and depth (ecologically). As well, the desire for democratic social control now evident throughout the world, along with this diversity of culinary tastes, suggest that a successful global food safety strategy would do well to reflect the kinds of diversity and complex interactions seen in natural ecosystems.     

Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty

Governments, producers, and international free tradeorganizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) areincreasingly confronted with consumers who not only buy (or don'tbuy) goods, but also demand that those goods are producedconforming to certain ethical (often diverse) standards. Not onlysafety and health belong to these ethical ideals, but animalwelfare, environmental concerns, labor circumstances, and fairtrade. However, this phantom haunts the dusty world of social andpolitical philosophy as well. The new concept ``consumersovereignty' bypasses the conceptual dichotomy of consumer andcitizen.According to the narrow liberal response to this newconstellation, with respect to food one should conceptualizeconsumer sovereignty as the right of the individual consumer toget information on food products and to make his or her ownchoice on the market of food products. In this conception, thereis a very strong emphasis on rules and principles with respect tothe autonomy of individuals.I argue that these narrow liberal concepts are not sufficient forappropriate public policy-making in democratic societies, andthat they only enable us to identify problems; they do not helpnon-experts (and experts, if it comes to that, as well) inweighing the different ethical claims. Besides, not onlyprinciples play a role in the outcome, but all kinds of ideals aswell, like roles, values, and norms. My principal argument isthat analysis or justification of norms or principles is notsufficient to get a synthesis or construction of ethicalsolutions: we need some value orientation to guide us inbalancing the different ethical claims by solving an ethicalproblem. Moreover, this balancing is something that requiressocial space and social time, i.e., public debates. With theconcept of public debates a whole new dimension enters ethicalanalysis, because the attention of ethicists shifts toformulating criteria of successful and rational public debates.However, in the broad liberal view these concepts aresupplemented with values, preferences, practices of care, andinvolvement. I argue firstly for a broadened perspective on foodas an integral part of life styles and not only as something thatpresents risks. That is the reason that food gets such intensiveattention from the public, which is summarized in the concept ofconsumer concerns. Secondly, I defend the argument that not only(rational) public debates, but intensive commitments of bothproducers and consumers in every link of the chain in so calledcare practices or consumer councils can enhance confidence in thefood production system and the way we extract our daily intakefrom nature.     

Food Sovereignty and Gender Justice

Food sovereignty asserts the right of peoples to define and organize their own agricultural and food systems so as to meet local needs and so as to secure access to land, water and seed. A commitment to gender equity has been embedded in the food sovereignty concept from its earliest articulations. Some might wonder why gender justice should figure so prominently in a food movement. In this paper I review and augment the arguments for making gender equity a central component of food sovereignty. The most common argument is: if women constitute the majority of the world’s food producers, then agricultural policy is a women’s issue. And insofar as patriarchal social relations continue to dominate the globe, then changing agricultural policies will require explicit attention to gender injustice. I suggest that this is a good argument, but that an ecological feminist perspective can provide additional theoretical reasons for maintaining the centrality of gender justice in food sovereignty discourse. Moreover, ecological feminism can provide a robust theoretical framework that coheres a concept and movement with a wide set of concerns. My critique positions food sovereignty’s call to social justice as embedded in a truly radical re-thinking of dominant conceptual frameworks, and re-envisioning of political and ethical relations.     

Novel Foods and Consumer Rights: Concerning Food Policy in a Liberal State

In the public debate concerning novel foods, someconsumer groups claim a consumer right to have accessto certain kinds of food in the market. To discusssuch statements, the paper identifies the reasons thatmay justify liberal states to regulate food. Althoughit defends certain paternalistic activities, itfavours an autonomy-centred food policy. Autonomy andconsumer sovereignty require that certain conditionsare fulfilled. It may be argued that one suchcondition is that the consumer should have choices.Against this position, the paper defends the view thatliberty rights to choose are limited to areas whichare of great importance for personal identity and thegood life. Local decisions in the area of foodconsumption do not have such importance, though globalones may have it. But even if this were true,government activity to protect such liberties shouldbe limited to the guarantee of formal conditions forthe good life of persons. It is not a legitimate taskof the government to safeguard specific conceptions ofthe good life.     

GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food

Proponents of using genetically modified (GM) crops and food in the developing world often claim that it is unjust not to use GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. In reply, the critics of GMOs claim that while GMOs may be useful as a technological means to increase yields and crop quality, stable and efficient institutions are required in order to provide the benefits from GMO technology. In this debate, the GMO proponents tend to rely on a simple utilitarian type of calculus that highlights the benefits of GMOs to the poor, but that overlooks the complex institutional requirements necessary for GMO production. The critics, recognizing the importance of institutional conditions, focus primarily on the negative impacts of institutional deficiencies, thereby overlooking the basically Rawlsian claim that institutions per se may generate claims to justice. This article investigates how GMOs might generate claims to global justice and what type of justice is involved. The paper argues that the debate on GMOs and global justice can be categorized into three views, i.e., the cosmopolitan, the pluralist, and the sceptic. The cosmopolitan holds that GMOs can and should be used for alleviating global hunger, whereas the sceptic rejects this course of action. I will argue here for a moderately cosmopolitan approach, relying on the pluralist view of institutions and the need to exploit the benefits of GMOs. This argument rests on the premise that global cooperation on GMO production provides the relevant basis for assessing the use of GMOs by the standard of global distributive justice.     

You Are What You Eat: Genetically Modified Foods, Integrity, and Society

Thus far, the moral debateconcerning genetically modified foods (GMF) hasfocused on extrinsic consequentialist questionsabout the health effects, environmental impacts,and economic benefits of such foods. Thisextrinsic approach to the morality of GMF isdependent on unsubstantiated empirical claimsand fails to account for the intrinsic moralvalue of food and food choice and theirconnection to the agent's concept of the goodlife. I develop a set of objections to GMFgrounded in the concept of integrity andmaintain that food and food choice can beintimately connected to the agent's personalintegrity. I argue that due to the constitutionof GMF and the manner in which they areproduced, such foods are incompatible with thefundamental values and integrity of certainindividual moral agents or groups. I identifythree types of integrity that are threatened byGMF: religious, consumer, and integrity basedon certain other moral or metaphysical grounds.I maintain that these types of integrity aresufficiently important to provide justificationfor political and societal actions to protectthe interests of those affected. I conclude byproposing specific steps for handling GMFconsistent with the moral principles ofinformed consent, non-maleficence, and respectfor the integrity of all members of society.They include mandatory labeling of GMF, theimplementation of a system for control andregulations concerning such foods, andguaranteed provision of conventional foods.     

Respecting The Autonomy of European and American Consumers: Defending Positive Labels on Gm Foods

In her recent article, “Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food?,” Kirsten Hansen argues that in Europe, voluntary negative labeling of non-GM foods respects consumer autonomy just as well as mandatory positive labeling of foods with GM content. She also argues that because negative labeling places labeling costs upon those consumers that want to know whether food is GM, negative labeling is better policy than positive labeling. In this paper, we argue that Hansen’s arguments are mistaken in several respects. Most importantly, she underestimates the demands of respecting autonomy and overestimates the cost of positive labeling. Moreover, she mistakenly implies that only a small minority of people desire information about GM content. We also explore the extent to which her arguments would apply to the US context, and argue that any discussion of the relationship between autonomy and labeling should include not just considerations of consumer autonomy but also considerations of what we call citizen autonomy.     

More time in the kitchen,less time on the streets: the micropolitics of cultivating an ethic of care in alternative food networks

There is increased attention to alternative food efforts as individuals and groups seek to build stronger local food infrastructures to increase accessibility, transparency, and fairness with how food is grown, produced, and distributed. In considering individuals and families contending with food injustices and insecurities; concerns and questions have surfaced about what it means to privilege the leadership and participation of these communities in alternative food efforts. While there are no linear answers to these questions, this paper explores how one statewide food network in the United States seeks to involve youth contending with the juvenile justice system in a job readiness programme, Youth Kitchen, that interfaces the youth with farmers, chef educators, community organisations, and farmers markets. This paper contends that integrating alternative food and juvenile justice work is a complex terrain that both advances social justice and reproduces existing power asymmetries within alternative food networks. The inclusion of accounts from multiple stakeholders in the local food and juvenile justice system generates a multilayered view that moves away from an either sustainability or social justice rubric to a more process-oriented lens that reveals the strategic dilemmas that alternative food networks encounter. On the one hand, the social landscape of this programme promotes an ethic of care and shared ownership between the staff and participating youth. At the same time, akin to many alternative food networks, neoliberal interests bump against this ethic of care and white privilege seeps into staffing patterns and everyday programmes in ways that reproduce the status quo.     

Advantages and disadvantages of the use of irradiation for food preservation

Food irradiation is a physical method of processing food (e.g. freezing, canning). It has been thoroughly researched over the last four decades and is recognized as a safe and wholesome method. It has the potential both of disinfesting dried food to reduce storage losses and disinfesting fruits and vegetables to meet quarantine requirements for export trade. Low doses of irradiation inhibit spoilage losses due to sprouting of root and tuber crops. Food- borne diseases due to contamination by pathogenic microorganisms and parasites of meat, poultry, fish, fishery products and spices are on the increase. Irradiation of these solid foods can decontaminate them of pathogenic organisms and thus provide safe food to the consumer. Irradiation can successfully replace the fumigation treatment of cocoa beans and coffee beans and disinfest dried fish, dates, dried fruits, etc. One of the most important advantages of food irradiation processing is that it is a coldprocess which does not significantly alter physico-chemical characters of the treated product. It can be applied to food after its final packaging. Similar to other physical processes of food processing, (e.g. canning, freezing), irradiation is a capital intensive process. Thus, adequate product volume must be made available in order to maximize the use of the facility and minimize the unit cost of treatment. Lack of harmonization of regulations among the countries which have approved irradiated foods hampers the introduction of this technique for international trade. Action at the international level has to be taken in order to remedy this situation. One of the important limitations of food irradiation processing is its slow acceptance by consumers, due inter alia to a perceived association with radioactivity. The food industry tends to be reluctant to use the technology in view of uncertainties regarding consumer acceptance of treated foods. Several market testing and consumer acceptance studies have been carried out on food irradiation in recent years. These studies showed that, if the safety and the benefits of food irradiation were properly explained, the consumers were willing to accept irradiated foods. Considering its potential role in the reduction of post-harvest losses, providing safe supply of food and overcoming quarantine barriers, food irradiation has received wider government approvals during the last decade. There is also a trend towards increased commercialization of irradiated food. Currently, there are 47 irradiation facilities in some 23 countries being used for treating foods for commercial purposes.     

Natural Food and the Pastoral: A Sentimental Notion?

The term natural is effective in the marketing of a wide variety of foods. This ambiguous term carries important meaning in Western culture. To challenge an uncritical understanding of natural with respect to food and to explore the ambiguity of the term, the development of Western ideas of nature is first discussed. Personification and hypostasization of nature are given special emphasis. Leo Marx’s idea of the pastoral design in literature is then used to explore the meaning of natural as applied to food, emphasizing Marx’s distinction between a sentimental and a complex pastoral. The latter is applied to natural as a means of collapsing a dichotomy of man and nature to the idea of second nature. From this perspective an understanding of the industrialization of the food system and the importance of local and organic food are considered. The extent to which processed foods might properly be considered natural is raised and discussed for several common foods. Although marketing of natural foods might make us think that we consume nature, I suggest that what is consumed is more appropriately second nature. I suggest that in order to maintain a critical perspective about one’s relationship to the natural world, everyone should make an attempt to experience the complex pastoral with respect to at least something that is consumed as food. When nature is understood as second nature in the context of a complex pastoral, the question of whether a food or ingredient is to be considered natural is replaced by deliberative thought based on our best knowledge and judgment, and the result will be less constrained by ideology.     

The Ethics of Food for Tomorrow: On the Viability of Agrarianism—How Far can it Go? Comments on Paul Thompson’s Agrarian Vision

I consider Paul Thompson’s Agrarian Vision from the perspective of the philosophy of technology, especially as it relates to certain questions about public engagement and deliberative democracy around food issues. Is it able to promote an attitudinal shift or reorientation in values to overcome the view of “food as device” so that conscientious engagement in the food system by consumers can become more the norm? Next, I consider briefly, some questions to which it must face up in order to move closer in dismantling the barriers that inhibit the capacity for virtuous caretaking of the food system at various levels. Lastly, and more deeply, how successful might agrarianism be in inculcating citizenship values (ones that go beyond food ethics as a private affair), for the democratization of agricultural technologies? Might the Jeffersonian foundation to which the agrarianism (a la) Thompson appeals need something like a contemporary theory of justice in order to facilitate the reconstitution of our politico-moral selves? How can it help guide appropriate ruminations on the intra and intergenerational question, “What do we want the shape of our current and future social and political institutions to look like in relation to food?”     

John Rawls’s Theory of Justice and Large-Scale Land Acquisitions: A Law and Economics Analysis of Institutional Background Justice in Sub-Saharan Africa

During the 2007–2008 global food crisis, the prices of primary foods, in particular, peaked. Subsequently, governments concerned about food security and investors keen to capitalize on profit-maximizing opportunities undertook large-scale land acquisitions (LASLA) in, predominantly, least developed countries (LDCs). Economically speaking, this market reaction is highly welcome, as it should (1) improve food security and lower prices through more efficient food production while (2) host countries benefit from development opportunities. However, our assessment of the debate on the issues indicates critical voices in both the media and academic discourse. This article aims to provide a philosophical law and economics analysis. We draw on John Rawls’s Theory of Justice, focusing on Rawls’s background institutions for distributive justice (§43) to evaluate LASLA form an ethical angle. Approaching LASLA into Sub Saharan LDCs as a socio-economic reform redistributing land from the local population of LDCs to investors, we acknowledge that they bear a highly desirable potential. Often, though, they cannot be regarded as ethically correct in practice as the insignificant improvements for local populations and sometimes even human rights violations contradict Rawls’s principles of justice. Then investigating whether and how international law can help overcome the shortcomings, we conclude that even though respective mechanisms exist in the current state of international law, it is hardly possible that it will produce more just outcomes in the near future.     

Selective Patronage and Social Justice: Local Food Consumer Campaigns in Historical Context

In the early 2000s, the development of local food systems in advanced industrial countries has expanded beyond creation and support of farmers’ markets and community supported agriculture farms and projects to include targeted Buy Local Food campaigns. Non-governmental groups in many U.S. places and regions have launched such campaigns with the intent of motivating and directing consumers toward more local food purchasing in general. This article examines the current manifestations and possibilities for social justice concerns in Buy Local Food campaigns, by considering them within the more general category of “selective patronage“ campaigns. Historical campaign examples, such as Buy Union, Buy American, and Buy Black campaigns, offer instructive comparisons to contemporary consumer campaigns promoting local food. Through examining the construction of threats, intended beneficiaries, products to be avoided, and those to be preferentially selected, the paper demonstrates how selective patronage campaigns have emphasized social justice needs and concerns for designated groups in ways that have been potentially exclusionary of other disadvantaged groups and thus undermining of social justice more broadly. As a contemporary instance of “selective patronage,“ Buy Local Food campaigns exhibit similar contradictory impulses, which are intensified by the conceptual and practical pitfalls in designating “local.“ The article concludes by considering how the challenges and prospects for commitments to social justice in local food consumer campaigns reinforce the importance of emerging initiatives centered on domestic fair trade.     

Latina Feminist Metaphysics and Genetically Engineered Foods

In this paper I critique two popular, non-scientific attitudes toward genetically engineered foods. In doing so, I will be employing the concepts of ambiguity, purity/impurity, control/resistance, and unity/diversity as developed by Latina feminist metaphysicians. I begin by casting a critical eye toward a specific anti-biotech account of transgenic food crops, an account that I will argue relies on an anti-feminist metaphysics. I then cast that same critical eye toward a specific pro-biotech account, arguing that it also relies on such an anti-feminist metaphysics. I will argue further that this metaphysics yields a less accurate account of genetics. I end by arguing that if we adopt a Latina feminist metaphysics we can more accurately understand plants, genetics, and genetic engineering.     

A “justice” reading of the trans-national struggle of the people displaced by the Merowe Dam

ABSTRACT

This paper applies a “justice” lens to the struggle of the people displaced by the Merowe Dam in northern Sudan. Application of distributive, procedural, and representational aspects of justice exposes the dissatisfaction of the affected people with the government’s offer and execution of compensation. Consideration of social justice and the utility of norms in trans-national activism brings into sharp focus the difference in interests, and abilities of the many actors involved, and highlights the government’s tactics to divide the communities, and the social divisions sown. As the struggle develops, justice claims are seen to change towards less material issues, suggesting that an expanded and dynamic conception of justice is more helpful than narrow or time-bound conceptions. The findings are of relevance to communities facing possible displacement from dams planned nearby, not least of all for the insight provided on the effectiveness of different tactics in the struggle.