Choosing a Food Future: Differentiating Among Alternative Food Options

This article examines the diversity of food networks that fit within the alternative food system of the United States. While farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture schemes, and corporate organic food markets all fit within the alternative food system, they differ greatly in the conventions and beliefs that they represent. The alternative food system has divided into two movements: corporate, weak alternative food networks; and local, strong alternative food networks. The weak corporate version focuses on protecting the environment; however, it neglects issues concerning labor standards, animal welfare, rural communities, small-scale farmers, and human health. Local, strong alternative food networks not only assure environmental protection, but they also address the issues that weak alternatives neglect. Using three case studies from the Washington, D.C. metro area, the author explains that strong alternative food networks are better suited to create social and political change because they challenge the foundations of the conventional food system: standardized and generic products, price-based competition, consolidated power, and global scale. To affect true social and political change in the United States, the author recommends supporting strong alternative food networks by creating the requisite cultural and political space for them to succeed.     

The Homiletics of Risk

Today there is considerable disagreement between the US and the EU with respect to food safety standards. Issues include GMOs, beef hormones, unpasteurized cheese, etc. In general, it is usually asserted that Europeans argue for the precautionary principle (with exceptions such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement where ``substantial equivalence,' a form of familiarity, is used) while Americans defend risk analysis or what is sometimes described as the familiarityprinciple. This is not to suggest that EUmember countries agree on how the precautionaryprinciple should be applied; considerabledifferences exist among nations as will benoted below.In this paper I review both positionsarguing that they are best understood asvariants of the homiletics of risk rather thanas differing scientific positions. I concludethat while science must necessarily enter intothe formulation of food and agriculturalstandards, state policy, private economicinterests, and the interface between the two(e.g., when democratic states are successfullylobbied to support particular privateinterests), play important roles in determininghow particular risks will be treated. Moreover,I argue that the role of science mustnecessarily be limited if its credibility is tobe preserved.     

Public and Consumer Policies for Higher Welfare Food Products: Challenges and Opportunities

Farm animal welfare in livestock production is a topical and important issue attracting growing interest of policy makers, consumers, stakeholders in the supply chain and others. While there is much public interest in the issue this is not reflected in the supply and market shares of animal food products that are produced under welfare standards that exceed legislative requirements. Given the obstacles to devising stricter legislative standards, higher welfare animal food products are mostly made available through market-based approaches. This paper discusses different challenges and opportunities for a range of public and consumer policies and makes recommendations on how these might be strengthened. The paper does not report primary empirical findings but assembles available knowledge on citizen and consumer attitudes and perceptions towards animal welfare from various research disciplines. We argue that in order for public and consumer policies to be (more) efficient and effective, it is important to develop a segmented and targeted strategy. This paper will thus elaborate on what information could and should be provided to whom. This implies the need for a good understanding of how people conceptualize farm animal welfare. Further, information provisioning should address the needs and expectations of those specific consumer segments most likely to be motivated to purchase higher welfare products. Based on the assembled information, opportunities and challenges for information provisioning and communication to the public and consumers are identified. The merits and limitations of different forms of information provisioning and animal welfare labelling are discussed and recommendations are set forth for future research.     

Reflections on the Growing Influence of Good Agricultural Practices in the Global South

EurepGAP is a pioneering field level food safety protocol called ‘good agricultural practices’ currently exercising influence over the global food quality assurance system. Developed by a consortium of major European retailers, this private standard enforces codes of conduct that address issues of health and safety for producers and consumers, as well as working conditions and environmental management on the farmland. Despite various merits and benefits that the standard is premised to offer, the institutional design gives a financial edge to powerful large farms and exporters while diminishing opportunities for smaller growers and exporters to remain in the profitable agricultural export sector of the Global South. This paper explores the institutional origin and evolution of EurepGAP, discusses entry barriers and risks that EurepGAP imposes on the global value chain stakeholders, as well as the ethical implications from broader theoretical perspectives. Subsequently, it examines the evolving nature of a new trend in the fresh fruit and vegetable sector, i.e., the rise of public GAP standards. Promoted by some governments in the Global South, these GAP standards emphasize support for horizontal partnerships among value chain stakeholders, farmer participation, and less capital-intensive agricultural innovations. The paper argues that, within certain limitations, these GAP standards have the potential to be the major alternative GAP approach by encouraging a much broader inclusion of small-scale producers towards the attainment of various social, economic, and environmental benefits.     

Food Law,Ethics, and Food Safety Regulation: Roles,Justifications, and Expected Limits

Recent food emergencies throughout the world have raised some serious ethical and legal concerns for nations and health organizations. While the legal regulations addressing food risks and foodborne illnesses are considerably varied and variously effective, less is known about the ethical treatment of the subject. The purpose of this article is to discuss the roles, justifications, and limits of ethics of food safety as part of public health ethics and to argue for the development of this timely and emergent field of ethics. The article is divided into three parts. After a short introduction on public health ethics, all levels of food safety processes are described and the role that ethics play in each of these levels is then analyzed. In the second part, different models describing the function of food law are examined. The relationship between these models and the role of ethics of food safety is assessed and discussed in the final part, leading to some relevant comments on the limits of the role and effect of ethics of food safety.     

Market governance for safe food in developing countries: The case of low-pesticide vegetables in Vietnam

In many developed countries private arrangements have emerged in food governance. Following limited successes of state regulation, market actors and mechanisms are increasingly included in the environmental and safety governance of domestic and global food chains and networks. But do such private governance arrangements also work in domestic markets in developing countries? Pesticide use in vegetable supply is taken as a case to explore the role of market actors and dynamics in food safety governance in Vietnam. The so-called safe vegetable production system in the Red River Delta, introduced 10 years ago as a domestic alternative to conventional vegetable production, is analyzed through detailed monitoring of farmers, surveys of retailers and consumers, and in-depth interviews with state officials and vegetable traders. The paper finds limited success of this low-pesticide vegetable production, distribution and consumption system. This private arrangement in food governance lacked trust from market actors (especially consumers), and was short of an active state that organized transparency and got market actors involved. As such, market governance in food safety needs to be strong.     

Consumer Choice and Farmers’ Markets

The increasing popularity of local food consumption can be attributed to the heightened awareness of food safety concerns, carbon emissions produced from food transportation, and an understanding of how large corporations’ obtain their food supplies. Although there is increasing discussion on both the local and organic food movement independently, there is not a wide availability of literature examining the motivations and perceptions of consumers with regard to farmers’ markets. Issues such as perceptions about what type of food consumers are purchasing at markets, nor the main motivations for frequenting such establishments are discussed. Therefore the purpose of this study was to determine consumer motivations, benefits, and perceptions of farmers’ markets. Using the case study location of Toronto, Canada, this study surveyed 300 participants during the fall of 2011. Findings indicated that the main purpose for visiting famers’ markets is not solely to fulfill grocery needs. Quality of products offered and the ability to support the local community were the primary motivators to visit the markets.     

The town that food saved? Investigating the promise of a local food economy in Vermont

Proponents of the local food movement point to its environmental, economic, and social benefits, yet there is little research on the extent to which particular local food projects live up to these promises. Vermont leads the country in farm stands, direct-to-consumer sales, and farmers’ markets per capita and the town of Hardwick, Vermont has received substantial media attention for its growing economy based on new food and agriculture businesses, including being the subject of a book entitled The Town that Food Saved. Using interviews with local food participants and analysis of US Census data, the paper assesses the impact of the local food economy in Hardwick using environmental, economic, and social outcomes. The paper also examines how the agricultural renaissance there has been accepted, resisted, and shaped by local actors. Using Census data, the paper finds that between 2000 and 2016, the unemployment rate in Hardwick remained steady, mean incomes increased, and 296 new jobs have been retained. In addition, the percentage of families in Hardwick with income below the poverty level decreased between 2000 and 2016, and the percentage of families accessing supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits increased. The paper also finds that many participants in the Hardwick food economy have concerns about the accessibility, affordability, and inclusivity of the newer food-based projects there. The paper concludes with a discussion of the ways in which Hardwick fulfils some of the hopes and concerns of the local food movement, and the potential for place-based agricultural development.     

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.     

Education for Change

The author uses two publications, Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe (Alesina and Glaeser) and Poetry magazine, to underscore the important role that educational institutions play in developing a person’s political philosophy and imagination. European nations, for instance, have better funded social welfare programs than the US because their system of public education incorporates more liberal or left-leaning teachings into their standard curricula. The author sees implications for a more intentional approach to education in the US for those who are interested in changing the food system. If American educational institutions viewed their role as producing food competent citizens, he argues, then we would be more successful in addressing obesity, promoting a more sustainable food system, and even reducing poverty. Food system activists, dieticians and nutritionists, parents, and elected officials should take a more aggressive position with educational institutions to develop programs, services, and curricula capable of achieving these ends.