Food production in the city: (re)negotiating land,food and property

This paper addresses issues of access to land for food production in Toronto by offering fresh perspectives on urban agriculture in the neo-liberal city of the global north. It examines attempts to scale up urban agriculture that emphasise changing the relationships between land access, property and new collaborative relationships among different stakeholders. These initiatives involve renegotiating access to land for growing food between private property owners and landless growers, concomitant shifts in control over valued resources and commercialisation. These shifts are often based on relations of trust within a sharing economy rather than public battles over political decisions to develop urban agriculture lands. Growing food on private lands in the city is political in challenging taken-for-granted ideas and practices of property and urban agriculture. New approaches offer options for training and income, as well as expanding the land base for urban agriculture. Small-scale farming projects are affirmative political manoeuvres. They challenge urban residents to consider land for food production across the categories of public and private property. We document three approaches that challenge current property relations: temporary use of a development site through “soft” squatting; redesignating suburban backyards for farmer training and community-based and private food production; and garden sharing of private home backyards for urban food production and commercial growing. Such initiatives articulate alternative visions of sustainability and food security that rely on principles of collaboration and a sharing economy that challenge prevailing notions of property ownership and food security.     

Food Aid and the Famine Relief Argument (Brief Return)

Recent publications by Pogge (Global ethics: seminal essays. St. Paul: Paragon House 2008) and by Singer (The life you can save: acting now to end world poverty. New York: Random House 2009) have resuscitated a debate over the justifiability of famine relief between Singer and ecologist Garrett Hardin in the 1970s. Yet that debate concluded with a general recognition that (a) general considerations of development ethics presented more compelling ethical problems than famine relief; and (b) some form of development would be essential to avoiding the problems of growth noted by Hardin. Better than renewing the debate, we should recognize two points. First, food needs do indeed evoke a moral response that is more direct and compelling than the philosophical positions often generated to rationalize a duty to bring aid. As such the argument for feeding hungry people cannot be generalized into a paradigm for development ethics without distortions that undercut the morally valid elements in Singer’s original argument. Second, contrary to prevailing assumptions in present day development ethics, food aid and famine relief continue to be important priorities for international agencies, notably the World Food Program. Emergency food assistance, the nominal topic of Singer’s original article, thus is an important issue for agricultural as well as development ethics, though one that should indeed be seen as distinct from more complex duties to address the conditions of chronic poverty and underdevelopment.     

Trust,Food, and Health. Questions of Trust at the Interface between Food and Health

The food sector and health sector become more and more intertwined. This raises many possibilities, but also questions. One of them is the question of what the implication is for public trust in food and health issues. In this article, I argue that the products on the interface between food and health entails some serious questions of trust. Trust in food products and medical products is often based upon a long history of rather clear patterns of mutual expectations, yet these expectations are not similar in both sectors. As long as the food sector and health sector remain distinct, these differences will not lead to problems of trust, yet when new products are introduced, like functional foods or personalized dietary advices, trust can be threatened. To prevent this, we need clarity with regard to what we can expect of these new products and of whom to expect what in this situation. This requires not␣only adequate information on operating procedures, but also a profound debate␣on responsibilities and the explication and interpretation of moral values and norms.