Food: From Commodity to Commons

Our food and farming system is not socially, economically or ecologically sustainable. Many of the ills are a result of market competition driving specialization and linear production models, externalizing costs for environmental, social and cultural degradation. Some propose that market mechanisms should be used to correct this; improved consumer choice, internalization of costs and compensation to farmers for public goods. What we eat is determined by the path taken by our ancestors, by commercialization and fierce competition, fossil fuels and demographic development. Based on those, governments and the food industry are the choice architects who determine what we eat; consumer choice plays a marginal role. Using market mechanisms to internalize cost and compensate farmers for public goods has been proposed for decades but little progress has been made. There are also many practical, ethical and theoretical objections to such a system. The market is not a good master for a sustainable food system. Instead we need to find new ways of managing the food system based on food as a right and farming as a management system of the planet Earth. The solutions should be based on relocalization of food production and de-commodification of food and our symbionts, the plants and animals we eat.     

Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?

Many Europeans are concerned about the living conditions of farm animals because they view animals as beings that possess interests of their own. Against this background the introduction of an animal welfare label is being intensively discussed in Europe. In choosing a market-based instrument to take these concerns into account, normative judgments are made about the formation of preferences, the value system that is implicitly assumed, and the distribution of property rights. From the perspective of classical institutional economics it can be shown that the introduction of a label as an institutional change does not redefine institutions in a way that allows them to consider the interests of animals for their own sake. Rather, the label only redefines the property rights that humans have over animals. The market segregation into privileged and normal animals conflicts with the idea of equality between sentient animals. Within the group of humans only the interests of those who act on markets count. The commodification of their moral concerns assumes that people always decide based on their own interests, which can be traded off. The lexicographical ordering of preferences, which occurs when humans view animals as entities with rights, is not compatible with the normative assumptions of markets. Furthermore, interpreting animal suffering as market failure that can be corrected by labeling impedes a reasoned dialog within the society about the values and beliefs that serve as a basis for preference formation. Thus, an animal welfare label cannot replace a fundamental societal debate about legal standards on animal well-being.     

Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products

Animal welfare involves societal and human values, ethical concerns and moral considerations since it incorporates the belief of what is right or what is wrong in animal treatment and care. This paper aims to ascertain whether the different dimensions of individual attitudes toward animal welfare in food choices may be characterized by general human values, as identified by Schwartz. For this purpose, an EU-wide survey was carried out, covering almost 2500 nationally representative individuals from five European countries. Compared with the previous literature this study shows a twofold novelty: (1) it develops a general framework to link individual enduring beliefs and attitudes toward animal welfare attributes in food choices; (2) the framework is analyzed within a broad-based cross-country study. Our empirical results prove that human values related to self-transcendence are strongly associated to overall animal welfare attitudes and especially to those explicitly related to food choices, while values related to the spheres of self-enhancement and conservatism are significantly associated to less sensitive attitudes to animal welfare. Moreover, our results appear to indicate that a determinant of animal welfarism in food choices is potentially associated to individual concerns regarding food safety issues.     

Think Global,Buy National: CSR,Cooperatives and Consumer Concerns in the Norwegian Food Value Chain

In a world where issues of food safety and food security are increasingly important, the social responsibility of central actors in the food chain—producers and the main grocery chains—becomes more pressing. As a response, these actors move from implicitly assuming social responsibilities implied in laws, regulations and ethical customs, towards explicitly expressing social responsibilities. In this paper, we discuss the ethical values relevant for the social responsibility of central food producers and retailers in Norway, one of the most subsidized and protected areas of food production in the world. How do the actors perceive and express their social responsibility, and—given their position in the local, national and global market—how should they handle these responsibilities? We analyze Tine and Nortura, two producers owned by farmer cooperatives with market regulator function, as well as Coop—a dominant grocery chain in Norway, with basis in the same public ownership model as the farmer-owned cooperative producers. While the complex roles of these key actors in the Norwegian food market have been criticized from several angles, we argue that these multifaceted roles put them in a good position to promote informed consumer choices in a globalized market.     

Corporate Social Responsibility in Agribusiness: Literature Review and Future Research Directions

Changes in social framework conditions, accelerated by globalization or political inventions, have created new societal demands and requirements on companies. The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often considered a potential tool for meeting societal demands and criticism as a company voluntarily takes responsibility for society. The spotlight of public attention has only recently come to focus on agribusiness-related aspects of CSR. It is therefore the objective of this paper to provide an overview and a critical examination of the current state of research into CSR in agribusiness from different perspectives. Upon that this paper goals to define CSR special cases in agribusiness and derive implications for further research. CSR in agribusiness is a multi-dimensional and complex concept, which is sensitive to ongoing exchange processes between companies and stakeholders. We conclude with the special position of CSR in agribusiness and that future research should focus on adding value to industry-specific CSR aspects in the general CSR framework borrowed from management literature. Explorative fieldwork such as expert interviews with different stakeholders might be suitable for gaining insights into agribusiness-specific aspects of CSR in firms.     

Responding to a Public Health Objection to Vaccinating the Great Apes

Capps and Lederman, in a paper published in this journal in 2015, argued that, at the time, the dismal circumstances of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was an opportunity to revisit public health responses to emergent infectious diseases. Using a One Health lens, they argued for an ecological perspective—one that looked to respond to zoonoses as an environmental as well as public health concern. Using Ebola virus disease as an example, they suggested shared immunity as a strategy to vaccinate both humans and great apes. Since then, vaccination as a conservation strategy in this case has been debated and at least one great ape vaccination trial has been proposed: some, however, are less convinced of the ethical arguments to pursue vaccinating wild animals. Using this opportunity, we review Capps and Lederman’s arguments and directly respond to the plausible objections to them.     

Who Loves Mosquitoes? Care Ethics,Theory of Obligation and Endangered Species

The focus of this paper is on normative ethical theories and endangered species. To be exact, I examine two theories: the theory of obligation and care ethics, and ask which is better-suited in the case of endangered species. I argue that the aretic, feminist-inspired ethics of care is well-suited in the case of companion animals, but ill-suited in the case of endangered species, especially in the case of “unlovable” species. My argument presupposes that (1) we now live an era where human disturbances to planetary ecosystems are triggering a sixth mass species extinction, and (2) widespread interventions will be needed to save many species from extinction.     

Exposure to toxic waste containing high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide illegally dumped in Abidjan, C?te d’Ivoire

Introduction

On August 2006, a cargo ship illegally dumped 500?t of toxic waste containing high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide in numerous sites across Abidjan. Thousands of people became ill. Seventeen deaths were associated with toxic waste exposure.

Materials and methods

This study reports on environmental and health problems associated with the incident. A cross-sectional transect study was conducted in five waste dumping site areas.

Results

Of the households, 62.1% (n?=?502) were exposed to the effects of the pollutants and 51.1% of the interviewed people (n?=?2,368) in these households showed signs of poisoning. Most important symptoms were cough (37.1%), asthenia (33.1%), pruritus (29.9%) and nausea (29.1%).

Discussion

The health effects showed different frequencies in the five waste impact sites. Among the poisoned persons, 21.1% (n?=?532) presented symptoms on the survey day (i.e., 4?months after incident). Transect sampling allowed to determine a radius of vulnerability to exposure of up to 3?km from the point of toxic waste disposal.

Conclusion

The area of higher vulnerability is influenced by various environmental factors, such as size and severity of pollution site, duration of toxic waste pollution on the impact site and locally climatic conditions. The surveillance of effects on environment and human health is warranted to monitor the development.     

Blood serum concentrations of perfluorinated compounds in men from Greenlandic Inuit and European populations

Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), are used in large quantities. They are persistent and found in measurable levels in human serum around the world. They have been associated with developmental, hepatic, and carcinogenic effects in animal studies. The aim of the present study was to describe levels of PFCs in serum among Inuits from Greenland and inhabitants from Warsaw, Poland and Kharkiv, Ukraine. Furthermore, the aim was to define social- and lifestyle related determinants of exposure for these compounds. Serum levels of seven PFCs were analyzed by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). The concentrations of PFOS and PFOA were the highest of all PFCs in all three populations with a total amount of almost 90% of the PFCs. The mean levels of PFOS and PFOA were in the Greenlandic Inuits 52 and 4.8 ng mL(-1), in Poland 19 and 5.2 ng mL(-1), and in Ukraine 8.1 and 1.9 ng mL(-1), respectively. Thus, levels of PFCs in the serum of Inuits on Greenland were among the highest described in a general population whereas the levels in Poland were similar to other industrialized countries. The exposure in Ukraine was rather low. In the Greenlandic Inuit population, intake of seafood, tea, age and area of living were significant determinants of PFOS concentrations and explained about 22% of the variation. For the other populations no strong determinants were found.