Food ethics最新文献

This article argues that governments in countries that currently permit intensive animal agriculture - especially but not exclusively high-income countries - are, in principle, morally justified in taking steps to restrict or even eliminate intensive animal agriculture to protect public health from the risk of zoonotic pandemics. Unlike many extant arguments for restricting, curtailing, or even eliminating intensive animal agriculture which focus on environmental harms, animal welfare, or the link between animal source food (ASF) consumption and noncommunicable disease, the argument in this article appeals to the value of protecting populations from future global health emergencies and their broad social, economic, and health impacts, taking the SARS-CoV-2 virus as a particularly salient example. The article begins by identifying how intensive animal agriculture contributes to the outbreak (and risk of future outbreaks) of zoonotic diseases. Next, we explore three specific policy options: 1. Incentivizing plant-based and cell-based ASF alternatives through government subsidies; 2. Disincentivizing intensive ASF production through the adoption of a "zoonotic tax"; and 3. Eliminating intensive ASF production through a total ban. We argue that all three of these measures are permissible, although we remain agnostic as to whether these measures are obligatory. We argue for this conclusion on the grounds that each measure is justified by the same sorts of considerations that justify other widely accepted public health interventions, and each is compatible with a variety of theories of justice. We then address potential objections. Finally, we discuss how our novel argument relates to extant ethical arguments in favor or curtailing ASF production and consumption.

The current global COVID-19 pandemic has led to a deep and multidimensional crisis across all sectors of society. As countries contemplate their mobility and social-distancing policy restrictions, we have a unique opportunity to re-imagine the deliberative frameworks and value priorities in our food systems. Pre-pandemic food systems at global, national, regional and local scales already needed revision to chart a common vision for sustainable and ethical food futures. Re-orientation is also needed by the relevant sciences, traditionally siloed in their disciplines and without adequate attention paid to how the food system problem is variously framed by diverse stakeholders according to their values. From the transdisciplinary perspective of food ethics, we argue that a post-pandemic scheme focused on bottom-up, regional, cross-sectoral and non-partisan deliberation may provide the re-orientation and benchmarks needed for not only more sustainable, but also more ethical food futures.

Amidst the recent threat of COVID-19, home gardens have surged in popularity as seed companies and nurseries find it challenging to keep their supplies fully stocked. The victory garden movement that emerged during WWII has today re-emerged as COVID victory gardens. Yet, the global changes and cognitive shifts associated with COVID-19 have differential impacts. The narrative of COVID victory gardens depoliticizes urban agriculture. It is blind to its long history in marginalized, oppressed, and displaced communities where home gardens have always been part of a struggle for identity, autonomy, and self- and communal-determination. I argue the blindness embedded in the narrative of COVID victory gardens violates our "food-related obligations," which are our responsibilities to ourselves, our food, and each other. Silencing how communities of color have historically grown food in pursuit of dignity disregards how home gardens in communities of color are not merely a reactionary response to crisis but part of a historical legacy whereby people of color have grown food for generations to create and recreate sustainable ways of living that validate their cultures, knowledges, and ways of being.

There were excellent reasons to reform intensive animal agriculture prior to COVID-19. Unfortunately, though, intensive animal agriculture has grown rapidly over the last century. All signs indicate that it will continue to grow in the future. This is bad news for billions of animals. It's also bad news for those who want an animal-friendly food system. Because the public isn't very concerned about the plight of animals-or is concerned, but has a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance-animal activists regularly engage in indirect activism. Indirect activism involves arguing that some cause that's indirectly related to the activist's primary agenda provides reasons to act in ways that are congruent with that agenda. In this paper, we consider the two indirect arguments that animal activists advanced in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic: first, some used COVID-19 to criticize intensive animal agriculture-many of these had US-based audiences as their target; second, and more modestly, some activists used COVID-19 to condemn wet markets specifically. We contend that both arguments had the risk of backfiring: they risked promoting the very systems that are worst for animals. We then assess the moral significance of this risk, concluding that while it may have been permissible to advance these arguments, there were some serious moral considerations against doing so-ones that weren't addressed by flagging animal activists' concern for animals or any other stakeholder in the discussion. In both cases, we think there are plausible precautionary arguments against the strategies that these activists pursued. Additionally, in the case of arguments against wet markets specifically, we contend that the precautionary argument can be supplemented with a side constraint condition that, arguably, activists violated insofar as they were acting in ways that maintain a racist and xenophobic system.

The craft chocolate and specialty cacao industry has been driving the global chocolate industry towards more sustainable farming and ethical and transparent sourcing practices by prioritizing farmer welfare, environmental resource conservation, and consumer education. However, the craft chocolate and specialty cacao industries are also uniquely vulnerable to the immediate and long term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and many cacao producers are expected to be disproportionately affected. Craft chocolate businesses have been especially hard hit by losses in revenue and specialty cacao producers are facing unique challenges compared to their industrial counterparts. Factors that influence the future of these businesses include: labor intensity, regional politics, risk tolerance, and accessibility. Immediate impacts include loss of revenue and access to markets, which are directly influenced by travel restrictions, access to petrol, global trade networks, and operational limitations. Long term impacts include changes in business strategies, including the use of e-commerce, elevating consumer education to sustain sales and providing access to transparent pricing. The global crisis reveals that there is an ethical imperative to provide investments in the specialty cacao and craft chocolate industry to deliver farmer relief, improve access to technology for business needs, and support farmer empowerment in negotiations to mitigate risks.

Nigeria agriculture, food security and dietary intake have not been exempted from the disruptions in countless sectors around the world due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The country first experienced the outbreak on February 27, 2020, and the experience since then has shown negative effects not only on the socioeconomic conditions but also on agriculture, food security and dietary intake. Long term in-depth analysis of the effects of this pandemic on food security and dietary intake using quantitative data is still very difficult due to paucity of data and the great level of the improbability of the trajectory of the spread of the Virus. This study is a rapid assessment of the short and long-term potential effects of the disease. It relied on a review of situation reports especially by the Nigeria Centre of Disease Control and other reports around the world on COVID-19, personal observations, and public opinion via mobile telephone survey of Lagos and Oyo States, Nigeria. Findings show that food demand and supply shocks caused by COVID-19 outbreak affect agriculture, food and dietary intake negatively through COVID-19 policies. It leads to a reduction in household income coupled with hike in food prices. Owing to the Nigeria's crude farming practice, there was a scarcity of hired labour required for production process during 2020 farming season. This implies a high likelihood of low output and further surge in food prices in the future. Food access was also compromised with the accumulation of unsold fresh produce by the smallholder farmers and the low salary earners during movement restrictions and of loss income as a result of international border closure. Food and dietary intake is affected as people are shifting diets to more affordable and low quality foods, while food stability is not guaranteed due to market insecurity, prompting an extraordinary level of indecision. The study concludes that the shock of COVID-19 is not only a demand management problem but a multidimensional crisis requiring monetary, fiscal, and health policy responses with global collaboration and cooperation.