Agriculture and Human Values最新文献

Despite the promise of new gene editing technologies (GETs) (e.g., CRISPR) in accelerating sustainable agri-food production, the social acceptability of these technologies remains unclear. Prior literature has primarily addressed the regulatory and economic issues impacting GETs ongoing acceptability, while little work has examined socio-cultural impacts despite evolving food policies and product commercialisation demanding input from various actors in the food system. Our systematic review across four databases addresses this gap by synthesising recent research on food system actors’ perspectives to identify the key socio-cultural factors influencing GET acceptability. This review extends prior literature by including views from a more diverse range of actors (e.g., farmers and NGOs) and provides a better understanding of their perceived social benefits and concerns. We find food system actors perceive positive and negative impacts of using GETs in agriculture. These perspectives are often entangled in broader debates regarding sustainability and food systems issues (e.g., social justice). We discuss practical recommendations for policymakers, agri-food industry managers, and scientists to better align gene edited foods (GEFs) with food system actors’ values. GEF policy, development, and commercialisation must reflect social values such as collective wellbeing and transparency to improve actors’ acceptability. More research is required among marginalised food actors such as Indigenous and smallholder farmers.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become one of the defining challenges of the twenty-first century. Food production and farming are a key if troubling component of that challenge. Livestock production accounts for well over half of annual global consumption of antimicrobials, though the contribution of the sector to drug resistance is less clear. As a result, there is an injunction to act in advance of incontrovertible evidence for change. In this paper we engage with the role of market actors in the precautionary regulation of farming practices and AMR threats. The paper takes the UK poultry sector as exemplary of an audit-led process that has, in recent years, achieved impressive reductions in antimicrobial use. Using qualitative interview data with farmers and veterinarians we chart the changing practices that have accompanied this reduction in treatments. We use this analysis to raise some cautions around audit-led systems of regulation. Audits can lock farms and animals into particular versions of farming and animal health; they can elevate harmful compensatory practices (including disinfectant uses); and they can reproduce an actuarial approach to an issue that does not fit the conventions of risk management. The paper presents the considerable successes that have been achieved over a short period of time in a livestock sector, while generating notes of caution concerning the audit-led management of livestock-related AMR threats.

If genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are approved in the EU for experimental release or marketing authorization (placing on the market), a risk assessment (RA) is carried out beforehand to determine whether this may be associated with negative effects on human health, nature or the environment. Applications are reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the national Competent Authorities of the Member States. However, the potential ramifications of the GMOs that are systematically addressed in the current RA context are limited. Broader consideration can include environmental and health aspects beyond the scope of the statutory RA, as well as societal, ethical and cultural impacts. These other levels of impact may be considered during the comitology process of authorisation, but how this is done is typically not made explicit in a systematic way. However, with the dynamic developments of new kinds of GMOs, these considerations as well as transparency regarding the role of broader considerations in political decision-making become more and more relevant. Against this backdrop, we identified the requirements and suggest the main elements for such a broader assessment. We use insights from the field of Technology Assessment (TA) to explore the requirements for operationalising a rapid but still systematic, transparent and broad case-by-case GMO assessment compatible with the existing legislative framework.

Agricultural intensification and landscape homogenisation are major drivers of biodiversity loss in European agricultural landscapes. Improvements require changes in farming practices, but empirical evidence on farmers’ motivations underlying their on-farm biodiversity management remains fragmented. To date, there is no aggregated overview of behavioural determinants that influence European farmers’ decisions to implement biodiversity-friendly farming practices. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap by conducting a systematic literature review of 150 empirical studies published between 2000 and 2022. We identified 108 potential determinants of farmers’ behaviour, which were integrated into a multilevel framework. The results show that the farmers’ decisions are complex and often non-directional processes, shaped by numerous external (at a society, landscape, community, and farm level) and internal factors. These factors are embedded in regional and cultural contexts. However, the analysis of study sites indicates that the spatial coverage of scientific evidence on biodiversity-friendly farming measures is uneven across Europe. Given the diversity of local and socio-cultural conditions, there is a need for public policies, including the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, to address more specifically determinants encouraging biodiversity-friendly farm management. This entails reflecting culture-specific perspectives and incorporating experiential knowledge into multilevel policy design processes, as well as offering regionally adapted advice on measure implementation and biodiversity impacts.

In her 2023 Agriculture, Food & Human Values Society (AFHVS) Presidential Address, Jill Clark reflects on the importance of “joy” in academic pursuits to confront the power of the conventional, industrial food system and generate power through our collective work. Clark addresses the various dimensions of power and their role in addressing systemic injustices by turning questions of power back on herself, examining her engaged research in public participation and collaborative governance. She delves into the need for reflexivity, emphasizing the burden of participation and the ethical dilemmas faced when engaging within inherently inequitable systems. The address acknowledges the potential for collectively generating power to change the conversation and normalize diverse perspectives in the food system discourse. It highlights the role of organizations like the AFHVS in providing spaces for interdisciplinary work and proposes boundary-spanning with other food movement organizations. Clark invites scholars and practitioners to join in table-building efforts to promote inclusivity and reflexivity within AFHVS.

What is agroecology’s moral vision, and what are the larger metaphysical, even theological, implications of it? Even though agroecology as a field now gathers collaborators from across the natural and social sciences, as well as members of farming communities and international movements, there remains relatively little explicit and sustained reflection upon this question. My main contention is that expanding agroecology’s dialogue of wisdoms (diálogo de saberes) to include theological traditions can address this lacuna. To show how, I explore the contribution of one particular theological tradition—Catholic social teaching—and how its account of integral ecology enables agroecologists to deepen their engagement with fundamental questions raised by their own normative commitments.

This paper investigates the challenges of implementing antibiotic stewardship – reducing and optimizing the use of antibiotics – in agricultural settings of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) as a strategic part of addressing the global problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). It does so through analysis of the rapidly transforming yet diverse Kenyan poultry sector, characterized by growing commercial operations alongside traditional smallholder farming. Our research involves interviews with farmers, processors, policymakers, and agro-veterinary stores in these settings. We blend Chandler’s (2019, p. 8) notion of “antibiotics as infrastructure” with value chain frameworks to understand how the structural role of antibiotics in agriculture plays out through contrasting value chains, with different implications for stewardship. Weak regulation and intense market-based pressures are shown to drive widespread antibiotic use in poultry value chains involving small- and medium-sized farms supplying open markets. Antibiotic stewardship through adherence to agricultural and food safety standards is more evident, though unevenly observed, in value chains involving large commercial farms and processors supplying corporate buyers. Our findings reveal the complex structural roles of antibiotics in maintaining producer livelihoods in an intensely competitive and heterogeneous Kenyan poultry sector. This highlights challenges with applying global AMR policy to transforming food systems in LMICs without appropriate translation. We argue that attempts to reduce and optimize the use of antibiotics in agriculture must be informed by nuanced understandings of the roles of antibiotics in food systems in specific places including where very different scales and models of farming and value chain co-exist.

There is increasing recognition that sustainable diets need to be ‘culturally appropriate’. In relation to food consumption, however, it is often unclear what cultural appropriateness–or related terms, such as cultural or social acceptability–actually means. Often these terms go undefined, and where definitions are present, they vary widely. Based on a systematic literature review this paper explores how cultural appropriateness of food consumption is conceptualised across different research literatures, identifying six main themes in how cultural appropriateness is understood and applied. The paper then critically analyses these themes in relation to sustainable food system transformation. We explore how the themes conceptualise change, finding that cultural appropriateness is viewed in two main ways: either as a relatively static obstacle to be overcome, or as a dynamic and negotiated process. Both perspectives, we argue, entail different scientific, practical and political effects. Each perspective offers particular affordances for understanding and governing sustainable food system transition, although between perspectives there is likely to be a trade-off between theoretical sophistication and practical operationalizability. Based on this analysis we argue that researchers, policymakers and practitioners should be explicit about their commitment to a particular understanding of cultural appropriateness, as this will have implications for scientific and societal applications of their work. This is particularly the case, we suggest, in relation to the transdisciplinary collaborations necessary to effectively address the ‘wicked problem’ of food system sustainability. We conclude by offering a tentative general definition of cultural appropriateness as it relates to food consumption.

Agribusiness corporations primarily involved in providing livestock feed—colloquially known as the “ABCD” (Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, Cargill, and the Louis Dreyfus Company)—have begun to enter the fishing industry around the world. I argue that this recent entry of agribusiness multinationals in aquaculture, focusing particularly on Cargill, arises to take advantage of strategic opportunities to proliferate, or create links with respect to feed production and development within value chains. Concerning such opportunities, as I document, Cargill first leveraged its access to cheap, overproduced grains in the 1990s, developing ways to insert corn and soy into what it calls “aquafeed.” Next, the multinational firm began proliferating links within fishing industry value chains in the form of introducing new technical assistance services, as well as creating feed supplements and additives. As I explain, these efforts to proliferate links in the supply chain exist as opportunities to charge rents, or surplus profits, which is possible because Cargill retains the right to control the new products and services. An additional link in the chain includes how the corporation has expanded its role in the global food system from its past as an intermediary, to engaging consumers in direct ways by attempting to create their preferences. I conduct my analysis of Cargill’s corporate strategy by focusing on reporting from the fishing industry publication, Aquafeed News, detailing developments from 2000 through 2023.

This paper uses distinctions between differing senses of “private,” “public” and “political” in the United States to argue for the value of framing food issues as a collective problem that calls for broadscale demands for justice. We argue that food choices do not simply belong to the realm of private preferences and market transactions. Rather, they are a set of decisions that have systemic causes and public consequences. They are shaped and constrained by public policies that underwrite the transportation of food over long distances as well as particular crops and foodstuffs, and by the vendors and advertisers who try to convince us to eat more of the foods they produce. Because the consequences of eating an abundance of empty calories are not easily remedied at the personal level, citizens need to demand public, systemic solutions, including better food information, youth food education, and a healthier food supply.