Agriculture and Human Values最新文献

Although in theory social justice is considered as a core dimension of agroecological transitions, alternative food initiatives related to agroecology have been criticised for their exclusionary practices based on important social and economic biases. In this article, we adopt the lens of political intersectionality to study two cases of Agroecology-oriented Food Redistribution Coalitions in Spain that emerged to address the rising levels of food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that the coalitions represent a convergence of diverse social struggles, placing intersectionally marginalized groups at the centre of their activism. However, we also uncover that coalition members participate in different ways depending on their socioeconomic profiles, which could perpetuate inequalities in organizational practices. One major point of tension is the need to balance the goal of providing access to healthy and sustainable food with the affordability of such produce. This leads to the adoption of hybrid food networks that include conventionally produced food. We also highlight that while the predominance of women in these coalitions reflects the unequal distribution of food-related care work in society, the collectivization of such work through AFRCs practices points to a transformation of gender relations. Territorialized alliances between actors from urban and rural settings and between urban centers and peripheries are established through the coalitions. However, such networks fall short on involving large numbers of agroecology-oriented initiatives and providing direct encounters between consumers and producers. Overall, the article underscores the importance of addressing intersecting inequalities within alternative food initiatives and argues that intersectional coalitions offer an intriguing example of how to promote such understanding and pave the way towards (more) just agroecological transitions.

In the last 2 decades, the literature has documented the upsurge of community-driven processes of consumer-producer cooperation, which are alternative to the dominant food system. These organizational arrangements have been conceptualized differently, witnessing the growing importance of local communities in generating place-based solutions to the demand for organic, local, and sustainable food. Relying on a practice theory approach, this article delves into two key inquiries: first, what motivates individuals to become part of Civic Food Networks (CFNs) and how does this influence the variety of food entering their households? And second, how does participation in a CFN impact people’s daily food practices, with a particular focus on diet diversification? We employ the term “civic food networks (CFN)” to underscore the significance of grassroots initiatives in the broader context of local food policies. This term also highlights the connections to other movements known for their potential for transformation, such as the solidarity economy, transition towns, and de-growth movements. Our analysis draws on a comprehensive qualitative approach, which includes participant observation, in-depth interviews, and a focus group involving members of the CSA Naturalmente in Trentino, situated in the North-Eastern part of Italy. The findings reveal that altering dietary habits poses various challenges both at the individual and institutional levels. This process involves the stabilization of ingrained habits, adjustments to daily routines, and the reinforcement of shared norms. Furthermore, it underscores the critical role of food policies in promoting sustainable eating practices.

There is an increasing body of literature proposing to include animal welfare in the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. The main argument is the potential positive effect that improving the welfare of animals could have over the health and welfare of humans. However, recent literature suggests that the welfare interests of animals should also be considered. Based on these premises, an analysis of the practical implications of including animal welfare in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is granted. The aim of this study is to address this by applying the case of animals in the agriculture and aquaculture systems. Animal farming inherently affects the welfare of a substantial number of sentient animals while, the welfare of farmed animals has been connected to human wellbeing and several environmental issues. The study highlights the feasibility of incorporating the welfare of farmed animals into a future version of the SDGs. It does so by developing a model based on a set of human-focused (anthropocentric) and animal-focused (sentientistic) targets for each of the 17 goals. It has been argued that expanding the scope of the SDGs from anthropocentrism to sentientism creates a synergy between human and animal welfare and, on top of that, is progress towards sustainability.

The need for urgent, structural transformations to dominant food systems is increasingly recognized in research and policy. The direction these transformations take is in great part influenced by how the problem is framed and what future pathways become seen as plausible and desirable. Scientific knowledge and the organizations producing it hold considerable authority in suggesting what alternatives are or are not worth pursuing, ultimately shaping frames and in turn being shaped by them. This paper examines Brazil’s federal Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), a major contributor to technological advances that made Brazil into an agricultural powerhouse. We examine the ways in which Embrapa’s leadership has framed sustainable agriculture in its public communication and the wider implications for food systems transformation. Drawing from Embrapa news articles in the period 2015–2020, we identify four interrelated frames forming Embrapa’s prevalent position on sustainability. Our results show that while Embrapa promotes practices based on alternative approaches such as agroecology, its deeper framing often reflects the core assumptions driving dominant industrial food systems. This framing reinforces underlying logics of control, efficiency, and competition aligned with the productivist paradigm and excludes divergent perspectives that exist within the organization.

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.