Ethics of Food Production and Consumption - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 237

perspective considers scientific and technological approaches to sustainable agriculture
as offering the best outlook for solving our current problems (McGloughlin, this vol-
ume; McHughen, this volume). The agrarian vision puts all emphasis on farmers and
rural considerations, and not on consumers (“consumer economy last” is a watchword).
Finally, pluralism respects the various perspectives of all citizens and tries to locate
them according to best practices, differentiated by circumstance. For example, with
respect to one food item (like grain or soybeans), global agriculture can play a role and,
with respect to another, for instance fresh produce, local systems would have special
consideration.
In the first approach, “industrial” or “productionist” perspective, agribusiness, global
markets, and “efficiency” figure prominently; high yields are seen as crucial to produc-
ing safe, sufficient, and affordable food (Borlaug 2000). In this first approach, the first
ethical issue—that of hunger and malnutrition—is seen as the most decisive ethical
principle. Specific values and behaviors can be derived in a utilitarian way or a deonto-
logical way. Usually, however, a utilitarian calculation is made, and the best outcome for
food security is framed as concentration and vertical integration of the links of a food
chain like seed supply, agrichemicals, food processing, machinery, storage, transport,
distribution, marketing, advertising, and retail sales. If monopolies result, that outcome
is incidental, unless it interferes with foundational values of maximizing production to
meet global food requirements. Contract farming and “comparative advantage” ought to
take precedence over self-provisioning on the basis of family farms and local food sov-
ereignty. Harm to nonmonetary, important values like biodiversity and local communi-
ties are seen as external costs to be paid by others. This ethical reasoning is consistent
with the claims of large corporations such as Monsanto, Cargill, Nestle, and Unilever,
which exercise great power in determining current world food chains and networks.
The second approach stresses scientific knowledge and its application to agriculture
through technological innovation. Its claims are quite broad. Technological innovations
might offer improved production and efficiency, alleviation of pressure on nature, more
ethical treatment of animals and better prospects for long-term health effects on the
current system (Sachs 2005). Advances in science and technology might, for example,
give us animals that do not suffer (because of genetic modification of their nervous
system), or provide sustainable energy systems and functional foods where unhealthy
“fatmaking” molecules are replaced by better lipids. This perspective on agriculture
is also often sustained by a mix of utilitarian and deontological approaches. However,
social-economic arrangements will probably not be that easy to change; they are not like
molecules. Moreover, moving food production into large companies and laboratories
runs the risks of losing the trust of consumers.
In the third perspective, agrarianism , connection with place, actual plants and ani-
mals, and family farming, are seen as having the most value. Often this approach is
antitechnological; Berry (2010), one of the most outspoken propagators of this view,
considers a farmer who uses a computer a bad farmer. Consumers' preferences are not
the main driver of ethical considerations in this approach; it derives from a sense of vir-
tue as the source of good and bad farming. According to Berry, consumers have wrongly