Ethics of Food Production and Consumption - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 242

we pledge to make all efforts to eliminate before the end of this decade:
• famineandfamine-relateddeaths;
• starvationandnutritionaldeiciencydiseasesincommunitiesafectedbynatural
and man-made disasters; iodine and vitamin A deficiencies.
International initiatives of supplementation and biofortification emerged in many parts
of the globe for tackling nutritional deficiencies. Supplementation mostly means pro-
viding micronutrients to victims of malnutrition as supplements either in pill form or in
form of cooking oil, sauces, or drinks. Another strategy is biofortification, which means
that nutrients are incorporated in seeds of crops either via breeding or via genetic modi-
fication. Four arguments are mostly given: it is cheap, it attacks the cause of the prob-
lem directly, it is easy to give, and it has presumably huge effects (Johns and Eyzaguirre
2007). Currently, there are several large technology networks sponsored either by public
organizations or by private funding agencies active in the field of biofortification, focus-
ing on increasing the density of particular micronutrients in crops, to produce the effec-
tive reduction of malnutrition (Stein, this volume).
There are several food ethical issues: first, who has responsibility to take the lead and
to reduce malnutrition? A simple example is mostly used to argue that, in fact, the rich,
well fed world has the main responsibility here. It goes like this: if you are able to save a
child who is nearly drowning in the pond near your house, you have the duty to assist;
international relations do not make a difference compared with personal relations; and
because for both utilitarians and deontologists, space and time should not play a role in
identifying someone as a suffering moral subject. The ethical conclusion from both lines
of reasoning is that research should be promoted and aid delivered in recognition of the
obligation to assist.
However, besides the issue of responsibility there is another, even trickier one: What
is the ethically desirable strategy of assistance? The answer to this question will frame
the proposed solution. The current strategies of supplementation and biofortification
define the problem of malnutrition as a health problem, and use health strategies: they
target one particular deficiency (e.g., iodine deficiency), propose a specific micronutri-
ent, and try to increase its presence in crops without looking for longer term and wider
effects such as sustainability. One could compare this kind of solution to a drug solu-
tion—like medical researchers look to when a health problem is diagnosed. Although
these strategies have already been in use for more than 30 years and give relief during
short periods of food shortages, they do not seem to provide sustainable solutions to
micronutrient malnutrition and, therefore, the problem of malnutrition still persists.
The absolute number of malnourished people is growing globally.
An example of a biofortified crop is “golden rice,” designed to alleviate vitamin A defi-
ciency in households dependent on rice and too poor to diversify diets. Support for this
research derives from a notion of sustainability: farmers can continually produce these
crops with better micronutrient content from saved seeds. This approach, however, is
itself subject to criticism as an “end of pipe” or “top down” solution (IAASTD 2008).