The Politics of Food Labeling and Certification - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 615

recent International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates indicate that 215 million chil-
dren between the ages of 5 and 17 are working in some form of child labor. Of those
children, 53 percent are engaged in work defined as hazardous, or “likely to harm [their]
health, safety, and morals” (ILO 2011). The ILO lists agricultural work among the most
hazardous sectors of employment, since farm workers are especially subject to toxin
exposure, strenuous physical labor, and the use of dangerous equipment (see http://
www.ilo.org/safework/areasofwork/hazardous-work/lang-en/index.htm ). Labor-
related certification schemes promise to remedy these conditions for their farmers.
In addition to labor issues, environmental problems take center stage in several
food certification schemes. Concerns about the presence of pesticides, herbicides,
and chemical fertilizers in farm runoff and their possible effects on local ecosystems
motivate the ban of these chemicals in Organic standards (Trewavas 2001). Standards
like Rainforest Alliance, Bird Friendly, and Demeter Biodynamic certification aim
to curb agricultural practices resulting in deforestation, high levels of carbon emis-
sions, the destruction of wildlife habitat, and reduced biodiversity (see http://www.
rainforest-alliance.org/about or http://nationalzoo/scbi/migratorybirds/cofee/lover.
cfm or http://demeter-usa.org/) .
Animal welfare concerns drive demand for some types of ethically labeled food.
Animals raised in confinement are often kept in crowded conditions, unable to move
or express natural behaviors (Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production
2008). These practices also have implications for animal health, since high-density con-
finement can increase disease among livestock (Tilman et al. 2002). Physical alteration
of animals is common in these conditions, including the removal of horns from cattle
and beaks from poultry, typically without painkillers; 80 percent of eggs produced in
the United States are produced under guidelines that recommend debeaking of poultry,
a practice known to cause both short-term and chronic pain (Rodriguez 2011, Mench,
Sumner, and Rosen-Molina 2011). The increasing publicity around these issues since the
1964 publication of Ruth Harrison's book, Animal Machines , has brought the issue of
animal welfare to the attention of consumers (Mench et al. 2011). In a national telephone
survey conducted in the United States, 49 percent of consumers agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement, “I consider the well-being of farm animals when I make deci-
sions about purchasing meat” (Lusk, Norwood, and Prickett 2007, p. 15). Labels like
Certified Humane Raised and Handled, Free-Range poultry, Grass-Fed beef, Global
Animal Partnership, and Animal Welfare Approved aim to address these concerns by
guaranteeing conditions like outdoor access, freedom from close confinement, and pro-
tections from physical alteration without painkillers.
Finally, health concerns motivate the use of labels like Food Alliance and Organic
certification. High levels of exposure to pesticides that are used in food production are
known to cause birth defects, nerve damage, and cancer, and to pose particular health
risks to children (EPA 2012). Increasingly, conventional agricultural land is being fer-
tilized with biosolids or wastewater “sludge.” Though biosolid-based fertilizers are
known to contain pharmaceuticals, steroids, flame-retardants, heavy metals, hormones,
and human pathogens, the health effects of using them to grow food are hotly debated