Abstract
In this paper I want to show that consumer concerns can be implemented in food chains by organizing ethical discussions of conflicting values that include them as participators. First, it is argued that there are several types of consumer concerns about food and agriculture that are multi-interpretable and often contradict each other or are at least difficult to reconcile without considerable loss. Second, these consumer concerns are inherently dynamic because they respond to difficult and complex societal and technological situations and developments. For example, because of the rising concern with global warming, carbon dioxide absorption of crops is now attracting public attention, which means that new requirements are being proposed for the environmentally friendly production of crops. Third, there are different types of consumers, and their choices between conflicting values differ accordingly. Consumers use different weighing models and various types of information in making their food choices. Changing food chains more in accordance with consumer concerns should at least take into account the multi-interpretable, dynamic, and pluralist features of consumer concerns, for example, in traceability schemes. In discussing usual approaches such as codes, stakeholder analysis, and assurance schemes, I conclude that these traditional approaches can be helpful. However, in cases of dynamic, pluralistic, and uncertain developments, maintaining some pre-existing evaluating scheme or some clear cut normative hierarchy, such as codes or assurance schemes, can be disastrous in undermining new ethical desirable initiatives. Instead of considering ethical standards and targets as fixed, which is done with codes and schemes, it is more fruitful to emphasize the structure of the processes in which ethical weighing of relevant consumer concerns get shaped. The concept of “Ethical Room for Maneuver” (ERM) is constructed to specify the ethical desirable conditions under which identification and weighing of paramount values and their dilemmas can be processed. The main aims of the ERM are making room in all the links of the food chain for regulating and implementing the relevant consumer concerns by (1) balancing and negotiating, (2) supporting information systems that are relevant and communicative for various consumer groups and (3) organizing consumer involvement in the links of the food chain. The social and political context of agriculture and food production, particularly in Europe, gives ample opportunity for implementing several types of Ethical Rooms for Maneuver. Finally, I discuss several types of Ethical Rooms for Manoeuvre in the food chains that can be communicated by means of specific traceability schemes to less involved stakeholders with the potential consequence that the stakeholders will be motivated to be more involved.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barber B. (1984), Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press
Barrientos S. and C. Dolan (eds.), (2006), Ethical Sourcing in the Global Food System. London: Earthscan
Beauchamp, T., and M. Childress (1989, 1994), Principles of Biomedical Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press
Beekman V. (2004), Sustainable Development and Future Generations. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17/1, 3–22
Benhabib S. (ed.), (1996), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Bohman J. and Rehg W. (eds.), (1997), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Busch, L. (2000), The Eclipse of Morality: Science, State and Market, University of British Columbia Press
Calker K. J. V., Berentsen P. B. M., Giesen G. W. J., Huirne, R. B. M. (2005), Identifying and Ranking Attributes that Determine Sustainability in Dutch Dairy Farming. Agriculture and Human Values 22, 53–63
Callon M., Latour B. (1992), Don’t Throw the Baby out with the Bath School! A reply to Collins and Yearley. In A. Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 343–368
Carnes L. M., Karsten H. D. (2003), Building Diverse Community Networks for Sustainable Food Systems: Guiding Philosophies of the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18(4), 174–184
CIES (2005), Implementing Traceability in the Food Supply Chain. CIES, The Food Business Forum, Paris
Coff, C., D. Barling, and M. Korthals (eds.), (forthcoming), Ethical Traceability and Communicating Food (Springer)
Donagan A. (1993), Moral Dilemmas, Genuine and Spurious. Ethics 104(1), 7–21
Dryzek J. S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press
EU (2002), Regulation No 178/2002, of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down the General Principles and Requirements of Food Law. Official Journal of the European Communities, 1.2.2002, L31
European Commission (2000), White Paper on Food Safety, 12 January 2000
Faysse N. (2006), Troubles on the Way: An Analysis of the Challenges Faced by Multi-stakeholder Platforms. Natural Resources Forum 30, 219–229
Ferrieres M. (2005), Sacred Cow, Mad Cow: A History of Food Fears. New York: Columbia University Press
Food Strategy Division and Food Standards Agency (2002), Traceability in the Food Chain. A preliminary Study
Foot Ph. (2002) Moral Dilemmas and Other Topics in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon
Gastil J., Levine P. (2005), The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. San Francisco: Wiley
Grimble R., Man-kwun C. (1995) Stakeholder Analysis for Natural Resource Management in Developing Countries: Some Practical Guidelines for Making Management More Participatory and Effective. Natural Resources Forum 19(2), 113–124
GS1 (2006), The Global Traceability Standard, GS1, http://www.9s1.com. Accessed August 20, 2007
Habermas J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press
Hamann K. (2006), An Overview of Danish Pork Industry. Integration and Structure. The Institute for Food Studies & Agroindustrial Development, Hoersholm, Denmark
Hervieu, B., and B. Hanse (2002), How can research on food and agriculture in Europe better respond to citizens’ expectations and demands? Brussels: Science for society—Science with society
Hessing-Couvret, E., and A. Reulin (2002), Het WIN-modelTM (Waardensegmenten in Nederland, Amsterdam: TNS NIPO
Hippel E. V. (2005), Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT
Jasanoff S. (2004), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge
Keulartz J., Korthals M., Schermer M., Swierstra T. (2004), Ethics in a Technological Culture. A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach. Science, Technology and Human Values 29(1), 3–30
Korthals M. (2001), Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental ethics, 14(2), 201–215
Korthals M. (2004), Before Dinner. Springer, Dordrecht
Lang T., Heasman M. (2004), Food Wars. London: Earthscan
Lang T., Heasman M. (2006) The Unmanageable Consumer. London: Earthscan
Lees M. (ed.), (2003), Food Authenticity and Traceability. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited
LEI report (2006), Duurzaam concurreren in de Nederlandse veehouderij (“Sustainable Competition in Dutch Cattlefarming”), Den Haag: LEI
Lemus R., Lal R. Bioenergy Crops and Carbon Sequestration. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 24(1) (2005), 1–21
Lindy, S., D. Barling, and T. Lang (2006), “Ethical Traceability and the Wheat-Flour-Bread Supply Chain in the UK, Centre for Food Policy, City University,” Paper presented to City University half day research event on social policy: Feb 24th 2006
LNV Ministerie (2003), LNV Consumentenplatform Vernieuwend werken. Den Haag: Min. LNV
Marsden T., Banks J., Bristo G. (2000), Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring their Role in Rural Development, Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 424–438
Mepham B. (ed.), (1996), Food Ethics. London: Routledge
Mintel (2007), Green and Ethical Consumers in the United Kingdom, Report, London
Motivaction (2007), Welke perceptie heeft de Nederlandse consument van de melkvehouderij? Amsterdam
Payne D. M., Raiborn C. A. (2001) Sustainable Development: The Ethics Support the Economics. Journal of Business Ethics 32(2), 157–168
Pitkin H. (1967), The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press
Pretty J. (2002), Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. Earthscan, London
Pretty J. N., Ball A. S., Lang T., Morison J. I. L. (2005), Farm Costs and Food Miles: An Assessment of the Full Cost of the UK Weekly Food Basket. Food Policy 30(1), 1–20
Rozin P., Fischler C., Imada S., Sarubin A., Wrzesniewski A. (1999), Attitudes to Food and the Role of Food in Life in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible Implications for the Diet–Health Debate. Appetite 33, 63–180
Scharpf F. W. (1999), Governing in Europe. Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press
Simmons J., Lovegrove I. (2005), Bridging the Conceptual Divide: Lessons From Stakeholder Analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management 18(5), 495–513
Special Eurobarometer 229, (2005), Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Brussels, http://www.ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf
Stegeman A., Bouma A., Elbers A. R. W., Jong M. C. M. de, Nodelijk G., Klerk F., Koch G., Boven M. van (2003). Avian Influenza A virus (H7N7) Epidemic in the Netherlands: Course of the Epidemic and Effectiveness of Control Measures. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 190(12), 2088–2095
Trienekens J. H., Hvolby H. H. (2001), Models for Supply Chain Reengineering. Production Planning & Control 12(3), 254–264
Unctad (2007), http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/olive/market.htm [accessed 20 August 2007]
USDA (2004), Traceability in the U.S. Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry Studies. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report Number 830
Veissier, I., A. Butterworth, B. B. Bock, and E. Roe, “European approaches to ensure animal welfare,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, forthcoming
Visser M. (1986), Much Depends on Dinner. London: MacMillan
Wagemans, M. J. M., J. M. G. Holand, and C. M. (2003), Groenestei, Onderzoek naar de ammoniak-en geuremissie van stallen LIX: Welzijnsvriendelijke huisvestingssystemen voor dragende zeugen in kleine groepen. Agrotechnology & Food Innovations, Rapport B740, 53 pp
Williams B. (1994) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Penguin
Acknowledgement
The research for this paper is part of the program Ethical Room for Maneuver of Applied Philosophy, Wageningen University that is mainly financed by the Dutch Science Foundation, #253-20-013. The other parts are a cooperative project with a large food service company to introduce ERM and one with farmers organizations to assess the potentialities of ERM in diary farming. I wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers whose comments helped improve this paper.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Korthals, M. Ethical Rooms for Maneuver and Their Prospects Vis-à-vis the Current Ethical Food Policies in Europe. J Agric Environ Ethics 21, 249–273 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9078-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9078-1