Advertisement

Environmental Footprint of Foods: The Duty to Inform

  • Lorenzo Del SavioEmail author
  • Bettina Schmietow
Articles

Abstract

In this paper we argue that there is a duty to inform consumers about the environmental impact of foods, and discuss what this duty entails and to whom it falls. We analyze previous proposals that justify ethical traceability with arguments from sustainability and the respect for the autonomy of consumers, showing that they cannot ground a duty to inform. We argue instead that the duty rests on the right of consumers not to be harmed, insofar as consumers have an interest in the morality of their own agency that is frustrated if they are not informed about the environmental impact of the production and transport of what they consume. Our argument detaches the regulation of labeling from substantive theories of environmental ethics or perfectionist conceptions of citizens’ responsibility, thus defending a case for labeling that is compelling also for those who take the role of the state to be limited to the prevention of harm.

Keywords

Food Label Autonomy Harm Right Sustainability Consumer 

References

  1. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beekman, V. (2008). Consumer rights to informed choice on the food market. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekstroem, M. P., & Shanhan, H. (2003). Food and life cycle energy inputs: Consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecological Economics, 43, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coff, C., Barling, D., Korthals, M., & Nielsen, T. (2007). Ethical traceability and communicating food. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. De Tavernier, J. (2012). Food citizenship: Is there a duty for responsible consumption? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10806-01109366-7.Google Scholar
  6. Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hansen, K. (2004). Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harris, J. (2005). Scientific research is a moral duty. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(4), 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lang, T., & Heasman, M. (2007). Food wars. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  10. Lenzen, M., et al. (2012). International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature, 486, 109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping. Individuals, Consumerism, and Collective Action. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rubel, A., & Streiffer, R. (2004). Respecting the autonomy of european and american consumers: Defending positive labels on GM foods. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(1), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. United Nations Development Programme. (2011). Human development report. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  16. World Commision on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istituto Europeo di OncologiaUniversita’ di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations