Advertisement

Food Ethics

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 67–84 | Cite as

Recirculation Aquaculture Systems: Sustainable Innovations in Organic Food Production?

  • Simon MeischEmail author
  • Michèle Stark
Research Article

Abstract

EU regulations explicitly preclude recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS) for aquaculture grow-out from organic certification because they are not close enough to nature (Regulation (EEC) No. 710/2009). Meanwhile, according to another EU regulation, one criterion for organic food production is its contribution to sustainable development (Regulation (EEC) No. 834/2007). Against this background, one might argue that in spite of their distance to nature RAS are innovative solutions to sustainability issues in food production. The paper will deal with the claim that RAS for aquaculture could be one innovative solution to sustainability issues. In this respect, the picture is ambivalent. In the past, the organic movement (OM) has searched for innovative alternatives to industrial forms of agriculture and food production that are non-sustainable. Hence, the majority of the OM does not feel fit to support industrial RAS, even though one might argue that these systems comply with many of the European OM’s founding principles. While there are potential positive effects for a sustainable development, we might still regard these systems as techno-scientific solutions to social problems. This paper discusses innovation narratives related to RAS from the perspective of post-normal innovation critique. It first presents potential contribution to a more sustainable food sector. It then contrasts these arguments within critical assessments of innovation narratives for sustainable development. Finally, the paper concludes by discussing moral challenges of RAS for the OM’s self-conception.

Keywords

Recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS) Sustainable development Post-normal science Innovation Food systems EU organic regulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper builds on the report of the project Stakeholder-Studie ‘Kreislaufanlagen – Positionen des Ökosektors’ (Bergleiter et al. 2017) funded by German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (project no. 2815OE026).

References

  1. Aertsens, Joris, Wim Verbeke, Koen Mondelaers, and Guido Van Huylenbroeck. 2009. Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review. British Food Journal 111 (10): 1140–1167.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Lauren. 2017. Green Veterans Wisconsin plans to take over Growing Power’s closed headquarters. https://www.biztimes.com/2017/industries/nonprofit-philanthropy/green-veterans-wisconsin-plans-to-take-over-growing-powers-closed-headquarters/. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  3. Beck, Ulrich. 2010. Climate for change, or how to create a green modernity? Theory, Culture and Society 27 (2–3): 254–266.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409358729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benessia, Alice, and Silvio Funtowicz. 2015. Sustainability and technoscience: What do we want to sustain and for whom? The International Journal of Sustainable Development 18 (4): 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benessia, Alice, and Silvio Funtowicz. 2016. Never Late, Never Lost, Never Unprepared. In The rightful place of science: Science on the verge, ed. Alice Benessia, Silvio Funtowicz, Mario Giampietro, Ângela Guimarães Pereira, Jerome Ravetz, Andrea Saltelli, Roger Strand, and Jeroen van der Sluijs, 71–113. Tempe: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.Google Scholar
  6. Benessia, Alice, Silvio Funtowicz, Gay Bradshaw, Francesca Ferri, Ernesto Ráez-Luna, and Charito Medina. 2012. Hybridizing sustainability: Towards a new praxis for the present human predicament. Sustainability Science 7 (1): 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergleiter, Stefan, and Simon Meisch. 2015. Certification standards for aquaculture products: Bringing together the values of producers and consumers in globalised organic food markets. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (3): 553–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergleiter, Stefan, Matthias Böhm, Udo Censkowsky, Simon Meisch, Carsten Schulz, Henrike Seibel, Michèle Stark, and Lina Weirup. 2017. Kreislaufanlagen – Positionen des Ökosektors. Gräfelfing Naturland e.V., Abt. Aquakultur und Fischerei.Google Scholar
  9. Blühdorn, Ingolfur, and Michael Deflorian. 2019. The collaborative Management of Sustained Unsustainability: On the performance of participatory forms of environmental governance. Sustainability 11 (4).  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boeing, Geoff. 2016. How our Neighborhoods lost food, and how they can get it Back. Progress in Planning 206: 35–37.Google Scholar
  11. BOELW. 2015. Die Bio-Branche 2015. https://www.boelw.de/service/mediathek/broschuere/die-bio-branche-2015/. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  12. Böhme, Gernot. 2001. Ethics in context: The art of dealing with serious questions. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Bregnballe, Jacob. 2015. A Guide to Recirculation Aquaculture. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4626e.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  14. Bremer, Scott. 2017. Have we given up too much? On yielding climate representation to experts. Futures 91: 72–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bremer, Scott, and Simon Meisch. 2017. Co-production in climate change research: Reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 8 (6): e482.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buder, Fabian, and Ulrich Hamm. 2011. Ausweitung der individuellen Bedarfsdeckung mit Öko-Lebensmitteln – Identifikation von Sortimentslücken und produktspezifischen Kaufbarrieren für Öko-Käufer. http://orgprints.org/18433/. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  17. Castree, Noel. 2017. Nature. In International Encyclopedia of geography, ed. Douglas Richardson, Noel Castree, Michael F. Goodchild, Audry Kobayashi, Weidong Liu, and Richard A. Marston. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Costanigro, Marco, Stephan Kroll, Dawn Thilmany, and Marisa Bunning. 2014. Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction. Food Quality and Preference 31: 94–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickie, Mure. 2019. Fish Farms brings former luxuries within reach of many – at a price. https://www.ft.com/content/48e3f86e-f26c-11e8-938a-543765795f99. Accessed 18 Jan 2019.
  20. Dietrich, Julia. 2003. Ethisch-Philosophische Grundlagenkompetenzen – ein Modell für Studierende und Lehrende. In Ethisch-Philosophisches Grundlagenstudium. Ein Studienbuch, ed. Matthias Maring, 15–32. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  21. Dietrich, Julia. 2007. Was ist ethische Kompetenz? Ein Philosophischer Versuch einer Systematisierung und Konkretion. In Wertloses Wissen? Fachunterricht als Ort ethischer Reflexion, ed. Regina Ammicht Quinn, Gisela Badura-Lotter, Margarete Knödler-Pasch, Georg Mildenberger, and Benjamin Rampp, 31–51. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  22. Düwell, Marcus. 2013. Bioethics: Methods, theories, domains. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Fair-Fish. 2014. How does the organic movement define organic aquaculture? Statement of fair-fish international. http://www.fair-fish.ch/media/filer_public/46/cf/46cf628c-4d71-4ef5-ba08-01aee9c720f5/tmpimporttoichu.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  24. FAO. 2008. Urban Agriculture: For Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and Food Security.Google Scholar
  25. FAO. 2014. Small-scale aquaponic food production. Integrated fish and plant farming. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4021e.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  26. FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  27. FAO. 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 – Meeting the sustainable development goals. http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/I9540EN.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  28. Feldmann, Corinna, and Ulrich Hamm. 2015. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Quality and Preference 40: 152–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fjelland, Ragnar. 2015. From democratisation of knowledge to democratisation of ignorance – And the importance of hermeneutics. In Ethics of science in the research for sustainable development, ed. Simon Meisch, Johannes Lundershausen, Leonie Bossert, and Marcus Rockoff, 113–128. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Folke, Carl, Nils Kautsky, Hakan Berg, Asa Jansson, and Max Troell. 1998. The ecological footprint concept for sustainable seafood production: A review. Ecological Applications 8 (1): S63–S71.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2641363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25 (7): 739–755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gallie, W.B. 1955. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gamborg, Christian, Helena Röcklinsberg, and Mickey Gjerris. 2018. Sustainable proteins? Values related to insects in food systems. In Edible insects in sustainable food systems, ed. Afton Halloran, Roberto Flore, Paul Vantomme, and Nanna Roos, 199–211. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. García-Llorente, Marina, Cristiano M. Rossignoli, Francesco Di Iacovo, and Roberta Moruzzo. 2016. Social farming in the promotion of social-ecological sustainability in rural and Periurban areas. Sustainability 8 (12): 1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. GGN. 2018. Recipe suggestion or modern agriculture? https://aquaculture.ggn.org/en/the-tomato-fish.html. Accessed 6 Jan 2019.
  36. Gjerris, M., C. Gamborg, and H. Röcklinsberg. 2016. Ethical aspects of insect production for food and feed. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2 (2): 101–110.  https://doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2015.0097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gremmer, Pia, Corinna Hempel, Ulrich Hamm, and Claudia Busch. 2016. Zielkonflikt beim Lebensmitteleinkauf: Konventionell regional, ökologisch regional oder ökologisch aus entfernteren Regionen. http://www.orgprints.org/30487/. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  38. Hemmerling, Sarah, Ulrich Hamm, and Achim Spiller. 2015. Consumption behaviour regarding organic food from a marketing perspective – A literature review. Organic Agriculture 5 (4): 277–313.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-015-0109-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hobbs, Jill. 2003. Consumer demand for traceability. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/14614/1/wp03-01.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  40. Hoff, Holger. 2011. Understanding the nexus. Background paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The water, energy and food security nexus. http://wef-conference.gwsp.org/fileadmin/documents_news/understanding_the_nexus.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2019.
  41. IFOAM. 2015. Transforming food & farming – An organic vision for Europe in 2030. https://www.ifoam-eu.org/en/whats-movements-vision. Accessed 6 Jan 2019.
  42. IFOAM. 2017a. Consultation on Recirculation Aquaculture Systems (RAS). https://www.ifoam.bio/en/sector-platforms/ifoam-aquaculture. Accessed 6 Jan 2019.
  43. IFOAM. 2017b. IFOAM - Organics International IN ACTION. General Assembly 2017. https://www.ifoam.bio/en/about-us/general-assembly. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  44. IFOAM. 2017c. IFOAM e.V. General Assembly. 12–13 November 2017, New Delhi, India. Draft Minutes. https://www.ifoam.bio/en/about-us/general-assembly. Accessed Jan 6 2019.
  45. IFOAM. 2017d. ORGANIC 3.0 for truly sustainable farming & consumption https://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/summary_organic3.0_web_1.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  46. IFOAM. 2019. Why Organic Aquaculture? https://www.ifoam.bio/es/sector-platforms/ifoam-aquaculture. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  47. James, Jennifer S., Bradley J. Rickard, and William J. Rossman. 2016. Product differentiation and market segmentation in applesauce: Using a choice experiment to assess the value of organic, local, and nutrition attributes. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38 (3): 357–370.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500009618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. A new climate for society. Theory, Culture and Society 27 (2–3): 233–253.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409361497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jenner, Andrew. 2010. Recirculating aquaculture systems: The future of fish farming? https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0224/Recirculating-aquaculture-systems-The-future-of-fish-farming. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  50. Kaiser, Matthias. 2015. Ethics of science and a new social contract for knowledge. In Ethics of science in the research for sustainable development, ed. Simon Meisch, Johannes Lundershausen, Leonie Bossert, and Marcus Rockoff, 153–178. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kerr, Matthias, and Thomas Potthast. 2018. ‘As close as possible to nature’: Possibilities and constraints for organic aquaculture systems. In Professionals in food chains, ed. Svenja Springer and Herwig Grimm, 450–455. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kloas, Werner, Roman Groß, Daniela Baganz, Johannes Graupner, Henrik Monsees, Uwe Schmidt, Georg Staaks, et al. 2015. A new concept for aquaponic systems to improve sustainability, increase productivity, and reduce environmental impacts. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 7 (2): 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kønig, Nicolas, Tom Børsen, and Claus Emmeche. 2017. The ethos of post-normal science. Futures 91: 12–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leese, Matthias, and Simon Meisch. 2015. Securitising sustainability? Questioning the ‘water, energy and food-security nexus’. Water Alternatives 8 (1): 695–709.Google Scholar
  55. Little, D.C., R.W. Newton, and M.C.M. Beveridge. 2016. Aquaculture: A rapidly growing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transitions and potential. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 75 (3): 274–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Magnusson, Maria K., Anne Arvola, Ulla-Kaisa Koivisto Hursti, Lars Åberg, and Per-Olow Sjödén. 2003. Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite 40 (2): 109–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00002-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martins, C.I.M., E.H. Eding, M.C.J. Verdegem, L.T.N. Heinsbroek, O. Schneider, J.P. Blancheton, E. Roque d’Orbcastel, and J.A.J. Verreth. 2010. New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: A perspective on environmental sustainability. Aquacultural Engineering 43 (3): 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meisch, Simon. 2013. Green food consumption: Whose responsibility? In The ethics of consumption: The citizen, the market and the law, ed. Helena Röcklinsberg and Per Sandin, 160–165. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meisch, Simon. 2014. The need for a value-reflexive governance in the Anthropocene. In The global water system in the Anthropocene: Challenges for science and governance, ed. Anik Bhaduri, Janos Bogardi, Jan Leentvaar, and Sina Marx, 427–437. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meisch, Simon. 2015. Knowing one’s food – Making food a public issue. In Know your food – Food ethics and innovation, ed. Diana Elena Dumitras, Ionel Mugurel Jitea, and Stef Aerts, 306–311. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meisch, Simon. 2018. Water ethics – Lessons from post-normal science. In Professionals in food chains, ed. Svenja Springer and Herwig Grimm, 459–464. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moulin-Doos, Claire. 2014. Intercultural gardens: The use of space by migrants and the practice of respect. Journal of Urban Affairs 36 (2): 197–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Plaßmann, Sabine, and Ulrich Hamm. 2009. Kaufbarriere Preis? – Analyse von Zahlungsbereitschaft und Kaufverhalten bei Öko-Lebensmitteln. http://orgprints.org/15745/. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  64. Potthast, Thomas. 2015. Ethics in the sciences beyond Hume, Moore and Weber: Taking epistemic-moral hybrids seriously. In Ethics of science in the research for sustainable development, ed. Simon Meisch, Johannes Lundershausen, Leonie Bossert, and Marcus Rockoff, 129–152. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ravetz, Jerome. 1971. Scientific knowledge and its social problems. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  66. Reid, Julian. 2013. Interrogating the neoliberal biopolitics of the sustainable development-resilience Nexus. International Political Sociology 7 (4): 353–367.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Röcklinsberg, Helena. 2015. Fish consumption: Choices in the intersection of public concern, fish welfare, food security, human health and climate change. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (3): 533–551.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9506-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rommetveit, Kjetil, Roger Strand, Ragnar Fjelland, and Silvio Funtowicz. 2013. What can history teach us about the prospects of a European research area? Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  69. Royte, Elizabeth. 2009. Street Farmer. Accessed 6 Jan 2019.Google Scholar
  70. Rushe, Elisabeth. 2016. The Unlikely Fish-Farming Start-Up in the Middle of Berlin. https://psmag.com/news/the-unlikely-fish-farming-start-up-in-the-middle-of-berlin. Accessed 6 Jan 2019.
  71. Sandin, Per. 2017. How to label ‘natural’ foods: A matter of complexity. Food Ethics 1 (2): 97–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-017-0008-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Satterfield, Stephen 2018. Behind the Rise and Fall of Growing Power. https://civileats.com/2018/03/13/behind-the-rise-and-fall-of-growing-power/. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  73. Seibel, Henrike, Lina Weirup, and Carsten Schulz. 2018. Aspects of animal welfare in fish husbandry. In Professionals in food chains, ed. Svenja Springer and Herwig Grimm, 439–443. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Siddique, Saima, Madeeha Hamid, Ameema Tariq, and Alvina Gul Kazi. 2014. Organic farming: The return to nature. In Improvement of crops in the era of climatic changes: Volume 2, ed. Parvaiz Ahmad, Mohd Rafiq Wani, Mohamed Mahgoub Azooz, and Lam-Son Phan Tran, 249–281. New York: Springer New York.Google Scholar
  75. Siep, Ludwig. 1999. Bemerkungen zum Begriff der Natürlichkeit. Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik 4: 267–272.Google Scholar
  76. Storhas, Richard. 1988. Grundsätze einer naturgemäßen Landwirtschaft. In Naturgemäße Viehwirtschaft: Zucht, Fütterung, Haltung von Rind und Schwein, ed. Alfred Haiger, Richard Storhas, and Helmut Bartussek, 20–27. Stuttgart: Ulmer.Google Scholar
  77. Strand, Roger. 2017. Post-normal science. In Routledge handbook of ecological economics: Nature and society, ed. Clive L. Spash, 288–297. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Strand, Roger, Andrea Saltelli, Mario Giampietro, Kjetil Rommetveit, and Silvio Funtowicz. 2018. New narratives for innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production 197: 1849–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Streeck, Wolfgang. 2009. Von der gesteuerten Demokratie zum selbststeuernden Kapitalismus: Die Sozialwissenschaften in der Liberalisierung. WestEnd. Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 6 (1): 13–33.Google Scholar
  80. Suhl, Johanna, Dennis Dannehl, Werner Kloas, Daniela Baganz, Sebastian Jobs, Günther Scheibe, and Uwe Schmidt. 2016. Advanced aquaponics: Evaluation of intensive tomato production in aquaponics vs. conventional hydroponics. Agricultural Water Management 178: 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Swyngedouw, Erik. 2011. Interrogating post-democratization: Reclaiming egalitarian political spaces. Political Geography 30 (7): 370–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Swyngedouw, Eric. 2015. Depoliticization (‘the political’). In Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era, ed. Giacomo D'Alisa, Federico Demaria, and Giorgios Kallis, 90–93. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Tschirner, Martin, and Werner Kloas. 2017. Increasing the sustainability of aquaculture systems: Insects as alternative protein source for fish diets. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 25 (4): 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Undercurrent News. 2019. Rabobank: Land-based farming set to disrupt salmon industry. Oct. 17, 2019.Google Scholar
  85. Urry, John. 2010. Consuming the planet to excess. Theory, Culture and Society 27 (2–3): 191–212.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409355999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wägeli, Salome, and Ulrich Hamm. 2013. Was heißt hier “regional”? Verbrauchererwartungen an Öko-Lebensmittel aus tierischer Erzeugung. http://orgprints.org/21190/. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  87. Warschun, Mirko, Andreas Liedtke, Sophie Glusac, and Dorothee Günther. 2014. Lebensmittel: Regional ist keine Eintagsfliege. https://www.atkearney.de/documents/856314/5229089/Issue+Paper_Regionale+Lebensmittel.pdf/5ba72c9f-dc4f-4de9-9c01-0f27348940d2. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  88. Wehrli, Sara. 2012. Tierwohl in Nutzfischzuchten. Eine Literaturstudie und Analyse des Schweizer Tierschutz STS zur artgerechten Haltung von Nutzfischen. http://www.tierschutz.com/wildtiere/docs/pdf/report_nutzfischzucht.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2019.
  89. Whalen, Julia. 2018. Growing food with fish poop: how these ‘farmers of the future’ are feeding Toronto. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/start-up-city-ripple-farms-1.4588450. Accessed 7 Jan 2019.
  90. Wilson, Japhy, and Erik Swyngedouw. 2014. Introduction: Seeds of dystopia: Post-politics and the return of the political. In The post-political and its discontents: Spaces of Depoliticization, spectres of radical politics, ed. Japhy Wilson and Erik Swyngedouw, 1–22. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wirth, Ferdinand F., John L. Stanton, and James B. Wiley. 2016. The relative importance of search versus credence product attributes: Organic and locally grown. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 40 (1): 48–62.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500004512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Sustainability SciencesPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.International Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and HumanitiesUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.Seafood Advisory Ltd.Büren an der AareSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations