Abstract
The ‘productionist paradigm’ in agriculture emphasizes high tech inputs and high material output. Its assumed main ethical value is the concept of justice as fair distribution of outputs, with the main aim to reduce hunger and to optimalize sustainability. Although this paradigm can be proud of its enormous success to feed the world, it also produces huge problems, which make it unsustainable and not fair. The approach decreases biodiversity, increases erosion, is animal unfriendly and depletes scarce resources. It has an huge impact on climate change and its economic and patenting system increases the gap between rich and poor, thereby reducing chances for rural livelihood, producing unemployment, inherently instable social relations and food insecurity. Probably, it can produce food for even more than eight billion in 2050 with enormous cost. The agrosystem approach, its alternative, starts with local farming practices and innovation activities. It implicitly acknowledges the ethical value of how to lead a good life. However, variants of this approach either give farmers full priority in what and how to produce (as in agrarianism) or give consumers the lead (as in urban gardening). The current utilitarian and deontological ethical approaches are quite blind for how to deal with these strategies that cut across justice, good life and other values. Due to the dynamics of social, economic and cultural systems, agricultural priorities cannot anymore be established one sided by either farmers (and producers) or consumers. Sustainability and climate change require changing consumer food styles (in expanding urban areas) and new farming styles. To improve the approach of agrosystem into one of plural and democratic agrosystems, I propose to make room conceptually for the negotiation and cooperation of farmers and consumers about their interests, preferences and values. In this revised agrosystem approach a concept of justice is assumed not as fair distribution but as fair recognition of farming and food styles. This ethical notion enables to take into account the pluralism of farming and food styles and various interactive ways of intensification and innovation with consumers.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Berry, W. (2010). What Matters? Counterpoint, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Borlaug, N.E. (2000). Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology 124: 487–490.
Clover, D. (2010). Exploring the resilience ofBt cotton’s ‘pro-poor success story. Development and Change 41(6): 955–981.
Cochrane, W. (1993). The development of American agriculture. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Critchley, W. (2010). More people, more trees. Environmental recovery in Africa. Practical Action Publishing Ltd. Warwickshire, UK.
Davis, A.S., Hill, J.D., Chase, C.A., Johanns, A.M. and Liebman, M. (2012). Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLoS ONE 7(10): e47149. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047149.
De Schutter, O. (2009). Seed policies and the right to food: enhancing agrobiodiversity and encouraging innovation. Report presented to the UN General Assembly (64th session) (UN doc. A/64/170).
Ewers, R.M., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Balmford, A. and Green, R.E. (2009). Do increases in agricultural yield spare land for nature? Global Change Biology 15: 1716–1726.
Glenna, L.L. and Cahoy, D.R. (2009). Agribusiness concentration, intellectual property, and the prospects for rural economic benefits from the emerging biofuel economy. Southern Rural Sociology 24(2): 111–129.
Hounkonnou, D., Kossou, D., Kuyper, T.W., Leeuwis, C., Nederlof, E.S., Röling, N., Sakyi-Dawson, O., Traoré, M. and Van Huis, A. (2012). An innovation systems approach to institutional change: smallholder development in West Africa. Agricultural Systems 108: 74–83.
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (2008). Global summary for decision makers. Available at www.unep.org/dewa/agassessment/docs/IAASTD_GLOBAL_SDM_JAN_2008.pdf.
Korthals, M. (2010). Global justice and genomics: toward global agro-genomics agency. Genomics, Society and Policy 6: 13–25.
Korthals, M., (2004). Before dinner. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Lang, T., Barling D. and Caraher, M. (2009). Food policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Paarlberg, R. (2009). The ethics of modern agriculture. Society 46: 4–8.
Roberts, P. (2008). The end of food. Bloomsbury, London, UK.
Stevens, C.J., Dise, N.B., Mountford, J.O. and Gowing, D.J. (2004). Impact of nitrogen disposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science 303: 1879–1875.
Thompson, P. (2010). The agrarian vision, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington KY, USA.
Van Swaay, C.A.M., Nowicki, P., Settele, J. and Van Strien, A.J. (2008). Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 3455–3469.
Wittman, H. (2009). Reworking the metabolic rift: Via Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 36(4): 805–826.
World Bank (2013). World development report 2013. World Bank Washington, DC, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Wageningen Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Korthals, M. (2013). Innovation and recognition of food and farming styles. In: Röcklinsberg, H., Sandin, P. (eds) The ethics of consumption. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_37
Publisher Name: Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen
Online ISBN: 978-90-8686-784-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)