Introduction
Much of the literature regarding just food transitions justifies the need for changing food systems based mainly on sustainability concerns (Blattner 2020; Dale 2020). The underlying reason can be found in the way that the idea of just food transition emerged. The concept grew from workers' concerns about losing their jobs due to a shift in sectors prioritised for investment to address the environmental impact of some industries. Over time, however, the term has broadened its scope to what we know now: how to transition to an environmentally responsible economy.
Transitions in the food system are trapped in this frame. As a result, in the public agenda and academic research just food transition discussions seem to be mobilised and rooted mainly in environmental concerns. This is striking because we know that food systems transcend their environmental dimension. Food is related to many of our everyday activities and is surely central to most of the key moments in people’s lives. Hence, the environmental perspective imposes a straitjacket on the way that food system transitions are conceived. I will argue here that when advocating for more just food systems, we need to recognise other dynamics that make the problem so urgent. Doing so is important because problems that are also at the root of food injustice will not be fully addressed.
In this essay, drawing from diverse exchanges held in the context of the Just Food? project, I will present other factors that could justify the development of juster food systems. These reasons have emerged with different strengths in international exchanges, local meetings, and meetings between organisations and universities that are part of the project. Grounded on these discussions, and using additional theoretical insights, I will present two such factors: firstly, the importance of consumers' connection with food, and secondly, some considerations inspired by vegan ethics. By showcasing these other reasons, I aim to show other dimensions to consider when thinking about just transitions in the food systems.
We can not build new food systems with the usual consumer
The role of producers in how we imagine transitions to more just food systems is crucial. They are key actors in the food chain and therefore in their hands fall huge responsibilities for creating better food systems. This makes their relevance obvious. Consumers, nevertheless, tend to be overlooked. However, developing a new more just food system is critical to promote a new kind of consumer, one that positively understands and embraces food system transitions.
I will address two reasons that show the importance of a different kind of consumer in food transitions. The goal of this will be twofold. While it will serve to illustrate the relevance of thinking differently about consumers, it will also deploy some of their features. The first aspect I will address points out the need of humanising the producer-consumer relationship. As I will show, this is important for creating better awareness among consumers about the real cost and risks related to producing food. The second point will look at the need of encouraging consumers to be more connected with the environment to build better food systems. Using post-human theories, I will argue that to create better food systems we need consumers aware of nature’s logic in providing food. This call for encouraging a less anthropocentric consumer, respectful of nature’s processes and willing to adapt to them regarding food availability.
It is generally accepted that consumers are disconnected from the logic of food production. The process in which consumers access food, which includes industrial food processing and distribution through supermarkets, separates people from the point of production. This disembodied relationship distorts the relationship of consumers with different dimensions of food production. Among other things, consumers do not have a clear understanding of the environmental implications of food production, neither are aware of the spatialities and time of food production, and less of the work as well as risks that farmers are subjected to.
The food industry treats food as market exchange objects. Marx’s concept of alienation could be useful to reflect on the consequences of this. According to Marx, the organisation of work in capitalist economies push people to perform labour in which they do not feel invested, as the decisions about what to do are not in their hands. Hence, for most humans, labour is seen as an external activity. As humans feel their work is external, they fail to see how the process and product of their work is part of their conditions as human. When people cannot recognise themselves as part of shared humanity they fail to see other people as peers. This also applies to people as consumers. Work in capitalism only serves the purpose of acquiring the objects needed to live (Marx 1978). Therefore, consumers are disconnected from the products they consume, due to their conditions as workers and because they do not see in them in any way the people’s work that gave life to it. As a result, both people participating at the end of the exchange are disconnected from the process of creating those products. This dehumanises the relationship among people (Holloway 2019).
The food system is not immune to this dehumanisation of relationships among people. Mostly because food is treated and produced as a commodity. The dominant food system produces food in a way that people are not actively engaged with its production, i.e. on a massive scale, using cheap labour, and organised based on the division of labour and mechanical work. For their part, consumers buy food in spaces, such as supermarkets, that disconnect them from the trajectories of the product and those who produced it. This disconnection that the system creates, debilitates opportunities for consumers to recognise the labour put by other people in the products they buy. This means that it could impede consumers to realise that farmers' labour is key to satisfy their needs. Therefore, following Marx’s theory, we could argue that in the current food system it is less feasible that consumers can recognise farmers in their humanity. A more just food system could challenge the dehumanising logic of the current dominant food system. One aspect that could help with this, is that in a just food system, food production and distribution would be managed in small-scale projects by people that do not see food just as a commodity. Thereby, their work could have another meaning, instead of only being something that is done as a means of life. Moreover, in this alternative scenario food production would not be anchored to the logic of market relations. At the same time, a just food system could create conditions in which consumers develop a different attitude toward food.
In the current food system, consumers mostly understand food as an object of economic exchange. This economic relationship is problematic, due to the disconnect that creates between producers and consumers. Hence, another type of consumer would be needed in an alternative food system. I argue that this consumer is a condition for the development of food justice. However, this is not without paradoxes. The possibilities of development alternative consumption practices require alternative food production and distribution initiatives. In other words, the development of new consumers is conditioned by the existence of alternative food systems. Nevertheless, we can imagine some of its features.
To break with the dehumanised relationships that materialise in capitalism, one possible option could be creating spaces of exchange where people can recognise mutually as equal. Going back to Marx’s theory, one way of doing this could be through the recognition of the labour put by others into exchanged products. These products, in the case of food systems are produces grown by farmers. Therefore, one of the prevalent features of the consumer would be being aware of the labour put into the product the access and the producers. In an alternative food system, this might be possible through closer relationships between producers and consumers; and even by the participation of consumers in the production of food. Thanks to alternative forms of relationship between producers-consumers like this, the latter could acknowledge producers as equal humans in the fruit of their work.
AS-PTA and Brighton Food Factory (BFF) organsied workshops in which participated consumers and producers engaged in agroecological markets and some of their discussions signaleld to the above-mentioned point. According to them, the involvement of consumers in the market allows them to understand how the food is produced, and what producers do, and create partnerships between them that go beyond a mere commercial relationship. In other workshops, some consumers signalled that they were concerned about not knowing where their food came from and who produced it. To solve this, they reflected that they thought it important to seek spaces to acquire their food where they could have more direct contact with producers. I believe these experiences allow us to think normatively about the necessity of a more conscious consumer.
This kind of relationship is important for another reason. One problematic aspect that arises from the commodification of food, is that it distorts the price of food for consumers. The cheap prices that consumers pay for their food do not reflect the real cost of producing food (Carolan 2018). The low cost of food is due to diverse variables, such as intermediate pressures, the competitiveness of the market, and workers' exploitation. A deceiving situation that pushes people to misrepresent the true cost of food production.
A closer relationship between consumers and producers is key to enabling consumers to understand the labour as well as the risks that farmers take in producing food. The latter is part of humanising consumer-producer relationships. In itself, it could have some benefits. The first one could be that some consumers would raise their awareness about the real cost of food production for farmers. As a consequence, and second, this could lead consumers to question cheap prices. A third possible advantage could be that some consumers could be willing to pay fairer and higher prices for their food.
Farmers face huge risks when producing food. For example, drought, floods, plagues, and input price volatility are some of the natural and social variables that threaten the process of production. Most of the time, they are the sole individuals responsible for absorbing the consequences of those risks. Promoting a just food system in which consumers are conscious of food production and its risks could allow consumers to engage in dealing with those risks together with producers. This new kind of producer-consumers relationship could be key to creating more just food systems, in which the strict separation between consumers and producers is blurred, and hence who have to bear the responsibility of providing food.
Food growth is subject to seasonal development, certain natural resource availability and weather conditions. In other words, it depends on time and spatial conditions. Therefore, certain food is only naturally available at specific times of the year. However, as a result of the current food market using diverse strategies, most products are available throughout the year. In the current food system, affluent consumers, are used to accessing almost any kind of food at any time of the year. This creates another disruption in consumers' relationship with food.
The availability of food shape an artificial relationship between consumers and natural food cycles. Average consumers in the Global North and affluent consumers in the Global South are used to accessing a wide range of fruits and vegetables out of season or in places where there are no natural conditions to grow them. I believe that a more just food system would need to produce a consumer that is aware that is not possible to have this kind of availability throughout the year. This consciousness could also imply a different environmental awareness of food-related processes and nature more broadly.
I argue that we need a post-human consumer. I draw from Donna Haraway’s idea of post-humanity, which encourages the recognition of interspecies relationships and discourages the kind of human exceptionalism that modernity put to the fore (Haraway 2008). Based on this, I propose that a post-human consumer would understand that food systems are not only dependent on him/her. Taking out the focus on humans as the centre of food systems could push consumers to consider the relevance of nature as a being that plays an important role in defining food systems. From this perspective, care and respect for nature could guide consumers' adaptation to what nature can offer according to its capacities and seasons. An indirect result of this perspective could be a less nature-exploitative approach to food production.
In sum, transforming the food system requires a new type of consumer. A consumer who is aware of producers and also the logic of production. At the same time, we also need now and here innovative food systems that these consumers can develop (this research has shown that some initiatives show glimpses of these possible alternative systems). It is a dialectal relationship, tense in some aspects. A tension that is hard to solve, but for which we need to think about which possibilities exist.
Can vegan ethics mobilise just food transitions?
Among different actors working on food systems transformation it seems to be consensus that consuming animals is acceptable. Even though it does not take preponderance in the public discussion, animal farming is assumed as part of future more just food systems. This perspective is embraced by governments, but also by critical voices that represent social movements related to agroecology. The extension of the consensus regarding the consumption of animal meat in alternative food systems, speaks on the implicit approach that animal exploitation has in the food systems. I will address here the ethical implications of this, and I will argue that promoting radical just food systems, cannot be based on non-human species exploitation.
The agroecology movement’s proposals mostly centre on how to improve vegetable and fruit production in a way that respects the environment and transforms farmer-consumer relations (Gliessman, Friedmann, and H. Howard 2019). In this account, there is not much place for discussion regarding animal farming. The reason for this is that all in all agroecology proposes food systems predominantly based on vegetable and crop proteins (Gliessman 2015). However, the literature shows some positions regarding cattle integration into food systems and animal production.
In line with their concern for sustainability, agroecology proponents reject industrial animal agriculture due to its environmental impact. Among other things, they note that animal agriculture requires intensive use of water, the dangers of animal waste-derived pollution, the high demand of inputs that animal production requires, and the greenhouse emissions of animal farms (Gliessman 2015, chap. 1). However, in this approach using animals for consumption is not disregarded.
If the environmental impact is limited, agroecology proponents do not necessarily reject animal-derived food production. They consider it possible to integrate food animal-derived production under certain conditions that reduce their environmental consequences and integrate with agroecological production (Gliessman 2015, chap. 18). This shows the subjection of just-food transitions in this subject to mainly environmental concerns. In this regard, for example, Gliessman argues that animal production is problematic when is done under industrial conditions (Gliessman 2015). The following quote is illuminating in this sense “[…] the problems lie not so much with the animals themselves or their use as food as they do with the ways the animals are incorporated into today’s agroecosystems and food systems.” (Gliessman 2015, 237). Similar to Gliessman, Blattner states that actors involved in animal production should engage in transitioning to more just systems because of the environmental consequences of the current system (Blattner 2020).
In the same vein as the agroecology movement, FAO is critical of livestock-intensive farming for its environmental consequences. But it considers that integrating animals is beneficial for creating agroecological food systems. As FAO’s official documents show, among other things, the organisation approves integrating livestock into agroecological systems as a way to promote income opportunities and resilience for small farmers, as well as to preserve biodiversity, and people’s food traditions (FAO 2018).
The justification underlying these perspectives about why to change animal farming overlooks the possible contributions of vegan ethics to transforming food systems and regarding how to understand other species' values. Loosely defined, vegan ethics is understood as a moral position that supports a lifestyle that “…rejects the use of products made from or by animals…” (McPherson 2018, 210). This rejection is grounded in the harm to nonhuman animals and the environment that using products made from animals causes.
Vegan ethics considers the environmental impact of using animal products among the reasons for committing to its principles. However, the strongest principles are related to vegan ethics connection with anti-specism. Anti-specism refers to the idea that all species have the same moral value (Wright 2021), a stance in opposition with most ethical perspectives that considered humans as having a higher value than other animals. As a result from this position, vegan ethics consider that exploiting non-human species is immoral (Singer 2002). Moreover, ecofeminism argues that this exploitation is rooted in a patriarchal understanding of the world that sees things that consider inferior as exploitable for human interests (Wright 2021). Vegan ethics, then, provide a set of ethical reasons for non-exploiting nonhuman animals that go beyond the environmental impact of producing animal-derived products. I argue that when thinking about just food transitions, we should consider these arguments.
Vegan ethics has a long history that could be traced back to the nineteenth century, and it is informed by diverse schools of thought. Despite this diversity, there are common assumptions. The most important shared value that guides vegan ethics, is to oppose animal exploitation (Wright 2017). Traditional understandings of vegan ethics consider non-human animals as sentient beings with an interest in not being harmed, even though they are still considered as having an inferior moral condition to humans. Therefore, these kinds of views conclude that animal-derived food is ethically acceptable if the production process does not unnecessarily harm animals. Peter Singer maintains this position, for instance (Singer 2002). A more radical perspective, self-proclaimed as an abolitionist, states that no matter species differences, all species have an interest in continued existence (Francione 2019). Hence, it radically opposes consuming nonhuman animals.
As noted above, vegan ethics’ position against harming animals is rooted in considering all beings as equal. According to this viewpoint, when humans are interested in non-human animals only because they are necessary to satisfy their needs, is because these other species are seen just as an object (Lestel 2016). Thus, they are stripped of their intrinsic value as beings.
As I pointed out, agroecology proponents, and people engaged in food policy more broadly, are interested in transforming animal agriculture due to its environmental impacts. The literature shows little concern about animal exploitation and harm. Therefore, it could be argued that these perspectives are rooted in an anthropocentric view, that considers nonhuman species as inferior.
I believe that the core of vegan ethics provides another important argument to justify just food system transitions. Vegan ethics could justify changing food systems, based on how exploitative and violent current food systems are against sentient beings. As it stands, this argument has at least two benefits. Firstly, it provides a sound ethical argument about the importance of respecting nonhuman animals' lives and ecosystems in their intrinsic value. Secondly, it would change the concerns of animal agriculture in food transition from an anthropocentric view (focused on the environmental impact of food consumption) towards a more than human perspective. Paradoxically, vegan ethics could help to make food systems more human.
Bibliography
Blattner, Charlotte. 2020. ‘Just Transition for Agriculture? A Critical Step in Tackling Climate Change. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 53–58. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.093.006.
Carolan, Michael S. 2018. The Real Cost of Cheap Food. Second edition. Routledge Studies in Food, Society and the Environment. London ; New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Dale, Bryan. 2020. ‘Alliances for Agroecology: From Climate Change to Food System Change’. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44 (5): 629–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1697787.
FAO. 2018. ‘Livestock and Agroecology’. I8926EN/1/03.18. https://www.fao.org/3/I8926EN/i8926en.pdf.
Francione, Gary. 2019. ‘Animal Welfare, Happy Meat, and Veganism as the Moral Baseline’. In The Philosophy of Food, edited by David M. Kaplan, 169–89. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520951976-011.
Gliessman, Steve. 2015. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1852938.
Gliessman, Steve, Harriet Friedmann, and Philip H. Howard. 2019. ‘Agroecology and Food Sovereignty’. IDS Bulletin 50 (2). https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2019.120.
Haraway, Donna Jeanne. 2008. When Species Meet. Posthumanities 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Holloway, John. 2019. Change the World without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today. Fourth edition, new Edition. London: Pluto Press.
Lestel, Dominique. 2016. Eat This Book: A Carnivore’s Manifesto. Critical Perspectives on Animals : Theory, Culture, Science, and Law. New York: Columbia University Press.
Marx, Karl. 1978. ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Estranged Labour’. In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, translated by Martin Milligan, 2d ed. New York: Norton.
McPherson, Tristram. 2018. ‘The Ethical Basis for Veganism’. In The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics, edited by Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson, and Tyler Doggett, 1:210–40. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372263.013.21.
Singer, Peter. 2002. Animal Liberation. New York, NY: Ecco Press.
Wright, Laura. 2017. ‘Introducing Vegan Studies’. ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 24 (4): 727–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/isle/isx070.
———. 2021. ‘Framing Vegan Studies. Vegetarianism, Veganism, Animal Studies, Ecofeminism’. In The Routledge Handbook of Vegan Studies, edited by Laura Wright. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge.