An ecofeminist perspective on new food technologies

Abstract

New food technologies are touted by some to be an indispensable part of the toolkit when it comes to feeding a growing population, especially when factoring in the growing appetite for animal products. To this end, technologies like genetically engineered (GE) animals and in vitro meat are currently in various stages of research and development, with proponents claiming a myriad of justificatory benefits. However, it is important to consider not only the technical attributes and promissory possibilities of these technologies, but also the worldviews that are being imported in turn, as well as the unanticipated social and environmental consequences that could result. In addition to critiquing dominant paradigms, the inclusive, intersectional ecofeminist perspective presented here offers a different way of thinking about new food technologies, with the aim of exposing inherent biases, rejecting a view of institutions like science and law as being objective, and advancing methods and rationales for a more explicitly ethical form of decision-making. Alternative and marginalized perspectives are especially valuable in this context, because careful reflection on the range of concerns implicated by new food technologies is necessary in order to better evaluate whether or not they can contribute to the building of a more sustainable and just food system for all.

Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture

“… Cole and Morgan (2013) argue from a critical animal studies perspective that cultured meat continues the existing fetishisation of meat, and due to its expense could result in a non-meat eating elite who operate guilt free at the expense of the less well-off. Weisberg writes with the critical theory of Marcuse and Ellul that “[u]ltimately, looking to biotechnology to solve ethical crises is fraught with danger and should be avoided” ( 2015 , p52), a position close to Metcalf's (2013) argument that cultured meat is a dangerous example of the decontextualisation and molecularisation of sustainability, and Lee's (2018) ecofeminist perspective of caution towards the emancipatory potential.…”

Transcending the Learned Ignorance of Predatory Ontologies: A Research Agenda for an Ecofeminist-Informed Ecological Economics

“…The care ethics implicit in ecofeminist theory and practice offer tools that not only dismantle the dominating dualisms of predatory ontologies, but also fundamentally foster interconnection, dependence, and kinship in relations between humans, humans and nonhuman life, and humans and nature. Indeed, the care ethic "reminds us of the collective responsibilities and duties of reciprocation that come with being a citizen of a shared planet" [80] (p. 75). The ethic of care is the way of establishing mutually-enhancing ways of being (the opposite of predatory ontologies).…”

“…An ecofeminist ethic of care "expands the scope of moral considerability to include the nonhuman but also reminds us of the collective responsibilities and duties of reciprocation that come with being a citizen of a shared planet" [80] (p. 75). Some ecological economists have theorized such moral inclusion, like Herrmann-Pillath's "agents as ontologically diverse assemblages (such as plants and humans)" [180] (p. 222).…”

“…Applications of ecofeminist theory and movements are diverse and creative, extending far beyond the connections of gender and nature. Indeed, ecofeminism addresses the culture and politics of eating animals, critiquing the 'natural' or 'straight' cis-hetero-patriarchy in favour of queer ecologies; the links between climate science and rhetoric of population control, anti-immigration and militarism; and, power dialectics of technology in development [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]. Furthermore, theoretical expressions of ecofeminism include, transcend and overlap with several other disciplines including environmental philosophy, sociology, religious studies, feminist theory, political ecology/economy, and language studies [27,28,31,32,86].…”

“…One interpretation of dialectics emphasizes that structures of power interact with one another (e.g., capitalist-patriarchy) and solutions exist in the same nexus [21,52]. For instance, while considering in vitro meat or computer software, ecofeminism is simultaneously able to problematize apolitical solution narratives of science-technology while recognizing the benefits and potential to human well-being and environmental sustainability [79,80]. The hubris of geosystems engineering or spraying sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere to reverse climate change might be excessive and risky [97][98][99][100] but technologies are nearly unavoidable in contemporary everyday life.…”