Responding to the problem of ‘food security’ in animal cruelty policy debates: building alliances between animal-centred and human-centred work on food system issues

Evans, Brodie; Johnson, Hope

doi:10.1007/s10460-019-09979-2

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inadequate protein consumption among certain populations is tied to inequity of food access-the lack of economic resources to access food-rather than lack of protein production. A broader body of work has critiqued the focus on increasing production to address food security in mainstream and institutional discourse because it reinforces neoliberal, productivist ideologies and draws attention away from wealth inequalities, food waste, and other problems such as lack of investment in rural infrastructure in low-income countries (Evans and Johnson 2019;Jarosz 2011;Kirwan and Maye 2013;Tomlinson 2013). A focus on particular macronutrients rather than the whole diet is also not supported by nutritional science, which increasingly emphasizes dietary diversity and the need to consider the whole food (not specific nutrients) and dietary trends (IPES 2022;Scrinis 2013).…”

Section: Alternative Proteins and The Food Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Don’t mince words”: analysis of problematizations in Australian alternative protein regulatory debates

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternative proteins, including plant-based and cell-based meat and dairy analogues, are discursively positioned as a new form of meat and dairy and as a solution to the myriad of issues associated with conventional animal agriculture. Animal agricultural industries across various nations have resisted this positioning in regulatory spaces by advocating for laws that restrict the use of meat and dairy terms on the labels of alternative proteins products. Underlying this contestation are differing understandings of, and vested interests in, desirable futures for animal agriculture. In Australia, this broader contestation led to a national-level inquiry by a Senate parliamentary committee entitled Definitions of meat and other animal products (the Inquiry). This paper reports findings from a study of the problematizations developed through the Inquiry using a framework for policy discourse analysis referred to as Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be’ methodology. It shows how the dominant discourse throughout the Inquiry moved away from the initial problematization of alternative proteins as a threat to animal agriculture. Instead, both industries were ultimately positioned as not in competition and only labelling laws were problematized with the solution being amendments to ensure ‘consumer clarity’. This outcome ignored a range of alternative problematizations related to the ethical, environmental, health, social and economic issues raised by animal agriculture and by alternative proteins. This lack of scrutiny benefits both industries, by closing off the policy discourse to consideration of a range of alternative interests, voices, and potential solutions, such as stricter health and welfare regulation.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Proteins and The Food Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Don’t mince words”: analysis of problematizations in Australian alternative protein regulatory debates

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neo-Malthusian claims of not enough food often center on protein (Guthman et al 2022;Sippel and Dolinga, forthcoming). But now the protein crisis comes with an added layer of concern about animal welfare and environmental catastrophe (Broad 2020;Evans and Johnson 2020;Jönsson 2016;Morris et al 2021;Sexton et al 2019). Not only might there not be enough protein to go around, it is imagined, but if its production continues in the same way animal harm and destruction of the planet will continue as well.…”

Section: Making Third Generation Protein Investiblementioning

confidence: 99%

Agri-food tech’s building block: narrating protein, agnostic of source, in the face of crisis

Guthman

Biltekoff

2022

BioSocieties

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inventive producers in Silicon Valley and other innovations sectors are going beyond the simulated animal products of plant-based proteins and cellular technologies to produce a third generation of protein products, making protein the leading edge of high tech food innovation. Since innovators draw on sources not generally recognized as food these products are speculative as both foods and investments. Building on scholarship that examines edibility formation of so-called alternative proteins, we show the deployment of three interlocking narratives that make novel protein products both edible and investible: protein is ubiquitous and protean, which provides myriad opportunities for technological transformation; its longtime associations with vigor, strength and energy, along with current day obsessions with the negatives of fats and carbohydrates, renders it the one remaining macronutrient that it is unequivocally good; and widely circulated discourses of both future shortages and the problems with contemporary livestock production makes producing more an almost indisputable solution. While innovators and investors act as if protein needs this sector to solve an impending crisis and bring its possibilities to fruition, we suggest the inverse—that without protein the sector would be nearly barren of novelty and food, much less the disruption and impact routinely claimed.

show abstract

“…The scholarship on the sustainability of agri-food systems has also addressed several ethical issues [293][294][295][296][297][298][299][300], such as animal welfare [55,294,301,302] or those relating to the use of biotechnologies [303]. Allievi et al [293] went even farther and made a strong case for considering "ethics" as the fourth dimension of sustainability.…”

Section: Society and Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Augstburger and Rist[426]; Augustin et al[427]; Baiguzhinova et al[428]; Bajželj et al[429]; Baldos et al[164];Bartelmeß and Godemann [430]; Bas-[198]; Bloom et al[439]; Blumberg et al[153]; Bocken et al[440]; Borelli et al[189]; Downs et al[464]; Drewnowski et al[253]; Duro et al[119]; Duru and Le Bras[317]; Ebel[465]; Echeverría et al[207]; El Bilali[43]; Eriksson et al[466]; Esposito et al[99]; Evans and Johnson[294]; Fardet and Rock[467]; Fardet and Rock[468]; Farmery et al[469]; Feijoo and Moreira[470]; Fernandez-Mena et al[230]; Fesenfeld et al[471]; Fischer and Miglietta[472]; Fleischhacker et al[320]; Fogarassy et al[473]; Forber et al[86]; Formoso et al[474]; Fortes et al[475]; Freed et al[476]; Frison and Clément[477]; Gaitán-Cremaschi et al[478];Galli et al [58]; García-Oliveira et al[479]; Gausa et al[480]; Gerritsen et al[481]; Gerten et al[61]; Gésan-Guiziou et al [482]; Ginani et al [483]; Girard [484]; Mulesa and Westengen [181]; Mullender et al [520]; Muscio and Sisto [100]; Naja et al [521]; Negra et al [215]; Nicol and Taherzadeh [263]; Niederle and Schubert [522]; Nosratabadi et al [523]; Nowack and Hoffmann [524]; OʹKane and Pamphilon [525]; Omotayo [184]; Omotayo and Aremu [334]; Oo et al [526]; Palmioli et al [527]; Park et al [528]; Pereira et al [529]; Pham and Turner [322]; Pilipuk [530]; Przelomska et al [531]; Queenan et al [67]; Raheem [532]; Ray et al [332]; Read et al [101]; Reay et al [533]; Reinhardt et al [534]; Resnick [535]; Ricci and Banterle [163]; Ridoutt and Navarro Garcia [177]; Ringling and Marquart [203]; Rippin et al [321]; Rockstr...…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Environment, Economy, Society, and Policy

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agri-food systems (AFS) have been central in the debate on sustainable development. Despite this growing interest in AFS, comprehensive analyses of the scholarly literature are hard to find. Therefore, the present systematic review delineated the contours of this growing research strand and analyzed how it relates to sustainability. A search performed on the Web of Science in January 2020 yielded 1389 documents, and 1289 were selected and underwent bibliometric and topical analyses. The topical analysis was informed by the SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems) approach of FAO and structured along four dimensions viz. environment, economy, society and culture, and policy and governance. The review shows an increasing interest in AFS with an exponential increase in publications number. However, the study field is north-biased and dominated by researchers and organizations from developed countries. Moreover, the analysis suggests that while environmental aspects are sufficiently addressed, social, economic, and political ones are generally overlooked. The paper ends by providing directions for future research and listing some topics to be integrated into a comprehensive, multidisciplinary agenda addressing the multifaceted (un)sustainability of AFS. It makes the case for adopting a holistic, 4-P (planet, people, profit, policy) approach in agri-food system studies.

show abstract

Responding to the problem of ‘food security’ in animal cruelty policy debates: building alliances between animal-centred and human-centred work on food system issues

Cited by 6 publications

References 34 publications

“Don’t mince words”: analysis of problematizations in Australian alternative protein regulatory debates

“Don’t mince words”: analysis of problematizations in Australian alternative protein regulatory debates

Agri-food tech’s building block: narrating protein, agnostic of source, in the face of crisis

Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Environment, Economy, Society, and Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About