A great or heinous idea?: Why food waste diversion renders policy discussants apoplectic

Abstract

Comprehensive agri-food policy includes food waste reduction as an important policy goal. Food bank donor indemnification is codified in law in several countries to support the charitable food sector. Other policy instruments to address waste reduction have emerged recently, among them tax measures to incentivize private sector action. These have been increasingly linked to the discourse on hunger in many jurisdictions. We asked 17 Canadian food insecurity policy entrepreneurs to comment on a vignette scenario featuring a hypothetical proposal for food waste diversion as a policy response to household food insecurity; the polarization in responses – ‘Not human garburators,’ vs. ‘everyone wins’ – was remarkable. This case of an unexpected divergence in the response to a policy idea in the food insecurity realm provides an opportunity to understand fundamental differences in societal perspectives that might be relevant to public health more generally. In particular we address the parallel humanist and ecological imperatives at work in contemporary public health practice. It appears that objections to food waste diversion for human consumption could be crystallized in terms of Mary Douglas’s theory of morality within particular worldviews. From a humanist viewpoint, the proposal was an indignity; for those with an ecological worldview, it was sensible and pragmatic. Public health has embraced ecosystem thinking and takes for granted that its ecological approach is sensitive to humanist perspectives but the two worldviews may differ and humanist ideals of dignity may raise moral rancor when considered in the context of ecological good.