Abstract

Background: One important way to transform food systems for human and planetary health would be to reduce the production and consumption of animals for food. The over-production and over-consumption of meat and dairy products is resource-intensive, energy-dense and creates public health and food equity risks, including the creation of superbugs and antimicrobial resistance, contamination and pollution of land and waterways, and injustice to animals and humans who work in the sector. Yet the continuing and expanding use of animals is entrenched in food systems. One policy response frequently suggested by parties from all sectors (industry, government and civil society) is voluntary or mandatory labelling reforms to educate consumers about the healthiness and sustainability of food products, and thus reduce demand. This paper evaluates the pitfalls and potentials of labelling as an incremental regulatory governance stepping-stone to transformative food system change. Methods: We use empirical data from a study of the regulatory politics of animal welfare and environmental claims on Australian products together with an ecological regulation conceptual approach to critically evaluate the potential of labelling as a regulatory mechanism. Results: We show that labelling is generally ineffective as a pathway to transformative food system change for three reasons: it does not do enough to redistribute power away from dominant actors to those harmed by the food system; it is vulnerable to greenwashing and reductionism; and it leads to market segmentation rather than collective political action. Conclusion: We suggest the need for regulatory governance that is ecological by design. Labelling can only be effective when connected to a broader suite of measures to reduce overall production and consumption of meat. We conclude with some recommendations as to how public health advocates and policy entrepreneurs might strategically use and contest labelling and certification schemes to build support for transformative food system change and to avoid the regressive consequences of labelling.

Highlights

  • Animal Use in the Food System: A Challenge for Transformative Governance The current global use of animals in the food system has significant benefits in terms of economic development and consumption of affordable meat, but is unsustainable and unjust in the longer term

  • Public health analysis calls for most high income populations to significantly reduce their consumption of animal foods, processed meats, in order to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases, including some types of cancers.16­-18 The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a stark reminder of the interconnection of human, animal and environmental health.[19]

  • The project used visual sociology to track the labelling of egg, pig and chicken products available in Australian supermarkets over time including what claims they made about animal welfare and other sustainable food system issues

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Animal Use in the Food System: A Challenge for Transformative Governance The current global use of animals in the food system has significant benefits in terms of economic development and consumption of affordable meat, but is unsustainable and unjust in the longer term. This has unequal impacts on poor and racialized communities in both low- and high-income countries, while land clearing for animal feed crop production and grazing perpetrates injustice

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call