What Food is to be Kept Safe and for Whom? Food-Safety Governance in an Unsafe Food System

Abstract

This paper argues that discussion of new food-safety governance should be framed by the realization that the dominant food system within which food-safety governance is designed to makes food safe is itself a structural and systemic sources of food un-safety, poor health and a future of food insecurity for many. For some, an appropriate policy response lies in addressing the connections between the food system and diseases such as heart disease, obesity and diabetes. For others it means subsuming food-safety governance within food security governance. For yet others, safe food implies food sovereignty governance and the primacy of a climate change resilient food system. Conventional approaches to food-safety governance are typically framed within a liability model of responsibility that has limited usefulness for addressing institutional, structural or systemic sources of harm such as those critics increasingly attribute to the dominant food system and which are not amenable to remedy by food-safety governance as it is widely understood. One cannot identify critical hazard points where risk is to be managed. These are food-system safety challenges. Because food-safety governance is so deeply political there needs to be greater attention to issues of governance rather than the more usual focus on the technologies of food-safety. Feminist political theorists have much to contribute to re-thinking food-safety governance in the context of diversity and the complexities of power. One could usefully start with the simple questions, "what food is to be kept-safe, for whom and who is the subject of food-safety governance in a post-Westphalian political economic order?" These questions can help unpack both the narrow parochialism and the misleading universalism of food-safety talk. This paper answers that neither the citizens of a particular state (or network of states) nor the falsely universalizing identity of 'the consumer' are adequate answers to these questions about 'who' and 'what'. Answering these questions about who and what with respect to food-safety governance brings issues OPEN ACCESS

Narrow and Brittle or Broad and Nimble? Comparing Adaptive Capacity in Simplifying and Diversifying Farming Systems

“…This top-down decision-making structure concentrates power and adopts a homogenous risk management system that rewards simplified farming systems and limits local flexibility and adaptation. Fourth, myopic focus on producing crops free from human pathogens obscures interrelationships among multiple agricultural functions and objectives (McMahon, 2013;Broad Leib and Pollans, 2019), undermining the capacity of farms to adapt to the novel food safety challenges posed by the triple threat. In these ways, the simplifying process of adaptation to pathogenic risks-based on a model of control designed for factories rather than agroecosystems (Karp et al, 2015a)forms a pernicious feedback loop that iteratively renders farming systems more vulnerable to the challenges posed by foodborne pathogens ( Table 2).…”

Exploring Public Health’s roles and limitations in advancing food security in British Columbia

“…Interviewee concerns reflect literature articulating adverse health impacts arising from food safety policy. 28,30,31 These findings also mirror global tensions between centralization and decentralization of the food supply. 16,32 Public Health's limitations in relation to "public involvement" and "collaboration" narrow the lens with which they analyze and address food security issues, limit and create tensions with their partners, and threaten the source of external pressure needed from outside of Public Health to advance food security.…”

Domain C: Systems of Economic Exchange

“…When food safety regulations and validation processes are tailored to small-scale agricultural producers using an agroecological approach, agroecological systems of exchange inevitably benefit. Conversely, rigid and uniform rules on, for example, food safety and plant disease control can severely limit the circulation of artisanal products of small-scale producers and often fail to improve food safety (McMahon 2013 ). To ensure consistent quality in organic food, legislation and governmental standards have been established for production, processing, trading, monitoring and certification—for example, the European Council Regulation on Organic Farming No.…”

“…This provides clear benefits to agribusinesses in processing and retail, for instance, but it traps small-scale farmers in cycles where they must “go big or get out”—specialize or be excluded from export markets (Howard 2016 ). In addition, the current drive to harmonize food safety standards across the world often favours multinational capital and marginalize local small-scale producers, yet creates systemic “un-safety, poor health and a future of food insecurity for many” (McMahon 2013 ).…”