How to eat ethically

Eating Ethically: What it Means and How to Embrace it – by Jaime Ahlberg/Cognitive Dissidents

The debate surrounding ethically sound food choices seems to have gathered increased interest as of late. With a continuously growing collection of popular books and magazine articles, as well as the increased interest in farmer’s markets and the availability of “organic”, and other “ethically produced” foods in grocery stores, how to eat ethically has developed from being an interest of a few eccentrics into a popular movement.

One might wonder not only at the variety of practices one is encouraged to follow as an ethically concerned consumer (from Jay Weinstein’s suggestion to make one’s own veal stock from “humanely” raised veal to Peter Singer and Jim Mason’s chapter on the benefits of “freegan” dumpster diving) 1, but also at the varying significances placed on the ethical considerations that ought to drive food choices. At a time when one practically has to become an investigative reporter to know about the production and distribution history of one’s food choices, as well as be open to compromising well-established personal tastes and eating habits, just how ought the average consumer embrace moral responsibility for her food choices?

In what follows I will briefly discuss the variety of ethical considerations that underlie food choice, as well as the difficulties that face consumers who are committed to making ethically sound food purchases. Through illustrating the consistent problems consumers face in discharging the moral obligations involved in eating ethically, I hope to illuminate a larger problem: when it is almost impossible for one to follow through with one’s moral responsibilities (through no fault of one’s own), what attitude should one take towards those responsibilities?

What it Means to Eat Ethically

The recently published popular literature on ethical food choice has been inspired by a variety of perspectives. Jay Weinstein’s The Ethical Gourmet, and Anna Lappé and Bryant Terry’s Grub, attempt to make the goals of the ethically conscious consumer more attainable by providing conscientious recipes and information on where to find ethical food. Food & Wine magazine follows suit in its August 2006 issue, which contains within it a spread on “how to be an eco-epicurean”. The magazine surveys three perspectives on what it means to “eat well,” ranging from health and environmental concerns to considerations of food justice. The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan traces the histories of foods grown on industrial farms, organic farms big and small, and that which can be hunted and gathered. Pollan provides “behind the scenes” information on the production of the standard American diet, and provokes discussion about the way in which eating affects the relationship between people and the natural world. On the slightly more philosophical side of the debate, long time activist Peter Singer and Jim Mason have come out with the book The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter . The book’s strategy is to catalogue and evaluate three families’ food selections, providing insights along the way as to the ethical dimensions of the choices made.

The point is that ethical eating may be motivated from a variety of concerns, which makes understanding the moral dimensions of eating complex. My purpose here is not to advocate any one standard of eating ethically over another, or to provide all of the empirical data needed to prove that as consumers, and indeed citizens of the world, we ought to be concerned. If one is interested in learning more, I have provided a list of further reading at the end of this article. Instead, I want to briefly canvas a variety of misgivings regarding food production and distribution in order to illustrate the many considerations consumers must weigh in practical decision-making.

Since the development of industrial agriculture and factory farming, the impact of food production on the environment has intensified. Inefficient and unsustainable use of land, soil erosion and contamination, air and water pollution, and massive consumption of oil involved in the production of plants and animals have all been documented. The long distances much of our food now travels before it reaches the table, whether by plane, truck, or boat further contributes to substantial oil usage. 2And so, the amount of environmental degradation required for any given food purchase has been a primary concern of food activists.

Secondly, the Fair Trade movement has highlighted the way in which unfair market distributions worldwide (parts of the US included) negatively affect marginalized producers and workers. To combat these effects, Fair Trade organizations have emphasized poverty alleviation and sustainable development in the areas where disadvantaged producers live and work. Toward these ends, Fair Trade has also been motivated to achieve gender equity, regulate child labor, and protect the environment. 3

Third, awareness of the shocking conditions under which factory-farm animals are raised and slaughtered has generated substantial controversy. The use of sow and veal crates, battery cages, the force-feeding of poultry, and the often faulty practices employed by slaughterhouses have all awakened public interest, and encouraged policy decisions. Legislation in Europe and the US continues to demand better housing and transportation procedures, and occasionally bans certain products based on concern for animal welfare. Chicago, for example, has recently banned the sale of foie gras, and a number of states are looking to follow suit, including New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California.

As I have said, I am not going to assume that my brief summaries of a few of the ethical concerns surrounding food choice will compel one to believe that there is a serious need for change. In part this is because the empirical data linking food production and distribution to environmental degradation, global market inequities, and inhumane animal treatment have been widely recognized, and there is enough public interest in ameliorating these bad effects that I will assume my reader is troubled by at least one, if not all of them.

As a first response to these concerns, one might develop philosophical arguments to explore the ways in which current practices are ethically suspect. Singer and Mason’s book employs this tactic. It presents five moral principles that the authors believe are universally shared, which should govern the marketing, production and distribution of food:

1. We have a right to know how our food is produced
2. Producing food should not impose unfair costs on others
3. Inflicting significant suffering on animals for minor reasons is wrong
4. Workers should have decent wages and working conditions
5. Preserving life and health justifies more than desires (in other words, habits and taste should not be the overriding influences in food choices)

A virtue of the book is that it also takes the time to illustrate ways in which current practices, used to generate specific products and employed by specific companies, violate the above principles. Singer and Mason also imply that consumers bear some responsibility for their participation in the causal chains that sustain such practices. I will rely on this implied argument, insofar as I also believe that consumers have some form of obligation to refrain from contributing (financially, through their purchases, or otherwise), to those practices that are morally corrupt.

Note that I am not making the practical point that the most effective way to end the bad consequences associated with food production is to boycott. Actually, I suspect that boycotts are not efficacious—it seems to me that most often, one can precipitate more change by engaging in activism. Rather, my point is that when one purchases products that have come about in an immoral way (through practices that contribute to environmental degradation, unfair markets, or animal suffering for example), one has injected oneself into the causal chain that is responsible for those bad effects. And, to be a link in such a causal chain is to be, in part, responsible for the bad effects caused, since one is (at least implicitly) endorsing the practices responsible for one’s product, and makes it more likely that the practices will be repeated.

However, insofar as I am interested in how one should approach eating ethically, Singer and Mason’s principles are not very helpful. When one is interested in knowing which grocery stores to patron, or what products should be avoided, abstract principles are of little guidance. One, more applied, strategy is to develop rules of thumb to govern purchases. Indeed, many of the authors previously listed suggest rules for the purposes of practical guidance. For example, Jay Weinstein gives “10 Commandments” that should govern food choices, among them that meat should be an accompaniment and not the focus of a meal, and that one should eat at restaurants that serve a moral menu. Lappé and Terry give the “Seven Steps to a Grub Kitchen,” advising one with “friendly suggestions” to cook wholesome foods at home more often and partake in local markets and co-ops.

Adopting rules of thumb might be the most effective strategy for making ethical choices on a daily basis, as it avoids problems associated with lack of full information and makes it more likely that consumers will take on the difficult challenge to eat ethically. However, at least two problems face this strategy. First, even if one can decide which rules of thumb one takes to be the right ones, conflicts in rules can happen and are not easy to resolve. What if, in order to buy organic, one has to buy something that has also been shipped hundreds, or thousands, of miles? For example, consider that in order for Wal-Mart to capitalize on the popularity of organic foods and fill the growing demand of its customers, it will most likely import its organics from China or Mexico. 4Should one prioritize buying organic over buying locally? Also consider that purchasing food imported from the developing world may help to redirect resources to people who are seriously disadvantaged. How should one balance the contribution one might make to those who are worse off but far away, with the improvements one might make to one’s own (better-off) community, as well as reduced oil consumption, when buying local?

Secondly, when it comes to food it is very difficult to change tastes and habits. Consider Anthony Bourdain’s recent comments in Food & Wine :
While I support and admire those chefs who have made personal decisions to feature organic, sustainable or exclusively local foods—and am very enthusiastic about heritage breeds and artisanal products—my only real concern is “Is it good?” […] Personally, I don’t care if my tomato was raised in a lab or some hippie’s backyard. I don’t even care if it causes the occasional tumor in lab rats. I only care that it’s the best tasting damn tomato available.
As a chef, Bourdain may place more emphasis on taste than most of us, but he certainly expresses a common concern when he focuses on the importance of taste. Loyalty to our taste buds and gustatory habits often guides decisions about what kind of food to buy and prepare. Add this to the way in which we are so easily entrenched in purchasing, cooking, and dining habits, the changes in spending that might be required to eat more ethically, and cultural and/or religious culinary traditions that many of us engage in, and the real demands of ethical eating can begin to be appreciated. As consumers are becoming more aware of the ethical land-mines that surround food choices, they are often faced with the difficult problem of weighing their ethical principles with these other practical considerations. More often than not, aligning one’s food choices with the ethical principles one adopts will involve a real lifestyle change, and as useful as rules of thumb can be, they are not always the best at compelling us to our principles.

As many of the authors mentioned agree, there is little chance that everyone will always be able to follow through with the more ethical alternatives their books emphasize. As Lappé and Terry write, “The key is to create habits—habits of mind and habits of shopping—that make it easier for us to have good days and harder for us to have bad ones.” It is difficult not to experience weakness of will when faced with the amount of information gathering required to make informed choices, as well as the requirement to prioritize ethical principles over the gustatory desires formed and solidified over the course of one’s life. 5Given all of these obstacles, just what attitude should we take towards eating ethically? Alternatively, when should we feel like our actions have discharged our moral obligations in this arena?

Embracing Responsibility for Food Choices

The catch phrase on The Ethical Gourmet reads: “Featuring over 100 recipes to savor with a clear conscience.” Similarly, Food & Wine editor Dana Cowin opens the August issue with the claim that “we’ve never had so many ways to feel good about eating in one issue.” Weinstein and Cowin are members of the culinary community, and it is no surprise that they try to advocate ethical eating while maintaining their commitment to gourmet food. But it seems that even the average consumer wants to harmonize morality with the gourmand within. Consider the success Whole Foods Market has had in featuring high-end products boasting labels that advertise their ethical value: “Organic,” “Fair Trade,” “Humanely Raised,” and “Certified Cage Free,” among others. Clearly, a major selling point of the emerging market on eating ethically is that one can eat well without having to feel guilty about it.

However, adopting the position that eating ethically is about personal moral purity, or about clearing one’s conscience, is exactly the wrong attitude to take. First, it must be observed that even when one is doing one’s best to follow rules of thumb, it is likely that one’s actual food purchases will be less than fully moral. In order for a food decision to be considered fully moral, I am taking the most obvious position that (i) it was made by a conscious effort to not be part of a causal chain that contributes to the bad consequences usually associated with food production and distribution and (ii) it indeed is not a link in such a causal chain. Now, apart from the intentions one may have when making food purchases, it is doubtful that one can know one is not contributing to a morally suspect causal chain each and every time one makes a purchase. Even when doing one’s best errors will be commonplace, partly because one may not be resolving conflicts between rules appropriately, and also because there is just not enough time in the day to be sure about each product. By acknowledging the practical difficulties here, I believe we also have to acknowledge that many of our decisions regarding food choice will be less than fully moral.

Perhaps this shouldn’t bother us, since we can still do our best, and that seems to count for something. Of course, what one’s best is will vary from person to person. Further, asking people what they think about the ethical principles and rules of thumb mentioned above, and comparing their intellectual conclusions with their behavior often reveals asymmetries. Some, even acknowledging that their practices inevitably lead to impermissible forms of animal suffering, find it impossible to give up meat eating because it is so ingrained in their dietary habits. Others might like to contribute to the Fair Trade movement, but have difficulty justifying the added expense. More generally, there is a problem motivating behavior to align itself with moral principles, but when we do our best it means that sometimes we compromise and skip the meat dish, or pitch in the extra dollar for the Fair Trade product.

Certainly, occasionally following one’s principles is better than never doing so. And again, perhaps if we believe that our consciences can be reconciled with no real sacrifice in the enjoyment of our food, we might have arrived at the best strategy for triggering change. Advocating small adjustments that do not demand difficult sacrifices may be the best way to gather widespread support for making ethical food choices.

Unfortunately, I doubt that this type of low-stakes advocacy will be enough to precipitate the sea change that is required. Taking Weinstein’s catch phrase seriously, we might be tempted to believe that making compromises to eat more ethically, because something (rather than nothing) is done, we can escape with clean hands. However, again, just because a step is made toward doing the right thing does not mean one has actually succeeded at doing the right thing. Trying our best should not fully clear our consciences, since we are still a part of the causal chain that we can reasonably expect involves environmental degradation, worker exploitation, and animal suffering. So long as we are a part of that chain, we have the responsibility to be aware of our impact and continue to make efforts to remove ourselves from the chain as much as possible.

Attitude becomes very important toward this end. When one’s conscience is cleared after a few (albeit very positive) changes to diet and food spending habits, there is no further reason to continue removing oneself from the ethically corrupt causal chain. Whether the changes that one pursues include moving from a “conscientious omnivore” (a term put forward by Singer and Mason) to a vegetarian or a vegan, or informing one’s friends and community about the changes they might make, one must always remain open to the difficult requirements set by the world in which we live (and for which we individually may not be directly responsible). It seems that an appropriate attitude to take is one in which one recognizes the extent to which an honest attempt has been made to meet one’s obligations, while also realizing where one could do more (when one knows one has failed to make a fully moral food purchase, or can reasonably expect as much). When we simultaneously recognize achievements along with what more needs to be done, we can remain open to the idea that we will have to improve over time. If, each time a choice faces us we make as much of an effort as possible to make the right moral choice, our ethical principles have a greater chance of being aligned with what we actually do.

Most importantly, and contrary to much of the recent literature on the subject, we must recognize that personal purity cannot be the ultimate goal of eating ethically. The goal is to do the right thing. Given that one might not be able to do the right thing every time, one should make doing the right thing next time a real possibility. Indeed, the attitude that I am suggesting we all take toward eating ethically leaves it open that, even if it were possible to make fully moral food choices, one may still have the obligation to spread the word and work for more wide-scale change. This diligent attitude also implies that one’s character need not be described as morally corrupt when one fails to make fully moral food purchases. Doing one’s best surely does count for something, just not everything. Conversely, the requirement that we adopt an attitude of diligence implies that, even if we are able to succeed in making a fully moral purchase, we are not entitled to infer that we have morally superior characters to those who are so unable. Being able to successfully withdraw from the causal chain will often be a matter of luck, and the content of our characters should not be described as morally good or bad based on luck.

Some Final Remarks

Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Before you’ve finished your breakfast this morning, you’ll have relied on half the world.” By “the world”, in order to be accurate King would have had to be referring not only to the necessary human labor involved, but also the environmental and animal resources required. There is no doubt that industrialization and globalization have altered the way those of us in the developed world think about what we eat, where it comes from, and how it is related to us in a broader ecological sense. Today, few of us stop to consider what it is we’re eating beyond the satisfaction it brings to our stomachs and our palates. But as the widespread consequences of mass produced food begin to enter our awareness, we can no longer remain ignorant to the fact that the way we eat has real impact. Though we are not personally responsible for the way in which the system of food production has developed, we must realize that each of our food choices has the potential to contribute to the negative consequences of that system. Keeping our minds open to what we can do and where we must continue to force change is the only way to satisfy our moral obligation to take responsibility for what and how we eat. And though it is frustratingly difficult to make fully moral choices, as well as be fully aware of the moral quality of our attempts along the way, remaining vigilant is the only attitude that will enable us to make the morally required changes.

Resources Citied:
Black, Jane. “What Does Eating Well Really Mean?” Food & Wine. Aug. 2006: 108- 113.
Lappé, Anna and Terry, Bryant. Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen. Tarcher, 2006.
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Penguin Press HC, 2006.
Singer, Peter and Mason, Jim. The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter . Rodale, 2006.
Weinstein, Jay. The Ethical Gourmet. Broadway Books, 2006.

Recommended:
Guiliano, Mireille. French Women Don’t Get Fat. Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
Lappé, Anna. “Doing Lunch,” The Nation. September 11, 2006.
Lappé, Anna and Willse, Matthew. “Monsantopoly,” The Nation. September 11, 2006.
Lappé, Frances Moore. Diet for a Small Planet. Ballantine, 1971.
Nestle, Marion. What to Eat.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Harper Perennial, (Reprint) 2001.

NOTES
1 Weinstein, 2006. Singer and Mason, 2006.
2 See, for example, Paul Rauber’s article, “Decoder: Miles to Go before you Eat.” Sierra Magazine. May/June 2006.
3 For more, easily accessible information on Fair Trade, try visiting the following web sites: www.ifat.org ,www.fairtrade.net ,www.maketradefair.com .
4 See for example, Michael Pollan, “Mass Natural,” The New York Times, June 4, 2006.
5 Not to mention the other practical considerations mentioned earlier, particularly financial constraints and religious and/or cultural traditions.

(Jaime Ahlberg is a graduate student in Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Her interests lie in ethics and social & political philosophy, broadly speaking. In particular, she is pursuing research on issues in distributive justice and egalitarianism, bioethics, and the moral status of animals. jlahlberg@wisc.edu)