Search

Byline: Franck L. B. Meijboom (1,3), Nina Cohen (2), Elsbeth N. Stassen (2), Frans W. A. Brom (1) Keywords: Animal disease control; Harm principle; Keepers of backyard animals; Risk; Moral values Abstract: European animal disease policy seems to find its justification in a 'harm to other' principle. Limiting the freedom of animal keepers--e.g., by culling their animals--is justified by the aim to prevent harm, i.e., the spreading of the disease. The picture, however, is more complicated. Both during the control of outbreaks and in the prevention of notifiable, animal diseases the government is confronted with conflicting claims of stakeholders who anticipate running a risk to be harmed by each other, and who ask for government intervention. In this paper, we first argue that in a policy that aims to prevent animal diseases, the focus shifts from limiting 'harm' to weighing conflicting claims with respect to 'risks of harm.' Therefore, we claim that the harm principle is no longer a sufficient justification for governmental intervention in animal disease prevention. A policy that has to deal with and distribute conflicting risks of harm needs additional value assumptions that guide this process of assessment and distribution. We show that currently, policies are based on assumptions that are mainly economic considerations. In order to show the limitations of these considerations, we use the interests and position of keepers of backyard animals as an example. Based on the problems they faced during and after the recent outbreaks, we defend the thesis that in order to develop a sustainable animal disease policy other than economic assumptions need to be taken into account. Author Affiliation: (1) Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands (2) Animals and Society, Animal Production Systems Group, WIAS, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands (3) Ethics Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, NL-3584, Utrecht, The Netherlands Article History: Registration Date: 15/05/2009 Accepted Date: 14/04/2009 Online Date: 28/05/2009

Byline: Franck L. B. Meijboom (1) Keywords: functional food; health; personalized dietary advice; trust; trustworthiness Abstract: The food sector and health sector become more and more intertwined. This raises many possibilities, but also questions. One of them is the question of what the implication is for public trust in food and health issues. In this article, I argue that the products on the interface between food and health entails some serious questions of trust. Trust in food products and medical products is often based upon a long history of rather clear patterns of mutual expectations, yet these expectations are not similar in both sectors. As long as the food sector and health sector remain distinct, these differences will not lead to problems of trust, yet when new products are introduced, like functional foods or personalized dietary advices, trust can be threatened. To prevent this, we need clarity with regard to what we can expect of these new products and of whom to expect what in this situation. This requires notaPSonly adequate information on operating procedures, but also a profound debateaPSon responsibilities and the explication and interpretation of moral values and norms. Author Affiliation: (1) Ethics Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht, NL-3584 CS, Netherland Article History: Registration Date: 13/02/2007 Accepted Date: 10/07/2006 Online Date: 28/03/2007

Innovation in fisheries is a global development that focuses on a broad range of aims. One example is a project that aims to develop technology for key phases of the demersal fishery operation to improve product quality and safeguard fish welfare. As this step to include welfare is novel, it raises questions associated with stakeholder acceptance in a wider aim for responsible innovation. How do stakeholders (a) value fish and their welfare and (b) consider the relation between welfare and other relevant values? To address these questions, an approach combining desk research with an empirical study was used. The desk study analysed the ethical and biological arguments for whether fish welfare should be accounted for in this context. The empirical study explored how fish and their welfare are perceived by Norwegian professionals in this industry, by conducting semi-structured interviews and subsequently analysing the results based on a labelling method we developed. The desk study showed a consensus that welfare should be considered in its own right, while at face value the interviews presented a rather instrumental view on this theme. However, analysis of the interview results leads to a more nuanced picture, where fish and their welfare are viewed from the perspective of respect for nature. Despite the apparent divergence between stakeholder opinions and the literature on the importance of welfare, we present three steps that enables professionals to be responsive to both the (moral) views of stakeholders and accounting for welfare in the innovation process fisheries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Byline: Franck L. B. Meijboom (1), Tatjana Visak (1), Frans W. A. Brom (1) Keywords: food; food policy; responsibility; trust; trustworthiness Abstract: The many well-publicized food scandals in recent years have resulted in a general state of vulnerable trust. As a result, building consumer trust has become an important goal in agri-food policy. In their efforts to protect trust in the agricultural and food sector, governments and industries have tended to consider the problem of trust as merely a matter of informing consumers on risks. In this article, we argue that the food sector better addresses the problem of trust from the perspective of the trustworthiness of the food sector itself. This broad idea for changing the focus of trust is the assumption that if you want to be trusted, you should be trustworthy. To provide a clear understanding of what being trustworthy means within the food sector, we elaborate on both the concept of trust and of responsibility. In this way we show that policy focused on enhancing transparency and providing information to consumers is crucial, but not sufficient for dealing with the problem of consumer trust in the current agri-food context. Author Affiliation: Article History: Registration Date: 12/04/2006 Accepted Date: 30/08/2005 Online Date: 26/08/2006