VCAA Food Studies Environment and ethics

Consumers often value ethics or have a set of principles they view as right or wrong. There are many ethical concerns to do with primary production two of those including animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Many consumers are concerned with animal welfare in farming as farming practices such as battery hens employed vastly unethical conditions and methods to produce eggs and chicken this may lead consumers to choose to buy free range chicken and eggs. Consumers will feel that principles of environmental sustainability are better followed under ethical practices. Through organic methods which do not utilise chemicals or pesticides that can cause waterways runoff and harm wildlife, these products are more sustainable prompting those who feel an obligation to protect the environment to choose foods from farms and primary producers that support ethical practices, despite their higher price.

The following key points could have been included in the response:

Implications of climate change could be:

• increasing sea temperatures and rising sea levels
• increased extreme weather events
• increased risk of drought
• land degradation as soils become drier increasing wind and water erosion
• increased soil acidification due to reduced water supplies
• changing rainfall patterns
• increased salinity with more groundwater being used.

Some traditional crops may no longer be viable in areas where they are currently grown because of implications of climate change, such as increased risk of droughts or changing rainfall patterns.

Genetic modification may ensure crops/food production are more suitable for tolerance to extreme weather conditions.

Foods grown can be manipulated to suit the changing environmental conditions.

The opportunity to protect current and future land use should be considered against further climate change environmental effects.

Reduced need for fertilisers and pesticides can decrease the environmental impact of primary food production.

Genetic modification may be able to contribute to the development of different capacities of animals so that less intensive farming processes/practices will be required.

There may be other features of primary food production that also require attention if we are to successfully reduce its environmental footprint. For example, new technologies can be developed and harnessed to make the primary production of food less energy intense and therefore less harmful.

Organic farming may have potential to be part of the solution.

There are ethical, social and environmental concerns about genetic modification, such as:

• could have a negative impact on biodiversity – local insects, wildlife and natural crops
• potential to produce more widespread, resilient weeds
• can reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics or cause new allergens.

The following is an example of a high-scoring response.

The statement is not entirely true. Genetic modification is an effective way to combat the effects of climate change, but not the only one. Climate change can involve increasing temperatures, reduced rainfall and poorer quality soils. Genetic modification includes altering the genetic material of an organism to improve certain characteristics of them. Hence this technology could be used to produce crops with an increased yield and drought tolerance or livestock which has meat which stays high in quality even when temperatures increase. However there are other alternatives. By employing low impact farming methods soil health is retained, and capacity to retain water and nutrients is increased keeping soils viable for longer. Additionally by planting more crops than livestock methane emissions are reduced and global warming will slow down. Organic farming methods can also retain the health of soil with less use of artificial pesticides and fertilizers, reducing the impact these can have on the land. Crops produce greater yields, have less environmental impact so by planting crops that are highly suited to the changing climate, primary food production can be addressed without the need to use Genetically modified foods as there are some concerns about their impact on biodiversity impacting on local insects and natural crops and causing stronger and weeds to grow.

Suitable responses included:

• minimised waste to landfill – positive impact on climate change due to less CO₂ emissions from chicken production byproducts decomposing in landfill
• water-efficient cooling methods (reduced water or reduced energy)
• less water needs to be used, ensuring that chicken production does not negatively impact on future water supplies
• reduces electricity use/cost so it is worth investing in new approaches and technologies, which could mean less fossil fuels used or less harmful gas emissions released into the environment due to older, less-efficient systems.
• material reuse and recycling – less new resources required, reducing the impact on the environment of taking additional resources when existing resources could have been repurposed.

Suitable responses included:

• When all people at all times have access to food that meets their dietary needs.
• Refers to having consistent and ongoing access to food. This includes culturally appropriate food and food that aligns with dietary requirements.

Possible responses included:

• If chicken was available as value for money and affordable, there would be an affordable protein source for lower income households, as chicken is cheaper than beef. This provides access to lower socioeconomic groups and is also better nutritionally, helping them achieve adequate protein intakes in their diet.
• If consumers are provided with a 'reliable, consistent and ongoing' source of chicken meat, we are providing a pathway to food security, as this links to the dimension of 'stability' of the food supply, meaning chicken meat is always available.
• By minimising waste to landfill from chicken production, less methane will be produced, which promotes better environmental sustainability. Less methane improves land and water quality, making it easier to continue to produce chicken meat off the same land in the future, securing the pathway for food security.

The following is an example of a high-scoring response.

Food sovereignty is a food system that values local producers, traditional practises and aims to put decision making power in the hands of farmers, rather than big companies. The framework was established with consultation with farmers and the producers of chicken meat, allowing them to have decision making power. This framework initiative values producers and communities focusing on improving food security and sustainability rather than making a profit, allowing it to align with the values of food sovereignty.

Low impact farming aims to conserve the soil so that nutrients remain high thereby providing crops optimal conditions to grow and decreasing the use of chemicals. Low impact farming also helps the soil retain its moisture to decrease soil erosion and therefore the loss of topsoil.

One benefit is it can improve yield, as crops can be genetically modified to be resistant to drought.
Another benefit is GM food can be resistant to herbicides, which kill weeds that fight crops for nutrients.

Whilst both low impact farming and GM food production certainly have many benefits, many critics remain sceptical of their benefits.

Firstly, low impact farming minimises the use of synthetic chemicals. This protects the soil health, as well as ensuring local waterways are not contaminated. By protecting these natural resources, sustainability is ensured, allowing foods to continue to be grown year after year. However, low impact farming practices, such as organic farming and crop rotation, also produce lower yields than conventional farming methods, as synthetic fertilisers help produce more crop yield, and crop rotation means entire fields produce minimal crops some seasons. This lower crop yield means more land must be cleared to produce the same amount of food, and more land cleared means less natural biodiversity, and less forested land for carbon sequestering, a negative environmental impact. Therefore, whilst low impact farming improves sustainability, it may also harm the environment in other ways.

GM food production is beneficial as it allows for higher crop yield, and also the production of nutrient dense crops – such as Golden Rice, which contains higher levels of Vitamin A. This can help combat malnutrition and reduce food insecurity by making the price of rice and other GM foods cheaper. However, many critics of GM foods are worried about GM food crops being carried to other fields, through the wind or through water, and contaminating the other farms crops. This could cause unwanted transgenic plants, could jeopardise the other farms organic status, or could potentially harm biodiversity This means sceptics want more research done into the possible harmful effects of GM food, given it is a relatively new technology.

Both low impact farming and GM food production can help achieve food security, but may also harm it.

Biodiversity is maintained as farmers are placing beehvives in special areas not sprayed and spraying fungicide at night to maintain the bee population and not kill any. Bees then pollinate flowers to ensure healthy almond trees which ensure healthy almond fruit, for biodiversity of plants. Healthy diverse plants increases soil health thus improving diversity of microorganisms.

Biodiversity is being maintained by ensuring the almond trees are still sprayed with fungicide by drones and therefore not susceptible to fungus infections, which could compromise their health, whilst also protecting the health of bees, by ensuring they do not die from being sprayed. By striking this delicate balance, the almond tress can still be pollinated by the bees, and both species can thrive, thus ensuring one does not die out, which may destroy both organisms and reduce biodiversity.

Drones can increase equity in food access of almond fruit as the drones are pre-programmed to kill the fungus infections meaning less almond tress have infections thus resulting in greater yield of fruit being produced that is then enabled to be distributed to be accessed by more individuals as there is more fruit.

With the use of drone technology bees and hives are not directly sprayed as the unmanned drones don't spray in the bee high designated area, thus resulting in more bees, more honey production and therefore more honey to be distributed to individuals to provide increasing equity as there is more honey available for more people.