randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/...Document=Annex_B_(Social_sustai… · Web viewEvidence to define the sustainability of a healthy diet. Defra. F. O0430. Annex B – Social

Evidence to define the sustainability of a healthy diet

DefraFO0430

Annex B – Social Sustainability

Contents

1.0 Methodology

1.1 Social sustainability

1.1.1 Defining social sustainability attributes of foods1.1.2 Evidence of the social sustainability attributes1.1.3 Evidence gathering and recording

1.2 Expert Panel and workshop

2.0 Results: Societal impacts

2.1 Results: All foods

2.2 Caveats

2.3 Health and welfare dimension

2.4 Ethical dimension

2.5 Working conditions dimension

2.6 Societal dynamics dimension

2.7 Additional initiatives related to social sustainability

2.7.1 The FAO e-fora on sustainability and the food chain2.7.2 The UNEP Report2.7.3 Food Ethics Council: Food Justice Report2.7.4 Marques and metrics2.7.5 The Rural Economy and Land Use Programme2.7.6 Future scenarios2.7.7 Other academic papers

3.0 References

Appendices

B.1 Evidence of societal impacts of food production and consumption

B.2 References associated with Appendix B.1 on Social Sustainability Evidence

1

2

1.0 Methodology

1.1 Social sustainability

1.1.1 Defining social sustainability attributes of foods

What is true of sustainability in general (see Introduction) is particularly so of the concept of ‘social’ sustainability – one element or dimension of the broader concept. One definition often used comes from the Brundtland Commission (UN, 1987), which describes sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs", within which the three key factors are environmental protection, economic efficiency and solidarity in society. Although in this project we have adopted a similar three-pillar conceptualisation, it is important to recognise that other definitions make further distinctions, or disagree in terms of what aspects should be considered under which heading. For example, Van Calker et al (2005) considered four dimensions of sustainability (in the context of dairy farming): ‘ecological’, ‘economic’, ‘internal social’ and ‘external social’ sustainability. Within this, the key attribute related to internal ‘social sustainability’ was ‘working conditions’, and the key ones related to ‘external social sustainability’ were ‘food safety’, ‘animal welfare’, ‘animal health’, ‘landscape quality’ and ‘use of undisputed products’. Olesen, Groen and Gjerde (2000) however, defined sustainability in terms of resource efficiency, profitability, productivity, environmental soundness, biodiversity, social viability, and ethical aspects (the latter two perhaps being more ‘social’ than the former five). Others have discussed individual issues – for example, Broom (2010) has stated that ‘a system that results in poor (animal) welfare is unsustainable because it is unacceptable to many people’ (p.83) (a sentiment with which others, e.g. Keeling (2005), agrees).

One of the most internationally-known and widely tested approaches - the Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE) method (see Häni, Stämpfli and Keller,2003) - assesses the sustainability of farms based on twelve indicators for the economic, ecological and social situation: energy consumption, water consumption, situation of the soil, biodiversity, emission potential, plant protection, wastes and residues, cash flow, farm income, investments, local economy, and social situation of farmer family and employees. Interestingly, only the last of the 12 indicators would appear to speak to the social component. This is measured by considering: a) the relation between average Full Time Equivalent (FTE) compensation on the farm and Minimum Regional Income (MRI); b) Relation between lowest FTE compensation and farm income per FTE, and c) Assessment of the social situation of family workers and employees. While the first two aspects are economic aspects and reflect ‘driving forces’ of the indicator, the third concerns the ‘state’ of the indicator, and appears underspecified. Additionally, one might argue that this is a somewhat limited conceptualisation of social sustainability that misses a number of other potentially relevant issues identified by Van Calker et al and Olesen et al.

Furthermore, in the FAO (2011) document previously discussed, a kind of working definition of sustainability has been adopted for purposes of the consultation based on “an initial review, expert meetings, and subsequent review of corporate responsibility reports of dozens of food companies and retailers” (p.1). This identified four pillars as having a role in creating the necessary framework conditions for ensuring sustainable development, namely: ‘environmental integrity’, ‘economic resilience’, ‘social well-being’ and ‘good governance’. (Although the latter is seen as somehow different: “Good Governance was considered by most experts to be an underlying, enabling concept

3

rather than a pillar of sustainability (with) core issues identified therein (being) key components in the credibility of sustainability interventions.” (p.4)) Regarding social well-being, this is referred to as including: a) labour rights (the range of rights enshrined in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work); b) Non-discrimination and equity (equal access to opportunities and empowerment of women, reduction of discrimination and inequalities); c) education (access to, engagement in and attainment through education, knowledge sharing and awareness raising); d) health and safety (providing access to medical treatment, nutritional products and safe working conditions), and e) social commitment (acting actively to benefit society at large). This scheme specifies a total of 30 indicators to enable measurement of these ‘core issues’ (and note again, the diversity in language used to describe key concepts). What is particularly notable in this scheme is that issues such as animal welfare, landscape and ethics do not appear, and the emphasis is on issues such as child labour and education, that might not be apt for a UK-centric framework. Additionally: “A number of the issues… under Economic Resilience overlapped with those proposed under Social Well-Being and vice versa. In part this was due to the relatively greater difficulty of understanding what was intended by a number of the social core issues, and in part it was also due to the relative breadth of the concepts inherent to these issues. For example, what is understood as “Livelihoods”, and is it an economic or a social issue?” (p.4). ‘Transport’ and ‘employment’ are two core issues that appear under economic resilience as opposed to social well-being, which might be open to contention.

In short, the issue of social sustainability is a complex one, with little consensus as to what this phrase actually means. So, where does this inconsistency leave us? At the outset of the project we adopted a particular definition of social sustainability as the ability of an activity to endure in the social realm, which is to say, to be accepted by individuals and groups within society (as beneficial, or at least, non-harmful); not to be boycotted or banned or ignored.

Following this initial definition, and on the back of definitions in the literature, we selected four different attributes (though the term ‘dimensions’ is preferred here) that seemed to encapsulate the key aspects identified by others, namely:

Human health and welfare (perceived and real) Animal health and welfare (perceived and real) Ethics Other social and cultural aspects (landscape, education, employment, cultural cohesion, etc.)

These four attributes incorporated aspects from Van Calker et al (2005) (e.g. animal health and welfare; food safety) as well as Olesen et al (2000) (e.g. social viability and ethics). They also seemed to closely fit with the understandings of the ‘Sustain’ network (UK), an alliance for better food and farming, which “advocates food and agriculture policies and practices that enhance the health and welfare of people and animals, improve the working and living environment, enrich society and culture and promote equity.” (The four dimensions are apparent here, with the ethical dimension related to the important concept of ‘equity’.)

Ideally, for this deconstruction of the concept to be meaningful, the four dimensions should be independent and comprehensive. One could argue, however, that animal health and welfare (certainly from an ‘anthropocentric’ sustainability position) might be incorporated within ‘ethics’, since the main reason to protect animals might be seen as to pander to ethical scruples rather than

4

to protect animals for their own sake (e.g. as equally important as humans). One might also argue that the final dimension is rather a catch-all one, relating to more fuzzy concepts that still, at their base, are important from a ‘human health and welfare’ perspective. Nevertheless, this was the organization we initially chose to adopt, as its benefits seemed to at least equal its detriments.

Our initial data searches (described in the next sections) were based upon this system. However, following the expert workshop in December 2010, and comments from various experts about the focus on ‘acceptability’ being too narrow, with “social sustainability… not just about social acceptability, but also about preventing damage to society and key social groups” (personal communication) we amended our definition somewhat. (In fact, we did appreciate this element, but simply phrased the definition in an earlier draft in an inadequate manner.) Thus, we hereafter take social sustainability to involve developments that do not damage any aspect of society or any social group, particularly vulnerable groups (e.g. remote communities, those in the developed world, ethnic minorities, those with disabilities, the poorest members of society). By ‘damage’ we refer to both physical and mental damage – the latter aspect thereby introducing issues of acceptability and ethics.

The new attributes/dimensions were:

Health and welfare (perceived and real), with respect to a) food safety and b) nutrition Ethics, with respect to a) inequity (amongst social groups) and b) animal health/welfare Working conditions, with respect to employment conditions and worker safety Societal dynamics, with respect to community cohesion, education, landscape

This re-framing seems to clarify links to further definitions, such as that of the FAO (2011), and takes into account comments received during and after the expert workshop. The specific changes are to elaborate that the health and welfare attribute is concerned largely with food safety and nutrition (not worker safety, which comes under working conditions), and to move the discussion on animal health and welfare into the ethics attribute (i.e. taking a more anthropocentric position). This change made sense from an analytical viewpoint, since we were originally faced with difficulties sometimes assigning research evidence to one of these attributes rather than the other. This definition also specifically notes that ‘inequity’ comes under the ethics heading (it did do so in the original analysis, though the lack of explicitly using the word ‘equity’ or ‘inequity’ caused disquiet in some of the expert workshop attendees). Finally, the ‘other cultural aspects’ has been better specified and split, with working conditions now a specific and separate attribute (which seems apt, given its status in other definitions of social sustainability), while ‘societal dynamics’ is now used as a heading to capture the various other (often nebulous) issues relating to the protection of communities and society at large (their integrity and space). It is important to stress at this point that the reframing of the key attributes actually had little impact in terms of our charting of evidence of social sustainability (see the ‘results’ sections), and generally merely resulted in certain findings being moved from one cell or column of our matrix to another (that is, it didn’t lead us to any further sources of data).

1.1.2 Evidence of social sustainability attributes

5

The term ‘sustainability’ has a relatively precise meaning in terms of environmental aspects (though not without some degree of contention, as discussed in previous sections). Likewise, it might be argued that ‘economic sustainability’ is a concept that can be readily understood and measured (in terms of the costs and benefits of actions in a monetary sense). Unfortunately, ‘social sustainability’ is more qualitative in nature. That is, the clarity of the respective concepts is perhaps best indicated by the commensurate presence or absence of accepted ways of measuring those concepts. For example, environmental sustainability is frequently addressed through the application of ‘Life Cycle Assessments’ (LCAs) – a process that compares the environmental impact of some activity throughout a defined life cycle. Although there is no precisely named process for measuring economic sustainability, it would appear reasonable to apply measures of monetary cost to any activity, and so establish its relative sustainability versus other activities. However, social sustainability – being less well-defined, and occurring at a ‘higher’ level of analysis (i.e. at the level of human beings and societies, as opposed to the level of natural science components) – is rather elusive, with no universally accepted measures. This makes the comparison of pieces of evidence difficult – being in many cases based on anecdote or qualitative approaches.

More specifically, it can be seen from the definition of social sustainability adopted here that there are implied psychological and behavioural aspects in several of the dimensions, that is, an activity can be sustainable/non-sustainable because it has a ‘real’ impact (e.g. on human or animal health, on equity of access) or because it is perceived to have such an impact (the issue of genetic modification is one important example here, where sustainability is arguably compromised by perceptions rather than realities). As such, measures may include subjective, attitudinal ones as well as objective ones. While objective aspects can be established in terms of actual measured and recorded outcomes (e.g. worker accidents; proportion of animals that die in transportation; demographic characteristics of consumers of certain products), the more psychological measures are not so easy to establish. Data on attitudes can arise from qualitative, relatively unstructured research. Alternatively, such data can be attained through structured questionnaires – asking about attitudes and perceptions on scaled measures, or attempting to establish likely behaviour through measures of ‘intention’ to behave, or ‘willingness to pay’ for some aspect. Data on the sustainability of any activity might come in a variety of forms – with ensuing difficulties raised in terms of trading off data that might measure subtly different aspects of response measured through different research processes and ‘instruments’ about subtly different potentially sustainable activities (e.g. measures of impact on health versus qualitative and quantitative measures of perceptions/ attitudes). The issue of trading off evidence across the three sustainability pillars is discussed in the integrating sections of the report.

1.1.3 Evidence gathering and recording

In this project, we are concerned with different potentially sustainable activities carried out at different points in the food chain cycle (taking six specific stages, from ‘breeding’ to ‘consumption’), for a number of different food types or classes. One way to address this problem is to look at the activities related to one particular food at one particular stage and attempt to find evidence as to whether this might be socially sustainable or not. For example, one could look at ‘bananas’ at the ‘transport’ stage and look for some kind of related measures concerning health, ethics, working conditions, and societal dynamics. The problem with this approach is that much of the potentially relevant social research will not address problems in this particular way, and hence, we might find

6

little of relevance. For example, it is unlikely that there is any specific evidence on perception and behaviour related to transporting bananas – it is not an issue likely to provoke research interest! As a case in point, a review for Defra on the sustainability issues around liquid milk, which focused on LCAs, but which did attempt to go further and consider social issues, concluded: “For milk retailing and utilisation, quantitative evidence for milk-specific impacts is sparse. As with transport impacts at the retail and consumer ends of the system, tying impacts to individual products presents significant challenges.”(Foster et al. 2007, p. X) As with milk, we have found, so with almost everything. Indeed, social sustainability indicators are linked mostly to how a food product is produced, processed, distributed and consumed, rather than the specific type of food. This is a very different approach to that used in LCAs and other methods for assessing environmental sustainability, and hence there may be a need to approach and conceptualise social sustainability in a different way.

A second approach is to thus consider generic issues first, and to try to slot any findings into the relevant cells of the matrix. For example, ‘food transportation’ generically might be a topic that has stimulated some research interest. It is this approach we take – finding generic research evidence, and then adding appropriate caveats to cells of the matrix to indicate whether there is or is not any information about a specific food type.

Aside from limitations due to lack of likely research on specific food type-food chain-social sustainability interactions, a second problem is that much research data on the broad issue is likely to be only tangentially relevant. For example, much of the research on human attitudes towards food concepts might have some implications for specific aspects of the food chain (for example, the extent to which consumers trust food risk managers might have implications for the sustainability of particular aspects of the food chain in which risk managers play a role), but teasing out full implications may require considerable conjecture and is not likely to provide clear-cut answers to the sorts of questions that Defra want answered. Rather than confusing matters and trying to interpret a vast amount of literature (not possible in the time frame of the project in any case), the focus of our analysis was on research and evidence that fairly directly addressed the central questions. In other words, our analysis has been pragmatic: we looked for major pieces of research, reviews, and established databases that appeared to address a clear aspect of social sustainability. What we have not provided is references to every minor study with small and specific samples looking into a precise issue with uncertain generalisability.

And finally, our project does not have the capacity to purchase expensive market reports, and hence has focused on data that is in the public domain.

Table 1 below shows the specific questions we attempted to answer. There are three questions in each cell of the matrix. The second question concerns the nature of evidence, and is shown within square brackets – essentially to indicate that this is not a question specifically required of us to answer. Associated with each food chain stage and societal dimension are a number of terms related to relevant concepts, which have been used as search terms in our analysis. Although the focus of this project is the UK, we did not necessarily discriminate against non-UK research (the bulk of that reported), although we did note when some issue seemed to imply national differences (and hence limited validity of data for the UK). With a UK emphasis, we were less interested in searching for details on – for example – educational benefits to people in the third world related to a particular food crop or system.

7

Table 1:

Food Chain Stage Health and welfare dimension – food safety/ nutrition

Ethical dimension - equity/ animal health and welfare

Working conditions dimension – employment conditions/ worker safety

Societal dynamics dimension -community cohesion/ education/ landscape

Exemplar search terms Health

Risk

Harm

Nutrition

Well-being

Ethics

Morals

Rights

Fair trade

Inequity

Animal welfare

Animal health

Employment

Working condition/s

Education

Landscape

Culture

Breeding / biotechnology

[Concepts: Biotechnology,

Breeding,

Genetic modification]

Is there evidence that ‘breeding’ impacts human health (or is perceived to do so)?

[What is the nature of the evidence?]

How good is the evidence?

Is there evidence that ‘breeding’ raises ethical issues?



Is there evidence that ‘breeding’ raises working condition issues?



Is there evidence that ‘breeding’ impacts on societal-cultural issues?



Agronomy / fishing / aquaculture

[Concepts: Agriculture,

Farming,

Fishing,

Aquaculture,

Conventional,

Organic,

(GM/biotech in ‘breeding’),

Monoculture]

Is there evidence that agronomy (etc.) impacts human health (or is perceived to do so)?



Is there evidence that agronomy (etc.) raises ethical issues?



Is there evidence that agronomy (etc.) raises working condition issues?



Is there evidence that agronomy (etc.) impacts on societal-cultural issues?



Post-harvest storage and Transport

[Concepts:

Is there evidence that post-harvest storage and transport impacts human health (or is perceived to do so)?

Is there evidence that post-harvest storage and transport raises ethical issues?

Is there evidence that post-harvest storage and transport raises working condition issues?

Is there evidence that post-harvest storage and transport impacts on societal-cultural issues?

8

Air miles,

Train/ truck/ plane,

Globalisation]









Processing

[Concepts:

Irradiation, Pasteurisation,

E numbers,

Preservation]

Is there evidence that food processing impacts human health (or is perceived to do so)?



Is there evidence that food processing raises ethical issues?



Is there evidence that food processing raises working condition issues?



Is there evidence that food processing impacts on societal-cultural issues?



Distribution and retail [Concepts: Supermarkets,

Local stores,

Butchers,

Bakers,

Fishmongers,

Farmer’s market,

Local vs global]

Is there evidence that distribution and retail impact human health (or is perceived to do so)?



Is there evidence that distribution and retail impact human health raises ethical issues?



Is there evidence that distribution and retail impact human health raises working condition issues?



Is there evidence that distribution and retail impacts on societal-cultural issues?



Consumption [Concepts: Availability,

Scarcity,

Consumption rates/ levels,

Labels (ecolabels)]

Is there evidence that consumption impacts human health (or is perceived to do so)?



Is there evidence that consumption raises ethical issues?



Is there evidence that consumption raises working condition issues?



Is there evidence that consumption impacts on societal-cultural issues?



Data was essentially gathered through two means. First, we searched Web of Science using various combinations of ‘food chain’ terms (far left column) and terms related to social sustainability (second row down). Given the number of terms and combinations, and the limited resources it was not possible to conduct a full structured review. Identified abstracts were briefly read to see if they appeared to be relevant to social sustainability. Those that were identified were recorded and

9

forward and backward citation searches took place – that is, of the references cited in these articles, and of the papers that cited these articles. Relevant references from these searches were then subjected to further backward/forward searches. Generally, about two-to-three days’ searching for each social sustainability dimension tended to lead to reasonable coverage of the core topics (citing and cited references began to be frequently repeated from previously targeted papers), although no further time was available to do more. The second strategy was to rely upon expert recommendations, such as from experts attending the workshop in December 2010, and also through websites of relevant bodies (Sustain, Food Ethics Council, Defra, etc.). Regarding the latter, it needs to be noted that, although experts did recommend many different papers and reports, we found that only a small proportion of these actually provided evidence regarding some food-chain/sustainability relationship. Others are discussed in an additional section looking at additional sources of information that might prove useful to Defra (see later).

The evidence from relevant papers was used to fill out the social sustainability matrix (see Results section). In general, the data included in the matrix comes from peer-reviewed sources (journal articles, rather than presentations or book chapters), although major reports are also included, as these are likely to have undergone some degree of review.

1.2 Expert Panel and workshop

The initial findings were then presented to members of an Expert Panel for critical evaluation and comment at a workshop held in London on 20th December 2010. The issues raised and gaps identified were then further considered by the Project Team. These issues included the definition of social sustainability (which was refined, as discussed), and the identification of other sources of data (particularly reports). A further Expert Panel workshop was held on 22nd July 2011 to consider the draft project report and inform advice for future research.

10

2.0 Results: Societal impacts

2.1 Results: All foods

Appendix B.1 shows the result of the food-chain social sustainability attribute analysis for foods (generically). The references associated with each cell, which provide the evidential basis for the analysis, are given in Appendix B.2. Note that some references in the Appendix are repeated on a number of occasions, as certain papers provide evidence on multiple aspects of social sustainability (although in some cases, because of the potential overlap of certain social sustainability concepts, the evidence itself is repeated in different cells, and hence so are the associated references).

2.2 Caveats

There are several caveats that need to be considered.

1) Results on potential sustainability for any one attribute may potentially conflict with results from another, making it difficult to state with any clarity the overall social sustainability of a healthy diet or any component thereof. A particular activity for a particular food product may appear socially sustainable according to one attribute, but not according to another. As a hypothetical example, a particular food grown through an organic process might appear better than a conventional alternative in terms of employee welfare, yet may have negative relative health consequences, or it might enhance community cohesion (for a particular community) yet have negative implications for health and equity (e.g. if a product is expensive and therefore unaffordable for poorer sections of communities). And as another hypothetical case, a move towards buying local produce of a particular type might, again, enhance community spirit, but at the price of increased inequity in the third world, as poor farmers are denied a previously guaranteed livelihood. The extent of this problem of trade-offs is unclear, because research on social sustainability does not generally involve looking at all of the social attributes (in the way that an LCA looks at all – or rather, many – of the environmental attributes, allowing trade-off on a single metric such as carbon emissions). Similarly – as will be discussed later – a positive mark for social sustainability for a particular food or activity does not mean that this will also get a positive mark for economic or environmental sustainability, and the use of different and incomparable metrics does not allow any easy trade-off between the respective scores. Although there is some literature considering such issues (e.g. see Adger, 2000, who develops the linking concept of ‘resilience’ in a study conducted in Vietnam), this is limited.

2) Even within particular social sustainability attributes, the answers are often unclear. For example, the table notes research that indicates that transport by road and air can have a negative impact on human health, suggesting that any change in diet that led to more transport of foods would be a negative. However, and as one expert from the workshop pointed out, this doesn’t acknowledge other complexities, such as the fact that road and air transport can have a very positive impact on human health by making healthy foods more widely accessible and affordable, particularly to people living in remote locations or far away from where the food is produced. However, the data in the cells is simply that data which exists and is readily accessible. In this case, the expert was

11

undoubtedly correct in their assertion… but in the absence of a piece of empirical work that clearly documents the suggested finding, we cannot enter that opinion into the matrix, nor discuss all of the hypothetical situations and variables that might modify a conclusion (once more, this project is about clarifying extant evidence). In essence, the data in every cell of the matrix is open to contention, and each could be a research project in its own right.

3) Although the table appears only sporadically complete, with various empty cells, most of these omissions are fairly understandable. For example, issues of animal welfare are situated at some points in the food supply chain and not others, as is impact of working condition on employees (research has focused on farm workers per se, with relatively little academic interest shown in workers who transport food or who work in supermarkets, etc.). Nevertheless, given the immense task of populating the matrix, it is to be expected that there is still a lot of evidence that exists that could contribute to specific matrix cells.

4) And this leads to the fourth point, which is the sheer breadth of disciplinary sources for the data (and hence the likelihood of missing data). Papers relevant to social sustainability issues can be found in sources ranging from medical and nutrition journals, to those on psychology, sociology, geography, law, occupational matters, and so on. To comprehensively sieve through potentially relevant research from a plethora of social science disciplines falls outside the scope of this project. Future research could focus on each matrix cell and recruit appropriate disciplinary experts to provide opinions and references (after a firm definition of social sustainability is developed).

2.3 Health and welfare dimension

With these caveats aside, what does the research in the table reveal? Regarding human health and welfare, there is considerable research related to various aspects of the food chain. In terms of breeding/biotechnology, evidence suggests that genetic modification processes do not pose a risk to human health... although a significant proportion of consumers believe that they do (the proportions vary across countries and other demographic factors). In terms of agronomy/fishing/agriculture, the position is somewhat reversed, in the sense that organically produced foods have no clear evidence of being better for human health than conventionally produced foods, although many consumers perceive this to be the case. (There is, however, some issue concerning pesticide use and harm to farm workers.) Regarding transport, there is strong evidence that increased pollution and noise (from road, rail and air transport) do have various negative impacts upon human health. This suggests that, in general, any food type that results in increased transportation noise/pollution will have low social sustainability on this dimension – though as noted earlier, there is a wider issue about the merits of transportation that have not been adequately researched.

There is limited evidence that differing food processing methods are perceived as having more or less health impacts. Regarding distribution and retail, and consumption, there is evidence that better access to supermarkets relates to better access to fruit and vegetables, hence greater consumption and hence better health. Generally access to supermarkets is more limited for certain disadvantaged communities (see ethical dimension). Many consumers believe they eat healthily enough and do not need to change their diets, and they are motivated by price and taste rather than claims of the healthiness of foods. Impact on health is one aspect on which there is liable to be food-specific

12

evidence, and there is indeed a growing body of research that does identify the necessary components and proportions of a healthy diet. Regular UK surveys are likely to provide good future data on the types of people who eat a ‘healthy’ diet, and changes over time.

2.4 Ethical dimension

Regarding the ethical dimension, research is uneven across food types and the food chain. The breeding/biotechnology stage has been well researched – at least with respect to novel technologies (like genetic modification of crops and animals). There is significant concern by population segments about activities that ‘interfere with nature’, particularly when involving animals (as opposed to plants/crops) – suggesting some of these process (at present) may not be socially sustainable. It is the concepts in general that are a concern, rather than their implementation with any particular food type (hence, if a healthy diet item were ‘conventional’ rather than bioengineered in some way, then at present it would be more sustainable – though this could change in future, and indeed, different population groups vary in their views on this matter). The evidence for this is generally fairly good, in the sense that it is frequently replicated. The actual impact on animal health is, however, less certain.

Agronomy/fishing/agriculture also raise ethical concerns, with population segments favouring ‘organic’ produce and produce that can claim some sort of superiority in terms of animal welfare (e.g. in willingness-to-pay studies). This research is fairly consistent in findings, and there is also is some evidence that organic methods are better for certain animals (hence perceptions and reality are not too distanced). However, research into consumers’ actual behaviour seems to suggest that such studies overplay consumers’ willingness to buy such products. In the end, issues such as price and taste are – for many – the key food choice factors. This suggests that maybe the ‘social sustainability’ of ‘ethically farmed’ foods may be overplayed too.

There is little information on ethics regarding post-harvest storage, but more on transportation. The concept of ‘food miles’ has arisen as a kind of surrogate for sustainability, with the idea that food produced locally (with less distance to travel) may be environmentally more sustainable. And indeed, there is some evidence that consumers think that buying local may be more ethical from this perspective. And there do appear real animal welfare issues when transporting certain animals over significant distances (this issue is obviously of most concern for meat consumption as opposed to consumption of other food types). Though both of these aspects cause consumers concern, there is again the issue of there being a difference between perceptions/concerns and the reality of purchase behaviour. In any case, research seems to contest the idea that local products are necessarily more sustainable, as transport from source to supermarket appears a relatively minor environmental factor compared to, for example, the different processing methods necessary for producing a food (e.g. which can be easily grown in a hot climate far away, but may require significant processing costs in a colder climate that is nearer).

With regards processing, there is only limited issues of ethical impacts, though some seemingly more natural processes may be perceived more positively than others that are less natural.

13

However, the issue of social inequality is relevant with regards distribution and retail and consumption, with evidence of reduced availability of fruit and vegetables in various disadvantaged communities, and that a healthy diet is more expensive than an unhealthy one, so also impacting poorer communities. Hence, social sustainability may be compromised for certain food items – particularly when grown/produced in certain ways (that impact price, e.g. organic). Further, there is a suggestion that retailing through farmers markets and the like may have a degree of inequity associated with them, with some research has even suggested a kind of ‘stigmatisation’. (As an aside, it is interesting to note that this issue has even made it into popular culture, as evidenced by a ‘sketch’ in a recent episode of the TV comedy show ‘Armstrong and Miller’ that mocked the very ‘middle-class’ clientele and priorities of such markets!) Once more, consumers claim generally a willingness to pay more for food products that they perceive as ethical, though this does not translate so accurately in purchase and consumption, with issues such as price being dominant in choice (for many, though not all). Again, these issues are not particularly food-specific (e.g. tomato versus butter versus beef), but rather concept specific (fair trade/low food miles/organic vs. not).

There are other issues related to social inequality that may be pertinent, but which literature searches did not initially bring up, because of their tangential (though undoubtedly significant) relations to our key search terms. These include the links between socio-economic inequity and health inequalities (particularly given the relationship between a poor diet and many diseases); issues surrounding the loss of cooking and preparation skills that could help lead to healthier diets; and differences between urban and rural areas, as well as between mobile and less mobile sectors of the population (e.g. groups such as older people and people without a cars might be seen as some of the hardest hit).

2.5 Working conditions dimension

Regarding working conditions, there is only very limited good quality evidence across the food chain. In terms of biotechnology and breeding, there is some evidence that poor third world farmers may save labour and increase margins – which might or might not be positive for conditions (improved for some, while other lose their jobs?). These findings would only be relevant to certain foods, and of no relevance at present to UK workers.

In terms of agriculture/aquaculture, there are scattered findings about certain aspects that might impact worker health. For example, there are health risks associated with certain practices (pesticide use) and some differences in the happiness of certain workers (e.g. employed on organic farms over conventional ones). Some approaches require more workers (e.g. organic), but it is difficult to conclude that this is a universal good, since the agricultural sector is generally not as well paid as others. Likewise with the ‘processing’ stage, there is limited evidence, some of which points to health impacts of certain activities. There is some fairly good data on trends of employment in the UK in terms of agriculture, retailing etc., but it is difficult to interpret the meaning of this for ‘social sustainability’, particularly regards individual foods or food types.

In short, there is little information that directly addresses this dimension. We suspect that there is more ‘out there’, but we have not had time to search for it, and furthermore, such data may be more apt for consideration from an economic perspective.

14

2.6 Societal dynamics dimension

Finally, there is only limited evidence related to the societal dynamics dimension of sustainability (which is not to say that there isn’t a lot of published literature on aspects of the problem: there is, but it hardly qualifies as evidence in an empirical sense.) For example, there is discussion of the impacts of agriculture on landscapes, but little evidence of landscape differences and their impacts on social aspects. There are claims that organic farming employs more workers than conventional farming (the issue of employment is one that seems to cross social sustainability dimension boundaries, related to working conditions too) , and so has potential sustainability benefits for employment, and also appears better for biodiversity and landscape diversity (positive social attributes). Regarding retail and distribution, it is claimed that farmers’ markets can help foster feelings of ‘community’ (though evidence is weak). And regarding consumption, it has been demonstrated that decreased meat consumption can increase available land for other activities – such as leisure. Considerable research does, however, suggests that people prefer local produce (in research in various countries), and increased local activities have implications for local employment and landscape and, one would suspect, feelings of self-identity and community (but this has to be definitively measured).

Education – one element of community cohesion identified – does not really seem to be a UK issue per se, though it might be relevant for developing countries (e.g. certain types of agriculture or processes might lead to improved conditions and opportunities in the third world).

2.7 Additional Initiatives related to Social Sustainability

We were commissioned to assess the quality of information available regarding the issue of ‘sustainability of a healthy diet’. As previously discussed, this is somewhat diffuse and inchoate with regards social sustainability. Although not part of our project remit, it was suggested at the expert workshop that we consider providing extra information regarding on-going projects and potential upcoming items of interest that might inform this debate. We have been happy to consider this extra activity, and provide some relevant information in this section.

2.7.1 The FAO e-fora on sustainability and the food chain

FAO is planning to develop a Sustainability Framework, with universally agreed core issues, as part of its efforts for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) that will take place in 2012 (i.e. RIO +20). More specifically, the intent is to define:

(1) Sustainability Framework with an agreed set of core sustainability issues that could be implemented at any level, national, supply chain or operational unit; and thus to provide a common understanding of what the term “sustainability” means in a practical context;

(2) Provide international Guidelines on Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) that would facilitate full sustainability assessments and thus, contribute to making sustainable food chains more transparent, measurable and verifiable… achieved by translating a

15

universally agreed definition of sustainability, with core issues for each of the sustainability pillars, into a set of core and additional indicators applicable to food chains, and by providing solid guidelines for the application (calculation) of these indicators;

(3) Based on the guideline, develop an International Tool for the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (FAO would provide an example of what such a tool could look like) for the use of food businesses to assess and improve their own endeavours and contributions towards sustainability.

Guideline development is expected to be completed in early 2012. To inform this process, FAO is currently seeking stakeholders’ views on a set of proposed sustainability issues and indicators through an E-forum discussion on Sustainability Assessment of the Food Chain. This started on 21st February 2011 and is currently on-going, with a number of separate fora, including (from 14-18 March 2011) one on ‘indicators of social well-being’. The consultation is based upon a list of performance indicators, based on the review of dozens of corporate responsibility and sustainability reports of food chain actors. The indicators are intended to be applicable to farming, forestry or fishery enterprises and their value chains, and while most have been developed to target all levels of the food chain (farm –manufacture – distribution – final sales), some exclusively apply to the final sales at retail level, e.g. “policies that reward customers for making green choices”; some only at farm level, e.g. “percentage of farm areas where soil conservation measures are continuously applied”. For more information and to download a background document see here:

http://www.fao.org/rio20/e-forum/en/

Interestingly, in this period there were just three threads of conversation with one post on each, and no response to any! Nevertheless, we advise Defra to keep a watching brief on this process, and be aware of significant results being published next year.

2.7.2 The UNEP Report

The United Nations Environment Program (2009) produced a report entitled ‘Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products’. This essentially tries to take a more rigorous LCA approach and apply it to social/economic aspects of sustainable development. Although the report doesn’t focus upon food per se, or provide much in the way of solid evidence that would help populate the evidence matrix we developed, it does highlight a number of important concepts of relevance to social sustainability and ways in which these might be measured. Were Defra to be interested in firming up an acceptable definition of social sustainability, this report might prove an important resource in that debate (e.g. for workshop participants to consider).

2.7.3 Food Ethics Council: Food Justice Report

The Food Ethics Council takes a wide interest in issues of food and ethics that are pertinent to this report. Perhaps the most significant publication from this organisation recently is its ‘Food Justice Report’, published in 2010. The inquiry that is reported looked at the extent of social injustice in the food system within the UK and at global level, discussing how this unfairness may impede progress towards sustainable food and farming. The report may be especially useful in helping to define and deconstruct the ‘ethics’ social sustainability dimension.

16

http://www.fao.org/rio20/e-forum/en/

2.7.4 Marques and Metrics

Though there are few coherent and validated measures of social sustainability attributes (in large part because there are few coherently specified attributes!), there do exist a number of marques that have been developed by manufacturers, retailers and other organisations that might be used to indicate social sustainability aspects, and could in future be taken up and used in research on social sustainability. Some marques are discussed elsewhere in this report, with regards the other sustainability pillars. Of particular interest to this pillar is the ‘Freedom Food Marque’, developed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals (RSPCA). To attain this marque an auditor visits a farm and assessed a number of attributes, such as ‘freedom from fear and distress’, ‘freedom to express normal behaviour’ and ‘freedom from hunger and thirst’. This approach could be used to measure aspects related to animal health and welfare. See http://www.ukagriculture.com/food/freedom_food.cfm.

The Marine Stewardship Council provides certification to recognise sustainable fishing – see: http://www.msc.org/. Again, this assessment process could be used as a basis for a measure for certain sustainability elements (e.g. related to working conditions and animal welfare). Elements from various fair trade schemes might also be informative of social sustainability metrics – and future research might attempt to collate full details of such schemes to assess their utility (this activity being beyond this research project’s brief).

2.7.5 The Rural Economy and Land Use Programme

This has involved a number of research projects relevant to the general issue of sustainability of the food chain (and some relevance to social issues). For access to reports that have potential relevance to social sustainability, see in particular:

http://relu.data-archive.ac.uk/datasets.asp?id=Sustainable%20food%20chains

http://relu.data-archive.ac.uk/datasets.asp?id=How%20we%20use%20our%20land

A selection of papers from a relevant RELU programme may be found in a special issue of Trends in Food Science and Technology (2008; volume 19 (5)) edited by Phillipson and Lowe.

Some of these pieces of research are certainly worth following for future output (our results matrix focuses on published, peer-reviewed papers, and as such the outputs from concluded RELU reports may take several years to make it into print and so they are not presently included). Several of the projects related to ‘land use’ seem potentially interesting regarding social sustainability, yet don’t have any recorded outputs at present, while others provide interesting analyses of aspects such as ‘landscape’, though these are generally theoretical or methodological pieces that don’t provide evidence per se (e.g. Haughton et al, 2009; Huby et al, 2006; Matthews and Selman, 2006; Phillips et al, 2008; Selman and Knight, 2006; Winter and Lobely, 2009).

2.7.6 Future scenarios

A number of papers/projects/reports have attempted to look at changes of diet in terms of sustainability attributes – including attributes related to social sustainability (as we define it). For example, Caspari et al (2009) consider a number of future scenarios for meat consumption, and the

17

http://relu.data-archive.ac.uk/datasets.asp?id=How%20we%20use%20our%20land

http://relu.data-archive.ac.uk/datasets.asp?id=Sustainable%20food%20chains

http://www.msc.org/

http://www.ukagriculture.com/food/freedom_food.cfm

impacts these might be anticipated to have on human health (and other sustainability issues). See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/default_en.htm .

A major foresight exercise on the future of food and farming was published in 2011 (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming (2011)), which considers sustainability in general (its definition of the concept is vague, and although it mentions social issues within this, it essentially limits this to saying ‘…food production and economic growth must create sufficient wealth to maintain a viable and healthy workforce, and skills must be transmitted to future generations of producers’ P. 31). It summarises contributions from over 400 key experts and stakeholders. Among the issues highlighted in this report are: working condition issues surrounding seasonal and casual labour and immigrant labour (legal and illegal); issues surrounding the increasingly globalised nature of our food supply chains (particularly how much control the UK’s public and private sector can have over working conditions overseas, and the impact that outsourcing stages of the supply chain to workers overseas has on the UK workforce); access and affordability issues surrounding the availability of a healthy diet for those in all socio-economic groups; the fact that food production and related activities can play an important role in strengthening and empowering communities (e.g. the Fair Trade movement), and therefore has the potential to greatly strengthen the social sustainability of specific areas and/or social groups; and that local initiatives, shops, food production movements and social enterprises have the potential to greatly improve community cohesion and empower communities. A long list of references is supplied, many of which reports sound useful but were not readily accessible to us. See:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf . Defra have produced a vision for sustainable fisheries that discusses potential influences and needs for social sustainability, including the social costs and benefits of a more sustainable policy (Defra 2007). See:

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries2027vision.pdf

Cafaro et al (2006) considered the issue of calorie reduction (especially through consuming less meat), and how changes could improve Americans' health and well-being while facilitating environmental and social benefits ranging from establishing new national parks and protected areas to allowing more earth-friendly farming and ranching techniques.

Phillips (2009) has looked into the future of cattle farming, touching on issues such as worldwide food trends (and likely changes), such as meat and dairy consumption, and issues related to social sustainability, such as land use and biodiversity.

Pretty et al (2005) assess a variety of scenarios for adoption of organic farming, localised food systems and sustainable transport to indicate the potential to reduce environmental costs in the UK food system.

2.7.7 Other academic papers

There are many texts that provide broad analyses of the sustainability problem, ‘think pieces’, or theoretical analyses, which do not provide specific evidence regarding social sustainability - though they may cite some of the articles we have cited to provide evidence for theorising. Some of these were highlighted by expert members of the workshop. It would be useful for Defra to log their

18

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries2027vision.pdf

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/default_en.htm

presence, but as before, these do not directly answer the question posed in this project (though occasionally they do provide some difficult-to-interpret evidence on related issues). Examples include:

Allen and Wilson (2008) - examine the development of local food systems in the US, in terms of the local food movement's engagement with the issue of inequality

Alroe et al (2001) – discuss animal welfare and ethics in the organic farming context Amekawa (2009) – argues that main good agricultural practice (GAP) food safety protocols

can be discriminatory against smaller, poorer producers (with various implications for social sustainability, such as inequity), while alternatives can lead to broader inclusion of small-scale producers towards the attainment of various social, economic, and environmental benefits

Andreoli and Tellarini (2000) – describe a checklist of criteria for sustainable landscape management of farms

Barling (2007) – discusses UK policy with regards the food supply chain and efforts to ameliorate diet-related health problems (hence, relevant to social sustainability)

Batt and Noonan (2005) – provide an essay on global trends in food quality that muses on a number of (social) sustainability issues

Born and Purcell (2006) – suggest local food is not necessarily more ‘socially just’ Bowler (2005) – analyses ‘structures’ that may, in future, enable sustainable agriculture to

develop Broome (2010) – discusses the importance of animal welfare, and its various facets, from a

sustainability perspective (amongst others) Browne et al. (2000) – define ethical trading and consider organic farming from this context Chiu and Lin (2009) – consider the advantages of a plant-based diet over a meat based one

from an ethical perspective (implications for health and other social sustainability aspects) Davies and Baines (2008) – discuss the problems with food labelling claims related to (social)

sustainability issues (e.g. lack of evidence/ contradictions, and issues related to credibility and trust)

Desrochers and Shimizu (2008) – argue that ‘food miles’ are a distraction, and local food is not necessarily better/more sustainable (‘The concept of food miles is therefore a profoundly flawed sustainability indicator’, p. 7)

Focardi et al. (2005) – discuss aquaculture, sustainability, and food safety, and the need to develop tools to measure its extent of environmental and biological impact

Follett (2009) – discusses different types of alternative food systems, and their implications for social sustainability issues such as labor standards, animal welfare, rural communities, small-scale farmers, and human health

Frankic and Hershner (2003) – provide recommendations for sustainable aquaculture that has some note of social issues

Garrett et al (1997) – discuss aquaculture and a wide range of factors potentially related to sustainability (including human and animal health)

Grigorakis (2010) – discusses the ethical issues associated with aquaculture production, identified by use of an ‘ethical matrix’

Halberg et al (2006) – is an edited book that discusses organic agriculture, which touches upon sustainability issues throughout

19

Hutchins and Sutherland (2008) - discuss some of the potential strengths and weaknesses of various social sustainability measures

Ilbery and May (2005) – looked at the sustainability of local/alternative food systems as a whole (England/Scottish border) and found they were not particularly ‘sustainable’ from various perspectives

Ilea (2009) – discusses livestock farming and future estimates of impacts on the environment and, of relevance, human health, and discusses possible solutions

Jarosz (2008) - discusses issues around the development of ‘alternative food networks’ Malonie and Brown (2006) – develop a framework that details corporate social responsibility

(CSR) applications in the food supply chain, which includes issues related to social sustainability, such as animal welfare, fair trade, health and safety, and labor and human rights

Manning et al (2006) - evaluates current mechanisms/methodology for determining both scientific- and value-based approaches to ethical food policy

Marie (2006) – discusses ethical issues with animal agriculture, with implicit implications for social sustainability of different agriculture forms

Marsden et al (2000) – discuss the link between short food chains and rural development (implications for social sustainability issues like community cohesion)

Maxey (2006) – discusses sustainable food networks and provides some ethnographic research on small scale producer-suppliers in Canada and Wales

McKinnon et al (2009) – provide a comprehensive literature review of studies measuring the food environment, which may ultimately prove useful in identifying appropriate methods for use in studies of social sustainability

Millar and Tomkins (2007) - explore a number of the ethical issues potentially raised by the use of GM technologies in aquaculture, including distributive justice for producers

Muir (2005) – reviews aquaculture and discusses sustainability issues, some of which concern social aspects (introduction of special issue on the topic)

Oglethorpe and Heron (2010) – suggest that environmental burden actually decreases across increasing logistical scale and supply chain sophistication (opposite contemporary arguments)

Pluhar (2010) – discusses the ethics of alternatives to factory farming Renard (2003) – reviews the Fair Trade concept Spence and Bourlakis (2009) – provide a case study of Waitrose regarding ‘corporate social

responsibility’ in its food supply chain, which ultimately touches on a number of social sustainability issues (though in a difficult-to-categorise manner)

Renting et al (2003) – describe alternative food networks across seven European countries Sperling (2010) – takes a broad look at the ethics of food safety Swanson (2008) discusses animal welfare assurance and audit programs (emerging because

of public concern for animal welfare, i.e. a social sustainability attribute) Szuecs et al (2009) – discuss issues around stewardship/ stockmanship (animal welfare) and

sustainability Thompson (2010) – points out that there are two perspectives on animal ethics that imply

different approaches and standards for livestock welfare (complicating use of this concept as an element in social sustainability)

20

Thornton and Herrero (2010) – take a broad look at issues to do with livestock production, including various sustainability aspects (and social ones, like poverty alleviation)

Young (2010) – discusses global dietary trends and their problems, with various references to sustainability and related social problems (health, inequity, ethics)

21

3.0 References

Adger, W.N. (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347-364.

Allen, P. and Wilson, A. B. (2008) Agrifood inequalities: globalization and localization, Development, 51 (4), 534-540.

Alroe, H.F., Vaarst, M. and Kristensen, E.S. (2001) Does organic farming face distinctive livestock welfare issues? A conceptual analysis, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(3), 275-299.

Amekawa, Y. (2009) Reflections on the Growing Influence of Good Agricultural Practices in the Global South, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22 (6), 531-557.

Andreoli, M. and Tellarini, V. (2000) Farm sustainability evaluation: methodology and practice, Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 77(1-2), 43-52.

Barling, D. (2007) Food supply chain governance and public health externalities: Upstream policy interventions and the UK State, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(3), 285-300.

Batt, P. J. and Noonan, J. (2009) Global trends in food quality: an exploratory study in fresh produce supply chains, Acta Horticulturae, 831, 95-104.

Born, B. and Purcell, M. (2006) Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in planning research, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 195-207.

Bowler, I. (2002) Developing sustainable agriculture, Geography, 87(3), 205-212.

Broom, D.M. (2010) Animal Welfare: An Aspect of Care, Sustainability, and Food Quality Required by the Public, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37(1), 83-88.

Browne, A.W., Harris, P.J.C., Hofny-Collins, A.H., Pasiecznik, N. and Wallace, R.R. (2000) Organic production and ethical trade: definition, practice and links, Food Policy, 25(1), 69-89.

Cafaro, P.J., Primack, R.B. and Zimdahl, R.L. (2006) The fat of the land: Linking American food overconsumption, obesity, and biodiversity loss, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(6), 541-561.

Caspari, C., Christodoulou, M., Nganga, J. and Ricci, M. (2009) Implications of Global Trends in Eating Habits for Climate Change, Health and Natural Resources, European Parliament, Brussels.

Chiu, T.H.T. and Lin, C.L. (2009) Ethical management of food systems: plant based diet as a holistic approach, Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 18(4), 647-653.

Davies, W.P. and Baines, R.N. (2008) Is growing ethical food demand driving a genuine 'greener' supply? Aspects of Applied Biology, 86, 13-20.

22

DEFRA (2007) Fisheries 2027 – a long-term vision for sustainable fisheries. DEFRA Publications: London.

Desrochers, P. and Shimizu, H. (2008) Yes, We Have No Bananas: a Critique of the ‘Food Miles’ Perspective. Mercatus Policy Series Policy Primer No.8. Mercatus Center, George Mason University.

FAO (2011) Background document to E-Forum on Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA), see http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/docs/Background_Document_01.pdf , last accessed 22 March, 2011.

Focardi, S., Corsi, I. and Franchi, E. (2005) Safety issues and sustainable development of European aquaculture: new tools for environmentally sound aquaculture. Aquaculture International , 13 (1-2), 3-17.

Follett, J.R. (2009) Choosing a Food Future: Differentiating Among Alternative Food Options, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22(1), 31-51.

Food Ethics Council (2010) Food Justice: The Report of the Food and Fairness Inquiry. Food Ethics Council, Brighton, UK.

Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming (2011) Final Report. The Government Office for Science, London.

Foster, C., Audsley, E., Williams, A., Webster, S., Dewick. P. and Green, K. (2007) The Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts Associated with Liquid Milk Consumption in the UK and its ProductionA Review of Literature and Evidence, Defra Project Code EVO 2067, DEFRA, London.

Frankic, A. and Hershner, C. (2003) Sustainable aquaculture: developing the promise of aquaculture, Aquaculture International, 11(6), 517-530.

Garrett, E.S., Dos Santos, C.L. and Jahncke, M.L. (1997) Public, animal, and environmental health implications of aquaculture, Emerging Infectious Diseases, 3 (4), 453-457.

Grigorakis, K. (2010) Ethical Issues in Aquaculture Production, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23 (4), 345-370.

Halberg, N., Alroe, H F., Knudsen, M.T. and Kristensen, E. S. (eds.) (2006) Global development of organic agriculture: challenges and prospects. CABI.

Hani, F., Stampfli, A. and Keller, T. (2003) RISE: a tool for a holistic sustainability assessment at the farm level, Revue Suisse d'Agriculture, 35 (1), 41-47.

Haughton, A.J., Bond, A.J., Lovett, A.A., Dockerty, T., Sünnenberg, G., Clark, S.J., Bohan, D.A., Sage, R.B., Mallott, M.D., Mallott, V.E., Cunningham, M.D., Riche, A.B. , Shield, I.F., Finch, J.W., Turner, M.M. and Karp, A. (2009) A novel, integrated approach to assessing social, economic and environmental implications of changing rural land-use: a case study of perennial biomass crops, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(2), 315-322.

23

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/docs/Background_Document_01.pdf

Huby, M., Cinderby, S., Crowe, A.M., Gillings, S., McClean, C.J., Moran, D., Owen, A., and White, P.C.L. (2006) The Association of Natural, Social and Economic Factors with Bird Species Richness in Rural England, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(2), 295–312.

Hutchins, M.J. and Sutherland, J.W. (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1688-1698.

Ilbery, B. and Maye, D. (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders, Land Use Policy, 22(4), 331-344.

Ilea, R.C. (2009) Intensive Livestock Farming: Global Trends, Increased Environmental Concerns, and Ethical Solutions, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22(2), 153-167.

Jarosz, L. (2008) The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas, Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 231-244.

Keeling, L.J. (2005) Healthy and happy: Animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable agriculture, Ambio, 34(4-5), 316-319.

Maloni, M.J. and Brown, M.E. (2006) Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: an application in the food industry, Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 35-52.

Manning, L., Baines, R.N. and Chadd S.A. (2006) Ethical modelling of the food supply chain, British Food Journal, 108(5), 358-370.

Marie, M. (2006) Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture, Livestock Science, 103(3), 203-207.

Marsden, T., Banks, J. and Bristow, G. (2000) Food supply chain approaches: Exploring their role in rural development, Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 424-.

Matthews, R. and Selman, P. (2006) Landscape as a Focus for Integrating Human and Environmental Processes, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57 (2), 199–212.

Maxey, L. (2006) Can we sustain sustainable agriculture? Learning from small-scale producer-suppliers in Canada and the UK, Geographical Journal, 172(3), 230-244.

McKinnon, R.A., Reedy, J., Morrissette, M.A., Lytle, L.A., Yaroch, A.L. (2009) Measures of the Food Environment A Compilation of the Literature, 1990-2007, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4), S124-S133.

Millar, K. and Tomkins, S. (2007) Ethical analysis of the use of GM fish: Emerging issues for aquaculture development, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(5), 437-453.

Muir, J. (2005) Managing to harvest? Perspectives on the potential of aquaculture, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 360 (1453), 191-218.

Olesen, I., Groen, A.F. and Gjerde, B. (2000) Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems, Journal of Animal Science, 78(3), 570-582.

24

Oglethorpe, D. and Heron, G. (2010) Sensible operational choices for the climate change agenda, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 21 (3), 538-557.

Phillips, C. J. C. (2009) The future role and practice of cattle farming. Principles of cattle production. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Phillips, M., Page, S., Saratsi, E., Tansey, K. and Moore, K. (2008) Diversity, scale and green landscapes in the gentrification process: Traversing ecological and social science perspectives, Applied Geography, 28(1), 54-76.

Phillipson, J. and Lowe, P. (eds)(2008) Towards Sustainable Food Chains: Harnessing the Social and Natural Sciences. Special Issue of Trends in Food Science and Technology. Volume 19, Issue 5.

Pluhar, E.B. (2010) Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(5), 455-468.

Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T. and Morison, J.I.L. (2005) Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket, Food Policy, 30(1), 1-19.

Renard, M.C. (2003) Fair trade: quality, market and conventions, Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 87-96.

Renting, H., Marsden, T.K. and Banks, J. (2003) Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development, Environment and Planning A, 35(3), 393-411.

Selman, P. and Knight, M. (2006) On the nature of virtuous change in cultural landscapes: Exploring sustainability through qualitative models, Landscape Research, 31 (3), 295 – 307.

Spence, L. and Bourlakis, M. (2009) The evolution from corporate social responsibility to supply chain responsibility: the case of Waitrose, Supply Chain Management- An International Journal, 14(4), 291-302.

Sperling, D. (2010) Food Law, Ethics, and Food Safety Regulation: Roles, Justifications, and Expected Limits, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(3), 267-278.

Swanson, J.C. (2008) The ethical aspects of regulating production, Poultry Science, 87(2), 373-379.

Szuecs, E., Geers, R. and Sossidou, E.N. (2009) Stewardship, Stockmanship and Sustainability in Animal Agriculture, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 22(9), 1334-1340.

Thompson, P.B. (2010) Animal Ethics and Public Expectations: The North American Outlook, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37(1), 13-21.

Thornton, P. K. and Herrero, M. (2010) The inter-linkages between rapid growth in livestock production, climate change, and the impacts on water resources, land use, and deforestation, Policy Research Working Paper - World Bank, 5178, 1-82.

United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987.

25

United Nations Environment Program (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products.

Winter, D. & M. Lobely (2009). What is Land for? The Food, Fuel and Climate Change Debate. Earthscan.

Young, E.M. (2010) Deadly diets: geographical reflections on the global food system, Geography, 95 (2), 60-69.

26

Appendix B.1

Evidence of societal impacts of food production and consumption

27

Food chain stage

Dimension

Health and welfare dimension – food safety/ nutrition

Ethical dimension – inequity and animal health and welfare

Working conditions dimension – worker health and employment conditions


Breeding / biotechnology

Evidence suggests that there are no negative impacts on human health of using biotechnology in breeding. However, biotechnology and aspects like cloning are shown through surveys and other research in Europe (and more widely) to arouse fears for human health in many consumers (i.e. there are significant perceived risks associated with the technology). UK consumers more concerned than others e.g. from US. However, there is socio-demographic and economic variability in the extent of perceived risks (and even perceived health benefits).

Various studies suggest there is a willingness to pay premium for non-biotechnology products, but this varies depending upon consumers' beliefs (e.g. views about science and nature). There are a small number of studies looking at consumers' views

Selective breeding can cause problems for animal welfare (behavioural, physiological and immunological), though breeding for criteria beyond production can improve animal welfare (as can genetic engineering). However, a significant proportion of (UK) consumers have ethical concerns about animal cloning and genetic modification (particularly putting animal genes into plants) – with the technology seeming to conflict with various individual and social values (being ‘unnatural’, ‘interfering with nature’ and so on). People also believe these approaches negatively impact on animal welfare (e.g. as revealed in European surveys), though there is little information on consumer views regarding conventional breeding practices.

However, there is variability across countries, socio-demographic /

Adoption of GM crops (cotton/SA) has achieved various benefits, including saved labour and higher gross margins (potential to enhance poor farmers’ livelihoods), plus gains to the wider economy (e.g. cotton/India).

[C1 Refs]

There is some evidence that adoption of GM crops (cotton/SA) has achieved various social/cultural benefits, including saved labour and higher gross margins (i.e. with potential to enhance poor farmers’ livelihoods), plus gains to the wider economy (e.g. cotton/India). Biotechnology products are not at produced in the UK at present, so no evidence from here. There is also little evidence about benefits of biotechnology use in animals or plants related to specific food types or groups.

[D1 Refs]

28

Food chain stage

Dimension





towards specific products produced by genetic modification (e.g. apples, cereals).[A1 Refs]

economic characteristics, and attitudes, while perceptions also depend upon factors like degree of knowledge. Recorded ethical views are generic - there is no evidence of ethical distinctions between breeding related to specific food types or groups - other than consumers being less accepting of manipulations related to animals rather than plants/ crops.

[B1 Refs]

Agronomy / fishing /

aquaculture

There are various health risks related to production in aquaculture. Further, farmed fish (e.g. salmon) can have higher natural and manmade toxic substances that increase health risk, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Some evidence that organic milk contains more beneficial omera-3 essential fatty acids than

Consumers value ethical attributes of produced foods, including fair prices to farmers, regional production, and organic foods. However, there are limitations in knowledge about organic food processes, and some scepticism about labelling (e.g. of food as organic). Evidence from various countries (including UK) suggest ethical views translate into a willingness to pay more for food

Fishing and agriculture in UK seen sharp growth in employment as a result of accession worker migration, although the increase is NOT associated with increasing the number of unemployed natives.

Levels of family labour (not fully remunerated) and unpaid labour is relatively high on dairy farms.

There is greater biodiversity, landscape diversity and soil fertility in organic plots (UK and Europe data). There are also indications that organic farming is generally related to greater diversity of birds and insects (UK included). These factors are, arguably, viewed as positives for society as a whole.

Impacts of landscapes on social aspects is not well-determined.

29

Food chain stage

Dimension





conventional milk, although it has been contested as to whether the type of EFAs identified have a health benefit. Indeed, organic food perceived to be healthier than conventionally produced food, motivating purchase (e.g. higher willingness to pay for health reasons for reduced pesticide/organic products in UK – at least for some). Generally, there are significant concerns about pesticide use and risks to human health. Similarly, non-farmed fish is perceived to be better quality than farmed fish (e.g. Belgium study).

However, the preference story is complex – some evidence for segments preferring GM oilseed fed salmon to those fed conventional fishmeal. Also, other factors (price, appearance, taste) generally seem more important to consumers than perceptions of healthiness.

with an ethical property (e.g. organic/ reduced pesticides, or locally produced), though there are differences between men and women and people with certain attitudes and from different countries in terms of desire for organic, ‘environmentally friendly’ foods, and foods that are ethical with regards animal welfare (e.g. poultry). Research on views is often at the generic level, but there are specific studies that have considered specific food types or groups (e.g. research suggesting resistance to eating wild fish because of sustainability/ethical concerns). However, 'willingness to pay' does not necessarily translate into actual purchase behaviour.

It is claimed that people of colour disproportionately experience food insecurity, lose their farms and face the dangerous work of food processing and agricultural labour

Type of agricultural system has effects on health of farm workers (e.g. association of increased prostate cancer risk from pesticides). There are also various health risks related to production in aquaculture, including some hazards for fish farm workers. Some slight evidence that (migrant) organic farm workers are ‘happier’ than conventional workers, though farm workers in total are less healthy than the norm.

Some evidence that globalised supply chains can provide social benefits to (farm) workers, while local food systems do not always provide desirable social outcomes. However, Organic farms employ more people than conventional farms (UK). However, organic farms and farmers are heterogenous in nature and philosophy, and their

Organic farms employ more people than conventional farms - hence potentially beneficial for employment (UK). However, organic farms and farmers are heterogenous in nature and philosophy, and their practice and impacts depend as much on the personalities and beliefs of individual farmers as on their ‘organic’ nature per se.

Some evidence that fair trade (coffee) participation positively affects income, health and educational attainment and the likelihood that a child is currently studying in poor Southern Hemisphere countries (i.e. positives for communities).

[D2 Refs]

30

Food chain stage

Dimension





[A2 Refs] (an equity issue, which is also related to working conditions too).

Regarding animals in particular, research shows these do have positive as well as negative experiences, and their treatment affects this (e.g. confinement or separation at weaning). This includes fish too. Differences in health between conventional and organic production systems is found in some cases (e.g. pigs) but not all (e.g. dairy cows). Further, surveys in various countries (e.g. US and Europe) reveal concerns of public about animal welfare in general, particularly animals farmed in non-natural ways (pigs, fish etc.), suggesting that increased meat production leading to more confinement may be problematic. This is also pertinent for dairy cattle (hence dairy products). Consumer research in UK and elsewhere suggests willingness-to-

practice and impacts depend as much on the personalities and beliefs of individual farmers as on their ‘organic’ nature per se. In short, the social benefits to farmworkers of organic systems is uncertain and variable.

Benefits to rural poor in developing countries (implicitly, farm workers and families) is linked to improved production through various farming practices (e.g. better land/water use).

[C2 Refs]

31

Food chain stage

Dimension





pay differences for food impacted by moral issues (fed hormones or genetically modified ingredients, free-range, etc.), though important differences between people/segments (e.g. studies show consumers willing-to-pay more for higher welfare poultry products). There is also some research into farmers’ views towards animal welfare, e.g. pig farmer’s attitudes and motivations to be involved in farm assurance schemes. As previously, willingness-to-pay may not be accurate indicator of true behaviour (other factors, like price, impact decisions more).

[B2 Refs]

Post-harvest storage and

transport

Transportation costs for food have been mainly calculated in terms of environmental costs as opposed to social costs. However, transportation noise and pollutants

Little work on storage processes (save High Pressure freezing -viewed neutrally, though consumer knowledge is low). Regarding transport, the food miles concept is

No evidence regarding this matrix cell.


32

Food chain stage

Dimension





– whether from road transport, rail, or aircraft – has a positive relation to human health, particularly increased risk of hypertension/ myocardial infarction/ coronary heart disease/ perinatal mortality in humans. Unclear the changes in transportation modes required for different food types (no evidence), but this will impact transportation types and incidences, hence health.

There is some more specific evidence on transportation outputs (e.g. pollution) for certain products, and indications for how different methods might increase or decrease transport (hence pollution, congestion, etc.) (e.g. for milk).

[A3 Refs]

used to suggest local food is more sustainable, though actual transportation is often less of an environmental problem than, e.g., processing in respective countries, while leading to inequity in terms of disadvantaging poor farmers in the third world. It has been argued that food miles are a poor indicator of sustainability (especially from an ethical perspective).

Regarding animals, evidence indicates high stress and consequent welfare issues related to transportation (animals of various types and countries around the world). Survey evidence suggests consumer concern for animal welfare from transportation (e.g. pigs/US). Some evidence from willingness-to-pay studies that consumers prepared to pay more to improve animal welfare (e.g. in preferring mobile abattoirs for pigs but not broilers to transportation

33

Food chain stage

Dimension





to slaughter – Sweden).

[B3 Refs]

Processing

There are some hazards to human health associated with processing in aquaculture.

There are other perceived hazards associated with certain novel technologies by consumers, though this varies – for example, High Pressure Processing is perceived more positively, irradiation more negatively (though evidence also of considerable acceptance of irradiated meat and poultry, e.g. in US). Some research suggests consumer concerns for employees or those living near certain production facilities.

[A4 Refs]

Some evidence that certain processing methods (High Pressure Processing and Pulsed Electric Field technology) are perceived fairly positively for being relatively environmentally friendly. Perceptions of these technologies (about which consumers know little) have been assessed using specific food types as examples (e.g. orange juice).

[B4 Refs]

There are some hazards to human health associated with processing in aquaculture.

There is some data on UK employment in food manufacturing, which seems to be dropping (but with increasing productivity). Large proportion are part-timers.

[C4 Refs]


Distribution and retail

Access to supermarkets is often taken as surrogate to access to

Social inequality in access to food is indicated by further distance often

There is some data on employment trends in food and

Farmers’ markets – selling local produce – can foster a feeling of

34

Food chain stage

Dimension





fruit and vegetables (studies show more fruit and veg in larger stores), and hence, to improved health. Indeed, availability of fruit and vegetables increases with size of shop (UK), while price reduces (US), and availability is lower in small shops in deprived areas and may be more expensive (e.g. Ireland). Increase in vegetable availability in shops in general is associated with increased intake (US).Healthy food stores also greater accessibility to wealthier neighbourhoods. (Australia) Increasing variety of fruit and salad and reducing price shown to increase consumption in cafeterias. (Canada).

Indeed, some studies suggest better diet, lower obesity, lower overweight (BMI) are associated with good access to supermarkets (and reverse for access to ‘convenience stores’) (e.g. US

needed to travel for those in poorer neighbourhoods to access main food retailers (US, Canada, Australia), by reduced availability of fruit and vegetables in shops in poorer neighbourhoods, and by increased expense here because of lack of ‘own brand’ foods (UK, Ireland). That is, supermarkets (hence food variety/choice) increase in prevalence in wealthier areas, and are more difficult to reach from poorer ‘food desserts’, or for those needing to walk/without a car (though some ambiguity here, e.g. rural communities may be further from a supermarket, but not necessarily ‘deprived’) (data mostly from US, Canada). Impoverished food environments are also associated with racial and ethnic minorities (with associations with increased obesity – US). (Caveat: some studies also found no effect of fruit and veg consumption and

drink retailing.

[C5 Refs]

‘community’.

Local selling of farm products improves on-farm biodiversity in rural areas.

The relative advantages (in terms of carbon emissions) of purchasing from a local shop as opposed to mass distribution (e.g. of vegetables) depends upon distance travelled and is therefore not certain.

Corporate Social Responsibility in food companies have bearing on various social factors (consumer and worker and environmental wellbeing).

[D5 Refs]

35

Food chain stage

Dimension





studies). Studies generally suggests there is better supermarket access for consumers in better neighbourhoods (but not all studies, including one in UK), and conversely, some evidence for increased fast food outlets in less wealthy areas (Canada), and in poor/ethnic minority areas (US) (with implications for healthy eating, such as increased obesity). Some evidence of improved psychological health and improved diet for those engaging with new large scale retail interventions (UK).

Consumers perceive steak bought from a butcher is guarantor of high quality.

However, there are differences in shopping preferences across countries – more ‘unhealthy’ snack foods in UK retail sources than other countries (e.g. France) - so beware cross-country comparisons.

deprivation - UK.)

Some evidence for increased fast food outlets in less wealthy areas (Canada), and in poor/ethnic minority areas (US) - with implications for type of foods being consumed, and hence for healthy eating.

Furthermore, community food programs have been accused of being somewhat ‘racist’ or elitist – with inherent white bias and costs paid by non-whites. Farmers markets have white cultural dominance, but also potential for anti-racism (e.g. U.S.). Further, the extent to which farmers’ markets are able to achieve their social justice goals is uncertain.

[B5 Refs]

36

Food chain stage

Dimension





[A5 Refs]

Consumption There is evidence of the nature of UK food consumption from national dietary surveys, and hence of changes over time. Research elsewhere shows that with increased development comes more significant changes to diet – particularly increased meat consumption (with commensurate changes in susceptibility to dietary risks) (e.g. in China).

There is growing evidence to support the nature of a healthy diet (eating more green vegetables, etc.). Much has been written about effects of eating too much (red) meat, with health impacts in terms of obesity, cancer, heart disease. In line with this, there are common consumer perceptions of some meats as healthier than others. However, health benefits are also

Consumers are interested in ethical issues and labelling to some degree (prefer labels) – and there is a large increase in the purchase of ‘ethical foods’ in the UK. However, consumers' buying behaviour is not consistent with their positive attitude toward ethical products (e.g. Fair Trade, and also local products) as determined by willingness-to-pay studies, i.e. people express higher willingness to pay than evinced in behaviour. Also, some evidence of increased willingness to pay for products that are related to good animal welfare.

A healthy diet is arguably more expensive than an unhealthy one, with implications for social equity in access/consumption. Income (e.g. living in lower income neighbourhoods) related to


Decreased meat consumption can increase land available for aspects like new national parks (implications for leisure).

Local products (e.g. poultry, pork) are preferred – in whatever country studied (inc. UK). Implications are here for local employment and landscape. Note though that there are cultural differences in food choices e.g. UK different patterns to France.

[D6 Refs]

37

Food chain stage

Dimension





shown for most foods, so risks come from under-consumption too (e.g. fish and red meat positive effects). There are also non-nutritional risks related to consumption of various food products, e.g. of underprepared fish.

However, consumers generally perceive that their diets are healthy enough and don’t really need change (e.g. major pan-European survey, UK) – implying a motivation problem. Taste and cost seem the most significant reasons for food consumptions choices, and price reductions (e.g. low fat snacks in vending machines) can dramatically increase sales. However, a healthy diet is more expensive than a non-healthy one – in terms of fruit and vegetables, and other foods (whole grains, lean beef, low-fat cheeses) (UK, US). As well as income, other socio-

decreased energy adjusted intake of fruits, vegetables, fish, and increased intake of meat, and to poorer health (e.g. US data). Socio-economic measures (low education, low income) show lower purchase of fruit and vegetables (e.g. Australia).

Physical food accessibility does not appear to be a problem across the general UK population (even for low income people).[B6 Refs]

38

Food chain stage

Dimension





demographic and economic aspects (e.g. low education) seem linked to consumption of fewer fruit and vegetables (etc. e.g. Australia). Quality assurance labels (implying better quality/ healthiness of product) have shown increased willingness-to-pay in studies, though some cynicism about validity of labels, while willingness-to-pay may not accurately translate to behaviour.[A6 Refs]

39

Appendix B.2

References associated with Appendix B.1 on Social Sustainability Evidence

A1 Anderson, J.C., Wachenheim, C.J. and Lesch, W.C. (2006) Perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods and processes, AgBioForum, 9 (3), 180-194.

Baker, G.A. and Burnham, T.A. (2001) Consumer response to genetically modified foods: market segment analysis and implications for producers and policy makers, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26 (2), 387-403.

Bredahl, L. (1999) Consumers' cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries, Appetite, 33 (3), 343-360.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1997) Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - The influence of consumer benefit, Food Quality and Preference, 8 (4), 271-280.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics, Science Technology and Human Values, 22 (1), 98-124.

Grunert, K.G., Lahteenmaki, L., Nielsen, N.A., Poulsen, J.B., Ueland, O. and Astrom A. (2001) Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification - results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries, Food Quality and Preference, 12 (8), 527-542.

Han, J.H. and Harrison, R.W. (2007) Factors influencing urban consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods, Review of Agricultural Economic, 29 (4), 700-719.

Lassen, J., Gjerris, M. and Sandoe, P. (2006) After Dolly - Ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals, Theriogenology,

40

65 (5), 992-1004.

Martinez-Poveda, A., Molla-Bauza, M.B., Gomis, F.J.D. and Martinez, L.M.C. (2009) Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain, Food Policy, 34 (6), 519-528.

McCarthy, M. and Vilie, S. (2002) Irish consumer acceptance of the use of gene technology in food production. In Trienekens, J.H. and Omta, S.W.F. (eds.) Paradoxes in food chains and networks, 176-187.

Mireaux, M., Cox, D.N., Cotton, A. and Evans G. (2007) An adaptation of repertory grid methodology to evaluate Australian consumers' perceptions of food products produced by novel technologies, Food Quality and Preference, 18 (6), 834-848.

Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2004) Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: The mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage, Review of Agricultural Economic, 26 (2), 186-208.

O'Connor, E., Cowan, C., Williams, G., O'Connell, J. and Boland, M.P. (2006) Irish consumer acceptance of a hypothetical second-generation GM yogurt product, Food Quality and Preference, 17 (5), 400-411.

Saba, A. and Vassallo M. (2002) Consumer attitudes toward the use of gene technology in tomato production, Food Quality and Preference, 13 (1), 13-21.

Townsend, E. and Campbell, S. (2004) Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food, Risk Analysis, 24 (5), 1385-1393.

A2 Chalak, A., Balcombe, K., Bailey, A. and Fraser, I. (2008) Pesticides, preference heterogeneity and environmental taxes, Journal of Agricultural Economic, 59 (3), 537-554.

Cole, D.W., Cole, R., Gaydos, S.J., Gray, J., Hyland, G., Jacques, M.L., Powell-Dunford, N., Sawhney, C. and Au, W.W. (2009) Aquaculture: Environmental, toxicological, and health issues, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 212 (4), 369-377.

Cox, D.N., Evans, G. and Lease, H.J. (2008) Australian consumers' preferences for conventional and novel sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids: A conjoint study, Food Quality and Preference, 19 (3), 306-314.

41

Dunlap, R.E. and Beus, C.E. (1992) Understanding public concerns about pesticides - an empirical-examination, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26 (2), 418-438.

Easton, M.D.L., Luszniak, D. and Von der Geest, E. (2002) Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed, Chemosphere, 46 (7), 1053-1074.

Ellis, K.A., Innocent, G., Grove-White, D., Cripps, P., Mclean, W.G., Howard, C.V. and Mihm, M. (2006) Comparing the Fatty Acid Composition of Organic and Conventional Milk, Journal of Dairy Science, 89(6), 1938-1950.

Food Standards Agency (2006): http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/sep/organicmilkresponse

Foran, J.A., Carpenter, D.O., Hamilton, M.C., Knuth, B.A. and Schwager, S.J. (2005) Risk-based consumption advice for farmed Atlantic and wild Pacific salmon contaminated with dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (5), 552-556.

Hastein, T., Hjeltnes, B., Lillehaug, A., Skare, J.U., Berntssen, M. and Lundebye, A.K. (2006) Food safety hazards that occur during the production stage: challenges for fish farming and the fishing industry, Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 25 (2), 607-625.

Hites, R.A., Foran, J.A., Carpenter, D.O., Hamilton, M.C., Knuth, B.A. and Schwager, S.J. (2004) Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon, Science, 303 (5655), 226-229.

Hites, R.A., Foran, J.A., Schwager, S.J., Knuth, B.A., Hamilton, M.C. and Carpenter, D.O. (2004) Global assessment of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in farmed and wild salmon, Environmental Science and Technology, 38 (19), 4945-4949.

Jensen, G.L. and Greenlees, K.J. (1997) Public health issues in aquaculture, Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 16 (2), 641-651.

Jones, O.A.H., Voulvoulis, N. and Lester, J.N. (2004) Potential ecological and human health risks associated with the presence of pharmaceutically active compounds in the aquatic environment, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 34 (4), 335-350.

Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G. and Mummery K. (2002) Eating 'green': Motivations behind organic food consumption in

42

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/sep/organicmilkresponse

Australia, Sociologia Ruralis, 42 (1), 23-+.

Lotter, D.W. (2003) Organic agriculture, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 21 (4), 59-128.

Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.K.K., Aberg, L. and Sjoden, P.O. (2003) Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behavior, Appetite, 40 (2), 109-117.

Mceachern, M.G. and Schroder, M.J.A. (2002) The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15 (2), 221-237.

Michaelidou, N. and Hassan, L.M. (2010) Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers' purchase of organic and free-range produce: A case study of consumers' from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK, Food Policy, 35 (2), 130-139.

Padel, S. and Foster, C. (2005) Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour - Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food, British Food Journal, 107 (8), 606-625.

Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A.R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P. and Lawrence R. (2008) Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: Current knowledge and future priorities, Environment International, 34 (8), 1215-1226.

Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Ophuis, P.A.M.O. (1998) Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands, Food Quality and Preference, 9 (3), 119-133.

Shepherd, R., Magnusson, M. and Sjoden, P.O. (2005) Determinants of consumer behavior related to organic foods, Ambio, 34 (4-5), 352-359.

van der Lans, I.A., van Ittersum, K., De Cicco, A. and Loseby, M. (2001) The role of the region of origin and EU certificates of origin in consumer evaluation of food products, European Review of Agricultural Economic, 28 (4), 451-477.

Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Van Camp, J. and De Henauw, S. (2007) Perceived importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: A consumer behavior perspective, Ambio, 36 (7), 580-585.

Williams, P.R.D. and Hammitt, J.K. (2001) Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce: Pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins, Risk Analysis, 21 (2), 319-330.

43

Yiridoe, E.K., Bonti-Ankomah, S. and Martin, R.C. (2005) Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20 (4), 193-205.

A3 Babisch, W.F., Beule, B., Schust, M., Kersten, N. and Ising H. (2005) Traffic noise and risk of myocardial infarction, Epidemiology, 16 (1), 33-40.

Babisch, W., Ising, H., Gallacher, J.E.J., Sweetnam, P.M. and Elwood, P.C. (1999) Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: The caerphilly and speedwell studies, third phase-10-year follow up, Archives of Environmental Health, 54 (3), 210-216.

Babisch, W., Ising, H., Kruppa, B. and Wiens, D. (1994) The incidence of myocardial-infarction and its relation to road traffic noise - the berlin case-control studies, Environment International, 20 (4), 469-474.

Barregard, L., Bonde, E. and Ohrstrom, E. (2009) Risk of hypertension from exposure to road traffic noise in a population-based sample, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66 (6), 410-415.

Beelen, R., Hoek, G., Houthuijs. D., van den Brandt, P.A., Goldbohm, R.A., Fischer, P., Schouten, L.J., Armstrong, B. and Brunekreef, B. (2009) The joint association of air pollution and noise from road traffic with cardiovascular mortality in a cohort study, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66 (4), 243-250.

Bodin, T., Albin, M., Ardo, J., Stroh, E., Ostergren, P.O. and Bjork J. (2009) Road traffic noise and hypertension: results from a cross-sectional public health survey in southern Sweden, Environmental Health, 8, Article Number: 38.

Bluhm, G.L., Berglind, N., Nordling, E. and Rosenlund, M. (2007) Road traffic noise and hypertension, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64 (2), 122-126.

Davies, H.W., Vlaanderen, J.J., Henderson, S.B. and Brauer, M. (2009) Correlation between co-exposures to noise and air pollution from traffic sources, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66 (5), 347-350.

de Medeiros, A.P.P., Gouveia, N., Machado, R.P.P., de Souza, M.R., Alencar, G.P., Novaes, H.M.D. and de Almeida, M.F. (2009) Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Perinatal Mortality: A Case-Control Study, Environmental Health Perspectives, 117 (1), 127-132.

Eriksson, C., Rosenlund, M., Pershagen, G., Hilding, A., Ostenson, C.G. and Bluhm, G. (2007) Aircraft Noise and Incidence of

44

Hypertension, Epidemiology, 18 (6), 716-721.

Foster, C., Audsley, E., Williams, A., Webster, S., Dewick. P. and Green, K. (2007) The Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts Associated with Liquid Milk Consumption in the UK and its Production: A Review of Literature and Evidence, Defra Project Code EVO 2067, Defra, London.

Fyhri, A. and Aasvang, G.M. (2010) Noise, sleep and poor health: Modeling the relationship between road traffic noise and cardiovascular problems, Science of the Total Environment, 408 (21), 4935-4942.

Gan, W.Q., Tamburic, L., Davies, H.W., Demers, P.A., Koehoorn, M. and Brauer, M. (2010) Changes in residential proximity to road traffic and the risk of death from coronary heart disease, Epidemiology, 21 (5), 642-649.

Graham, J.M.A., Janssen, S.A., Vos, H. and Miedema, H.M.E. (2009) Habitual traffic noise at home reduces cardiac parasympathetic tone during sleep, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 72 (2), 179-186.

Hoffmann, B., Moebus, S., Stang, A., Beck, E.M., Dragano, N., Mohlenkamp, S., Schmermund, A., Memmesheimer, M., Mann, K., Erbel, R. and Jockel, K.H. (2006) Residence close to high traffic and prevalence of coronary heart disease, European Heart Journal, 27 (22), 2696-2702.

Huss, A., Spoerri, A., Egger, M. and Roosli, M. (2010) Aircraft Noise, Air Pollution, and Mortality from Myocardial Infarction, Epidemiology, 21 (6), 829-836.

Kunzli, N., Jerrett, M., Garcia-Esteban, R., Basagana, X., Beckermann, B., Gilliland, F., Medina, M., Peters, J., Hodi, H.N., Mack, W.J. (2010) Ambient Air Pollution and the Progression of Atherosclerosis in Adults, PLOS ONE, 5 (2), Article Number: e9096.

Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T. and Morison, J.I.L. (2005) Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket, Food Policy, 30(1), 1-19.

Selander, J., Bluhm, G., Theorell, T., Pershagen, G., Babisch, W., Seiffert, I., Houthuijs, D., Breugelmans, O., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Antoniotti, M.C., Velonakis, E., Davou, E., Dudley, M.L. and Jarup, L. (2009) Saliva Cortisol and Exposure to Aircraft Noise in Six European Countries, Environmental Health Perspectives, 117 (11), 1713-1717.

Selander, J., Nilsson, M.E., Bluhm, G., Rosenlund, M., Lindqvist, M., Nise, G. and Pershagen, G. (2009) Long-Term Exposure to Road

45

Traffic Noise and Myocardial Infarction, Epidemiology, 20 (2), 272-279.

Smith, A., Watkiss, P., Tweedle, G. (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development (DEFRA: ED50254 Issue 7, July 2005). See: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp.

Tonne, C., Melly, S., Mittleman, M., Coull, B., Goldberg, R. and Schwartz, J. (2007) A case-control analysis of exposure to traffic and acute myocardial infarction, Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 (1), 53-57.

A4 Bruhn, C.M. (1995) Consumer attitudes and market response to irradiated food, Journal of Food Protection, 58 (2), 175-181.

Cardello, A.V. (2003) Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking, Appetite, 40 (3), 217-233.

Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Abadio, F.B.D., Silva, C.H.O. and Castillo, C. (2005) Application of high pressure technology in the fruit juice processing: benefits perceived by consumers, Journal of Food Engineering, 67 (1-2), 241-246.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1997) Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - The influence of consumer benefit, Food Quality and Preference, 8 (4), 271-280.

Henson, S., Annou, M., Cranfield, J. and Ryks, J. (2008) Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada, Risk Analysis, 28 (6), 1601-1617.

Lahteenmaki, L., Grunert, K., Ueland, O., Astrom, A., Arvola, A. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2002) Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as real product alternative, Food Quality and Preference, 13 (7-8), 523-533.

Mireaux, M., Cox, D.N., Cotton, A. and Evans, G. (2007) An adaptation of repertory grid methodology to evaluate Australian consumers' perceptions of food products produced by novel technologies, Food Quality and Preference, 18 (6), 834-848.

Nielsen, H.B., Sonne, A.M., Grunert, K.G., Banati, D., Pollak-Toth, A., Lakner, Z., Olsen, N.V., Zontar, T.P. and Peterman, M. (2009) Consumer perception of the use of high-pressure processing and pulsed electric field technologies in food production, Appetite, 52 (1), 115-126.

A5 Block, J.P., Scribner, R.A. and DeSalvo, K.B. (2004) Fast food, race/ethnicity, and income - A geographic analysis, American Journal

46

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp

of Preventive Medicine, 27 (3), 211-217.

Burns, C.M. and Inglis, A.D. (2007) Measuring food access in Melbourne: Access to healthy and fast foods by car, bus and foot in an urban municipality in Melbourne, Health and Place, 13 (4), 877-885.

Cummins, S. and Macintyre, S. (2002) A systematic study of an urban foodscape: The price and availability of food in Greater Glasgow, Urban Studies, 39 (11), 2115-2130.

Cummins, S., Petticrew, M., Higgins, C., Findlay, A. and Sparks L. (2005) Large scale food retailing as an intervention for diet and health: quasi-experimental evaluation of a natural experiment, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59 (12), 1035-1040.

Cummins, S., Smith, D.M., Aitken, Z., Dawson, J., Marshall, D., Sparks, L. and Anderson, A.S. (2010) Neighbourhood deprivation and the price and availability of fruit and vegetables in Scotland, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 23 (5), 494-501.

Ford, P.B. and Dzewaltowski, D.A. (2008) Disparities in obesity prevalence due to variation in the retail food environment: three testable hypotheses, Nutrition Reviews, 66 (4), 216-228.

Friel, S., Walsh, O. and McCarthy, D. (2006) The irony of a rich country: issues of financial access to and availability of healthy food in the Republic of Ireland, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60 (12), 1013-1019.

Liese, A.D., Weis, K.E., Pluto, D., Smith, E. and Lawson, A. (2007) Food store types, availability, and cost of foods in a rural environment, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107 (11), 1916-1923.

Moore, L.V., Roux, A.V.D., Nettleton, J.A. and Jacobs D.R. (2008) Associations of the local food environment with diet quality - A comparison of assessments based on surveys and geographic information systems, American Journal of Epidemiology, 167 (8), 917-924.

Pettinger, C., Holdsworth M., and Gerber, M. (2008) 'All under one roof?' differences in food availability and shopping patterns in Southern France and Central England, European Journal of Public Health, 18 (2), 109-114.

Powell, L.M., Auld, M.C., Chaloupka, F.J., O'Malley, P.M. and Johnston, L.D. (2007) Associations between access to food stores and

47

adolescent body mass index, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33 (4), S301-S307.

Sharkey, J.R., Horel, S. and Dean, W.R. (2010) Neighborhood deprivation, vehicle ownership, and potential spatial access to a variety of fruits and vegetables in a large rural area in Texas, International Journal of Health Geographics, 9 Article Number: 26.

Smoyer-Tomic, K.E., Spence, J.C., Raine, K.D., Amrhein, C., Cameron, N., Yasenovskiy, V., Cutumisu, N., Hemphill, E. and Healy, J. (2008) The association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and exposure to supermarkets and fast food outlets, Health and Place, 14 (4), 740-754.

Wrigley, N., Warm, D. and Margetts B. (2003) Deprivation, diet, and food-retail access: findings from the Leeds 'food deserts' study, Environment and Planning A, 35 (1), 151-188.

Wrigley, N., Warm, D., Margetts B. and Whelan, A. (2002) Assessing the impact of improved retail access on diet in a 'food desert': A preliminary report, Urban Studies, 39 (11), 2061-2082.

A6 Barnard, N., Nicholson, A. and Howard, J. (1995) The Medical Costs Attributable to Meat, Consumption and Preventative Medicine, 24 (6), 656-657.

Barratt, J. (1997) The cost and availability of healthy food choices in southern Derbyshire, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 10 (1), 63-69.

Calle, E.E. et al. (2003) Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults, The New England Journal of Medicine, 348 (17), 1625–1638.

Defra (2010) Food Statistics Pocketbook 2010. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Dibsdall, L.A., Lambert, N., Bobbin, R.F. and Frewer, L.J. (2003) Low-income consumers' attitudes and behaviour towards access, availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables, Public Health Nutrition, 6 (2), 159-168.

Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T.M., Nielsen, N.A., Bredahl, L., Sjoden, P.O., Magnusson, M., Campo, M.M. and Nute, G.R. (2005) Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science, 69 (1), 61-70.

48

Enneking, U. (2004) Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label, European Review of Agricultural Economic, 31 (2), 205-223.

French, S.A., Jeffery, R.W., Story, M., Breitlow, K.K., Baxter, J.S., Hannan, P. and Snyder, M.P. (2001) Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: The CHIPS study, American Journal of Public Health, 91 (1), 112-117.

Fung, T. T. et al. (2004) Prospective Study of Major Dietary Patterns and Stroke Risk in Women, Stroke, 35, 2014-2019.

Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J. and Snyder, D. (1998) Why Americans eat what they do: Taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98 (10), 1118-1126.

Gordon-Larsen, P. and Popkin, B M. (2004) The nutrition transition: worldwide obesity dynamics and their determinants, International Journal of Obesity, 28, S2–S9.


Jetter, K.M. and Cassady, D.L. (2006) The availability and cost of healthier food alternatives, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30 (1), 38-44.

Jones, O.A.H., Voulvoulis, N. and Lester J.N. (2004) Potential ecological and human health risks associated with the presence of pharmaceutically active compounds in the aquatic environment, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 34 (4), 335-350.

Kris-Etherton, P.M., Harris, W.S. and Appel, L.J. (2002) Fish consumption, fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids, and cardiovascular disease, Circulation, 106 (21), 2747-2757.

Lappalainen, R., Kearney, J. and Gibney, M. (1998) A pan EU survey of consumer attitudes to food, nutrition and health: An overview, Food Quality and Preference, 9 (6), 467-478.

Linseisen, J. et al. (2002) Meat consumption in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohorts, Public Health and Nutrition, 5 (6B), 1243-1258.

49

Living Costs and Food Survey (LCFS) (2008) Defra/ONS.

National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2009) Food Standards Agency: London. See: http://www.food.gov.uk/science/dietarysurveys/ndnsdocuments/

Palli, D. et al. (2001) Red meat, family history, and increased risk of gastric cancer with microsatellite instability, Cancer Research, 61, 5415–5419.

Russell, C.G. and Cox D.N. (2004) Understanding middle-aged consumers' perceptions of meat using repertory grid methodology, Food Quality and Preference, 15 (4), 317-329.

Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A.R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P. and Lawrence R. (2008) Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: Current knowledge and future priorities, Environment International, 34 (8), 1215-1226.


Sinha, R. et al. (2009) Meat intake and mortality - A prospective study of over half a million people, Archive of International Medicine, 169 (6), 562-571.

Spencer, E.A., Appleby, P.N., Davey, G.K. and Key, T.J. (2003) Diet and body mass index in 38,000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans, International Journal of Obesity, 27, 728-734.

UK Sustainable Development Commission (2009) Setting the table: Advice to Government on priority elements of sustainable diets. London: UK Sustainable Development Commission.

Thorogood, M., Mann, J., Appleby, P. and McPherson, K. (1994) Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters, British Medical Journal, 308, 1667-1670.

Tsang, A., Ndung'u, M.W., Coveney, J. and O'Dwyer, L. (2007) Adelaide healthy food basket: A survey on food cost, availability and affordability in five local government areas in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia, Nutrition and Dietetics, 64 (4), 241-247.

Turrell, G. (1998) Socioeconomic differences in food preference and their influence on healthy food purchasing choices, Journal of

50

http://www.food.gov.uk/science/dietarysurveys/ndnsdocuments/

Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 11 (2), 135-149.

Turrell, G., Hewitt, B., Patterson, C., Oldenburg, B. and Gould, T. (2002) Socioeconomic differences in food purchasing behaviour and suggested implications for diet-related health promotion, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 15 (5), 355-364.

van Dam, R. et al. (2002) Dietary fat and meat intake in relation to risk of type 2 diabetes in men, Diabetes Care, 25, 417–424.

Zheng, W. et al. (1998) Well-done meat intake and risk of breast cancer, Journal of National Cancer Institute, 90, 1724–1729.

B1 Anderson, J.C., Wachenheim, C.J. and Lesch, W.C. (2006) Perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods and processes, AgBioForum, 9 (3), 180-194.

Binns, S.H., Cox, I.J., Rizvi, S. and Green, L.E. (2002) Risk factors for lamb mortality on UK sheep farms, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 52 (3-4), 287-303.

Bredahl, L. (1999) Consumers' cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries, Appetite, 33 (3), 343-360.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd R. (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics, Science Technology and Human Values, 22 (1), 98-124.

Gamborg, C. and Sandoe, P. (2005) Sustainability in farm animal breeding: a review, Livestock Production Science, 92 (3), 221-231.

Han, J.H. and Harrison, R.W. (2007) Factors influencing urban consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods, Review of Agricultural Economics, 29 (4), 700-719.

Jones, R.B. and Hocking, P.M. (1999) Genetic selection for poultry behaviour: Big bad wolf or friend in need? Animal Welfare, 8 (4), 343-359.

Kaye-Blake, W., Bicknell, K. and Saunders, C. (2005) Process versus product: which determines consumer demand for genetically modified apples? Australian Journal of Agricultural And Resource Economics, 49 (4), 413-427.

Knight, A.J. (2009) Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process, Public Understanding of

51

Science, 18 (2), 177-188.

Lassen, J., Gjerris, M. and Sandoe, P. (2006) After Dolly - Ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals, Theriogenology, 65 (5), 992-1004.

Lawrence, A.B., Conington, J. and Simm, G. (2004) Breeding and animal welfare: practical and theoretical advantages of multi-trait selection, Animal Welfare, 13, S191-S196.

Lusk, J.L., Roosen, J. and Fox J.A. (2003) Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, American Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 85 (1), 16-29.

Maga, E.A. and Murray, J.D. (2010) Welfare applications of genetically engineered animals for use in agriculture, Journal of Animal Science, 88 (4), 1588-1591.

Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (2003) Willingness to pay for non-biotech foods in the US and UK, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37 (2), 317-339.

O'Connor, E., Cowan, C., Williams, G., O'Connell, J. and Boland, M.P. (2006) Irish consumer acceptance of a hypothetical second-generation GM yogurt product, Food Quality and Preference, 17 (5), 400-411.

Peters, H.P., Lang, J.T., Sawicka, M. and Hallman, W.K. (2007) Culture and technological innovation: Impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19 (2), 191-220.

Rauw, W.M., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N. and Grommers, F.J. (1998) Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review, Livestock Production Science, 56 (1), 15-33.

Sandoe, P., Nielsen, B.L., Christensen, L.G. and Sorensen P. (1999) Staying good while playing god - The ethics of breeding farm animals, Animal Welfare, 8 (4), 313-328.

B2 Batte, M.T., Hooker, N.H., Haab, T.C. and Beaverson, J. (2007) Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness

52

to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products, Food Policy, 32 (2), 145-159.

Bennett, R.M., Anderson, J. and Blaney, R.J.P. (2002) Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15 (2), 187-202.

Blokhuis, H.J., Jones, R.B., Geers, R., Miele, M. and Veissier, I. (2003) Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Transparency in the food product quality chain, Animal Welfare, 12 (4), 445-455.

Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M.B., Moe, R.O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L.J., Winckler, C., Forkman, B., Dimitrov, I., Langbein, J., Bakken, M., Veissier, I. and Aubert, A. (2007) Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare, Physiology and Behavior, 92 (3), 375-397.

Centner, T.J. (2010) Limitations on the Confinement of Food Animals in the United States, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23 (5), 469-486.

Chalak, A., Balcombe, K., Bailey, A. and Fraser I. (2008) Pesticides, preference heterogeneity and environmental taxes, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59 (3), 537-554.

deJonge, F.H., Bokkers, E.A.M., Schouten, W.G.P. and Helmond, F.A. (1996) Rearing piglets in a poor environment: Developmental aspects of social stress in pigs, Physiology and Behavior, 60 (2), 389-396.


Frewer, L.J., Kole, A., Van De Kroon, S.M.A. and De Lauwere, C. (2005) Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18 (4), 345-367.

Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Beveridge, L. and Matthews, L.R. (1995) The Welfare of extensively managed dairy-cattle - A review, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 42 (3), 161-182.

Hubbard, C., Bourlakis, M. and Garrod, G. (2007) Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards,

53

British Food Journal, 109 (11), 919-930.

Kilgour, R.J., Melville, G.J. and Greenwood, P.L. (2006) Individual differences in the reaction of beef cattle to situations involving social isolation, close proximity of humans, restraint and novelty, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 99 (1-2), 21-40.

Lassen, J., Sandoe, P. and Forkman, B. (2006) Happy pigs are dirty! conflicting perspectives on animal welfare, Livestock Science, 103 (3), 221-230.

Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G. and Mummery, K. (2002) Eating 'green': Motivations behind organic food consumption in Australia, Sociologia Ruralis, 42 (1), 23-+.

Lund, V., Mejdell, C.M., Rocklinsberg, H., Anthony, R. and Hastein, T. (2007) Expanding the moral circle: farmed fish as objects of moral concern, Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 75 (2), 109-118.

Lusk, J.L. and Norwood, F.B. (2008) A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm animal welfare, JAVMA-Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 233 (7), 1121-1126.

Lusk, J.L., Roosen, J. and Fox, J.A. (2003) Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85 (1), 16-29.

Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.K.K., Aberg, L. and Sjoden, P.O. (2003) Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behavior, Appetite, 40 (2), 109-117.

Mceachern, M.G. and Schroder, M.J.A. (2002) The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15 (2), 221-237.


Morrison, R.S., Johnston, L.J. and Hilbrands, A.M. (2007) The behaviour, welfare, growth performance and meat quality of pigs housed in a deep-litter, large group housing system compared to a conventional confinement system, Applied Animal Behaviour

54

Science, 103 (1-2), 12-24.

Petit, J. and van der Werf, H.M.G. (2003) Perception of the environmental impacts of current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups, Journal of Environmental Management, 68 (4), 377-386.

Pouta, E., Heikkila, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M. and Makela, J. (2010) Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods, Food Quality and Preference, 21 (5), 539-546.

Rose, J.D. (2002) The Neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain, Reviews in Fisheries Science, 10 (1), 1-38.

Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Ophuis, P. (1998) Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands, Food Quality and Preference, 9 (3), 119-133.


Slocum, R. (2006) Anti-racist Practice and the Work of Community Food Organizations, Antipode, 38 (2), 327–349.

Tarkiainen, A. and Sundqvist, S. (2005) Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food, British Food Journal, 107 (10-11), 808-822.

Tonsor, G.T., Wolf, C. and Olynk, N. (2009) Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates, Food Policy, 34 (6), 492-498.

Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M. and Francis, C.A. (2001) Food system orientation and quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark County, Norway, Food Quality and Preference, 12 (3), 207-216.

van der Lans, I.A., van Ittersum, K., De Cicco, A. and Loseby, M. (2001) The role of the region of origin and EU certificates of origin in consumer evaluation of food products, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28 (4), 451-477.

Valle, P.S., Lien, G., Flaten, O., Koesling, M. and Ebbesvik, M. (2007) Herd health and health management in organic versus conventional dairy herds in Norway, Livestock Science, 112 (1-2), 123-132.

55

Vanhonacker, F. and Verbeke, W. (2009) Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not, Poultry Science, 88 (12), 2702-2711.

Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Sioen, I., Van Camp, J. and De Henauw, S. (2007) Perceived importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: A consumer behavior perspective, AMBIO, 36 (7), 580-585.

Wandel, M. and Bugge, A. (1997) Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food quality, Food Quality and Preference, 8 (1), 19-26.

Weatherell, C., Tregear, A. and Allinson, J. (2003) In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local, Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (2), 233-244.

Yiridoe, E.K., Bonti-Ankomah, S. and Martin R.C. (2005) Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20 (4), 193-205.

Zander, K. and Hamm, U. (2010) Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food, Food Quality and Preference, 21 (5), 495-503.

B3 Adenkola, A.Y. and Ayo, J.O. (2010) Physiological and behavioural responses of livestock to road transportation stress: A review, African Journal of Biotechnology, 9 (31), 4845-4856.

Brule, A., Chupin, J.M., Capdeville, J., Lucbert, J. and Sarignac, C. (2001) Transportation of cattle by road - Effects of transport conditions on animal welfare and technical losses, Eighth Conference On Ruminant Research, 119-128.

Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P. and Lagerkvist, C.J. (2007) Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter, European Review of Agricultural Economic, 34 (3), 321-344. Chacon, G., Garcia-Belenguer, S., Villarroel, M. and Maria, G.A. (2005) Effect of transport stress on physiological responses of male bovines, Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, 112 (12), 465-469.

De la Fuente, J., Sanchez, M., Perez, C., Lauzurica, S., Vieira, C., de Chavarri, E.G. and Diaz, M.T. (2010) Physiological response and carcass and meat quality of suckling lambs in relation to transport time and stocking density during transport by road, Animal, 4

56

(2), 250-258.

Edwards-Jones, G., Canals, L.M.I., Hounsome, N., Truninger, M., Koerber, G., Hounsome, B., Cross, P., York, E.H., Hospido, A., Plassmann, K., Harris, I.M., Edwards, R.T., Day, G.A.S., Tomos, A.D., Cowell, S.J. and Jones, D.L. (2008) Testing the assertion that 'local food is best': the challenges of an evidence-based approach, Trends in Food Science and Technology, 19(5), 265-274.

Freeman, B.M., Kettlewell, P.J., Manning, A.C.C. and Berry, P.S. (1984) Stress of transportation for broilers, Veterinary Record, 114 (12), 286-287.

Grigor, P.N., Cockram, M.S., Steele, W.B., McIntyre, J., Williams, C.L., Leushuis, I.E. and van Reenen, C.G. (2004) A comparison of the welfare and meat quality of veal calves slaughtered on the farm with those subjected to transportation and lairage, Livestock Production Science, 91 (3), 219-228.

Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Beveridge, L. and Matthews, L.R. (1995) The welfare of extensively managed dairy-cattle - A Review, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 42 (3), 161-182.

Knowles T.G. (1999) A review of the road transport of cattle, Veterinary Record, 144 (8), 197-201.

Lampila, P. and Lahteenmaki, L. (2007) Consumers' attitudes towards high pressure freezing of food, British Food Journal, 109 (10), 838-851.

Minka, N.S. and Ayo, J.O. (2009) Physiological responses of food animals to road transportation stress, African Journal of Biotechnology, 8 (25), 7415-7427.

Mitchell, G., Hattingh, J. and Ganhao M. (1988) Stress in cattle assessed after handling, after transport and after slaughter, Veterinary Record, 123 (8), 201-205.

Rai Chi, K.R., MacGregor, J. and King, R. (2009) Big ideas in development: fair miles - recharting the food miles map, International Institute for Environment and Development, CABI.

Smith, A., Watkiss, P., Tweedle, G. (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development (DEFRA: ED50254 Issue 7). See: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp.

57


Tonsor, G.T., Wolf, C. and Olynk, N. (2009) Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates, Food Policy, 34 (6), 492-498.

Trunkfield, H.R. and Broom, D.M. (1990) The welfare of calves during handling and transport, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 28 (1-2), 135-152.

Warriss P.D. (1998) The welfare of slaughter pigs during transport, Animal Welfare, 7 (4), 365-381.

B4 Nielsen, H.B., Sonne, A.M., Grunert, K.G., Banati, D., Pollak-Toth, A., Lakner, Z., Olsen, N.V., Zontar, T.P. and Peterman, M. (2009) Consumer perception of the use of high-pressure processing and pulsed electric field technologies in food production, Appetite, 52 (1), 115-126.

B5 Alkon, A.H. (2008) From value to values: sustainable consumption at farmers markets, Agriculture and Human Values, 25(4), 487-498.

Alkon, A.H. and McCullen, C.G. (2011) Whiteness and Farmers Markets: Performances, Perpetuations, Contestations?

Antipode, 43 (2).

Ball, K., Timperio, A. and Crawford, D. (2009) Neighbourhood socioeconomic inequalities in food access and affordability, Health and Place, 15 (2), 578-585. Bertrand, L., Therien, F. and Cloutier, M.S. (2008) Measuring and mapping disparities in access to fresh fruits and vegetables in Montreal, Canadian Journal of Public Health-Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique, 99 (1), 6-11.

Block, J.P., Scribner, R.A. and DeSalvo, K.B. (2004) Fast food, race/ethnicity, and income - A geographic analysis, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27 (3), 211-217.

Cummins, S., Smith, D.M., Aitken, Z., Dawson, J., Marshall, D., Sparks, L. and Anderson, A.S. (2010) Neighbourhood deprivation and the price and availability of fruit and vegetables in Scotland, Journal of Human Nutrition And Dietetics, 23 (5), 494-501.

DiezRoux, A.V., Nieto, F.J., Muntaner, C., Tyroler, H.A., Comstock, G.W., Shahar, E., Cooper, L.S., Watson, R.L. and Szklo, M. (1997) Neighborhood environments and coronary heart disease: A multilevel analysis, American Journal of Epidemiology, 146 (1), 48-63.

Friel, S., Walsh, O. and McCarthy, D. (2006) The irony of a rich country: issues of financial access to and availability of healthy food

58

in the Republic of Ireland, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60 (12), 1013-1019.

Ford, P.B. and Dzewaltowski, D.A. (2008) Disparities in obesity prevalence due to variation in the retail food environment: three testable hypotheses, Nutrition Reviews, 66 (4), 216-228.

Grunert, K.G. (1997) What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality perception of beef, Food Quality and Preference, 8 (3), 157-174.

Guy, C. (2004) Neighbourhood retailing and food poverty: a case study in Cardiff, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32 (12), 577 – 581.

Loureiro, M.L. and Umberger, W.J. (2003) Estimating consumer willingness to pay for country-of-origin labeling, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28 (2), 287-301.

Macias, T. (2008) Working towards a just, equitable, and local food system: the social impact of community-based agriculture, Social Science Quarterly 89(5),1087-1101.

Morland, K. and Filomena, S. (2007) Disparities in the availability of fruits and vegetables between racially segregated urban neighbourhoods, Public Health Nutrition, 10 (12), 1481-1489.

Paez, A., Mercado, R.G., Farber, S., Morency, C. and Roorda, M. (2010) Relative Accessibility Deprivation Indicators for Urban Settings: Definitions and Application to Food Deserts in Montreal, Urban Studies, 47 (7), 1415-1438.

Pearson, T., Russell, J., Campbell, M.J. and Barker, M.E. (2005) Do 'food deserts' influence fruit and vegetable consumption? - a cross-sectional study, Appetite, 45 (2), 195-197.

Powell, L.M., Slater, S., Mirtcheva, D., Bao, Y.J. and Chaloupka F.J. (2007) Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States, Preventive Medicine, 44 (3), 189-195.

Rose, D. and Richards, R. (2004) Food store access and household fruit and vegetable use among participants in the US Food Stamp Program, Public Health Nutrition, 7 (8), 1081-1088.

Sharkey, J.R., Horel, S. and Dean, W.R. (2010) Neighborhood deprivation, vehicle ownership, and potential spatial access to a

59

variety of fruits and vegetables in a large rural area in Texas, International Journal of Health Geographics, 9 Article Number: 26.

Slocum, R. (2006) Anti-racist Practice and the Work of Community Food Organizations, Antipode, 38 (2), 327–349.


B6 Barratt, J. (1997) The cost and availability of healthy food choices in southern Derbyshire, Journal Of Human Nutrition And Dietetics, 10 (1), 63-69.

Batte, M.T., Hooker, N.H., Haab, T.C. and Beaverson, J. (2007) Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products, Food Policy, 32 (2), 145-159.

Brennan, M. (2008) Greening the food chain: The consumer's story, Aspects of Applied Biology, 86, 5-11.

Defra (2007) Indicators for a sustainable food system. Defra: London.

De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. and Rayp, G. (2005) Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (2), 363-385.

Diez-Roux, A.V., Nieto, F.J., Caulfield, L., Tyroler, H.A., Watson, R.L. and Szklo, M. (1999) Neighbourhood differences in diet: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53 (1), 55-63.

Diez-Roux, A.V., Nieto, F.J., Muntaner, C., Tyroler, H.A., Comstock, G.W., Shahar, E., Cooper, L.S., Watson, R.L. and Szklo, M. (1997) Neighborhood environments and coronary heart disease: A multilevel analysis, American Journal of Epidemiology, 146 (1), 48-63.

Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J. and Snyder, D. (1998) Why Americans eat what they do: Taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98 (10), 1118-1126.

Howard, P.H. and Allen, P. (2010) Beyond Organic and Fair Trade? An Analysis of Ecolabel Preferences in the United States, Rural Sociology, 75 (2), 244-269.

60

Howard, P.H. and Allen, P. (2008) Consumer willingness to pay for domestic 'fair trade': Evidence from the United States, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 23 (3), 235-242.


Nelson, M., Erens, B., Bates, B., Church, S. and Bolshier, T. (2007) Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey. The Stationary Office: London.


Tsang, A., Ndung'u, M.W., Coveney, J. and O'Dwyer L (2007) Adelaide healthy food basket: A survey on food cost, availability and affordability in five local government areas in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia, Nutrition and Dietetics, 64 (4), 241-247.

Turrell, G. (1998) Socioeconomic differences in food preference and their influence on healthy food purchasing choices, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 11 (2), 135-149.

Turrell, G., Hewitt, B., Patterson, C., Oldenburg, B. and Gould, T. (2002) Socioeconomic differences in food purchasing behaviour and suggested implications for diet-related health promotion, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 15 (5), 355-364.

Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2006) Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer "attitude - behavioral intention" gap, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19 (2), 169-194.

Wier, M., Jensen, K.O., Andersen, L.M. and Millock, K. (2008) The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared, Food Policy, 33 (5), 406-421.

Zander, K. and Hamm, U. (2010) Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food, Food Quality and Preference, 21 (5), 495-503.

C1 Thirtle, C., Beyers, L., Ismael, Y. and Piesse, J. (2003) Can GM-technologies help the poor? The impact of Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal, World Development, 31 (4), 717-732.

61

Qaim, M. (2003) Bt cotton in India: Field trial results and economic projections, World Development, 31 (12), 2115-2127.

C2

Alavanja, M.C.R., Samanic, C., Dosemeci, M., Lubin, J., Tarone, R., Lynch, C.F., Knott, C., Thomas, K., Hoppin, J.A., Barker, J., Coble, J., Sandler, D.P. and Blair, A. (2003) Use of agricultural pesticides and prostate cancer risk in the agricultural health study cohort, American Journal of Epidemiology, 157 (9), 800-814.

Best, H. (2008) Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: A case study from West Germany, Agriculture and Human Values, 25 (1), 95-106.

Cross, P., Edwards, R.T., Hounsome, B. and Edwards-Jones, G. (2008) Comparative assessment of migrant farm worker health in conventional and organic horticultural systems in the United Kingdom, Science of the Total Environment, 391 (1), 55-65.

Cross, P., Edwards, R.T., Opondo, M., Nyeko, P. and Edwards-Jones, G. (2009) Does farm worker health vary between localised and globalised food supply systems? Environment International, 35 (7), 1004-1014.

Darnhofer, I. (2005) Organic farming and rural development: Some evidence from Austria, Sociologia Ruralis, 45 (4), 308-+.

Darnhofer, I., Lindenthal, T., Bartel-Kratochvil, R. and Zollitsch, W. (2010) Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural criteria towards an assessment based on organic principles. A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30 (1), 67-81.

Department of Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2007) Statistics Digest To Support the 2007 Agricultural Wages Board. Surveys, Statistics & Food Economics Statistics Branch.

De Wit, J. and Verhoog, H. (2007) Organic values and the conventionalization of organic agriculture, NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54 (4), 449-462.

Douglas, J.D.M. (1995) Salmon farming - occupational-health in a new rural industry, Occupational Medicine-Oxford, 45 (2), 89-92.

Douglas, J.D.M. and Milne, A.H. (1991) Decompression-sickness in fish farm-workers - a new occupational hazard, British Medical Journal, 302 (6787), 1244-1245.

Durborow, R.M. (1999) Health and safety concerns in fisheries and aquaculture, Occupational Medicine-State of the Art Reviews,

62

14 (2), 373-406.

Flaten, O., Lien, G., Ebbesvik, M., Koesling, M. and Valle, P.S. (2006) Do the new organic producers differ from the 'old guard'? Empirical results from Norwegian dairy farming, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 21 (3), 174-182.

Foster, C., Audsley, E., Williams, A., Webster, S., Dewick. P. and Green, K. (2007) The Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts Associated with Liquid Milk Consumption in the UK and its Production: A Review of Literature and Evidence, Defra Project Code EVO 2067, Defra, London.

Gilpin, N., Henty, M., Lemos, S., Portes, J. and Bullen, C. (2005) The impact of free movement of workers from central and eastern Europe on the UK labour market. DWP Working Paper No. 29.

Guptill, A. (2009) Exploring the conventionalization of organic dairy: trends and counter-trends in upstate New York, Agriculture and Human Values, 26 (1-2), 29-42.

Hall, A. and Mogyorody, V. (2001) Organic farmers in Ontario: An examination of the conventionalization argument, Sociologia Ruralis, 41 (4), 399-+.

Lobley, M., Butler, A. and Reed, M. (2009) The contribution of organic farming to rural development: An exploration of the socio-economic linkages of organic and non-organic farms in England, Land Use Policy, 26 (3), 723-735.

Lockie, S. and Halpin, D. (2005) The 'conventionalisation' thesis reconsidered: Structural and ideological transformation of Australian organic agriculture, Sociologia Ruralis, 45 (4), 284-+.

Portes, J. and French, S. (2005) The Impact of Free Movement of Workers from Central and Eastern Europe on the UK Labour Market: early evidence. DWP Working Paper No. 18.

Pretty, J.N., Morison, J.I.L. and Hine, R.E. (2003) Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries, Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 95(1), 217-234.

Shreck, A., Getz, C. and Feenstra, G. (2006) Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: Findings from an exploratory analysis, Agriculture and Human Values, 23(4), 439-449.

63

C3

C4 Defra (2010) Food Statistics Pocketbook 2010. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hastein, T., Hjeltnes, B., Lillehaug, A., Skare,J.U., Berntssen, M. and Lundebye, A.K. (2006) Food safety hazards that occur during the production stage: challenges for fish farming and the fishing industry, Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 25 (2), 607-625.


C5 Defra (2010) Food Statistics Pocketbook 2010. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

C6

D1 Qaim, M. (2003) Bt cotton in India: Field trial results and economic projections, World Development, 31 (12), 2115-2127.

Thirtle, C., Beyers, L., Ismael, Y. and Piesse, J. (2003) Can GM-technologies help the poor? The impact of Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal, World Development, 31 (4), 717-732.

D2 Aavik, T. and Liira, J. (2010) Quantifying the effect of organic farming, field boundary type and landscape structure on the vegetation of field boundaries, Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 135 (3), 178-186.

Arnould, E.J., Plastina, A. and Ball, D. (2009) Does Fair Trade Deliver on Its Core Value Proposition? Effects on Income, Educational Attainment, and Health in Three Countries, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 28(2), 186-201.

Bengtsson, J., Ahnstrom, J. and Weibull, A.C. (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Ecology, 42 (2), 261-269.

Chamberlain, D.E., Joys, A., Johnson, P.J., Norton, L., Feber, R.E. and Fuller, R.J. (2010) Does organic farming benefit farmland birds in winter? Biology Letters, 6 (1), 82-84.

Foster, C., Audsley, E., Williams, A., Webster, S., Dewick. P. and Green, K. (2007) The Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts Associated with Liquid Milk Consumption in the UK and its Production - A Review of Literature and Evidence, Defra Project Code

64

EVO 2067, Defra, London.

Gibson, R.H., Pearce, S., Morris, R.J., Symondson, W.O.C. and Memmott, J. (2007) Plant diversity and land use under organic and conventional agriculture: a whole-farm approach, Journal of Applied Ecology, 44 (4), 792-803.

Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, F. and Evans, A.D. (2005) Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122 (1), 113-130.

Mader, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. and Niggli U. (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming, Science, 296 (5573), 1694-1697.

Norton, L., Johnson, P., Joys, A., Stuart, R., Chamberlain, D., Feber, R., Firbank, L., Manley, W., Wolfe, M., Hart, B., Mathews, F., MacDonald, D. and Fuller, R.J. (2009) Consequences of organic and non-organic farming practices for field, farm and landscape complexity, Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 129 (1-3), 221-227.

Smith, H.G., Danhardt, J., Lindstrom, A. and Rundlof, M. (2010) Consequences of organic farming and landscape heterogeneity for species richness and abundance of farmland birds, Oecologia, 162 (4), 1071-1079.

D3

D4

D5 Ball, K., Timperio, A. and Crawford, D. (2009) Neighbourhood socioeconomic inequalities in food access and affordability, Health and Place, 15 (2), 578-585.

Bertrand, L., Therien, F. and Cloutier, M.S. (2008) Measuring and mapping disparities in access to fresh fruits and vegetables in Montreal, Canadian Journal of Public Health - Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique, 99 (1), 6-11.

Bjorklund, J., Westberg, L., Geber, U., Milestad, R. and Ahnstrom, J. (2009) Local Selling as a Driving Force for Increased On-Farm Biodiversity, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 33(8), 885-902.

Block, J.P., Scribner, R.A. and DeSalvo, K.B. (2004) Fast food, race/ethnicity, and income - A geographic analysis, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27 (3), 211-217.

65

Bodor, J.N., Rose, D., Farley, T.A., Swalm, C. and Scott, S.K. (2008) Neighbourhood fruit and vegetable availability and consumption: the role of small food stores in an urban environment, Public Health Nutrition, 11 (4), 413-420.

Burns, C.M. and Inglis, A.D. (2007) Measuring food access in Melbourne: Access to healthy and fast foods by car, bus and foot in an urban municipality in Melbourne, Health and Place, 13 (4), 877-885.

Coley, D., Howard, M. and Winter, M. (2009) Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches, Food Policy, 34 (2), 150-155.

Cummins, S. and Macintyre, S. (2002) A systematic study of an urban foodscape: The price and availability of food in Greater Glasgow, Urban Studies, 39 (11), 2115-2130.

Cummins, S., Smith, D.M., Aitken, Z., Dawson, J., Marshall, D., Sparks, L. and Anderson, A.S. (2010) Neighbourhood deprivation and the price and availability of fruit and vegetables in Scotland, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 23 (5), 494-501.

Friel, S., Walsh, O. and McCarthy, D. (2006) The irony of a rich country: issues of financial access to and availability of healthy food in the Republic of Ireland, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60 (12), 1013-1019.

Ilbery, B., Watts, D., Simpson, S., Gilg, A. and Little, J. (2006) Mapping local foods: evidence from two English regions, British Food Journal, 108 (2-3), 213-225.

Jeffery, R.W., French, S.A., Raether, C. and Baxter, J.E. (1994) An environmental intervention to increase fruit and salad purchases in a cafeteria, Preventive Medicine, 23 (6), 788-792.

Jones, P., Comfort, D., Hillier, D. and Eastwood, I. (2005) Corporate social responsibility: a case study of the UK's leading food retailers, British Food Journal, 107 (6), 423-435.

Krukowski, R.A., West, D.S., Harvey-Berino, J. and Prewitt, T.E. (2010) Neighborhood Impact on Healthy Food Availability and Pricing in Food Stores, Journal of Community Health, 35 (3), 315-320.

Liese, A.D., Weis, K.E., Pluto, D., Smith, E. and Lawson, A. (2007) Food store types, availability, and cost of foods in a rural environment, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107 (11), 1916-1923.

66

Morland, K. and Filomena, S. (2007) Disparities in the availability of fruits and vegetables between racially segregated urban neighbourhoods, Public Health Nutrition, 10 (12), 1481-1489.

Morland, K., Wing, S., Roux, A.D. and Poole, C. (2002) Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22 (1), 23-29.

Paez, A., Mercado, R.G., Farber, S., Morency, C. and Roorda, M. (2010) Relative Accessibility Deprivation Indicators for Urban Settings: Definitions and Application to Food Deserts in Montreal, Urban Studies, 47 (7), 1415-1438.

Pearson, T., Russell, J., Campbell, M.J. and Barker, M.E. (2005) Do 'food deserts' influence fruit and vegetable consumption? - a cross-sectional study, Appetite, 45 (2), 195-197.

Pettinger, C., Holdsworth M., and Gerber, M. (2008) 'All under one roof?' differences in food availability and shopping patterns in Southern France and Central England, European Journal of Public Health, 18 (2), 109-114.

Powell, L.M., Slater, S., Mirtcheva, D., Bao, Y.J. and Chaloupka, F.J. (2007) Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States, Preventive Medicine, 44 (3), 189-195.

Rose, D. and Richards, R. (2004) Food store access and household fruit and vegetable use among participants in the US Food Stamp Program, Public Health Nutrition, 7 (8), 1081-1088.

Sharkey, J.R., Horel, S. and Dean, W.R. (2010) Neighborhood deprivation, vehicle ownership, and potential spatial access to a variety of fruits and vegetables in a large rural area in Texas, International Journal of Health Geographics, 9 Article Number: 26.

Smith, A., Watkiss, P., Tweedle, G. (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development (Defra: ED50254 Issue 7). See: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp.


Szmigin,, I. Maddock, S. and Carrigan, M. (2003) Conceptualising community consumption - farmers' markets and the older

67


consumer, British Food Journal, 105 (8), 542-550.

D6 Bodor, J.N., Rose, D., Farley, T.A., Swalm, C. and Scott, S.K. (2008) Neighbourhood fruit and vegetable availability and consumption: the role of small food stores in an urban environment, Public Health Nutrition, 11 (4), 413-420.

Cafaro, P.J., Primack, R.B. and Zimdahl, R.L. (2006) The fat of the land: Linking American food overconsumption, obesity, and biodiversity loss, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19 (6), 541-561.


Jetter, K.M. and Cassady, D.L. (2006) The availability and cost of healthier food alternatives, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30 (1), 38-44.

McMichael, A. and Bambrick, H. (2005) Meat consumption trends and health: casting a wider risk assessment net, Public Health Nutrition Journal, 8 (4), 348-356.

Pettinger, C., Holdsworth, A. and Gerber, A. (2004) Psycho-social influences on food choice in Southern France and Central England, Appetite, 42 (3), 307-316.

Seale, J. et al. (2003) International evidence on food consumption patterns. Technical Bulletin 1904. ERS/USDA.

68

Documents

randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/...Document=Annex_B_(Social_sustai… · Web viewEvidence to define the sustainability of a healthy diet. Defra. F. O0430. Annex B – Social