Investigating the elasticity of meat consumption for climate mitigation: 4Rs for responsible meat use

In Eija Vinnari & Markus Vinnari (eds.), Sustainable Governance and Management of Food Systems: Ethical Perspectives. Wageningen, Netherlands: pp. 19-25 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Our main research question is how pliable Norwegian meat consumption practices are. However it is not any type of elasticity we are interested in. We are specifically interested in the scope for what we dub the “4Rs” of responsible meat consumption within existing food systems: 1. Reducing the amount of animal-based proteins used 2. Replacing animal-based protein with plant-based, or insect-based alternatives 3. Refining processes of utilization of animal-based protein to minimize emissions, loss and waste 4. Recognising animal-based protein as precious –i.e. recognising the people and the animals involved in meat production. These four principles are derived by analogy to ethical principles guiding the use of animals in research, the so-called “3Rs”, namely: the imperatives to reduce the number of animals needed to make a scientific inference, to replace animal experiments with other types of research, and where not possible to replace ‘more’ with ‘less’ sentient creatures, and to refine the experimental setup so it minimises the discomfort and/or distress inflicted upon the animals (Russell and Burch, 1959). There are no such principles guiding the use of animals in farming, given the farming industry intrinsically relies on increasing its resources, of which animals are one. The current profile of climate change however opens up a way to re-appreciate meat –indeed what we articulate as the fourth principle of recognizing the preciousness of meat, above, given planetary boundaries. We proceed to reflect on how these 4Rs can be modulated, from a cultural-social perspective, that is, we look at cultural factors that could stretch current food practices along the 4R aspects.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters?Patrick D. Hopkins & Austin Dacey - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6):579-596.
The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat.Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.) - 2015 - New York, US: Oxford University Press.
Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming. [REVIEW]Evelyn B. Pluhar - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (5):455-468.
Cultured meat, better than beans?C. N. Weele - 2017 - In Jessica Duncan & Megan Bailey (eds.). Routledge. pp. 163-174.
Duty and the Beast: Should We Eat Meat in the Name of Animal Rights?Andy Lamey - 2019 - Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Should cultured meat be refused in the name of animal dignity?David J. Chauvet - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (2):387-411.
The Hidden Cost of Eating Meat in South Africa: What Every Responsible Consumer Should Know.Astrid Jankielsohn - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (6):1145-1157.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-09-27

Downloads
486 (#37,274)

6 months
77 (#55,912)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sophia Efstathiou
Norwegian University Of Science And Technology - NTNU

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references