Sustainable diet policy development: implications of multi-criteria and other approaches, 2008-2017

The objective of the present paper is to draw lessons from policy development on sustainable diets. It considers the emergence of sustainable diets as a policy issue and reviews the environmental challenge to nutrition science as to what a 'good' diet is for contemporary policy. It explores the variations in how sustainable diets have been approached by policy-makers. The paper considers how international United Nations and European Union (EU) policy engagement now centres on the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Climate Change Accord, which require changes across food systems. The paper outlines national sustainable diet policy in various countries: Australia, Brazil, France, the Netherlands, Qatar, Sweden, UK and USA. While no overarching common framework for sustainable diets has appeared, a policy typology of lessons for sustainable diets is proposed, differentiating (a) orientation and focus, (b) engagement styles and (c) modes of leadership. The paper considers the particularly tortuous rise and fall of UK governmental interest in sustainable diet advice. Initial engagement in the 2000s turned to disengagement in the 2010s, yet some advice has emerged. The 2016 referendum to leave the EU has created a new period of policy uncertainty for the UK food system. This might marginalise attempts to generate sustainable diet advice, but could also be an opportunity for sustainable diets to be a goal for a sustainable UK food system. The role of nutritionists and other food science professions will be significant in this period of policy flux

Promoting reuse behaviour: Challenges and strategies for repeat purchase, low-involvement products

Reusable products offer reduced environmental impact compared to recycling, but producers mostly focus on strategies such as light-weighting, recyclability and eco-labelling. A reasonable number of innovative reusable products and business models exist for repeat purchase, low-involvement products, but they are largely restricted to niche health-food stores. Therefore, this research primarily attempts to understand consumer attitudes and behaviour towards reuse of household care products (e.g. air fresheners, domestic cleaning products). Focus groups with UK consumers are utilised to examine reusable/refillable spray products and the data are triangulated with global archival data on various refill business models, reusable products and recycling initiatives. The study offers useful guidelines for both producers and policy makers to encourage reusable products. First, we recommend that eco-innovations have a familiar design congruent with well-known brands, to reduce uncertainties for consumers. Second, if the innovation has an unfamiliar design, to mitigate, producers should offer new functional benefits. Third, and most important, producers must place greater emphasis on aesthetic aspects that could evoke product attachment, thus encouraging reuse. Fourth, if reusable products are to become mainstream, ‘well-known brands’ have to promote the transition from one-off sales to a service model built on durable products. Finally, a successful outcome is dependent on government interventions in designing new life cycle policy instruments, in particular de-marketing the current recycling norm and emphasising reusing over recycling

Под знаменем Ленина. 1961. № 034

Most people agree that inflicting unnecessary suffering upon animals is wrong. Many fewer people, including among ethicists, agree that painlessly killing animals is necessarily wrong. The most commonly cited reason is that death (without pain, fear, distress) is not bad for them in a way that matters morally, or not as significantly as it does for persons, who are self-conscious, make long-term plans and have preferences about their own future. Animals, at least those that are not persons, lack a morally significant interest in continuing to live. At the same time, some argue that existence itself can be good, insofar as one’s life is worth living. For animals, a good life can offset a quick, if early, death. So, it seems to follow that breeding happy animals that will be (prematurely) killed can be a good thing overall. Insofar as slaughter and sale makes it economically sustainable to raise new ones, who would otherwise not exist, raising and killing animals for food who will have lives worth living is good overall. It benefits them as well as consumers, and makes the world better by adding to the sum of happiness. The process of raising and killing animals with positive welfare produces a sequence of replacement that maintains or increases overall welfare, all else being equal (assuming in particular no overall negative impact on the welfare of other parties). Call this the Replaceability Argument (RA) and the ensuing controversy the Replaceability Problem (RP). This is a problem at the crossroads of the ethics of killing, agricultural ethics, procreation ethics, and population ethics