1 / 20

Geography of Food and Drink: legal issues and responsibility

GeoPalestine 2010. Geography of Food and Drink: legal issues and responsibility. Global issues. 1 bn undernourished vs surpluses Food prices vs biofuels Neoliberal institutional world order Biotechnology and IPR Water McDonaldisation and Walmartisation. Source: FAO.

uri
Download Presentation

Geography of Food and Drink: legal issues and responsibility

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GeoPalestine 2010 Geography of Food and Drink: legal issues and responsibility

  2. Global issues • 1 bn undernourished vs surpluses • Food prices vs biofuels • Neoliberal institutional world order • Biotechnology and IPR • Water • McDonaldisation and Walmartisation

  3. Source: FAO

  4. Food/drink and the law: three examples • Food adulteration • Famine • Bangladesh

  5. Case Study 1 The adulteration of food and drink

  6. Case Study 2 Famine

  7. Famine and conflict • Acts of omission • Acts of commission • Famine crimes

  8. Somalia 1992 Photograph by Paul Lowe/Panos

  9. Estimated Impact of African Conflicts, 1970-93 Source: Messer et al. 1998

  10. Case Study 3 Arsenic in the ground water of Bangladesh

  11. Source: P. Ravenscroft

  12. Sutradhar v NERC • 1992, Davies & Exley report • 2001, Binod Sutradhar decided to sue NERC • 2002, Writ lodged • 2003, High Court • 2004, Court of Appeal • 2005, Appellate Committee of HoL • 2006, House of Lords rejects appeal • ?, European Court of Justice

  13. Arsenic is different • No industrial pollution or corporate greed • No oil slick or radiation cloud drifting across national borders • No non-human victims and no threat to the environment generally

  14. Duty of care ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour [i.e…] persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.’ Lord Atkin,Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

  15. ‘It seems to me that the alleged implied statement about arsenic in the BGS report is no different from a statement in an authoritative textbook on geology to the effect that the aquifers of Bangladesh are very unlikely to contain arsenic’. Lord Hoffmann, HoL, 2006

  16. Future of duty of care • Proximity better seen as ‘networked association’? • Crisis of expertise. ‘Duty of care’ better judged in terms of research and information from service provider? • Should weight ‘duty of care’ according to vulnerability’?

  17. ‘The proximity of the Other is not simply close to me in space, or close like a parent, but he approaches me essentially insofar as I feel myself—insofar as I am—responsible for him. It is a structure that in nowise resembles the intentional relation which in knowledge attaches us to the object—to no matter what object, be it a human object. Proximity does not revert to this intentionality; in particular it does not revert to the fact that the other is known to me’.Emmanuel Levinas, Ethique et infini (1982)

  18. Proximity ‘…not from my choices or foresight, nor from our policies, but from your vulnerability’ Manderson 2006, 176 ≈ “response-ability”

More Related