QUALITALY 141

August /September 2024 III MAGAZINE AT PAGE 10 FOCUS ON Ethically rethinking food JUSTICE, DIGNITY AND FOOD SUSTAINABILITY. THE FUTURE OF FOOD AND NUTRITION PASSES THROUGH THESE THREE BASIC PRINCIPLES. MEASURES ARE NEEDED TO ENSURE AVAILABILITY, ACCESSIBILITY AND ADEQUACY FOR ALL. by Paolo Gomarasca When it comes to food ethics, perhaps the global issue of hunger does not immediately leap to the forefront of our thoughts. It is probably because we instinctively think that it does not concern us, that, yes, as painful as it is, it is a case of bad luck, which therefore does not directly affect us. I would like to recall a shocking statement, first used in 2006 by Jean Ziegler , as Special Rapporteur on the ‘right to food’ on behalf of the UN Commission on Human Rights, during an interview with ‘il manifesto’: hunger is a ‘silent genocide’. This expression is unsettling, at least if we avoid quickly placing it in the category of rhetorical devices. In reality, Ziegler appeals to the juridical category of a crime against humanity. Put in these terms, hunger can no longer be interpreted as the misfortune of being born in countries burdened by food insecurity. In short, we are not faced with a scourge that strikes blindly at the underprivileged of the earth, as is unfortunately still believed. It has to do with the way the agri-food production system is organised, it has to do with waste, and even with the reckless, and sometimes deliberate, political will to starve a people. Taking care not to immediately find in this last aspect the excuse to offload our responsibility. We could continue undaunted to tell ourselves that hunger and extreme poverty in the Global South are caused exclusively by the corrupt and unstable regimes in those countries. But if we looked at things more closely, challenging our own convenient myopia, we would see that the West, with those same corrupt and unstable regimes, has no problem doing business. Some will certainly say that this discourse resembles the classic Third Worldist narrative of accusing predatory capitalism. The problem, unfortunately, is that this story keeps happening. I therefore think that hunger is a sign of a global refeudalisation. But perhaps, and before delving into the juridical-political analysis of the category of crimes against humanity, which of course must be done, we need to recover some of that passionate and rebellious charm of some of the slogans of 1968, such as the one that reads: ‘I will not be free as long as there is a man enslaved on earth’. Freedom from hunger is a fundamental human right, without which no other freedom is possible. Of course, there is one last way out, which works like the unconfessable afterthought of the petit-bourgeois with a full belly: eventually so many will die that the problem will vanish on its own. Here, too, we must speak plainly: I am convinced that it is pointless to wait for a Malthusian trap that will take away the excess mouths to feed. If love for justice and respect for human dignity fails to convince, it will perhaps be more persuasive to think that the hungry, before they die, will rise up. It has always happened in history and today the call for violence, when you have nothing left to lose, is extremely strong. There is a note by Sartre on this that I find illuminating: ‘in hunger the slave bites the master’s world and claims it’. Not to mention the chilling Steinbeckian warning in The Grapes of Wrath: ‘the dividing line between hunger and anger is as thin as a hair’. So, yes, I would say hunger calls us all into question. FOOD ETHICS From here on, the question justifiably becomes more technical, because we have to think about what legal instruments to put in place to protect the fundamental right of every person to proper nutrition. Food ethics, by its interdisciplinary nature, is also concerned with the reasoning behind special protection such as this. First of all, it is not obvious to consider the right to food as a human right. Here, certainly, a thought should be given to Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is in fact on the basis of this that Resolution 7/14 of 27 March 2008 was born, in which the UN Human Rights Council clearly affirmed the need to introduce the human right to food. But it’s not that simple. To ensure that it will not remain an empty plea, the right to live free from the spectre of malnutrition has rightly been declined in the form of the claim-right : for reasons of legal consistency, it therefore becomes necessary to correlate it with the duty of someone else, who is obliged to behave actively towards the holder of the claim. Put in simpler terms: if no one is to die of starvation, the allocation of the obligation to ensure sufficient food for all is logically required; not to mention that the incumbent holder of the assigned obligation must be accountable , i.e. able to account for his or her responsibility, to the holder of the right to food. In turn, the latter will be encouraged to actively participate in the process, first of all asserting his claim, since his title is legally enforceable. That said, one must delve even further into the specifics. There are in fact three protective ‘shields’ that the right to food can put up in defence of the hungry: 1) firstly, availability : this means demanding a sufficient quantity of food to guarantee a healthy and active life. Whether it