Important ethical questions regarding food go well beyond food safety policy. Although most of these questions are clearly well beyond the scope of this Expert Consultation, food safety is strongly linked to food security. Value judgements in food safety decision-making can remain implicit until necessity, borne of crisis, demands their exploration. We are often faced with significant value judgements in famine or food shortage situations where the focus is on providing food to ensure the very survival of a population. In these extreme circumstances, the discussion of other values is eclipsed by the quest for food. It is important to reflect on the values that apply to food safety systems generally and see what practical implications these have for handling food safety in situations where people's access to adequate food is at risk. Such reflection helps to improve forward planning to ensure that ethical questions are not overlooked even in crisis situations where there is a need to react confidently, correctly and quickly.
The human right to adequate food is recognized in several instruments under international law. The General Comment No. 12 on the Right to Adequate Food adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) affirms that the right to adequate food is indivisibly linked to the inherent dignity of a human being and indispensable for the fulfilment of other human rights. The General Comment also asserts that such food should be safe ("free from adverse substances") and acceptable within a given cultural context. The right to food implies the right to produce or procure the food one needs, and it demands that those who for reasons beyond their control are unable to do so be provided for. The right to adequate food is thus relevant to all consumers and farmers, as well as to those who are unable to produce or procure their own food. In this last instance, international law recognizes that everyone, at the very least, must be given enough food to ensure their freedom from hunger. This right may be fulfilled through food aid and through assistance that enables people to become consumers and farmers.
The most important implication of the right to adequate food is that states and peoples must be supported to be able to address situations of food insecurity themselves. The right to adequate food should not primarily be regarded as a right to receive a specific type of food aid, but rather as a right to be supported in creating one's own food security. Following on from this, support to address sustainable food security must also include ensuring capacity to have food that is both safe and nutritious.
The Expert Consultation maintains that the right to informed consent should apply equally to all citizens. In food aid situations one cannot disregard the identity and the self-esteem of the people involved. This implies that foodstuffs given to recipients in situations of crisis should respect their social, cultural and religious norms of what is edible and what is inedible. Donor agencies must ensure that they are well informed on the policies, applicable safety standards and cultural preferences of the recipient countries.
Although the right of every human being to be free from hunger is a fundamental human right, food insecurity remains a horrendous reality. The current world situation clearly does not allow all countries and people to ensure their own food security. In 2001, the World Food Programme (WFP) alone provided food relief to 77 million people. This food aid was mostly given to people in crisis situations, distressed and often displaced. In addition, much long-term food aid is provided on a concessional basis.
If food aid is provided in the context of crisis situations, it is important to see how the ethics of the food safety system are applied. To address food safety concerns of people in situations of distress in a trustworthy way, donors must face the fact that people in these situations have substantial reasons for general distrust.
International food aid, as an international allocation of foodstuffs, should therefore be subject to the same food safety standards as foodstuffs moving in international trade. It is sometimes claimed that upholding safety standards that apply to trade during a food crisis hurts the starving population and may thus violate their right to adequate food. The Expert Consultation did not believe a "double standard" was justified. Food aid professionals are confident that in most cases, compliance with international food safety standards is achievable. Providing food that does not meet international safety standards exposes a vulnerable population to unnecessary risks and creates or exacerbates distrust. However, deterioration in the quality and possibly the safety of donated food often takes place after food aid has reached the recipient country since, in food crisis situations, storage and transportation facilities and quality assurance measures are generally suboptimal. Sustainable infrastructure and capacity at the local level also need to be established and maintained to ensure that adequate and safe food reaches the people who need it.
Recent discussions on the use of GM crops for food aid demonstrate that there are not yet applicable international food safety standards for all situations. In cases where clear international food safety guidelines are lacking, donor countries should apply their own food safety standards or the standards of the recipient countries, whichever provides the higher standard. It is clear that recipient countries have the right to refuse food aid where they question its safety or cultural acceptability.
The Expert Consultation, however, noted that donor countries must assume responsibility for ensuring that ethical considerations are adequately addressed and should be able to demonstrate this to recipient countries. It could be too much to ask the government of a country in a food crisis either to trust the food safety assurance of donor countries (despite the heated debates in certain other countries) or to decide not to permit entry of the contested foodstuffs that could provide much needed relief for its citizens. Donor countries should ask themselves whether it is acceptable to burden recipient countries with such a dilemma in a crisis situation. In the view of the Expert Consultation, if food aid is available that does not create ethical dilemmas for recipient countries, donor countries are obliged to offer these food products as aid.
International rules and codes of conduct exist to ensure, among other things, that food safety is guaranteed in food aid. Such instruments, however, should be made more explicit and better known. It is the responsibility of the donor agencies to know the ethical, as well as the safety, status of food products contained in each consignment.
In the context of food aid, specific questions of trust and informed consent become paramount. Informed consent without choice is impossible, and trust is very difficult to achieve in situations where people are facing starvation. These values, therefore, need to receive adequate attention in the context of planning for food aid. These difficult questions regarding food safety and food aid will remain pressing until the right to food is taken more seriously by the global community and until there is concerted international effort towards helping countries to ensure adequate and safe food supplies sustainably for their citizens.
